Lords Sitting of 13 June 1967

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

CENTENARY OF CANADIAN SENATE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform the House that I have received from the Speaker of the Senate of Canada a Resolution adopted on June 6 expressing the sincere and grateful appreciation of the Senate of Canada for the Resolution passed by this House on May 11. I am placing a copy of this Resolution and of the speeches made upon it in the Library, and have written to thank the Speaker of the Senate.

PEMBROKESHIRE COAST ROUTE
2.37 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which lengths of the Pembrokeshire Coast Long Distance Route are not yet public rights of way and when it is expected that the work will be completed.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, approximately 15 miles of paths remain to be created as public rights of way. The local authorities concerned are negotiating agreements with the landowners for about 9½ miles of path and are preparing public path creation orders for the remaining 5½ miles. It is not possible to estimate when the path will be complete.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, I should like to ask her whether she is aware that this path was designated as long ago as 1953. Does she not think that 14 years is ample time
802
in which to get the matter completed? While, obviously, some progress is being made, will she and her right honourable friends use their best endeavours to get the path completed as quickly as possible, because thousands of walkers are anxiously looking forward to the opportunity of using it?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the question was entrusted to the local authorities through whose areas the route passed. While I should agree with him that negotiations have been going on for a long time, I think it is true to say that they may well be nearing their conclusion. As I intend to have my own holiday in the area I hope that perhaps by July they will be completed.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, is it the intention of the Government in the new Countryside Bill, which we have been so often promised but which has not yet appeared, to incorporate provisions which will accelerate this procedure?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot give him any direct reply to that question. It is perhaps the subject for another Question.

CENTRAL AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
2.40 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are withdrawing support from the Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the Government of the Republic of Zambia has given notice of its intention to withdraw with effect from June 30, 1967, from the Agricultural Research Council, the other members of which are Rhodesia and Malawi. Her Majesty's Government were unable to agree to continue to support on a two-country basis a Council

803
whose research would be almost wholly based upon Rhodesia.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, did I understand from that reply that Her Majesty's Government are doing what they can for this valuable institution to continue?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord could understand that, but it would require a certain amount of effort to do so. The position is that Zambia is withdrawing. We, the United Kingdom, are not members of this Council. We have, however, supported it. What we cannot do is to support work which, as I have said, is almost wholly based in Rhodesia. I hope that a good deal of work will continue now in Malawi, and we are negotiating a way of financing that work.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is this not a rather short-sighted attitude?—because research, first of all, is a long-term business; and secondly, whatever happens in Rhodesia is going to help the other parts of Africa. Surely we should not take our quarrel with Rhodesia to such an extent as to affect the future of research on agricultural production in Africa.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is displaying less than his usual sense of fairness. What we undertook to do, in the first place, was to support financially a body which was a Federal effort comprising the three countries. We should be happy to continue to support financially a Federal effort of that kind, and indeed, despite the illegal declaration of independence, we did continue to provide financial support. It is not a decision of Her Majesty's Government that any one country should withdraw.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, whether or not this remains a Federal effort, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Will he not overlook the fact that the work of this Research Council promises to have immense value in an area where anything that can be done to improve agricultural standards will be of enormous benefit, and not least to parts of Africa far beyond the boundaries of these two or three countries? Will he deny to millions of Africans the benefit of this research, just, as it would seem, because he wants to spite a few whites?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord will get nowhere with that sort of language. The noble Lord used the words "spite a few whites". I have said that Her Majesty's Government have supported this effort, despite the illegal declaration of independence, and would have continued to support it had the three countries who were members remained members. But it is not any wish of ours that Zambia has decided to withdraw. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, that the work done at that centre was by far the best of all that has been done in Africa, and it is a great pity that it cannot continue. But under the new situation caused by the withdrawal of Zambia, some of the work will be done separately in Zambia, and some in Malawi; and I have already said that we agree to support the work done in Malawi.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the withdrawal of funds from the Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa is detrimental to the interests of all races who live in Central Africa, and especially so when the need for greater production of food at this time, with a growing and bursting population, is, after all, paramount?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, probably the noble Lord will be good enough to see what I have said about this. No one would have been happier than Her Majesty's Government, and certainly not happier than myself, if it had been possible to continue this work on a three-country basis. But, let us face it, this is one of the incidental tragedies of the illegal declaration of independence, which was no fault of ours.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government think that the work of this institution is so valuable, surely it would be petty to say that it must be on a three-country basis. Surely it can be carried on a two-country basis. Or it might even be a three-country basis, because Portuguese East Africa might come in, or Kenya.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, of the three countries in that part of Africa, probably the most deserving is Malawi. The work needed to be done there is greater than in the other countries. Malawi proposes to take over some of

805
the work, and we shall give financial support.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while associating ourselves very much with the previous questions asked, may I ask this question? Is the Agricultural Research Council in this country helping in any way in this part of the world? I know that the A.R.C. has certain tropical sections. Could the noble Lord tell me this?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot answer that question except to say that, as the noble Earl will know, in the scientific field there is always a very close relationship. But as to the direct connection, I could not say without notice.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF "LITTLE VENICE"
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will stop planning permission being given for the develop-men of flats and a marina at Little Venice, Paddington, which would destroy public open space of a unique character and the only place where a large boat display can take place afloat in inner London.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I quite agree, and I am sure that many in this House will agree, that the area to which the noble Viscount refers is both unique and attractive; and, of course, whatever happens in the future, the water will still be there for boats to be displayed. Apart from that, an application on behalf of the British Waterways Board to construct a pier, marina and boathouse at what is known as Little Venice, Paddington, with a number of flats and houses over the water, is being considered by Westminster City Council, the local planning authority. If they decide that they wish to grant permission, they must consult both the Greater London Council and my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as the proposal involves a
806
substantial departure from the development plan.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am sure that the local planning authority must consult Her Majesty's Government, but will Her Majesty's Government take particular care in this particular case?—because, although it is true that the water will remain there (no one is in the slightest doubt about that), the purpose of the water will in fact cease if this development is carried out. Also, this block of flats comes right in the middle of a large public open space of unique character. Will Her Majesty's Government take that also into consideration? I do not think that anybody is querying that the water will remain there.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount says in this matter. I would point out, however, that so far as I am informed there will still be provision for boats to be on the water. But I am passing no judgment on the matter one way or the other. It will be for the Minister ultimately to decide. If Westminster City Council wish to grant permission, the application will be referred to the Minister before they can do so. If they decide to refuse permission, the applicants may appeal to the Minister direct.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that there must be consultation before anything is done. Does he not think it desirable that the national waterways authority should be represented at least before any decision is reached?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am not quite sure what is meant by "the national waterways authority?" There is a British Waterways Board, but they are involved in the proceedings and are naturally fully acquainted with the whole situation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can a condition of planning permission be that the Royal Fine Art Commission are consulted in the event of these flats being built?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, that is certainly a commendable idea, and I will see that it is passed to the Minister; and I hope that the mere fact that the noble

807
Duke has asked that question, and I have commented on it, will draw the matter to the attention of the Westminster City Council.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, will the Government also take into account, apart from the importance of the water, the importance of the whole area, and indeed the precincts surrounding the water, since this beautiful and unique part of London has remained virtually unchanged since Verlaine wrote one of his beautiful poems about it nearly one hundred years ago?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, knowing this area fairly well, and passing through it many times every year, I would beg to differ somewhat from the opinion of the noble Lord, because in fact new buildings have been constructed on one side of the waterway in place of the rather derelict buildings which were there beforehand. But, again, I assure the noble Lord, and indeed all who are interested in the matter, that this is an amenity that should be preserved, and I hope very much indeed that the various remarks made this afternoon will be taken very carefully into consideration by all those involved in this project.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Radcliffe Report on D-Notices at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. Also, my noble friend Lord Chalfont will then make a Statement on the Middle East.
LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
THE CITY UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ANTARCTIC TREATY BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment.

UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNATIONAL SALES BILL
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).
FISHING VESSEL GRANTS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MARINE &c, BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 5 [Prohibition of acts relating to matter broadcast from ships, aircraft, &c.]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (f), and to insert:
"(f) publishing the times or other details of any broadcasts which are to be so made, or (otherwise than by publishing such details) publishing an advertisement of matter calculated to promote, directly or indirectly, the interests of a business whose activities consist in or include the operation of a station from which broadcasts are or are to be so made."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. I understand that the Government intend to accept this Amendment, and I rise to make certain that we are in agreement on what it means. This Amendment is an attempt to clarify Clause 5(3)(f) in consequence of uncertainty expressed as to the intention of the paragraph. The Amendment therefore makes it quite clear that it will be an offence to publish the times and other details of pirate broadcasts, whether or not publication is done by an advertisement. It goes on to make it an offence to publish an advertisement of matter calculated to promote, directly or indirectly, the interests of a business whose activities consist in or include the operation of a station from which broadcasts are or are to be so made.
In my view, this would meet the objections made to the present wording, that the existing and long-established distinction between advertisements on the one hand, and editorial matter or news on the other, to which the Press attach great importance, should be kept clear, and that, while the mere publication of times and contents of programmes will be an offence, mere publication of matter calculated to promote the interests of private pirate broadcasting stations will not.
Our initial view was that it would be desirable to define what Parliament meant by "advertisement" for the purposes of the Bill. The Government resisted that, and therefore this Amendment falls back on a form of words which makes it clear that whatever "advertisement" means in this Bill, it does not mean mere publication. I suggested to the Postmaster General that the paragraph might be strengthened and clarified if the word "likely" were substituted for the word "calculated". Noble Lords will remember that we had a long discussion in Committee on Protection of Consumers' (Trade Descriptions) Bill on the meaning of the word "calculated". In the end your Lordships decided, on a Division on February 21, 1966, to substitute the word "likely", and that was done with the concurrence even of some noble Lords on the Government side. However, that has not become law.
The general argument then was that if it was not meant that intention should be proved, then the word "calculated" was misleading to the ordinary person and should be replaced by the word "likely". I have been in touch with the Postmaster General's Department and I have received a letter from that Department in which one of the reasons given for not proposing such an Amendment is stated as follows:
"It could have the effect of allowing prosecutions to be brought in circumstances where there was no deliberate intention on the part of the persons who devised the advertisement to produce the effect of promoting the interests of the business ".
I am more than content with this, as it establishes that if the Government accept this Amendment, as I hope they will, it will imply—and I hope it will be the case—that they will interpret the word "calculated" in its proper sense of "designed", and will not bring prosecu
810
tions except where they are satisfied that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the person designing the advertisement to promote the interests of the pirate station. This, of course, will not relieve the person publishing the advertisement of the responsibility for ensuring that the person who designed it had no such intention. Of course, this places a much greater statutory onus on the Press—if it is a question of Press publication—than the Press are normally expected to bear, and indeed a greater responsibility than the one which was to have been laid upon it in the Protection of Consumers' (Trade Descriptions) Bill.
This Amendment certainly seems to be a great improvement on the present text. I hope that what I have said will commend itself to the Government, and that they will be able to accept the spirit as well as the words of the Amendment in the way that I have indicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, leave out paragraph (f) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his observations. As he probably knows, consultations were held on this matter with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and as far as my memory goes he was entirely satisfied with the words which are now embodied in this Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government accept the interpretation that he has placed upon these words; that there is no desire whatever, as we have said before, to impose any restriction on the Press in regard to legitimate observations or comment, and I hope that he is satisfied on that score, too. Therefore, the Government accept this Amendment.
May I also say that I am most grateful, particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his efforts, both in seeking to show the necessity for being more specific on the point covered by the Amendment, and also in helping to formulate an Amendment to the Bill without prejudicing the intention of the clause. In those circumstances, I hope most earnestly that this Amendment will be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 69:
Prohibition on possessing or acquiring shot gun without a certificate
(5) The following provisions of the Firearms Act 1937
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 and firearm certificates, but shall so apply subject to the following modifications and exceptions:—
(a) in section 2(2) of that Act (qualifications for grant of a firearm certificate), for the words from "if he is satisfied" to "believe to be" there shall be substituted the words "unless he has reason to believe the applicant to be";
(7) The Secretary of State may by rules under the Firearms Act 1937 provide that the last foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for the reference to one month there were substituted a reference to such shorter period as may be prescribed by the rules.
(8) A person may without holding a shot gun certificate use a shot gun at a place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.
(10) Without prejudice to section 30(d) of the Firearms Act 1937 (rules for delegating the functions of a chief officer of police in specified circumstances) the functions of a chief officer of police under that Act, the Firearms Act 1965 or this Part of this Act shall be exercisable on any occasion by a person, or a person of any particular class, authorised by the chief officer of police to exercise that function on that occasion or on occasions of that class or on all occasions.
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved, in subsection (5)(a), after "has" to insert "good". The
812
noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the discretion of chief officers of police in granting or refusing shot-gun certificates under this Part of this Act. The Firearms Act 1937 is applied to this Bill by subsection (5) of Clause 69, with certain modifications. Paragraph (a) of subsection (5) purports to make a substantial modification to the 1937 Act to the effect that a chief constable shall grant a shot-gun certificate to an applicant "unless he has reason to believe" the applicant to be prohibited or un-suited in the terms of the 1937 Act. Chief constables, therefore, have very wide powers of discretion to grant or refuse shot-gun certificates. I think there is a great danger of variation in practice in different areas of the country. In particular, chief constables may apply the rules differently in urban and rural areas, but, as your Lordships know, a great many townspeople do take part in outdoor pursuits, including shooting, and it would be grossly unfair if the same rules were not applied throughout the country.
Apart from the reasons defined in the Firearms Act 1937—that is to say, by reason of a person's criminal record, intemperate habits and so on—what other grounds might there be to justify the refusal of a shot-gun certificate? Can the noble Lord say what guidance, if any, will be given to chief constables in deciding whether a certificate will be granted or not? It may be said that if these rules are strictly applied some people of a rather irresponsible nature may thereby be prevented from acquiring shot-guns, which may be very desirable; but is that really the purpose of the Bill? The purpose of the Bill is to prevent serious crime. Another case is that of the village poacher, for instance, who may be a very worthy citizen in many respects, except that he has an unfortunate predilection for some of the squire's pheasants. Can that person be treated as a criminal? He probably would not have a criminal record. He might have a conviction for trespassing in pursuit of game or something like that. This Bill is rather using a steam-hammer to crack a nut, and I submit that that is all that Part V of the Bill will ever achieve. It will crack the little nuts, but it will leave the big fish (I must apologise for the mixed metaphor)

813
—it will leave the coconuts (shall we say?) relatively unscathed.
Most of us know someone who has a reputation among his friends for occasionally letting off a shot uncomfortably near to his neighbour at a shoot. Such a person may be a perfectly respectable citizen, but if he has a reputation of being an unsafe shot, is that sufficient ground for a chief officer of police to refuse to grant him a certificate? Then there is the question of disabled persons. I am sure some of your Lordships will know people who have one eye or one arm and are perfectly safe and often very good shots, indeed sometimes considerably better than some of us who have all our limbs and our faculties. A chief constable might, in all innocence, refuse to grant a shot-gun certificate to anyone in that category because he might think that person was not really safe with a gun. These are my reasons for putting down this Amendment, which is to insert the word "good" and to make it read "unless he has good reason to believe".
Although I am moving this Amendment, No. 88, these remarks of mine can also be applied to the following Amendment, No. 89. We must have some clear definition of what guidance is to be given to chief officers of police and on what grounds a shot-gun certificate may be granted or refused. There is the reference to intemperate habits, for instance; some of us know certain people who shoot all the better after lunch, rather better after lunch than before it. Having waded into the steak and kidney pie and a few glasses of beer and perhaps a glass or two of port, they shoot like kings afterwards. Could one say that such a person is of intemperate habits and unfit to be entrusted with a shot-gun? These are my reasons for moving this Amendment. The real object of Part V of the Bill is to prevent professional criminals from getting hold of shot-guns, and most of these provisions will have very little effect on them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 10, after ("has") insert ("good").—(Lord Swansea.)
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I want to say a word on this matter. I am rather puzzled when looking at the Firearms Act 1937, to see that subsection (2) contains the words
814
"has any good reason"
and also in the proviso
"the chief of police has reason to believe".
Presumably the word "good" was inserted in that Act for a good reason, and left out of the proviso also for a good reason, but I must say that for the life of me I cannot see what the distinction is, because if the policeman is going to act on any reason one would hope that it would be a good reason and not a bad one. But there is that distinction drawn by Parliamentary draftsmen of great experience and skill, and, as I understand it my noble friend wants to make it quite clear that the chief officer of police shall act only for good reasons and not for reasons which are not so good. There is something to be said for clearing up this difficulty which arises under the 1937 Act.
Further, I would ask the noble Lord what is the main object of these provisions. Is it to stop shot-guns from getting into the hands of criminals and people who would use them for crime, or is it to try to secure the safe use of shot-guns? When one looks at the Firearms Act, the application of Section 2 to guns rather leads one to suppose that it is directed to securing the safe use of guns. If that is so, I am rather sorry about the consequences for chief officers of police, because I think they will get few invitations to shoot. If they get an invitation to shoot and someone, as my noble friend has said, fires a little close to them, they will withdraw his certificate, because the Bill as amended will provide that the chief officer of police shall not grant a certificate to a person who he believes is prohibited by the Act from possessing a shot-gun,
"or to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to be for any like reason unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm".
Those last words are as wide as they possibly could be—"unfitted for any reason to be entrusted with such a firearm." I can imagine a chief constable, if some pellets have gone close to him, saying that this is the best of all possible reasons to see that the person firing is no longer entrusted with a firearm. Is that to be the object here, that there is to be some police supervision over the use of the guns to secure safety; or is the object of these provisions, as I thought, to

815
prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals? If it is the latter, then I think the Government ought to give further thought to the application of subsection (2) of the 1937 Act.
3.14 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, went rather wider than his two Amendments and had a general discussion in relation to the way in which a chief constable would consider and grant or refuse an application for a shot-gun certificate. Each application will be made on its merits, and the effect of the Bill will be that the police will have to make out a particular reason for refusing a shot-gun certificate. In consequence, any law-abiding member of the public will obtain his certificate virtually upon application. The right of appeal to quarter sessions in England and Wales will effectively prevent arbitrary practices from arising.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, raised a point on the question of good reason, or just simply reason, which bothered me to start with. He will note that the effect of Clause 69(5)(a), as proposed to be amended, would be to provide that a
"shot-gun certificate shall be granted by the chief officer of police unless he has good reason to believe the applicant to be prohibited by"—
the Firearms Act 1937—
"from possessing a firearm to which this Act applies, or to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to be for any like reason unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm."
The word "good" adds nothing to the meaning of the provision. Either one has reason for believing, grounds for believing, or one has not. There are no good and bad reasons, as grounds for believing. They are either valid reasons or invalid reasons, and invalid reasons are no reasons at all.
An attempt was made by the noble Lord to justify the addition of the word "good" on the ground that Section 2 of the 1937 Act requires an applicant for a firearms certificate to satisfy the police that he has a good reason for possessing a Part I firearm. The situation is, however, not the same—the applicant for a firearms certificate has to show that he has a reason for wanting a firearm which is socially acceptable. It is quite possible for a person to have a reason for
816
wanting a firearm which is undesirable or even criminal.
Suppose a Mr. Buggins was rather worried that he might be shot up and he asked the chief constable to let him have half-a-dozen revolvers. He would think this a good reason for possessing those revolvers for his own self-defence, but I do not suppose any noble Lord in this House would think that to put those arms in the hands of a person in that state of mind or in that position would be socially acceptable, to use the words I used just now. Therefore I think the word "good" in that sense in the 1937 Act means good for socially accept able reasons and not reasons which are undesirable or even criminal. The purpose of the provision is to permit that sort of value judgment to be made.
No similar consideration arises where the requirement is that the refusal shall be based on a belief for which there is a reason or ground. Were the Amendment accepted, one effect would be to leave the corresponding phrases in Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1937 in regard to firearms certificates as "has reason" and "to be for any reason", which would be in close juxtaposition to the shot gun certificate phrases of "has good reason" and "to be for any like reason". The contrast will become most marked when this legislation is consolidated, as we hope it will be next Session. Defence counsel would be quick to jump at the distinction between "good reason" and "reason". No difference in meaning between the two contexts is intended, and therefore the same words must be used.
LORD DERWENT: I had wondered from the beginning why this Part of the Bill is included. The Firearms Bill has nothing to do with criminal justice. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has now confirmed that by what he has said. He is quite right in saying that under the present Firearms Act there has, in effect, to be a reason for possessing a firearm. But the noble Lord has said that it would be perfectly easy for anyone to get a firearm; it is really a question of applying, and there will be so many millions of applicants, in the ordinary way that no questions will be asked and you will get it. The only reason you will not get it is if a particular chief officer of police or one of his police officers knows that you are not a reputable

817
person. What is to stop one of my local police officers or the chief constable saying of me in my more drunken moments, "I am afraid that Lord Derwent is drinking too much and he ought not to go out shooting"? But if I come to London and want to buy a gun, there is nothing to stop me. No policeman here knows that I am not a teetotaller. This does not make sense, so far as I can see. Anyone can get a gun. All this is going to mean is an enormous amount of paperwork for the police.
Even at this moment, on this Amendment, may I suggest that the Government should withdraw this Part of the Bill? Because there will be no difficulty for a criminal in getting a shot-gun, particularly in a different part of the country. If we are only thinking about criminals, as apparently this Bill is, what is the point of this Part of the Bill? The noble Lord has said that all most people have to do is just to fill in a form.
3.20 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: I read this Part of the Bill for the first time only in the last ten minutes, and on reading it I was puzzled to know why my Front Bench had not moved to leave it out, because I think it is quite the silliest thing I have ever seen. It is continuing Her Majesty's Government's predilection for creating more work for the Civil Service. As if the police have not enough work to do already, they have now do issue I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of certificates. They may even ask for a photograph of anybody who is going to own a firearm. This will put an immense amount of work on the police. They will have to recruit many more people and, as my noble friend Lord Derwent said, the genuine criminal who sets out to use a shot-gun instead of a revolver for his nefarious purposes will not have the slightest difficulty in buying one "under the counter" anywhere. The criminal who intends to commit armed robbery has no firearms certificate. He buys a firearm for the specific purpose. Why will it be any more difficult for him to get a shot-gun than it is to-day for him to get a revolver? The thing just does not make sense. This is bureaucracy run mad.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, dealt
818
with the last part of my speech. I would ask him specifically to give an answer to the question: are these provisions intended to try in some way to prevent guns from getting into the hands of professional criminals and the criminal classes, or is the intention in some way to supervise their use for the promotion of safety? Under the Firearms Act one had both. If it were for the first purpose I would fully support it, but I doubt the adequacy of these provisions for achieving it. But if it is the second purpose, I do not think a case has been made out. We are now considering a narrow Amendment before we come to the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. When one comes to the Question whether the clause shall stand part, one can always vote that the clause shall not stand part without first having put down a Motion on the Paper.
On this particular Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, kindly read out how the section would read if these Amendments were accepted; the word "good" and the word "like" would go in in their respective places. But, without these Amendments being made, am I not right in saying that the widest possible discretion is given to a chief officer of police for refusing a certificate? He can refuse a certificate if for any reason he thinks the person applying for it is unfit to be entrusted with a shot-gun. What can be wider than that? And that is in no way related to preventing a gun from getting into the hands of the criminal classes. I suggest that the noble Lord ought to think again about this provision, and I should have thought that if the purpose is to have a register of guns so that one knows where they ought to be, then this kind of provision ought to be cut out.
LORD BOWLES: I meant to say to the noble and learned Viscount that the object of this Part of the Bill is twofold. One is to prevent guns as far as possible from getting into the hands of criminals, and the other is to increase the safety of the general public. I do not think that it is quite true to say that any chief constable can refuse a certificate on any grounds he likes. If he has reason, he has to go to quarter sessions if the person who is refused a licence appeals. The guns about which we are now talking are those of 24 inches or more in

819
length—I do not think it matters about their bore—which would be more visible than a gun of less than 24 inches. In other words, you can carry a shorter gun in your pocket, pull it out and shoot somebody very quickly before he has a chance to do anything.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Has the noble Lord never heard of sawn-off shot guns?
LORD BOWLES: I have, and I am going to refer to them. This Bill seeks to increase the powers under the 1937 Act, because there has been an increase in the number of crimes caused by long shot-guns. The idea is that more registration the better, because we are anxious so far as possible to prevent any further increase in crime. Although the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said he did not think this is quite the right Bill in which to introduce these matters, it is surely the essence of criminal justice that everything possible should be done to stop the spread of crime. Therefore I would justify the inclusion of this Part in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, in his original answer said that anybody in England and Wales who felt aggrieved at the refusal of the chief constable to give him a licence for a shot-gun could appeal. Are we in Scotland not going to be allowed to appeal? Unfortunately this is a Part of the Bill which applies to Scotland. It seems strange that one may appeal against such a refusal in England and Wales, but, so far as one can see, one has no appeal in Scotland. Perhaps the noble Lord will say something about this.
LORD BOWLES: I have not studied all the Scottish Law on the situation, but I will look it up and let the noble Duke know.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. If he looks at Section 2 (8) (b) of the Firearms Act 1938 he will find the answer: one goes to the sheriff. But I do not think this meets the point. If the noble Lord is relying on reasons which the Government think are the right ones for refusing a certificate, it is no use saying that the remedy is to go to quarter sessions, or in Scotland to the sheriff, because those
820
quarter sessions and that sheriff are bound by exactly the same wording in the Act as is the chief officer of police in the first place. If no guidance is given to quarter sessions or to the sheriff, why should they not agree with the chief officer of police in the reason—which some have suggested may not be the one which is intended by the legislation—for refusing the certificate? There is no possible remedy here.
Moreover, if the noble Lord suggests that this is going to bring uniformity, could he tell the House in what way it will be achieved? As the noble Lord no doubt knows, the decisions of quarter sessions are not reported. In regard to quarter sessions decisions you cannot find, unless you are very lucky, a report of what was said, let alone the reasons why it was said. Even if you can find a report relating to one area, that is no reason why quarter sessions in another part of the country should take the same view, and the facts are very seldom set out. So there is in this provision no guarantee at all of uniformity, and the noble Lord should think again about it.
LORD BOWLES: I should have thought that if the noble Viscount means what he has just been saying, that quarter sessions are not reported and therefore that one quarter sessions does not know what another quarter sessions is doing, there is hardly any point in his practising before the quarter sessions at all.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord would perhaps know that the point of practising before quarter sessions is, so far as I am concerned, to deal with the case which is before quarter sessions at that moment. It is no use going to them and saying, "I have found an obscure report in the Solicitors' Journal of something that happened at the Northumberland quarter sessions, and think you should do the same". They are not necessarily going to follow, and the report will not always give you the facts on which the other quarter sessions based their decisions. The practice in quarter sessions is, as I say, to deal with the case which is before the court. There is every justification for doing that, and it does not produce uniformity.
LORD BOWLES: Let me make myself clear. The noble Viscount, when he

821
practises before quarter sessions, does not go there merely to see that the ruling of some other quarter sessions is followed. He goes there to try to get justice in the matter on which he is appealing.
LORD CHAMPION: Are we now discussing the Question, That the clause shall stand part of the Bill, or are we discussing the Amendment which is being moved? It seems to me that we have strayed into a discussion on "Clause stand part". On this whole business of the possession of firearms, surely it is very important to remember that it is to be an offence if you are found with a weapon in your possession. Parliament has made it an offence for anybody to have in his possession an offensive weapon. In fact, it was not long ago that Parliament decided that the carrying of flick knives in certain circumstances—that is to say, having them in possession—was an offence. It was quite right that Parliament should have taken that decision. Surely in this case, even though it may be fairly easy for a certain person to get a certificate, the fact that the certificate enables him to acquire a shot-gun means that if he passes it on to someone else who ought not to have it in his possession he is guilty of an offence. It is surely right and proper that Parliament should make it possible to impose a penalty on anyone who has that offensive weapon in his possession without a certificate.
LORD DERWENT: May I say this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Champion? On the question of flick knives, which were being dealt with in thousands, or perhaps only hundreds, there was no very great additional work for the police. But I would ask the Committee to remember that we are here dealing with an unknown quantity of shot-guns, although a conservative estimate is that there are 1,500,000 in the country. If it is true that there are 1,500,000 shot-guns in general use in the country, it will not he at all difficult for a criminal to get hold of one.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: May I point out that there is no possible justification for anyone carrying a flick knife, which is purely an offensive weapon, whereas 999 out of 1,000 shot-guns are used for perfectly respectable purposes.
LORD CHAMPION: In that case there is no offence. So who is worrying about it? I am not.
LORD SWANSEA: I must say that I am rather disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to accept this Amendment, in spite of the pressure which has been put upon them by my noble friends. I hope the Government will think that this is a point which deserves further consideration by them, because there is a danger of a lack of uniformity in the application of these provisions in different parts of the country. One chief constable may not take the same line as another, and in the case of appeals one court may not take the same line as another.
Concerning appeals, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, there is of course the right to appeal to quarter sessions. But I wonder how many people, having been refused a shot-gun certificate, will really take the trouble and go to the expense of putting in an appeal. We must remember that many such people might be of slender means who just could not afford the expense of an appeal to quarter sessions. I seriously considered putting down a further Amendment to this Bill, to enable appeals to go to magistrates' courts instead of to quarter sessions for that very reason. But on the whole I think that although quarter sessions might vary from one area to another, they might take a slightly more unbiased view of each case.
I ask myself how many people would be able to go to the trouble and expense of an appeal to quarter sessions. If I were in the position of being of slender means, I think I would just take a chance and go on possessing my shot-gun, and perhaps getting "had up" and fined now and again, so long as I did not commit a serious crime. Anyhow, I very much hope that the Government will think again about this matter before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ARINGER): Before I call Amendment No. 90, I must point out to the Committee that if that Amendment is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 91.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) of Clause 69 exempts overseas visitors from the need to have shot-gun certificates until they have been in the country for one month in the last 12 months. The purpose of this Amendment is to delete subsection (7) which at present enables the Secretary of State, by rules, to reduce the period of one month to something less.
When the Bill was first introduced, subsection (6) provided for a period of exemption of three months. Three months was proposed as the outside limit, and it was recognised that a reduction was likely. Subsection (7) was therefore provided as an easy way to make such a reduction, by rule, after the Bill was passed. But, in fact, at a later stage in another place the Bill was amended to reduce the period to one month, and during discussion of the Amendments the point was taken that the reduction of the period of exemption to one month imposed a considerable restriction on regular visitors, and that certainly no further reduction could be contemplated as it would be regarded as unnecessarily harsh. The position has therefore been reconsidered and it has been decided that the power, which would be unlikely to be used, can and should be abandoned, and that therefore subsection (7) should be removed from the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 20, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SWANSEA: I must say that I am sorry that this Amendment to leave out subsection (7) has been moved, because—
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord at the beginning of his speech? I am sorry, but an important Statement has to be made, and as we shall be a long time on these Amendments it may be convenient if the Statement is made now.
House resumed.

RADCLIFFE REPORT ON 'D' NOTICES
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place about the Radcliffe Report. I shall use his own words, and I am now quoting the Prime Minister.
"The Government have received the Report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors who were appointed ' to examine the circumstances surrounding the publication of an article in the Daily Express of February 21, entitled "Cable Vetting Sensation" in relation to the 'D' Notice system; and to consider what improvements, if any, are required in that system in order to maintain it as a voluntary system based on mutual trust and confidence between the Government and the Press in the interests alike of the freedom of the Press and of the security of the State'.
"The Government wish to take this opportunity to thank Lord Radcliffe and his two colleagues for the great care and thoroughness with which they have examined a very complex subject.
"The Report itself will be published in full; and it will be available to honourable Members in the Vote Office at 4 p.m."
That is, in our case, the Printed Paper Office.
"I should also tell the House that the Report has an Annex dealing with certain very secret aspects of the Committee's inquiry; and in accordance with the Committee's recommendations this will not be published. Naturally, however, in accordance with our normal custom in these matters, the Annex has been made available, together with the Report itself, to the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
"Moreover, in view of the importance and complexity of the issues involved, the Government have thought it right, with the concurrence of Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues, to publish, in addition, the evidence which was given to the Committee. Certain portions of this evidence have had to

825
be omitted on grounds of security; but the whole of it has been seen by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he will confirm that he is satisfied that the omissions are necessary on security grounds.
"Finally, in the light of the Report the Government have closely examined all the circumstances surrounding this incident, including the actions of the Departments concerned, and also considered its implications for the future of the 'D' Notice system. The Government's conclusions are contained in a White Paper which is being published simultaneously with the Report and Evidence.
"The Government have been giving very careful thought to the lessons to be drawn from this incident by both parties to the D' Notice system. The White Paper emphasises in the following words that:
'the Government attach the greatest importance to maintaining and strengthening the 'D' Notice system and to retaining the free and voluntary co-operation of the Press in its effective working. For their part they will do all in their power, consistently with their overriding responsibility for national security, to contribute to this purpose.'
"I propose therefore to take the earliest opportunity of discussing personally with the Press how this might best be done.
"When honourable Members have had time to study the documents which are being published to-day, the House will no doubt wish to debate them; and the necessary arrangements can be discussed through the usual channels."
My Lords, that ends the Prime Minister's Statement.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having repeated the Prime Minister's Statement here. I am sure he will appreciate that until we have read the Report and the White Paper it is difficult to comment, or indeed to ask pertinent questions, but perhaps he would take note that it may be that, after we have had that opportunity, it will seem desirable to debate the subject in your Lordship's House, too.
826
We cannot tell as yet. I would, however, put one question. Can the noble Earl tell us whether the Government's conclusions about the incident of February 21, set out in the White Paper, go beyond what has been summarised in the Prime Minister's Statement? The Statement informed us of the Prime Minister's intention to discuss the whole matter with the Press, but what were the Government's actual conclusions about the incident of February 21?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I feel, in somewhat the same way as does the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that it is difficult to make any sensible comment or even to ask questions when we have so little before us. But I think it is important, as the Government have said, to retain the free and voluntary co-operation of the Press in the effective working of the 'D' Notice system, and we are very glad that the Government have reiterated that point.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their readiness to await the documents before offering any comments, and I can assure them that of course we are available to discuss with them at any time the question of any further elucidation that it is felt is required. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked me about the Government's conclusions relating to the incident which led to all this argument. I should hesitate to summarise the Report or the White Paper, and I think, if I might say so, that if the noble Lord and others will wait just a few minutes more they will be able to make up their own minds on that particular point.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, can the House take it from the Statement of the Prime Minister that the Government consider that the publication of these articles on February 21 and 22 did not in any way damage our national security? Secondly, could the noble Lord amplify the reference to the implications as to the future of the 'D' Notice system referred to in the Statement?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I should not care to add anything this afternoon.

827
It certainly would be misleading to suggest that the Government, now that all this has been gone into, wish to pay any kind of tribute to these articles; but I think that for me to add any further criticism now, until noble Lords have had a chance of examining the documents, would be unfair. I think, therefore, that I had better leave the matter where it is for this afternoon.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
3.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD SWANSEA: I should like to say briefly that I think it is a pity the Government are seeking to remove this subsection from the Bill. I think that any legislation of this sort ought to be flexible. We are introducing provisions of an entirely new sort: I do not know of any parallel case. I feel that there ought to be some provision for this period in respect of overseas visitors to be varied at the discretion of the Minister. These requirements for a shot-gun certificate are likely to prove rather irksome to visitors from abroad. Quite a number come over from year to year for the purposes of shooting, and they bring in some very valuable dollars and other foreign currency. A person may come into this country twice within a period of twelve months. For instance, he may come over in November or December to shoot pheasants, and he may come over again the following August to go up to Scotland to shoot grouse. If his combined stay during that period exceeds one month, he then has to go to the police and go through all the palaver of applying for a shot-gun certificate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has said that there will be no trouble about issuing these certificates; that they will be issued "on the nod" to respectable people. That may be; but one would have thought that in the case of foreigners the police might reasonably be expected to make certain inquiries into the background of a person to make sure that he really is a respectable person. A period of one month is, I think, too short. As the Bill stands at present, there is discretion for the Secretary of State to reduce that period still further. I cannot
828
think of any circumstances in which that period should be further reduced, but it would be quite easy to think of circumstances, after these provisions have had a period of trial, in which it might be decided that this period should be extended. I feel that some provision should be left in the Bill for a discretion in that respect.
LORD STONHAM: Although the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, presents his case with such restraint, I am bound to say that I find his criticisms somewhat captious, and that he is rather difficult to please. I very carefully explained that, as a result of long discussions in another place with people who are keenly interested in this subject, and very knowledgeable about it, the original provision of three months, plus flexibility for the making, of rules by the Secretary of State, was withdrawn in favour of a period of one month. It was thought that in any case there would be no wish to reduce the period below one month, and that accordingly there was not need for subsection (7), which I sought the agreement of the Committee to remove from the Bill. That is to say, the period would not be less than one month.
The noble Lord regrets the removal of the subsection mainly, as I understand it, on the ground that it is likely to be irksome to some visitors who come here for one month during the year and then later in the same year come for another month. I do not think it is very irksome to expect the visitor who comes here for two separate months in a year to have to apply for a shot-gun certificate. If they are well-known people—as they would be if they were coming regularly in that way—they would not have any difficulty with the police. I am sure that there would not be any need to consult Interpol about their antecedents and background. I thought that this was a proposal that the Committee in general, and the noble Lord in particular, would welcome. I only hope that on reflection he will find that it is one that can be supported.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: Another Statement has to be made, and I think this would be a convenient time to break off.
House resumed.

THE MIDDLE EAST
3.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by by right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on the latest situation in the Middle East. The Statement is as follows:
"The main development in the Arab/Israel conflict since the Foreign Secretary's statement in the House has been the achievement of a cease-fire on the Syrian front. The cease-fire is now being generally maintained. To-day we have heard that the Soviet Government intend to ask for the Middle East to be discussed at the Special Assembly of the United Nations.
"It was to me encouraging that General Odd Bull of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation, played a key part in arranging the final and effective cease-fire and that UNTSO observers are now in position on both sides of the cease-fire line. This Government, and indeed the House as a whole, have expressed the view that wherever there has been a United Nations presence on both sides of the borders it has greatly helped in preventing conflict. I hope it will become a key factor of all the border arrangements. As an immediate step towards making UNTSO as effective as possible during the present critical period, I hope that General Bull will be able to return to the UNTSO Headquarters in Jerusalem.
"I now turn to some specific points on which the House would like to have information. The first is the question of British subjects in the area. As the Foreign Secretary told the House in an earlier Statement, emergency evacuation arrangements have been put into operation wherever the situation on the ground warranted it. British subjects have been evacuated over land from Syria into Turkey and from Iraq into Iran.
"Over 300 British subjects were evacuated in American aircraft on Sunday morning from Amman to Tehran, where they were picked up by British aircraft to complete their journey to
830
this country. I would like to express our gratitude to the United States Government for their generous assistance in this operation. I am glad to report that as far as we know in all these cases the evacuation has been completed without any loss of life. Evacuation arrangements for British subjects in Egypt are in hand and over 300 left Alexandria this morning.
"The Suez Canal remains closed to navigation. The Canal Authority has said that the Canal is obstructed by small vessels sunk by Israeli action, but the Israeli authorities have denied taking any such action. The position seems to be that some vessels are sunk in the waterway.
"Four British cargo ships are in the Great Bitter Lake in the canal, together with several ships of other nationalities. We are in close touch with the owners concerned and they in turn have had some limited radio contact with the ships themselves. Some food supplies are running short, but we understand it is possible to obtain fresh supplies locally.
" We have asked the Canadian Government, who act for us in the absence of diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic, to inquire urgently of the U.A.R. authorities what the prospects are for the early departure of the four ships and also to give the crews whatever help they can.
"As regards oil, exports from Arab countries are still stopped or restricted. The readjustment of existing supplies and the high level of stocks in many importing countries (including the United Kingdom) provide a breathing space during which it is hoped the tensions which led to the supply interruptions will ease and more normal conditions return. It has been made clear to the Governments concerned that the allegations of British and American intervention, which were the immediate cause of the supply interruptions, are completely without foundation. In the meantime the main importing countries and the other countries associated with them in the O.E.C.D. are at this moment consulting together on the supply question.

831
"We are naturally very concerned about the human suffering emerging in the aftermath of the fighting. We are acutely disturbed about the danger of a new refugee problem being superimposed on the existing one. This is in our view a practical matter of human importance which concerns the whole international community, and to which the United Nations Organisation should address itself urgently.
"Meanwhile, we have information that large numbers of refugees have already crossed to the East bank of the River Jordan. It seems plain that a relief problem of major proportions is building up. The voluntary organisations in this country are considering what they can do. Her Majesty's Government have agreed to make financial provision for emergency relief in Jordan and we are urgently looking to see what we can provide from British Government stocks in Cyprus as a first step.
"So much for the present. We must now look to the future. There is clearly going to be a long process of negotiations and bargaining ahead before the shape of a settlement emerges. It is our hope that the United Nations will be able to play a vigorous and realistic part in this process. Certainly the United Kingdom delegation will do its utmost to contribute to achieving that outcome."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. It begins by stating that a United Nations presence on both sides of the border will be an essential factor in any settlement; and, of course, nobody could disagree with that. But I am sure that the Government will bear in mind that the last United Nations presence evaporated, was taken away, at the moment that trouble began, and that, in spite of the efforts of the British Government and their friends to get a resolution for a cease-fire as soon as the fighting began, the United Nations would not agree to any cease-fire resolution until it was evident that the Egyptians were being defeated and the Israelis were winning. If we are to be
832
realistic about this, I think that we must recognise that very much more concrete and effective guarantees must be given than have been given in the past before confidence can be restored in the ability, and indeed in the will, of the United Nations to give any effectual protection to the victims of aggression.
We regret deeply, of course, the reasons which have made necessary the evacuation of British subjects. This, together with the oil embargo, appears to be part of a deliberately thought-out, long-term campaign of anti-West hate which is now being built up by many elements in the Arab world, based on sheer mendacity and supported, it appears, by the Communist countries. I do not think it would be useful at the present moment to question the Government about this aspect.
The only question I should like to ask them is about the refugees. This is an urgent and terrible problem, and one that has been exacerbated by the events of last week. Would it not be possible for us now, without waiting for a peace settlement—which might mean waiting for a very long time—with our friends and allies in NATO, to get together to ask Israel and any Arab countries that are willing to co-operate whether we could start immediately on a large-scale scheme, not only for relief but, if possible, for the resettlement of these wretched people, both the new ones and those who have been there for so long.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for making that long and, I think, on the whole, satisfactory Statement—at all events, as satisfactory as it can be in the present difficult circumstances. There are just one or two questions on detail that I should like to ask the noble Lord. First, would he confirm that the Israeli forces sustained considerable casualties in taking the old City of Jerusalem; that because of their desire not to damage the City and the Holy places, they went in without bomb, artillery or mortar support? If this is so, should not we be very grateful to the Israelis for the way in which they handled this matter?
Secondly, as to the refugees, may I support what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has proposed—in fact I was going to

833
propose it myself; namely, that we should get together, with our allies in NATO, who are much concerned in this area, to see whether something can be done urgently for the refugees.
As we all know, to depend upon the United Nations Organisation addressing itself urgently to any matter which means action is really depending upon a broken reed at the moment, and it is no good trying to bluff ourselves otherwise. I believe that NATO could operate very quickly with immense resources if we asked them to do so. In fact, the Secretary-General this morning has indicated something on those lines. Thirdly, and lastly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has heard anything of the Dead Sea Scrolls which, I gather, were abandoned in the old City of Jerusalem by the Jordanians, which are of immense value to us all, and to the world, and which we should not like to see damaged in any way? Has there been any news of them?
4.3 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in reply to the questions of the noble Earl, I think he will find when he studies the OFFICIAL REPORT that my comment about the United Nations Forces was not exactly as he quoted it. I do not want to make too much of that point, but I should like to say that the remark in the Statement about the United Nations presence referred specifically to United Nations presence on both sides of the disputed line. The noble Earl will well know that the United Nations presence to which he referred, and which was withdrawn at the beginning of recent events, was a presence on one side of the disputed line only, and perhaps it was in this fact that a good deal of the difficulty lay.
So far as the future of the United Nations action in the whole of this case is concerned, I believe that whatever may have been the difficulties, and perhaps even the mistakes, of the United Nations in the past, it is now up to us to support it in whatever efforts it is making to bring about a lasting settlement in the area. I regret and deplore any suggestion that the United Nations is an empty organisation or that it is incapable of action. It will become incapable of action only if the great Powers of the world, including ourselves, cease to support it. Her Majesty's Government will continue to support it
834
in all its efforts to bring about a lasting peace in the Middle East.
My Lords, anti-Western hate and bitterness in the Middle East is, of course, a part of a legacy of bitterness and intransigence which is bound to eat very deeply into the hearts of everybody in the Middle East after the terrible events of the last few days. I think it would be wrong and unwise of us to engage in any recriminations about this. It is our task now to remove that bitterness as quickly as we can and to normalise our relationships, and to improve and bring back our good relations with all countries throughout the Middle East without apportioning blame and adding to the bitterness that already exists.
So far as the refugees are concerned, we are, my Lords, very much seized of the urgency of this matter. I shall take note of what the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, have said about this. I would point out to the noble Lord that the United Nations has not been entirely ineffective in respect of refugees in the past. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, has done extremely good work with refugees throughout the world, and I think that we should not be too pessimistic about the potential of the United Nations in this field.
Regarding the damage to the Holy places, I think it is confirmed that there was surprisingly little damage done to the Holy places in the fighting in Jerusalem. Whether this was due to good fortune or some other intervention, or whether it was due to the restraint of the Israeli forces, it is difficult to say entirely. However, we are thankful that little damage was done, and to the extent that it was due to the restraint in the action of the Israeli forces we are, of course, grateful.
My Lords, we have no news of the present situation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems evident from the reports that they were indeed abandoned when the custodians of them left their headquarters, but we have no firm information yet about what has happened to them. We shall, of course, keep a careful eye on developments about the Scrolls.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement which the Minister has just made about the prospects and hopes of the United Nations

835
playing an active and effective part in bringing peace to the Middle East, is it not to be regretted that the Communist members of the United Nations have "ganged up" against Israel and broken off diplomatic relations?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there has been a good deal of breaking off of diplomatic relations over the past few days in many directions. While I have every sympathy with what is behind my noble friend's question, I feel that now, at this particular moment of all moments in this crisis, we should not engage in recriminations even of that sort, but should see now what we can do from all sides to bring international relations back on to a normal, sane and intelligent basis. I sympathise with the noble Lord's question, but I feel that we have a great deal to do in the future and that we should look forward and not backwards.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while approving the Government's desire to help the United Nations to help us, and all of us, is it not manifest that they are ineffectual and that the most likely enduring settlement, if there is to be one, would be between the nations concerned; namely, the Israel nation and the Arabs? Would not it be better to use Her Majesty's Government's influence to get these two together, rather than to bother with New York too much?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I know that your Lordships will not expect me to agree that it is manifest that the United Nations is ineffectual. It is not an ineffectual force; it has a great potential for peace, and it is in fact the only international organisation we have that could be said to have a real potential for peace-keeping and for the maintenance of stability throughout the world. In this particular crisis it has been difficult for anybody to enjoin sanity and responsible behaviour on those taking part. There has been, as I said, great bitterness and a great sense of conflict and crisis. Of course, it would be a welcome development if the Israelis and the Arabs could get together and settle their affairs together, but my own feeling is that this will be done eventually only in the context of the United Nations, in the context of a properly constituted international body. After all, my Lords,
836
we must not forget that the cease-fire which brought this fighting to an end was a cease-fire enjoined and demanded by the Security Council of the United Nations.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, the Statement refers to evacuation from Amman of a number of British. Can the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, tell me whether they went voluntarily or whether the Government advised them to leave? I ask this question because I have a particular interest in the work of the Anglican Church in Jordan, as I am vice-chairman of the organisation that supports it. We have a British Archbishop in Jerusalem, and a number of Anglicans running hospitals and churches in Jordan. I should be most sorry to see them leave if it is possible for them to remain there in safety.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the cases in the different Arab countries were different. In some it was thought prudent to evacuate people before they were asked to leave; in others they were asked to leave and given only a short time in which to leave. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I do not have the information that will satisfy him at the moment, but I will find out and let him know.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, referring to what the noble Lord has said about the United Nations, may I make an appeal to him not to allow his enthusiasm for that Organisation to outweigh his sense of realism? Does he recollect that in answering questions last week he referred to the ceasefire as being a great triumph for the United Nations? I should have to refer to what my noble friend Lord Dundee said to show that that is far removed from the truth. It would be a pity—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but could the noble Lord make his remarks in the form of a question?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am asking whether the noble Lord would refrain from allowing his enthusiasm for the United Nations to run away from what must be a realistic view of what is going to settle the position in the Middle East.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will undertake to control my enthusiasm if the noble Lord will control his prejudice. Whether we give the United Nations the full credit for what happened last week or not, I still maintain that to bring about a cease-fire between the Arabs and the Israelis in the circumstances obtaining at the time was a very great triumph indeed.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, if the noble Lord believes that, he will believe anything.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that one permanent member of the Security Council has definitely ranged itself on one side of this dispute? Can he give to the House an absolute assurance that there is no danger whatever of the United Nations becoming an instrument of Soviet policy?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that it would be quite inappropriate for me to give any such assurance. That, I am sure, will be given adequately by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Of course, the Security Council is subject to a veto of any one of its members. It is subject to the veto of the Soviet Union and it is equally subject to the veto of the United States or of Great Britain. I think we can be certain that the United Nations will not become the tool of the policies of any single member of its Security Council or the Assembly.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the request of the Arab States in this conflict to France to act as a mediator? Does the noble Lord not feel that rather than rely entirely on the United Nations Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to exercise some influence upon Israel to support such a proposal?
LORD CHALFONT: I am not suggesting, in my unbridled enthusiasm for the United Nations, that they are the only organisation that can be useful in this case. Of course we shall welcome and are grateful for offers from any other sources that will help in settling
838
affairs in the Middle East. We are particularly grateful for the ideas put forward by France and shall examine every possible way of helping to bring about a fair and lasting settlement in the area.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that it would have been very difficult for the United Nations to organise a cease-fire if Israel had not won?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot pretend that the dramatic events in the Middle East have made it any more difficult to organise a cease-fire, but I think we must accept that even after the events of three days of fighting, it was still a considerable feat to persuade ever-body concerned in this fight—and this was not just a two-sided affair, but was Israel fighting against virtually all the Arab countries, some of them with different aims, different ideas and different political objectives from the others—to cease firing.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much we welcome his statement that the British Government have decided to grant immediately some emergency financial relief to assist these refugees? Is he able to indicate that in any permanent settlement that ultimately takes place in this troubled part of the world we, on our side, will try to ensure, in dealing with the great refugee problem of the future, that the financial assistance from our country and also from the United Nations will be linked up with a genuine rehabilitation of refugees, instead of allowing them to become a festering sore of political propaganda, as they have been during many decades in the past?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful for the comment contained in the first part of my noble friend's question. As to the second part, of course we must realise that whatever we do in the short-term to help these wretched people—and I hope we shall be able to do a great deal—none of it will be really effective unless we can bring about some long-term and lasting settlement of their Problem, which we will certainly do our best to achieve.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
4.17 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved, in subsection (8), at the beginning to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: I am aware that a number of noble Lords are waiting to speak on the question that Clause 69 stand part, but this and my next two Amendments, which with your Lordships' permission I shall take together, deal with specific points on which those watching the Bill require clarification. I will be as brief as I can.
Subsection (8) says that a person may without holding a shot-gun certificate use a shot-gun at a place approved for shooting at artificial targets. I have yet to discover under what regulations and by what machinery a piece of ground is approved by the police for shooting at artificial targets, or at clay pigeons, as they are better known. We all know that a rifle range has to have approval under regulations laid down by the Ministry of Defence, but I am not aware of any regulations covering ground used for shooting at clay pigeons, either temporary or permanently. There are shooting schools of a permanent nature where people go for instruction. There are travelling fairs where there may be clay pigeon shooting as a sideshow and there may be such sideshows at charity fêtes and games.
Then there is the question of shooting at clay pigeons in private grounds. I may have a number of friends staying for the weekend, and finding that we have nothing to do I may suggest to them that I have a clay pigeon trap and a box of clays and that we should go into the field behind the house and "have a bang". They could use my gun. Some of my guests might not have shot-guns themselves and might not be in possession of shot-gun certificates. Taking part in practice with clay pigeons on private ground, are they committing an offence? Have I to go to the police and say: "I have this large field behind my house, and I have some friends coming for the week-end. If we have nothing else to do and want to have some practice, is it all right for us to shoot there?" And must I do that every time, or would one approval do for all time?
These are questions which are raised in one's mind by subsection (8). I am
840
left wondering whether this subsection (8) creates in an indirect way a requirement for the approval of shooting of clay pigeons on a piece of ground. If, as it appears, an approval must be obtained, then it is possible to envisage circumstances in which it might be refused. In those circumstances it is only logical, fair and just that there should be machinery for bringing an appeal against such a refusal. That is the object of this Amendment. It follows the precedent in relation to other appeals under the Firearms Act, so that the appeal is to quarter sessions. I should have preferred the appeal to go to a magistrates' court, but I think that quarter sessions, as in the case of other appeals, might have a slightly more detached view.
There was considerable discussion on this point in Committee in another place, when the Government spokesman gave an undertaking that the Government would look at this matter again, because it is full of anomalies and very nebulous. So far as I know, they have not had another look at it, or, if they have, they have seen fit to leave the Bill as it is. I should be glad of some clarification on these points. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 25, at beginning insert ("(a)").—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD BOWLES: I am afraid the noble Lord has this wrong. The position is that the police have no power to license any piece of land for any event where shooting takes place. What they can say is that between 2 and 6 o'clock New Palace Yard can be open for shooting, but what they do is to allow people who have not a shot-gun certificate to shoot without being prosecuted. For instance, Bisley is well known to many of your Lordships. That is not licensed by the police. The people who are licensed are schoolboys and others who go down there without shot-gun certificates; the police give them permission to shoot, and they can shoot without being prosecuted, because they have the chief constable's consent.
I should perhaps give a little more detail. The effect of these Amendments would be to give a right of appeal to anyone who applied for a permit under Clause 69(8) and was refused. The appeal would lie to quarter sessions in England

841
and Wales, and to the sheriff in Scotland. The purpose of Clause 69(8) is to allow a chief officer of police to give permit in respect of a particular place so as to allow shot-gun shooting there by people who have not got shot-gun certificates. Because the permit will provide an exception to the general law, it is clearly desirable that a permit should be regarded as a privilege, and not as a right. Accordingly, this proposal that anyone who asks for a permit and is refused should have a right of appeal is unacceptable. It would have the effect, in practice, of altering this privilege into some sort of right, so that the police could not refuse unless they were satisfied that they had grounds to advance against the proposal in the event of an appeal. Moreover, it is very necessary in the interests of safety that the police should have power to revoke the permit at any time. It would be very strange if there were a right of appeal against the refusal, but not against the revocation. In cases such as this, where one is making an exception to the general law, it is best, in the view of the Government, that the matter should be left to the discretion and good sense of the police.
I might say this in slightly different words. There may be a basic apprehension behind these Amendments, and I think the noble Lord was responsible and showed that he had a misapprehension. It may be thought that the chief officer of police would be empowered by Clause 69(8) to authorise the holding of an event or the use of a place for shot-gun shooting. This is not so. The subsection is not concerned with permitting an event to be held, or prescribing where and how it should be run. Competitions, practice grounds, and displays at shows will still continue to be held whether a chief officer refuses or gives his approval under Clause 69(8). All that his approval does is to permit, possibly, a minority of the participants at an event which will be held in any case, to take part without having first obtained shot-gun certificates. In effect, subsection (8) rationalises the police discretion not to prosecute in appropriate cases by permitting a chief officer of police to indicate in advance times and places where, subject to any safety or other conditions that may seem appro
842
priate, the legal requirement to have a shot-gun certificate will be waived.
The noble Lord referred to clay pigeon shooting. I am not much of an expert. I have never shot anything in my life; I missed a target in about 1917 and have not been allowed to waste any Government ammunition since. But in the matter of clay pigeon shooting, this is done with the guns of people who have certificates, and they cannot lend their guns to people who have not certificates and allow them to use them without fear of prosecution. As regards the small ranges at fairs, I understand that the average gun there used is a ·22 and this is not a shot-gun within the meaning of the Bill. Bisley is one of the examples. Gunmakers also have places which are set aside by them for the purpose of demonstrating, and also for teaching youngsters, and probably older people as well, to learn how to shoot. If the chief of police says: "Let us carry on without a shot-gun certificate", then that can take place. The same thing applies to such things as agricultural fairs. I hope that, in the light of the misunderstanding, which is quite an easy one to fall into, the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: With the disappearance of the rabbit, clay pigeon shooting is the only medium by which young boys can be taught safely to practise with a shot-gun. For this purpose there are a number of small gun clubs up and down the country which would be put to some difficulty by this clause. While not supporting the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, I wonder whether it is fair to ask the Government to think again, particularly in regard to the words the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, used about the time and place at which shooting at artificial targets may be done. A general approval from a chief constable would perhaps be adequate to allow a gun club, properly constituted, to use a place at a time which might be suitable. It is sometimes not possible during the holidays to decide, as the noble Lord implied, and one might well say: "Let's have a go at the clay pigeons". In my neighbourhood, we have one with properly constituted stances, and it would be difficult to have a certificate for specific times as well as places. It might be made easier,

843
without any danger to the public, so that shooting could be practised on a few occasions particularly during children's holidays.
LORD BOWLES: I think the position is this. The police have regard to the time and place, and then they say that anybody who shoots without a shot-gun certificate will not be prosecuted. It is as simple as that.
LORD SWANSEA: I must say that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, I am little wiser than I was before. He started off by saying that police approval on a piece of ground was not necessary, and then he went on to say that it was. Perhaps I may be forgiven, as he said, for being under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause. In that case, I can only suggest that this clause is very badly drafted in the first place, because it creates the impression that police approval is necessary. The noble Lord did not really answer my point about the group of persons wanting private practice on private ground when some may not have a shot-gun certificate. Would they be committing an offence?
LORD DERWENT: I think the noble Lord is going to withdraw the Amendment, and I should like a word with him before he does so.
LORD SWANSEA: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, might like to answer that point.
LORD BOWLES: If anybody shoots without a shot-gun certificate, without the permission of the police, that person is committing an offence.
LORD SWANSEA: If I asked a party of friends on the spur of the moment to come into the field behind the house and shoot clay pigeons, may they not do so because I have not obtained police permission to use that piece of ground for clay-pigeon shooting? That would be absurd.
LORD BOWLES: I should have thought the position was quite simple. If the noble Lord wants to use ground at the back of his house for a private shooting party, and someone shoots without a shot-gun certificate, unless that person who is going to shoot has the permission of
844
of the chief officer of police to do so he is committing an offence. One can telephone the police and say, "Between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock to-night I am going to have this party. Will you allow shooting to take place within those hours at the back of my house?". If he does not get police permission, whoever shoots without a certificate is committing an offence.
LORD DERWENT: I can understand what the noble Lord says this clause means, but in fact it does not say it. What the noble Lord is saying is that the police officer gives permission for somebody to shoot, without a certificate, anywhere he likes.
LORD BOWLES: No; the place and time have to be laid down.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry—anywhere and at any time stated in the application. What in fact this clause says is that the police officer approves the place. What he approves is the shooting without a certificate; and this is not what the subsection says. I quite understand why my noble friend misunderstood it. It says exactly the opposite of what the noble Lord says it means.
LORD BOWLES: We accept that the noble Lord may have fallen into that trap, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has also done so. Nevertheless, the explanation of the meaning of this subsection is what I have stated.
LORD DERWENT: No one is in doubt about the explanation: we are all quite clear about it. But what we are not clear about is the drafting of the subsection. We say that it means exactly the opposite.
LORD BOWLES: I will find out whether the draftsmen might like to look at it again, in view of the debate, so that all the illusions and misunderstandings might disappear at the Report stage.
LORD CHAMPION: The point that interests me is that it says, "at a place approved". For what period is that approval given? Suppose the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, by chance, invited me to his home, and I happened not to possess a shot-gun. If he wanted to take me out for a little clay-pigeon shooting, would it be possible for him, some time

845
before the event, to get an approval which would cover him for that place for all time; or must he on every occasion when I happened to visit him in these circumstances make a separate application to the police?
LORD BOWLES: It would not be relieving Lord Swansea at all. Lord Champion would be relieved of the prosecution. But it depends upon the terms laid down by the chief of police. If he says that for all time Lord Champion may shoot there, the permission applies for all time.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May one presume that an ordinary shooting school, with stock and guns and clay pigeons, would have a permanent licence?
LORD BOWLES: I would mention Bisley as an example, which the noble Marquess knows. In the case of Bisley, the police would not stop the shooting; they do not even give Bisley permission for it. What they say is that anybody who shoots there in July and August will not be subject to prosecution. In other words, shooting without a shot-gun certificate may take place there at their festivals.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I think we are making a lot out of this issue. Surely most of the people who wish to have this practice with a shot-gun will already have one of these certificates, so that this particular clause will not apply. As I understand it, the clause applies only to people who do not own a shot-gun and want to shoot casually, which I should have thought was a rare thing rather than a common one. Most people who use shot-guns will have these certificates.
LORD BOWLES: The noble Lord is perfectly right. If the police go to someone with a shot-gun and say, "Where is your certificate?", and he does not have one, or cannot produce it, the gun will be taken away until he does produce it or gets the shot-gun certificate.
LORD SWANSEA: This discussion has only confirmed my opinion of the rather slapdash way in which this Part of the Bill has been drafted. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I hope that the Government will take another
846
long look at the drafting of this subsection, because it is very nebulous and open to misinterpretation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"(11) Notwithstanding anything in section 2(4) of the Firearms Act 1937 (duration of firearms certificate), a shot-gun certificate issued before the expiration of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act shall continue in force for such period from that date or from the date when it is granted, whichever is the later, as may be specified in the certificate by the chief officer of police (being a period of not less than one year but not more than five years)."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 95. Its purpose is to enable special arrangements to be made to deal with the large number of applications which will be made for shot-gun certificates at the time the shot-gun certificate procedure comes into force. Although we have no very reliable way of forming an estimate, we are aware that there are a very large number of shot-gun owners. If they should all apply for shot-gun certificates when the new system comes into force, the police will be faced, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, with a very considerable burden in dealing with them. If they were all given standard three-year certificates the burden would reappear at three-year intervals as a peak load of work. An initial surge of applications cannot be entirely avoided, but it is important to prevent the police from being faced with an embarrassing load of work at intervals of every three years. Our problem is so to arrange the renewals that they will result in an even spread. This means that certificates must be given for varying lengths of validity—I am talking about the transition period. It is considered that in no case should such certificates be valid for less than one year, and it is judged that the police should be able to have dealt with applications received during the period of initial surge within six months of the system's coming into force.
Once these factors are accepted, it follows that the validity of certificates will vary in length from one to four and a half years, and in order to allow for initial local difficulties it would be wise

847
to allow a little longer than four and a half years for the longest certificate. Although it would not be possible to do much to spread out the initial surge of applications, as distinct from flattening out the triennial peak that would occur but for the arrangements which we propose, it would assist police a good deal if applications were made before the appointed day when Clause 49 comes into force. Accordingly, it is proposed to invite people to apply for shot-gun certificates during the period immediately preceding the appointed day and to provide that any certificate issued then shall be valid as from the appointed day. The Amendment which I move therefore provides that during the six months following the date when Clause 69 comes into force the chief constable may issue shot-gun certificates valid for any period between one and five years, and that he may issue shot-gun certificates for that period before the appointed day, which would take effect from the appointed day. In this way we hope to get over the initial load of work without discommoding the police too much—or indeed shot-gun owners themselves—and, once that initial period has been overcome, to avoid any peak of applications in future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: At last we have an Amendment that makes practical common sense. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having thought this one out after our Second Reading debate. Can he say whether he has any idea when the appointed day might be?
LORD STONHAM: No, I cannot forecast when it is going to be. My right honourable friend must have consultation, and my Department will have consultation, with the chief officer of police, and difficulties must be assessed and agreement reached after consultations with all the interested parties, including the Gun Traders Association, as to what form the registration will take, whether or not it will be a certificate, and so on. When all those matters have been resolved, my right honourable friend will fix an appointed day, but before the appointed day becomes operative, we shall,
848
by means of publication in the Press and so on, urge shot-gun owners or would-be shot-gun owners to apply for a certificate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 69 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Now has come the time to consider this clause, and indeed some of the other clauses of this Part of the Bill. To begin with, I think it is very curious indeed, and I would say wrong, to insert what is really a Bill to amend the Firearms Act, 1937, into a Bill which is called a Criminal Justice Bill. I can well see the reasons which led the Government to do this. Instead of having a separate amending Bill, as they ought to have done, which would have meant a Second Reading speech explaining exactly why they had introduced it, it is most convenient to slip it in as a part of this major Bill dealing with matters of general application. But now, surely, we are entitled to hear from the Government how they think these amendments of the Firearms Act will operate, and what useful purpose they will achieve.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, saying that he thought this process of certification would do something to prevent the wrong use of firearms. I am all for doing what one can to prevent the wrong use of firearms, the use of shot-guns and other weapons by the criminal classes for armed robbery and things of that sort, but we all know that the customary shot-gun used in these circles is a sawn-off shot-gun, and when we look at this Part of the Bill we find that the Amendments do not apply to sawn-off shot-guns at all. So although I can be prosecuted if I have a perfectly normal gun in my possession without a certificate, the man who belongs to the criminal classes and uses sawn-off shot-guns for the purposes of his profession escapes with impunity.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am sure he must be aware that the possession of a sawn-off shot-gun comes under quite different legislation. A person would be liable to a penalty of ten years' imprisonment for even carrying a sawn-off shot-gun with intent to commit a felony.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: But that is with intent to commit a felony. Here we are not concerned with proof of carrying a weapon with intent to commit a felony. Everyone who possesses a shot-gun must have a certificate, and this particular certification procedure will not apply to sawn-off shot-guns. If one looks at the Bill, it will be seen that in Clause 72 it says that:
"'shot-gun' means a weapon specified in section 16(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1937."
If we turn to that particular provision we find that that means a shot-gun which has a barrel of not less than 20 inches in length.
Therefore, I make the point that this scheme, which will put a great burden upon the police—and not only upon the police, but upon everyone who possesses a shot-gun, which they can do quite lawfully—will not apply to the people who use these sawn-off shot-guns for criminal activities. I should have thought that that was one thing which shows that this scheme of amending the Firearms Act really has not been properly thought out at all.
I do not myself believe that this process of certification is likely materially to affect the use of firearms for the purposes of crime. I dare say it was argued that the use of log books would prevent, or make difficult, the theft of motorcars. I believe that that was one of the original reasons for the use of log books, although they are not certificates of title. But thefts of motorcars are unfortunately far too prevalent. I should like the Government to explain how they believe that by making every law-abiding citizen with a shot-gun in his possession apply for a certificate is going to reduce the use of these weapons by the criminal classes. There is, of course, a case for the rifle, which is a much more dangerous weapon. One has to be very careful indeed into whose hands it gets.
Just consider the tiresomeness of this provision. Every time someone takes his shot-gun to the gunmakers to have it repaired it means that he will be unable to take it away from his gunmaker unless he produces his firearms certificate. The gunmaker may have known that man for twenty years—indeed he may have made the gun—but still he will be committing an offence if he hands over the gun with
850
out looking at this piece of paper. There will be an awful lot of paperwork to be done, and a lot of trouble will be caused. While I would strongly support any proposal to reduce the use of firearms by the criminal classes, I think these clauses go too far, and I would suggest to the Government that in my view they ought never to have been included in this Bill at all. The Government really should undertake to give very detailed consideration before Report stage to see that all the paperwork can be cut out, otherwise I shall be personally inclined to support any of my noble friends who think this is so badly prepared, so unworkable, and involves such excessive labour being placed on the police and the owners of the guns, that if they like to divide on the Question, That the clause stand part, at the present moment I should be inclined to support them.
To give one further example, may I remind the noble Lord that Clause 69 (1) 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."
The wording is "a certificate authorising him to possess shot-guns"—in the plural. Is that deliberate? If it is deliberate, does it mean that the certificate will not show which guns he possesses? May I put this question to the noble Lord? Suppose I go and stay with the noble Lord sitting just behind me and I leave my guns there and go on somewhere else, and unknown to me he has not got a certificate, and unknown to him the guns are in his house, the guns are in his possession. Even if he had a certificate, that would not cover those guns. Does subsection (1) really mean that if a friend leaves guns in your house, in your possession, you will be committing an offence? You will not have a certificate relating to those guns; you will have a certificate relating to your own guns, but those guns of your friend will be in your possession.
Really, the language of this subsection seems to me too odd. To insist that every single time your gun goes to a gunmaker you must produce a certificate to get it back is such rubbish that the Government should say they will revise this clause drastically; if you like, merely

851
provide a register of gun owners so that the police in their various districts know where they are, and, of course, deal with registered gunmakers and so on. The mistake here, as I see it, is to try to include in this Bill provisions which amend the Firearms Act 1937 and cover a far wider purpose than now intended to be achieved.
4.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is hardly possible that the Government understood what they were doing when they introduced this section of the Bill. The first four Parts of the Bill could well be described as the Criminal Justice (Encouragement of Evildoers) Bill; this Part could be described as the Criminal Injustice (Harassment of the Citizen) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has been constrained to admit that anyone shooting at a clay pigeon on somebody else's lawn, unless he has a certificate authorising him to do so, will be committing an offence. What happens when, as many of us do, we have people staying with us from Europe or parts of the Commonwealth or the United States? Such a person arrives and may want to take part in a day's shooting. As I read this Bill, he would be committing an offence unless one rushes off to the chief constable and gets a certificate for him, which of course it may not be easy to do at all. So far as one can see, all that is being done at the present time is simply, as I say, to harass the respectable citizen.
Everyone knows that one can get hold of pistols anywhere in London, if one knows where to go—and it is not difficult to find out—in night clubs and low public houses. There is no difficulty whatever about that. Why, then, should there be any more difficulty about people obtaining shot-guns, which, as the noble and learned Viscount rightly said, are not much use for the purposes of crime unless they are sawn off. Is it really to be conceived that all the owners of the 1 million or 2 million shot-guns in this country are going to register those weapons? Is it realised that even if that were practicable, which it certainly is not, it is the easiest thing for anyone with a little mechanical ingenuity to make a shot-gun or indeed a revolver? Only a few days ago I was at the opening of a new police station in Kinross in my capacity
852
as chairman of the joint police committee of the two counties of Perth and Kinross. I there held in my hand an extremely ingenious weapon which had been taken in a line-up a few days before. It was a pistol, made in this particular case—and it is something much more difficult to make than a shot-gun—of all sorts of scrap; but I was informed that up to a reasonable distance it was deadly accurate. Anyone who has some ingenuity, a length of gas piping, two or three springs, a few screws and bits of other metal, can easily make himself a shot-gun or pistol.
In short, this Part of the Bill, however well intended, is not going to do one iota of good as far as prevention of crime is concerned; it will only be a hopeless nuisance to all respectable people, hundreds of thousands throughout the country, who use shot-guns for legitimate purposes. This Part of the Bill is so bad that it cannot be amended, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will shortly throw it out in toto.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I join with both my noble friends who have spoken in saying how ridiculous I think this Part of the Bill is. I cannot see it doing any good at all; it makes no sense. Presuming it does go through, I should like the Government to explain how they think it is going to work in the case of under 15-year-olds. The next clause says that you may not give, I presume as a gift, a shot-gun or ammunition to anyone under 15, and, even more remarkably, that they will be committing an offence liable to a fine of £50 if they accept it.
LORD STONHAM: Would not the noble Duke think it more convenient to deal with that clause when we come to it? We are dealing with Clause 69.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I want to join Clause 70 on to Clause 69. This is one of the relevant points, in my opinion. Clause 69(1) 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."
Will a 15-year-old be expected to get a shot-gun certificate under this subsection, and, if he does, may he then be lent a shot-gun or buy a shot-gun for himself?

853
The younger you start shooting, on the whole the safer you are and the better you are. I think it is a vital point, and it seems to me that if Clause 69 is ridiculous, Clause 70 is even madder.
LORD DERWENT: May I add a short word to what my noble and learned friend said about the Bill having no effect on reducing the chances of criminals in getting firearms. It has not been explained by noble Lords opposite why they should have any difficulty in getting a shot-gun certificate. Where they are known they will be refused, but where they are not known they will not be refused. No register is kept, and what is to stop them from going to quite a different part of the country where they are not known to the police? If the local police happen to find out, and they are most unlikely to, the criminals merely move on and try the next place. As the noble Lord told us, the grant of licences is going to be almost automatic, unless the police happen to know the persons are disqualified. That will not happen very often unless the people apply, like fools—and they are not fools—in their own locality. How is the Bill going to help prevent criminals from getting hold of shot-guns? It just does not make sense at all.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Although I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said in a number of instances, I think he is wrong regarding the criminal using a sawn-off shot-gun. I think he will find—I have not the Firearms Act in front of me—that the sawn-off shot-gun becomes a firearm. I think what he read out was the definition of a gun. If you reduce the length so that in fact you make it a pistol shot-gun, I think it comes under the Firearms Act and a firearms certificate is then necessary.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask whether the Government have studied the system in use in certain countries on the Continent? I have shot in a few of them, Germany and Austria, and you must have a certificate there, but it appeared to be quite a simple procedure to obtain one. I was wondering whether the Government had studied the system in use in Continental countries to assist them in devising a system here.
LORD HAWKE: I hope Her Majesty's Government will take this Part out of the Bill, study it carefully and perhaps bring it in as an amendment to the Firearms Act, because one could spend hours pointing out the illogicalities, et cetera, that have got into these few clauses. For instance, it seems to me that noble Lords opposite are arguing that one of the deterrent effects of the Bill will be that if a robbery is committed with a firearm it will be an extra heinous offence if those concerned do not happen to have a certificate for it. That is a ridiculous argument. The only thing to do is to have it as a separate Bill.
LORD BOWLES: May I ask whether the noble Lord would agree with the Bill if it was in a separate form?
LORD HAWKE: Noble Lords may think it right to have in this country some sort of register of the people who own guns. That would be quite easy to obtain if there were a reversion to the gun licence and the names of licence-holders were sent in to a central depot.
LORD BOWLES: I am sorry; I think the noble Lord did not hear what I said. Would he and others who would desire to have this Part in another Bill agree to it, or would they still move the same Amendments and stand by those Amendments?
LORD HAWKE: We certainly should not agree to this extraordinary jumble of illogicalities. I suggest that it might be logical to have a register of the people in the country who own firearms.
5.2 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: For the first time since this Bill came before either House Part V of the Bill is the subject of a proper debate, not in Committee but on the Floor of the House. My noble friend Lord Hawke said earlier this afternoon that he had not looked at Part V of this Bill until ten minutes previously. I dare say the same would apply to a great many of your Lordships. I submit that neither in another place nor here has this Part of the Bill received proper consideration. There were one or two brief mentions of it on Second Reading in another place, and one or two passing references on Second Reading in this House. That is not good enough. It is simply due to the fact that this Bill within a Bill has

855
been wrapped up and heavily disguised in a Bill of much wider general application, as my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said just now.
Naturally, the other provisions of the Bill have received much more attention, in particular from the lawyers. Goodness only knows! the lawyers are the people who want to look at these provisions, too, because to me they have every appearance of panic legislation. They are half-baked. Some of them, as we have discovered this afternoon, just do not make sense at all. I greatly hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider redrafting the whole of Part V, or else taking it out of the Bill altogether and bringing in an entirely new Bill to amend the present legislation.
Until to-day Part V has not received proper consideration at all. It has escaped everyone's attention. I have the gravest doubt whether it will add anything to the effectiveness of the present legislation against crime with relation to firearms, other than side-effects—one cannot call them anything more than that—which might affect petty crime such as poaching. I cannot see any serious professional crime of any sort being in the slightest degree affected by this Bill. Shot-guns are not handy weapons to carry about with you if you are going to commit serious premeditated crime. They are not easily concealed, and they are cumbersome to handle—though I admit that they are probably the deadliest weapon of any at close range. Sawn-off shot-guns are already taken care of, with pretty stiff penalties under the Firearms Acts. But I cannot see anyone contemplating serious crime, which must be carefully planned in advance, choosing to carry an ordinary full-length shot-gun rather than a sawn-off shot-gun or a pistol.
I believe it is a fact that offences committed with the use of shot-guns have increased in the last years; but then so have offences involving firearms as a whole. I think they have increased at a higher rate. One wonders about offences committed with shot-guns. Are they, in fact, premeditated professional crimes; or are they, as seems to be more likely, crimes committed on impulse, on the spur of the moment?
LORD STONHAM: It is just the same to a person who is shot or killed.
LORD SWANSEA: I entirely agree with the noble Lord. But the real object of this Bill, is it not, is to prevent serious crime—and by "serious crime" most of us understand large-scale crime carried out by professionals. There is always a chance that someone will pick up the family shot-gun and blast his wife's boy friend with it. But if the shot-gun were not available he would probably use a poker, or his best driver, or something like that. I think it is that class of crime in which ordinary shot-guns, unmodified, are more likely to be used, and it really is not possible to prevent that sort of thing happening; there is always some sort of weapon to hand.
Then there is the colossal administrative burden which this work will place on the police. They are overworked enough as it is. They are crying out for more recruits. I can foresee one chief constable after another throwing up his hands in horror at the amount of extra work which is going to be placed upon him and his men. Then there is the effect on the gun trade itself, in particular, on one firm. Your Lordships may not be aware that only one firm in this country manufactures double-barrelled shot-guns in quantity. There are a number of gunsmiths in London, Birmingham and elsewhere who turn out a high quality gun in small numbers for what we might term "the carriage trade". It is not their customers who will need to worry, but the people who buy the cheaper guns, who are less likely, because of lack of opportunity or past misdeeds, or one thing or another, to be granted a shot-gun certificate.
The particular firm I have in mind are Webley and Scott, who enjoy the highest repute in this country. They make other things as well, but they depend to a great extent on the production of shot-guns both for the home market and for the overseas market. Representations have been made to me by the managing director of this firm to the effect that if these provisions in the Bill are carried through it will be their death-blow. I am sure that nobody wants to see an old-established and highly reputable firm of any sort go out of business; but that is what might happen.
I cannot believe that Part V of the Bill will add anything to the effectiveness of the law in preventing serious

857
crime. As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, it will only be a nuisance value to the law-abiding citizen: it will not incommode the criminal in the slightest. He will still have his own channels for obtaining shot-guns, rifles, pistols, sawn-off guns, flick knives, and any other sort of deadly weapon; and no legislation on earth will prevent such people getting hold of weapons through their own channels. What is needed, and what has already been done to some extent in the last Firearms Act, is to stiffen up the penalties for illegal possession of firearms and in the use of firearms in crimes of violence. That is the direction which legislation ought to take, rather than the imposition of additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The professional criminal will snap his fingers at that law as he does at so many others.
I had not intended to press any of my Amendments to a Division. At one time I contemplated putting down an Amendment to leave out Clause 69. On consideration, I decided not to do that; but having heard other noble Lords speak this afternoon, I am very much inclined to change my mind again. The feeling I gather from other speakers is that this clause should not be allowed to stand part of the Bill as it is, even with such Amendments as we are able to make.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SWANSEA: The clause is woolly in its drafting; it contains a number of points which are very obscure, and, as we have discovered this afternoon, it is open to misinterpretation. What we need is an entirely new and separate Bill which will receive full consideration on its own merits, rather than having these provisions disguised in a far larger Bill dealing with the law in general. I have no knowledge of other noble Lords' intentions when the Question is put. I have not consulted with any of them beforehand, but if the occasion arises I shall be quite prepared to vote in favour of the exclusion of this clause.
LORD COTTESLOE: When the Minister replies, can he tell us in what proportion of criminal offences shot-guns which are not sawn-off are involved? I believe it to be so small a proportion as to be negligible.
5.15 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in the interesting theory of what an outraged husband should do if he finds his wife with her boy friend. It conjures up all sorts of possibilities. One of the possibilities that I should like to visualise is that there is not a gun within reach at the time in question. The noble Lord said that this Part of the Bill had been conceived in panic.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? It has been freely admitted that nobody will be refused a certificate; so that there will certainly be the gun there, unless the man belongs to the criminal classes.
LORD LEATHERLAND: But if the chief constable knew that there was an illicit association between the wife and the aforementioned boy friend, and that the man was of a hot and hasty temper, then the chief constable might well refuse permission, and rightly so.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord how many spies will be needed throughout the country to elicit these facts?
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord keeps jumping up like a sharpshooter. I hope he will give me a chance. The noble Lord suggested that this Part of the Bill had been conceived in panic. That is not so. For years past we have been hearing about the menace of the shot-gun. There have been stories in all the papers about crimes committed with the aid of shot-guns—sawn-off shot-guns, if you like. They were not purchased as sawn-off shot-guns but as shot-guns in their virgin state, and the sawing off was done behind closed doors in some criminal club.
LORD SWANSEA: In that case such weapons are already amply covered under existing firearms legislation.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Certainly they are, but you have to catch them first and a man cannot saw off the barrel of a shot-gun unless he has a shot-gun in the first place. I want to see shot-guns, as I am sure do the Government, kept out of the hands of such people. The noble Lord also said that the shot-gun was not too deadly a weapon.
LORD SWANSEA: I do not think I said that. In fact I think I said exactly the opposite.
LORD LEATHERLAND: If the noble Lord meant that it was not deadly, how is it that it kills people?
LORD SWANSEA: I think the noble Lord must have misheard me. I said that the shot-gun is probably a more devastating weapon at short range than any other weapon.
LORD LEATHERLAND: That is agreed; we make common cause on that point. There has been a good deal of "shooting" this afternoon, and my noble friends on the Front Bench seem to have been the target. I must confess that some of the shots, if not exactly bull's eyes haw been pretty good "inners". There could probably be some cause for complaint about the rather detailed and intricate nature of this part of the Bill, Part V. There has been a concerted attempt by one marksman after another to reduce the whole of Part V of the Bill to a state of absurdity. We have almost been told to expect two million people going along to the police station in column of route porting arms for inspection. It is not going to be quite so regimented as that. We shall go along for our gun permit or to be entered on the register just as innocently and without any more trouble than when we go along to the post office for a dog licence or a television licence. It may well be that television is a deadlier weapon than a shot-gun, but I am not here to argue that point this afternoon. There are probably some detailed restrictions in this Bill which are, perhaps, not quite rational and reasonable.
I remember the days when I had a shot-gun. My father sometimes used to come and stay with me. As an old soldier, he liked nothing better than to borrow my gun, walk round the fields and shoot anything shootable which came within range. But, of course, under the first clause in Part V of the Bill that would be an offence, because he would have had a shot-gun "in his possession", to use the words in the clause. But I do not think it is the desire of the Government here to interfere with people who use shot-guns innocently. I do not think for a moment that it is their desire to order a cease-fire on the grouse moors or
860
anything like that. There are many innocent, entertaining and enjoyable uses to which shot-guns are put. But you cannot keep shot-guns out of the hands of the criminal classes unless you impose some kind of control at the first point, and I think that constitutes a justification for this Bill, although it might be possible to amend some of the detailed restrictions and regulations. Then there are gamekeepers, who must have guns. They use their guns in their spare time when not engaged in other pursuits, and we do not want to see any restrictions imposed there.
But let us be realistic about this matter. Shot-guns in the criminal world have to-day become far more deadly than revolvers. Perhaps more damage is done with them than by revolvers. They are certainly a far more deadly weapon when the barrel has been sawn off and they are used in the nature of a rather large pistol. At the present time anybody can get a shot-gun, and that is the raw material out of which these deadly weapons for use by the criminal classes are manufactured. There are a great many youngsters who own shot-guns today; irresponsible young fools who go out into the woods and fire them off recklessly. I have had quite a number before me in my court, not necessarily for poaching but for going out into the countryside, loading a gun and shooting at anything—or, very often, shooting at nothing. I remember a case where a courting couple were seriously wounded as a result of the recklessness of one of these young hooligans. I am not defending the courting couple: I suppose that is one of the occupational risks of courting.
But the primary factor here is that we must make war on the crook community. The crook community is using shot-guns. Therefore, there must be some control at the beginning, so that shot-guns do not flow towards the criminal classes. But I am not too happy about some of the detailed restrictions which are in this Part of the Bill. I want to keep this clause in the Bill, but I hope that some of the more tiresome details can be amended or removed by the time the next stage comes. But I certainly feel that the subject is so very important that we must keep this clause in the Bill at the moment.
5.24 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps I may now reply to the debate. I would remind your Lordships that we started the discussion in Committee around 3 o'clock and we have now been two hours and twenty minutes on a single clause, except for the time taken up with two Statements. Therefore I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, can say that the matter has not now been adequately discussed. I am not going to try to score points; I am going to try to answer the debate. I merely wish to point out that we have had what I regard as a long discussion on this subject this afternoon.
I cannot accept that a subject which is embodied in the Bill and given a separate Part—Part V—with three or four clauses, is heavily disguised, as if we had brought it in in secret; nor can I accept that this Part of the Bill has not been discussed. The Standing Committee who considered this Bill in another place sat for 19 full sessions, one of them going on till 2 o'clock in the morning. They also considered the Bill in detail on Report, and some of the Amendments which I have to-day moved on behalf of the Government are the direct result of discussions in another place.
Would it be suggested that all wisdom on shot-guns resides only in the Upper House of Parliament? This matter has been very carefully considered. Indeed, I am bound to say that as I listened to the debate I felt that some noble Lords were like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who had looked at the Bill only ten minutes before he spoke about it. It seemed to me that some of the criticisms made were based on insufficient knowledge. May I deal with some of the criticisms and answer some of the questions, not necessarily in the order in which they were put?
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, raised points about the next clause but said that he wanted to relate them to the current clause, and I accept that. He was particularly concerned about children. The position of children under 15 is that, like anybody else, they must have a shot-gun certificate to be able to use one. Apart from that there is no difficulty at all. A child may be loaned a shot-gun but if he is under 15 he is not allowed to own
862
one. We think that it is a wise precaution that a child should use a shot-gun only when he is under supervision, when he is being trained, and that he should not be able to own one so that he can do what he likes with it. I remember very clearly a tragedy which happened to a friend of my son when he was at prep. school. The father had said they could have the gun, but they were not under supervision and the boy tripped. The gun was loaded, and one of the boys was killed. It is fortunate for me that it was not my son. So I make no apology for these provisions in the Bill.
Moreover, I would point out to the noble Duke that the only difference between the provisions in this Bill with regard to children, and the provisions of which everyone approves with regard to the use of air-guns, is that in the case of air-guns the prohibitions apply to children up to the age of 14, whereas with shot-guns our proposals apply to children up to the age of 15. So I cannot see anything heinous or unwise in that. I hope that I have covered the noble Duke's point.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I say that I am absolutely with the noble Lord over this. But I had an idea that under some previous legislation children under a certain age needed to have supervision when they went out with shot-guns. I should thoroughly agree with that; but that is not what this Bill says.
LORD STONHAM: With respect, it is what the Bill says. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said that the drafting of this clause, and indeed of this Part of the Bill, was woolly. No doubt the noble Lord would know, and certainly we shall look again at the drafting. But I am sure the noble Duke will accept my interpretation of what the Bill says and does, and if, subsequently, we find that that is wrong we will look at it again.
The noble and learned Viscount asked me a number of questions and made one or two statements. I ventured to interrupt him rather hurriedly when he was talking about sawn-off shot-guns, and I was not then able to give him the correct reference. But under Section 24(4) of the 1937 Act it is an offence to have a sawn-off shot-gun without a firearm certificate

863
—not a shot-gun certificate. A great deal of heavy weather has been made over this point, but the steps one has to take to obtain a firearm certificate are very rigorous indeed. We have always encouraged chief officers of police to take the most careful steps to ensure that these certificates and the firearms get into the hands only of people who can be trusted.
There are in existence some 300,000 firearm certificates, and so far as I am aware, no one has ever complained, or ever thought it wrong, that there should be this extremely rigorous procedure. No one—neither the Gun Traders' Association, nor the manufacturer for whom the noble and learned Viscount was so sorry, nor anyone else—has ever complained about those restrictions. Now we have a much less rigorous, very perfunctory procedure which is causing—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Does the noble Lord really consider it is perfunctory that you have to produce a certificate every time you take your gun away from your gun-maker?
LORD STONHAM: I was referring to the obtaining of a licence. If the noble and learned Viscount will allow me, I have a lot of questions to answer. I shall try to answer them satisfactorily; and if at the end of the day—and this would seem to be the useful thing—there are things which seem to be unreasonable and unnecessary, or not essential to what we want to do, then they are the kind of things we should like to look at. But I hope the noble and learned Viscount accepts the point about the sawn-off shot-gun, because it cannot go unchallenged. I think his words were, "The customary weapon of the criminal is a sawn-off shot-gun".
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: To be accurate, if the noble Lord will forgive me, what I said was that a sawn-off shot-gun does not come within Part V.
LORD STONHAM: For a good reason; and a reason of security, and no other reason. The reason it does not come within this easy procedure is because it can be only under a very vigorous procedure. I would say it is most unlikely that anyone would get a firearms certificate under the 1937 Act at all for a sawn-off shot-gun.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Exactly.
LORD STONHAM: Did the noble Earl wish to say something?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I said "exactly", because no respectable person ever wants or needs a sawn-off shot-gun.
LORD STONHAM: Of course. So we are in entire agreement; and I think I have answered the noble and learned Viscount's point as to why the sawn-off shot-gun is not mentioned here. It is for a reason of which everyone in your Lordships' Committee would approve.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked: "How will the Bill prevent a criminal getting a shot-gun? How will the chief constable or the policeman know? They will not know the people who apply". We do not pretend that these clauses are going to prevent criminals doing a criminal act, but we do think it will make it a little more difficult. On the question how they are going to know the people, I would remind the noble Lord that the applications for certificates have to be made to the chief constable of the area in which the applicant resides, so it is likely that the local police will know or have some knowledge of the person. Therefore, it will be very difficult for a peripatetic criminal just to get his certificate, because he will not be known in the area.
LORD DERWENT: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did point out that there is no residential qualification as such. A man can move about from place to place, and wherever he is living he can apply.
LORD STONHAM: He can apply wherever he is living, and if he is living in the area then it is likely that something will be known about him. The noble Lord shakes his head. He has been Minister of State at the Home Office. He would not underestimate the powers and knowledge of the police, and what they know about people. If a criminal moves into an area, the police are certain to be aware of that fact. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord's point.
The purpose of Part V—and this is the main point—is to limit the present unrestricted sale of shot-guns. Of course a

865
determined criminal can get one illegally, as he can get a pistol despite the 1937 Firearms Regulations, stringent though they are. Of course he can; and this Bill will not stop a determined criminal from getting a shot-gun. But it will make it that much more difficult. When crimes have been committed, it will assist the police in tracing the criminal, and I think it will increase the public awareness of this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, asked me about offences. I am glad to see that he has returned to the Chamber. The feeling that we must try to do something about this is the basic reason for introducing Part V into the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount is quite right: of course, if we had had opportunity and Parliamentary time it would have been right to have introduced a special Bill. It would have been better, perhaps, to have introduced a special Bill, but we had this opportunity and there was this need, and to do anything else would have meant a long delay in a matter of what we regard as public danger and increasing menace. Certainly we think we are right to ask your Lordships for the approval of our proposals now, rather than perhaps to have to wait a year or so.
May I give the figures? These are the figures for only England and Wales. I have not the separate figures for Scotland, just those for England and Wales. In 1961, the number of indictable offences involving firearms was 552. In 1961 the number of indictable offences involving shot-guns was 107.
LORD COTTESLOE: May I ask the noble Lord whether those are any shot-guns, or shot-guns which are not sawn off? It is very material.
LORD STONHAM: I am afraid I cannot draw distinction between shot-guns and sawn-off shot-guns so far as indictable offences are concerned, but as I think the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, will agree, so far as crimes are concerned they are frequently committed with shot-guns which are not sawn-off—and I mean crimes of violence, and not poaching. The figures stayed fairly steady for 1961, 1962 and 1963. In 1964, the shot-gun offences jumped from 107 to 215: that is to say, in four years they had doubled. In the next year, 1965, they jumped to
866
318. By then they had trebled. In 1966 they had jumped to 404. So in five years—I should say six years, to be fair—the number of indictable offences involving shot-guns had almost quadrupled. I think those figures provided justification for one dealing with this matter as soon as we could.
Your Lordships are entitled to say, if you like, "In my opinion it is not going to do much good; it is not going to help very much". Your Lordships are entitled to your opinion if you feel that the burden on the police may be too great to justify the result. A great deal has been said about the police. If I could have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, he said that chief constables are going to throw their arms in the air and say, "Oh! Look at the burden that has come on me". I assure him that the practice in the Home Office, whenever there is anything which affects the work of the police, is that the chief constables of police are taken into consultation at once. Their opinion counts for a very great deal; and, of course, we have considered them all the way. Therefore, I think I have established that there was a need to do something by way of legislation to make it more difficult for criminals to use shot-guns. If offences quadruple, that is something of which one must take notice. After consultation with the police—and indeed with the Shotgun Association and all other interested bodies—this provision as to certification is the beginning of our plans, and the one which we thought would best give us control.
I think that really that makes the case, but in order that there should be no misunderstanding I should like to repeat one or two things about the way we want to run this. As I indicated when moving the Amendment with regard to the issue of licences (which Amendment had the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent), in everything we do in these matters we shall consult interested parties in industry and among users, such as organised sport. For example, we have consulted the National Farmers' Union, who approve. They have one or two points of criticism, but the National Farmers' Union think this is necessary. I think your Lordships will agree that there is no class in the community which owns and uses shot-guns more than

867
farmers. If, after consulting them, we have their broad approval for these steps, I think that would be strong evidence that the procedure is not such a nuisance, that it is not so unworkable, as we might have been led to believe from this debate.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt. Does the noble Lord mean that the National Farmers' Union approve the Bill? Or does he mean that they approve the idea behind the Bill?
LORD STONHAM: They approve the principle. I am talking about Part V. We have not consulted the National Farmers' Union about the whole of the Criminal Justice Bill.
LORD DERWENT: Is it the drafting or is it the principle that they support?
LORD STONHAM: I could not commit the National Farmers' Union to an approval of our drafting. I am not asking the noble Lord to approve the drafting. I am talking about the principle of Clause 69. It is reasonable to refer to the National Fanners' Union, although their main concern in this matter is that the Government should do something about some form of third party insurance. That is about the only outstanding point so far as the National Farmers' Union are concerned.
On the question of the conditions, the point is that somebody will apply for and receive a shot-gun certificate in very much the same way as he receives a driving licence, except that he will not be required to take a test to see whether he can fire the gun.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: When you take a car to a garage for repair you do not have to produce a driving licence before you can take it away.
LORD STONHAM: But you have to have a certificate of insurance, and also a Road Fund licence on the windscreen. The certificate is like a driving licence, in that it enables the holder to use any shot-gun (either his own or somebody else's) without in any way committing an offence, provided that he is using it for a lawful purpose or, at any rate, not for an unlawful purpose. I think that covers the point raised by the noble and learned
868
Viscount. So far as leaving your guns in a friend's house is concerned he does not have to have a certificate. Of course it would be necessary for him to say that they were not his guns, that he did not own them, but that his friend owned them. If his friend has a certificate then, of course, there has been no offence. One would not be committing an offence merely because one obliged a friend by storing something which one did not own. I think that point is covered. But if you apply for a certificate and are granted one—though you may not even have a gun—that certificate would permit you legally to own any number of guns or to fire any number of your own or anybody else's guns. That seems to me quite reasonable.
We shall ensure that the conditions are not onerous. We shall minimise the burden of work on the police. So far as this clause is concerned—and it is absolutely basic to our proposals—it may well be (I do not necessarily accept this; but it may well be) that the drafting should and could be improved. It may be that it should be modified in some respects, although I think that can be done by the regulations. I think that covers some of the points made, certainly we shall look at all of them. I think, in principle, it deserves your Lordships' support because it is an honest attempt, the best we can make, to deal with a real problem, and in that attempt I feel that we deserve the support of the Committee.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I put one question? Part of the trouble here is that in subsection (5) you have taken in so many of the provisions of the Firearms Act which appear to be rather unnecessary. I put to the noble Lord the provisions of the Firearms Act, Section 11(1). Under that section, if you go to collect your rifle from a gunmaker, then you must take your certificate with you. It seems to me to be wholly unnecessary to provide that that should happen in relation to collecting a gun from a gunmaker; but there it is in the Bill. If the noble Lord would say that he would go through these provisions very carefully between now and Report stage, that he would cut out all the surpluses which are now included, and would merely require that there shall be a certificate of ownership of the gun with the number registered with the local police force,

869
then that would be a considerable improvement. But the noble Lord has not yet given any clear indication that the Government would do that.
LORD STONHAM: I am not sure that I agree with the noble and learned Viscount about Section 11 of the 1937 Act. If he is right, then of course I will do what he asks. I give him that assurance without restriction. But Section 11, as I understand it, restricts sales, transfers and repairs of firearms subject to the firearm certificate procedure—they are the important words—to firearms dealers and persons holding or entitled to exemption from the appropriate firearms certificate.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: We need not argue about that now. In my view, Section 11(1) of the Firearms Act means that your gun merchant cannot hand over your gun without first seeing your certificate.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble and learned Viscount is correct in that interpretation, then certainly I will see what I can do to meet that point, and indeed all the points made. But I must say flatly that some of the points that have been made in this debate were, I think, unjustified, could not be justified, and could not be supported. Therefore I am not giving an overall assurance that everybody's point can be met. I think your Lordships are able always to trust an assurance that I give. I will certainly do my best to meet any point that seems to me to be valid and which can be reasonably met.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have listened to almost the whole of this debate and I think I shall carry all noble Lords with me when I say that we all want to give support to the Government in any practical effort to reduce crime. The trouble that many of us feel about this is that, because it has been brought in as a part of the Bill, legislating substantially by reference to the Firearms Act, there is a great deal here which, although very necessary in the case of firearms, is not really essential to achieving the Government's purpose in regard to shot-guns. This is what we sincerely trust the Government will look at most carefully between now and the Report stage.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70:
Restrictions on gifts of shot guns
70.—(1) No person shall give any shot gun or ammunition for a shot gun to any person under the age of fifteen and no person under that age shall accept as a gift any shot gun or ammunition for a shot gun.
5.48 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of section 2 of the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act 1962".
noble Lord said: We come now to Clause 70, which deals with the conditions relating to young persons under the age of fifteen. I have tried to look at this in connection with the relevant part of the Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act of 1962, and, quite frankly, I cannot see that they fit in with each other at all. The 1962 Act, by Section 2, permits a young person to have a shot-gun in his possession while under the supervision of an adult or when the gun is securely fastened in a cover. It does not prohibit him from possessing ammunition; but this Bill does seek to prohibit him from possessing ammunition. I do not quite see how any person, whether he is an adult or a young person, can shoot, with or without supervision, without ammunition in his gun. Many people—like, I dare say, a great many of your Lordships—learn to shoot at an early age. The best age to learn is in one's early teens. Having read this subsection I have the gravest doubts whether a young person under 15 is entitled to carry ammunition at all, or to have it in his possession.
A good many of us have shot-guns which we hold, as it were, in trust for our children, and our children use them under our supervision. If I take my son out shooting I hand him his gun (it is not really his gun, it is mine) and I give him a handful of cartridges to use in it. I may get those cartridges back, or I may not—because by their very nature cartridges are expendable things, and if my son shoots them all off, he cannot give them back to me. Have I committed an offence by giving them to him? Or can it be held that I have only lent them to him, although I know that I shall not see most of them back again?

871
A strict reading of this subsection would give the impression that it prohibits any shooting by a young person. That is what this series of Amendments seeks to clarify. Amendment No. 96 would insert at the beginning of the subsection:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of section 2 of the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act 1962".
It would make quite clear that a young person under the age of 15 may have a shot-gun and ammunition in his possession while he is under supervision or while the gun is in a cover.
It might happen that I wanted my son to get some practice at a shooting school, and that he was going there on his own to take instruction and to use a gun which would be provided for him at the school. I might have some old cartridges left over from last season, or two or three seasons ago, which I wanted used up. If I gave those cartridges to my son to take with him to the shooting school, should I be committing an offence. Or there might be an occasion when a boy carried his father's cartridge bag at a shoot, something which is often done. It has the effect of taking the weight of the cartridge bag off father's shoulders and it enables the son, without himself shooting, to learn quite a lot about what goes on in a shooting field, and various points of etiquette and good behaviour.
The Firearms Act includes a provision which exempts servants or agents. I think it is Section 4(7) of the Firearms Act 1937 which states:
"A person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to another person holding a certificate may, without himself holding a certificate, have in his possession that firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of the other person for sporting purposes only."
That is clearly intended to apply to loaders, stalkers, gillies and the like, who carry the rifle and cartridges for their employer. Would a young person under the age of 15 be covered by that provision? These are the questions which arise in my mind on looking at this subsection. It appears to contradict itself. It appears that if this subsection remains unamended a young person under 15 will be prohibited from carrying a shot-gun and ammunition in any circumstances. In moving the first of these Amendments I
872
hope that this time, at any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Bowles will find himself in a position to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 40, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Swansea.)
5.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I make one suggestion now to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, who is to deal with this Amendment? When I first read this clause I had difficulty with the word "give". There is now, I think, no doubt about what is intended: it is in terms of making an outright present of a shot-gun, or of the ammunition. The difficulty is that, to my surprise (I suppose there is some reason for it, because Parliamentary draftsmen always have a reason), the matter has been put the opposite way round from the manner in which it is expressed in two other closely related subsections.
Section 19(2) of the Firearms Act 1937 starts off:
"No person under the age of fourteen years shall accept as a gift … any firearm …"
Then it goes on to say:
"and no person shall give it…"
Section 1(1) of the Air Guns and Shot Guns, Etc., Act 1962 says:
"No person under the age of fourteen shall accept as a gift any air weapon or ammunition … and no person shall give any air weapon or ammunition …"
In this Bill the words used are:
"No person shall give … and no person … shall accept as a gift …"
If only the Government would stick to the well-tried formula, I think there would be no difficulty at all about the acceptance of the gift setting the pattern; and the subsidiary use of the word "give" later is quite clearly within the same general context. Here, however, it is put the other way round, and you start off with the word "give", which is an extremely ambiguous word, and it is not until later that it is qualified. If this whole matter is being looked at, could not the order of the wording be changed? The sense would be precisely the same, and it would give the great advantage of uniformity with the other two sections that I have mentioned.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I suggest that as it stands this subsection creates a very dangerous position. As noble Lords have said, the important thing for somebody using a shot-gun is to use it safely. It is usual—certainly it was in my youth—that you start quite young and the first thing you are given is a gun. It may have a short stock, which may be lengthened as you grow older. The first thing you are taught is how to handle the gun. Having been taught that, you then fire it; and you fire it at some sort of target, perhaps the best being a clay pigeon released from a trap. You are watched and coached, and made safe. I always think of the final words of a lesson that used to be given by a headkeeper to a boy, after showing him all these things: "Always shoot like a gentleman"—that means to say, always show consideration for other people and be safe.
If a young man is given a gun when he is 20 or more, he knows nothing about safety. He may put cartridges into the gun and leave it in the house loaded, then pick it up and have an accident. This clause rather encourages that, because he is not expected to have a gun until he gets older and does not expect to be instructed. He does not know what it is all about and he does not care. This should be the other way round: that anyone who is going to use a shot-gun should be taught from an early age to be accurate, considerate of others and perfectly safe. Then he will become a good shot and useful to everyone.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I heartily support what has been said by the three noble Lords who have spoken already. I would add that it may not be realised by those who have never done any shooting that in properly regulated families the teaching of safety begins long before a boy ever handles a gun—so much so that in my own family we were never allowed, and I have never allowed any of my sons, even to point a stick at a person and call it a gun. We were never allowed to point our finger at a person and call it a gun. The beginning of the old poem, which noble Lords may remember,
"Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at any one.
All the pheasants ever bred
Won't make up for one man dead",
874
is a thing we have been brought up to. The sooner a boy, or a girl for that matter, begins, the better it is for him from the point of view of learning to be safe. Naturally everything must depend not only on the physical strength of the child but also on his general sense of responsibility. I hope that the Government will look carefully at what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, because, reading this as plain English, it would certainly seem that a child could not only not receive a gun but not even be allowed to use a gun if lent one, if the word "give" is interpreted in an ordinary plain English way. You can lend a gun, but you cannot lend cartridges. Those cartridges are going to be used and all you get back are the empty cartridge cases. Therefore I hope the Government will take care to remedy what I do not think is their intention.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I would support everything that has been said so far about this clause, and make one further point. I think it is unfair that we should bring in penalties for children under the age of 15 for accepting anything as a gift, no matter what it is. Suppose your aged grandfather came to you when you were 13 and said, "Dear boy, here is my first gun, with which I shot my first cock pheasant at the age of 12. Please accept it as a present. I no longer have any further use for it". It is not only a very remarkable child who knows his law; it is an extremely precocious and, I think in most families it would be thought, an excessively smug child who would turn to his grandfather and say, "Dear grandfather, much as I should like to accept this gift, I am afraid that Section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 will not permit me to do so".
For goodness' sake!, if we do nothing else, let us take this second subsection out of Clause 70. Let us also reduce the fine, if we are going to keep that in, to one not exceeding 5s. No child under the age of 15 can afford more than 5s. in a fine for accepting a present. I think the Government have gone absolutely mad on this clause. I cannot see how it is going to stop any criminals. I do not believe that criminals under the age of 15 use shot-guns. I am prepared to believe that criminals in their later 'teens and early twenties may use shot-guns, but

875
I do not think that the practice is prevalent under the age of 15. Is this really necessary? The way to tackle this problem is the way it was treated in the 1962 Act, whereby people must have supervision. That is far more effective and probably the right way of getting to the root of this problem. I should have thought it better to raise the age to 15. I believe at the moment is is 14 and that probably there is a good case for making it 15. I would ask the noble Lord opposite to have hard second thoughts about this clause.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Arising out of what the noble Duke has said, may I ask the noble Lord 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? What is the position with regard to that gun?
LORD BOWLES: I will look into the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. Perhaps before I finish my speech I shall know the answer. It is already an offence to accept an air-gun under the age of 14. I think the trouble here arises from a misunderstanding of the word "gift". The noble Viscount knows that in giving things one must hand it over so that the person making the gift is permanently deprived of the use thereof.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is the definition of theft.
LORD BOWLES: It is the same thing. The real point is the distinction between giving a boy a cartridge and handing it to him. I find it difficult to see why the order of the two halves of Clause 71 makes any difference, but I promise the noble Viscount that I will look into it, without giving any definite commitment. As to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I have had a communication. The executor must hold the shot-gun in trust until the child becomes 15.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the Amendments. Their effect would be to exclude shot-gun ammunition from the prohibition on making gifts to children under age 15 and upon such children receiving gifts of shot-guns or shot-gun ammunition. Similar Amend
876
ments were moved when the Bill was being considered in Committee in the Commons on March 15, when it was argued that as the clause stood it might have, or might appear to ordinary members of the public to have, the effect of prohibiting children under 15 firing shot-guns even when using someone else's shot-gun under adult supervision, because they would have to be given the ammunition which they would fire. It was claimed also that shot-gun ammunition without a gun to fire it from was normally not dangerous.
Clause 70 is not part of the proposed shot-gun certificate system. Its purpose is to tighten certain other provisions which already apply to children and young persons in regard to shot-guns by fixing a minimum age of 15 below which presents of shot-guns and ammunition to children are totally prohibited. An almost identical provision already exists in regard to air weapons and ammunition under Section 1(1) of the Air Guns and Shot Guns etc., Act, 1962, save that the minimum age in that case is 14 years. The clause is concerned with safety as well as crime, but the Amendment, if accepted, would make it legal for a child of any age to be given shot-gun ammunition to play with, which did not require a firearm certificate. This would go much wider than merely authorising its use in a shot-gun under responsible supervision. Such things are quite unsuitable for and potentially very dangerous to children playing with them. In the absence of any difficulties in practice so far, it seems quite clear that the bias must be on the side of safeguarding children. Modern shot-gun ammunition can be very powerful, and not all shot-guns are necessarily proved to withstand some of the more powerful types of cartridges that can be fired from them. The prudent shooter uses cartridges which he knows are right for his gun, but if a young lad arrives to receive instruction with another person's gun but bringing his own ammunition with him there is a danger that an accident may follow. Although the chances of an accident are probably low, any injury that was caused could well be severe; and once again it seems right to put the bias on the side of safety.
The other argument (that is, that to hand ammunition to a child so that he

877
can fire it, even under supervision, necessarily amounts to a legal gift within the mischief of the clause) is in our view misconceived. Handing over an object does not of itself constitute a gift, and the fact that it is handed over with the intention that something shall be done to it by the other party (in this case to discharge the contents) does not make the transaction a gift either. One does not make a gift of a firework by inviting someone to light it. A gift involves making over full legal ownership of a thing so that the recipient is entitled to do what he likes with it. This manifestly does not happen when a child has the ammunition "while under the supervision" of an adult. If a cartridge is given to a child to fire, and it is not fired, it should remain the property of the adult, and he should take it back. There is therefore no need to make the provision suggested, assuming the purpose is to permit children to fire live ammunition under supervision.
The same provision, mutatis mutandis, has applied since 1962 without causing difficulty to the use of air weapons and ammunition for air weapons under Section 1 of the Air Guns and Shot Guns etc., Act 1962, and there is no reason to expect difficulties to arise under the Bill. If different wording is used in regard to air weapons and shot-guns (and any difference will be accentuated when all firearms control legislation is consolidated, probably next Session), this can only lead to the conclusion that different results are intended in the two cases, and this is certainly not so. But, as I promised the noble Viscount a few minutes ago, I will certainly look at the wording again. I feel satisfied, and so do my advisers; nevertheless, we do take notice of what noble Lords say in debate and I give that undertaking.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I make this point? He has explained this matter fully, and I do not want to take up time unnecessarily, but in order to see whether we are really dealing with something of substance I think it would be of the greatest help if before the next stage we could have information—perhaps the noble Lord will communicate with one of my noble friends on this
878
side who is interested in the point—as to how many prosecutions there have been of children accepting gifts of ammunition or firearms, either under the 1937 Act or the 1962 Act. If there have been large numbers of them, then this is obviously a matter which we must take seriously. But I should not be surprised to find that there have been none. Secondly, how many prosecutions have there been under those two Acts of people giving firearms or ammunition to children under the age of 14 or 15? Thirdly, the noble Lord read out what was plainly a well-considered meaning of the definition of the word "give". Is this, derived from some legal authority; and if so,—I do not want to know now—could he let me know what it is?
LORD BOWLES: As the noble Viscount has asked me that, I will communicate with him.
LORD SWANSEA: If I were a lawyer, which I am rather thankful I am not, I should take great delight in arguing further this point about the gift of ammunition. It seems to me that if I hand a cartridge to my son and he fires it off, ownership has passed from me to him. I feel that the drafting of this clause could be improved, and I hope that the noble Lord will have another look at it before the next stage of the Bill to see whether this is so. I accept that the intention of the clause is obviously to govern the ownership of shot-guns and ammunition by young persons. But it is the courts that will have to interpret this Bill when it becomes an Act, and I think we ought to see that it is as little open to misinterpretation as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
Amendment of enactments relating to firearms 1937 c. 12
71.—
(3) Rules under section 30 of the said Act of 1937 (general power to make rules)—
amay require any application for a firearm certificate or shot gun certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant;
6.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) In section 8(1) of the said Act of 1937 (registration of firearms dealers), in paragraph (a) of the proviso, for the words from 'or subsection (5)' to 'the said subsection (5)' there shall be substituted the words 'or by order of a court in Northern Ireland made under section 8(5) of the Firearms Act 1920'.
(3) In section 12(3) of the said Act of 1937 (power of constables and others to call for and inspect register of firearms transactions kept by a dealer), paragraph (c) and the words 'in each case' shall be omitted."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 141, in Schedule 6, which is consequential. Both of these Amendments are paving Amendments designed to assist the consolidation of the various statutory firearms provisions which it is proposed to undertake next Session. Firearms legislation is contained at the moment in the Firearms Acts 1937 and 1965, the Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act 1962, and Section 35 of and Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1966. The Amendments proposed will be brought into force on the same day as, and will be repealed by, the consolidation Act. We are preparing in these Amendments for that consolidation, which I think will be welcome. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 15, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In view of the fact that this is all going to be looked at again, I should like to say that, regardless of whether or not it facilitates consolidation in due course, we accept the Amendments, as we have accepted the rest of these clauses, subject to further thoughts upon the matter in due course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) In section 19 of the said Act of 1937 (provisions to prevent minors from having firearms)—

(a) for the words in subsection (1) from 'to any other person' to the end; and

(b) for the words in subsection (2) from 'to any other person' to the end; and

(c) for the words in subsection (3) 'to any other person whom he knows or has reason
880
able ground for believing to be under the age of fourteen years',

there shall be substituted in each case the words 'to any person under that age'; and at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(4A) In any proceedings for an offence—

(a) under subsection (1) of this section committed by selling or letting on hire a firearm or ammunition to a person under the age of seventeen years; or

(b) under subsection (2) committed by giving or lending a firearm or ammunition to a person under the age of fourteen years; or

(c) under subsection (3) committed by parting with the possession of a firearm or ammunition to a person under the age of fourteen years,

being in any of those cases an offence committed after the coming into force of section 71(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, it shall be a defence to prove that the person charged with the offence believed the other person to be of or over the age of seventeen years or, as the case may be, fourteen years and had reasonable ground for the belief.'"
The noble Lord said: I have never been more pleased to reach my sanctuary than on this occasion, particularly as these are purely drafting changes, again designed to facilitate consolidation of the various statutory firearm provisions next Session. With regard to the point made by the noble Viscount on the previous Amendment, I do not think consideration of what we have been discussing previously has an effect on this. These are Amendments which will assist the consolidation next Session, and they will bring the drafting of Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1937 into line with that of Section 3 of the Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act 1962 and subsection (4) of Clause 70 of this Bill. To that extent it impinges on what we are now discussing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord underestimates what we are going to think about. I have no doubt that we should like to think about the age of 14 and the age of 15, because I can see no reason why, once we bring this whole matter into a Bill, we should not consider whether we should not have a little uniformity in these matters.
LORD STONHAM: I was merely seeking to make the point that these Amendments foreshadow consolidation, and if,

881
11(1). Under that section, if you go therefore, the noble and learned Viscount was thinking of consolidation—as, for example, of the age of children—then we should have to alter this Bill and not the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act, because that would not be consolidation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: What I am saying is that as we are in the process, in Clause 71, of amending the 1937 Act there is no reason why we should stick to the noble Lord's Amendments. If we are going to consider this matter with a view to consolidation, let us get the thing right before we consolidate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I will be very brief. This Amendment concerns the power of the Secretary of State to
"require any application for a firearm certificate or shot gun certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant."
This is the thin edge of the wedge. We have not so far been obliged to have our photographs on anything except passports, or a military identity card during the war. I cannot really think that this is necessary or even workable. Take the case of people living in remote rural areas—Dartmoor, Mid-Wales or the Highlands and Islands—who may have to travel miles, often by boat, to the nearest town, where there may not be any facilities to have a photograph taken. They are required to go through this rigmarole—and rigmarole it is.
It is no use saying that the administration of shot-gun certificates will be simple and perfunctory. What is the use of saying that, if we have to have our photographs taken and when under sub-paragraph (b) we may have to have that photograph certified by a responsible person to the effect that it is a true likeness? Is this a perfunctory procedure? I cannot see why we should not have a system similar to that applying to driving licences, which have a place for the holder's signature, so that the holder can I be required at any time to produce a specimen of his signature to prove that he is the person whom the driving licence says he is. Again, the travel-cheque system, requiring two signatures, has been in operation for many years, and so far
882
as I know it works very well indeed. I cannot see the necessity for this requirement for a photograph. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Swansea.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think this may be a simplification, if it is to be done for firearms as it is to be done for shot-guns. I think the rules will be made for shot-guns under the same provision of Section 30 of the 1937 Act, but it may be we need not have the same arrangements for both.
LORD BOWLES: I think it is Section 30 of the 1937 Act which is going to be used and imported into this Bill, so it will, I think, be exactly the same procedure.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is just what I am saying. I am saying that it need not be. Will the noble Lord consider whether we have to have photographs in all cases, if at all?
LORD BOWLES: The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, talked about the difficulty for some people having photographs taken if they live at Dartmoor. A photographer would not be very far away. This idea that you cannot get a simple passport photograph taken seems to be quite wrong. I can understand some people not wanting photographs of themselves, but that certainly does not apply to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea.
The effect of these Amendments would be to delete the power in the Secretary of State to make rules requiring applicants for firearm and shot-gun certificates to provide photographs of themselves, certified as likenesses of the applicants. The intention of the subsection as drafted is to enable the Secretary of State by rule to require applicants for either firearm or shot-gun certificates to provide photographs of themselves, and for their photographs and information supplied on their application forms to be verified by a person of acceptable standing. The requirements are likely to be the same as those which have to be met when a person applies for a passport and which give rise to little difficulty in practice and cannot be claimed to be a real invasion of personal liberties. No decisions have yet been taken as to the content of any

883
rules that might be made, and we shall be ready to receive any suggestions in due course.
If rules in the sense of the subsection are made, a photograph of the holder will be affixed to each certificate. This should enable speedy and easy identification by a police officer requiring a person to show his authority for having a shot-gun or Part I firearm, and by a dealer who will be under a statutory obligation to examine a person's shot-gun certificate before selling him a weapon. It is possible that the Amendment may reflect a fear that the rules would require a vendor not only to inspect a certificate, but also to compare with the purchaser the photograph on it. (The noble Lord did not say that, but he may have had it in mind.) This would cause real difficulties in some cases where shot-guns are sold by reputable dealers by post. There is no such intention. The photograph with the certificate is for production to the police. To achieve that end an amendment to Section 11 of the Firearms Act, 1937, would be required, and this could not be done by rule. It is, however, a serious offence, punishable with three years' imprisonment, to sell a Part I firearm to a person who is not a firearms dealer unless the purchaser's certificate is produced or he shows that he is exempt from the certificate procedure.
Shot-gun certificates, like firearm certificates, will ordinarily be valid for three years, and it may be claimed that it would be burdensome and unnecessary to require fresh photographs at such frequent intervals. This is one of the points on which representation would be considered when the rules are being drafted. We should be prepared to accept that fresh photographs every three years is probably unnecessary, and have in mind something on the lines of photographs on first application and at every third renewal thereafter, unless there has been a change in a person's appearance—someone may have grown a beard or a moustache. Thus, there would be a nine-year gap between photographs in the ordinary case. This again would be in line with the requirements for passport photographs, where the period is ten years. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
LORD SWANSEA: Of course, the brief which the noble Lord has read out was
884
written before his noble friend's Amendment, concerning the period of validity of the shot-gun certificate, was accepted by your Lordships; and, of course, a shot-gun certificate may now run for any period from one to five years. So the particular point about having a fresh photograph every nine years or so is not now strictly accurate. However, I would not quarrel with the desirability of a photograph on a firearms certificate. What I had misgivings about was the possibility of having photographs on a shot-gun certificate. It will make complete nonsense of the claim that the procedure under this Bill would be simple and perfunctory, and I cannot really see that it would achieve anything. However, I do not wish to take up any more time of the Committee, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 104. This, again, is a drafting Amendment, to facilitate the consolidation of various provisions of the Firearms Act 1937, which created a number of offences, and provisions of Section 7 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Firearms Act 1965, which set out the maximum penalties which now apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 38, at end insert—
("(6) In section 7 of the Firearms Act 1965 (increase of penalties for offences under Act of 1937) after the words 'offence under' there shall be inserted the words 'or punishable under'.")—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SWANSEA: My I draw the noble Lord's attention to a misprint in the second line of his Amendment, where there is a reference to the Act of 1957, which I am sure should be 1937?
LORD STONHAM: It is "1937" on the Marshalled List.
LORD SWANSEA: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Perhaps his copy of the Marshalled List is a little more recent than mine. Mine certainly says "1957".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think the noble Lord has got the wrong drafting mistake. It should be "the Act of 1937" not "Act of 1937".
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing my attention to this. It should be "the Act of 1937".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 71, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I just want to repeat something that I said earlier, because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was not here then. The whole question of rules, including such things as photographs for shot-gun certificates, is the sort of paraphernalia which may or may not be necessary, and we should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider that among the various encumbrances in the machinery which he promised to look at again. We shall certainly be doing so.
LORD STONHAM: I agree that this will have to be looked at very carefully, particularly the question of rules. We do not want anything in our rules which is not absolutely essential. Certainly we do not want anything in them which is stupid or imposes an undue or unnecessary burden. The only thing I have in mind is that the time between now and the next stage of the Bill is somewhat limited. I have already resolved to work hard at this, in the hope that we shall be ready in time, and I shall be grateful for any constructive suggestions which the noble Viscount, or indeed any other noble Lord, is able to offer in this matter.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75:
Drunkenness in a public place
75.—(1) Any person who in any public place is guilty, while drunk, of disorderly behaviour may be arrested without warrant by any person and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved to add to subsection (1):
"and to be ordered or to be placed under a condition of a probation order requiring him to reside for any specified period in accommodation provided or approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section."
The noble Lord said: This feels like moving into an entirely new Bill. We are now dealing with persons who are
886
drunk and disorderly, and of all those offenders for whom prison is unsuitable these people convicted of being drunk and disorderly are, I suppose, at the top of the list; and of all the prisoners on short sentences that the prison service would be glad to be rid of, these also come top of the list. I think the number of people sentenced to prison for this offence in any one year comes to something like one-seventh of the whole prison population. Therefore, for that reason at any rate, this clause is to be welcomed—to be welcomed, that is, so far as it goes. Here, at least in prospect—but only in prospect—is a new additional form of custodial treatment: the only one, I think, in the Bill. But I doubt whether it really goes far enough, and for the life of me I cannot see why it cannot be amended so as to do so.
Let us look at what this clause, as it stands, does. It takes away—or will take away when brought into force—the power of the courts to impose short prison sentences for this offence of being drunk and disorderly in a public place. So far, so good. It leaves the courts with a power to impose a fine. But in a single year in the past 4,000 people have been sent to prison for this offence in default of payment of the fine, and a further 1,000 have been sent to prison with no option of a fine. These figures were given by Miss Alice Bacon in the debate in the Committee stage in another place. What is to be done about these people for whom a fine is not suitable? Will higher fines have the desired effect? In a few cases they will, but in the great majority of cases I rather doubt it. We gather from subsection (5) of this clause that hostels for the treatment of this group of offenders will be provided. I think this is the moment to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, where these hostels are how the provision of them is coming along, and, more particularly, where is the power in the Bill under which courts can get these offenders to attend at, or to reside in, these hostels, when there are any of them available? I will return to that point in a minute.
Several times in this Bill we have recognised that hostel accommodation is wanted. Everywhere we look it is wanted: more probation hostels for young offenders; more new hostels for

887
adult offenders; hostels for homeless discharged prisoners, recommended by Lady Reading's Working Party; hostels for disorderly drunks; hostels for disorderly alcoholics (and I think these may be different); hostels for drug addicts, about which we shall be talking in a few weeks' time. What sort of provision is being made for all these establishments? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in our Second Reading debate that four hostels were being provided. I am not quite sure what he was referring to—probably hostels for adults on probation—
LORD STONHAM: That was the provision.
LORD SANDFORD: In that case we should like to know when these will be ready, and perhaps the noble Lord can tell us rather more about the plans for providing penal hostels, and how they are developing.
To return to my second point, assuming that some hostels are provided, how can the courts make use of them under this clause? Unless the offender is under 14 years of age (and he is really not very likely to be drunk and disorderly under that age; at least, one would hope not), the courts cannot compel attendance or residence by means of a probation order. The noble Lord will undoubtedly tell us, as in fact is the case, that a Working Party has been set up to go into this and that we must not give the courts power under this Bill to compel disorderly drunks and alcoholics to attend at or to reside anywhere until that Working Party has reported. This, at any rate, was the gist of the reply given by his right honourable friend in another place, when this clause was being discussed in Committee.
But do we have to be so circumspect and so hesitant in retaining these powers for our courts? No new erosion of the liberty of the subject is involved here. Courts already have power to incarcerate these offenders for six months. Surely they could be left with powers to compel attendance at, or residence in, these hostels when they are provided. If in due course the Working Party, which I understand has been set up and of which we should like to hear more in a moment, reports that compulsion applied to this
888
group of offenders is not usually helpful in their treatment and in their rehabilitation, that is something which the courts can take into account when they give a sentence.
I can quite see that the use of these powers must be held in abeyance until accommodation is available, and that is provided for in subsection (5) of this clause and in Clause 89, which governs the days on which the various Parts of this Bill come into force. But so far as I can see, without my Amendment or something else better than my Amendment but like it—and here I think I have the support of the Magistrates' Association—the courts will be powerless to enforce the very sensible intentions that are set out in this clause and that lie behind it. They will be powerless to take advantage of what is provided for here, without further legislation. It is no part of my business as a Whip on this side of the House to help Her Majesty's Government arrange their legislative programme, but when a Bill is before the Committee we all want to see it made as good, as complete and as effective as we can devise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD ROYLE: In a very few words, I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in this Amendment. I hope that from these Benches it will be no embarrassment to my noble friend that I should seek so to do. I do not like once more in the course of these debates to make reference to magisterial experience, but what I want to say very largely arises from it. The man who has been the biggest headache to magistrates throughout the country for many years has been this man, the drunk and disorderly. Invariably—or very often at least—he is the type of individual who we find has no fixed address and no money. In the past magistrates have been compelled to adopt the only possible method with him: they have got rid of him by sentencing him to 7 or 14 days' imprisonment. He has been a complete nuisance to the community and a complete nuisance to the courts.
I know this has all changed and there is no question of his being sent to prison. but the first subsection of this clause does

889
nothing at all except increase the penalty. For the life of me, thinking in terms of the people I have in mind, I cannot imagine that an increase of penalty from what is to-day up to £50 will make the slightest difference to them. Therefore, all my sympathies are with the noble Lord's Amendment on this matter. This would give the courts a real opportunity of doing something about the habitual drunkard who is in the habit of coming before them so often. I agree with the noble Lord that in these cases it is not the slightest use making it voluntary; it must be compulsory. If this type of individual were asked if he would like to go into a pleasant home for six months he would think it a very good idea, but at the end of four or five days he would be completely fed up with it and walk out. It must be compulsory.
I appreciate that the difficulty is that the accommodation, the homes that are suggested in the noble Lord's Amendment, are not there. I know that the Government have in view doing something about it. But it may be a long time before we have this type of legislation again, and I would remind my noble friend that when the Criminal Justice Act 1948 was passed provision was made for all manner of things, like detention centres, remand centres and so on; they were not there, but provision for them was put in the Act. I like to see things in the Act ready for when the accommodation is available. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, could be put into operation when the institutions or hostels were available. I have the feeling that this is a very useful Amendment indeed, and it would assist the courts considerably if it were in the Act at this time waiting for the availability of the hostels, or whatever the homes might be called. I hope that my noble friend can see his way, if not to accept the Amendment at this time, to consult with his right honourable friend to see whether it is possible to change their minds about it and insert something like the noble Lord's Amendment in the Bill at the Report stage. I am sure it is a worthy objective, and I hope the Government will show some sympathy for what the noble Lord is trying to do.
6.47 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I find it impossible to imagine any set of circumstances in which my noble friend Lord Royle or
890
the noble Lord Lord Sandford, could embarrass me, the reason for that being that we all three have the same objective and we all, I think, know what we are talking about. Therefore, embarrassment in such circumstances is just not possible. Of course, there can be disagreement, although I hope by the time I have finished speaking there will not be even any disagreement.
Broadly speaking, Lord Sandford—and Lord Royle supports him—wants to give the courts power to make a probation order which is accommapied by an order for a drunken offender, usually an alcoholic, to stay in a certain place; he is going to be compelled to stay there. Of course, it way well be—certainly not before Report stage, because I cannot anticipate what the recommendations of the Working Party are going to be in a year or so's time—something analogous to this Amendment may be recommended. I am doubtful about that, because compulsion of drunks—although it may be all right for the magistrates; it may give the magistrate a better feeling than sending him to prison for 7 or 14 days—is no good at all for the alcoholics, in the sense that it is useless. That is all our experience. Compulsion has been tried before, for years. We have had the Habitual Drunkards Act 1879, the Inebriates Act 1888 and 1898. They are still on the Statute Book. They are not used for the sole reason that they are absolutely useless.
Of course, the levels of our psychiatric knowledge were not as great in 1888 as they are to-day, but the plain fact of the matter is that you sent inebriates or habitual drunkards to an institution and kept them there behind bars, and all of them when they came out, as soon as they had the means of doing so, went and got blind drunk. And this is what happens to-day when they go to prison. The whole case for this clause, in which I fervently believe and towards which I have worked for many years, rests on the certain knowledge that sending drunks to prison is the biggest single waste of our penal system that we have to-day. It is quite useless from the point of view of the drunken person; it does not do him any good. It is useless for society, because we still have with us the habitual drunks, and also because they are useless we keep them expensively in prison. So we have decided to bring that folly to an

891
end, at a time when my right honourable friend is satisfied that sufficient alternative treatment places are available.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me briefly—I hope he will forgive me if I answer his questions at some length, because this is a vitally important subject, and one in which I know there is keen interest—about the Working Party. It has started its meetings. Among its membership are some of the leading medical experts, consultants on drug and alcoholic addiction; and it is an interdepartmental committee, including experts, lay and medical, from my Department and from the Ministry of Health. I believe that we shall have a most important and worthwhile Report from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford asked where is the power in the Bill to compel the people to live in the hostels? There is no power, because no power on earth is going to stop an alcoholic being an alcoholic. He needs continuous support. It is no good thinking you can lock these people up. That was tried nearly 100 years ago, and it did not work. Has the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, any idea of the years taken in the making of an alcoholic? I have just had some figures given to me which come from the Institute of Psychiatry. They are the results of research into the cases of 50 alcoholics. These are the milestones, the average ages in their careers. At the average age of 18 years they were drinking regularly. At 23 they were drinking most days. At 25 they were drinking heavily, and at 29 drink was a problem. At the age of 29, on an average, they were first arrested for drunkenness. At the age of 33½ they first went to prison for drunkenness. At the age of 38 they were on "Skid-Row". At the age of 41½ they had their first hospital admission.
The significant and striking thing about those figures is that hospitalisation did not follow until 12 years after the first arrest. This is a long row that these unfortunate people hoe. It means a long time and a great deal of support and thought and care before you can be sure—and you cannot always be sure—of helping them. Two years ago my Department decided to try to do something about this matter of the drunks who go to Wandsworth and Pentonville,
892
which are the two prisons in London which receive them all. At Pentonville one in six of all admissions are of people sentenced for drunkenness, or being drunk and disorderly.
We decided on the experiment of sending some of the most suitable to Springhill open prison not far from Grendon Psychiatric Prison. We have now some little experience. Our experiment started in October, 1965, and those we sent there excluded drunks who had recent records of serious offences, men receiving continuous medical treatment and men serving only a few days who cannot economically be sent to Springhill. But apart from those exceptions Springhill has been able to absorb all the drunks who have been thought suitable for its régime. This has amounted, so far, to 1,364 receptions. Those 1,364 receptions up to the end of 1966 covered 835 different men: 199 had been there more than once, and one man I think seven or eight times.
What emerged from the study of these people conducted by the medical and psychiatric staff at Grendon Psychiatric Prison has shown that few of them can be treated medically. You just cannot do anything with them medically. It is no good talking in terms of that kind of cure. Our experience, therefore, over nearly two years, confirms the provisional hypothesis that we in Home Office formed, that these drunks can easily be contained in non-secure surroundings, and that most of them must be expected to relapse time after time—and this is the important thing—unless they are given close support in a sheltered environment. We are convinced that the long-term solution must be found outside the prison system, by the provision of a form of support and environment—precisely what we are doing with the hostel system.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me to say what the position was with regard to the provision of hostels. I am giving the position as it is now. At the moment, 11 hostels for alcoholics are in operation, with a total of 192 places. Of those 11 hostels, only three are in receipt of Home Office maintenance grants, and of those three one only in respect of some beds. Two more hostels have been acquired for alcoholics, but are not yet open. These will add another 23 beds. Four more are under consideration.

893
If your Lordships recollect the figures that I mentioned of the numbers at Springhill, which can be taken to serve most of the people of this type in the London area, you may come to the conclusion—at least I should—that we need at least 1,000 places in Southern England for these people. The noble Baroness, Lady Reading, who is chairman of the Working Party which for over two years has been considering the voluntary contribution to after-care, and has already submitted two Reports, has, as we know, made the guess of 1,000 places being needed. Whether that is right or wrong, I do not know; it may well be that more will be needed. But in any case that is the target that we have presently in mind.
To provide those places we are setting up a housing association. The administrative cost of the association will be met by the Home Office, and some initial contribution at least will be made of a capital grant. It is the intention that the housing association shall assist voluntary bodies in the purchase of suitable premises, and that most of the capital cost will be met by loans from local authorities or building societies; but for suitable establishments Home Office maintenance grants will be paid.
There have been some delays in the formation of the housing association which I very much regret, but the chairman, Lady Janner, has been appointed, and I hope that they will be starting very soon. They already have quite a number of places in the pipeline. Perhaps that was a bit of unintended humour, for so far as alcoholics are concerned they do not normally take it through the pipe, but will take it in any kind of circumstances. I will try to get away from the jargon. It is the case that a number of plans exist in different parts of the country for the provision of hostels, and I hope that we shall move with reasonable speed as soon as this organisation is set up. Certainly it is my own hope that within two years the number of places we seek will be available.
It is difficult for anybody intimately connected with the courts—certainly for for my noble friend Lord Royle, who is a magistrate of such great experience; and indeed for any magistrate—to believe that one must eschew compulsion and rely on willingness. So far as alcoholics are concerned we must do this, because no alcoholic can be helped unless he is
894
willing to be helped. Our experience at Springhill, where they receive good fresh air, advice, where they get good food and are given work to do, is that they come out and in the main they start again. But I was tremendously heartened by a visit I paid a few months ago to an alcoholics' hostel at Rathcoole House where the warden is a seconded probation officer. And he is, I am glad to say, a member of the Working Party. He has great experience in these matters, and knows all the problems. This hostel was started by the special committee which was formed by my noble friend Lady Reading. It was a tremendous experience to go there and sit among these men, and to take their evening meal with them.
I said to one man sitting opposite me, a man of about 40, "How long have you been here?"—"Four months". "Where did you come from?"—"The bombed site at the Elephant and Castle". "What were you drinking?"—"Everything: methylated spirits; shaving lotion: everything". Another question, asked of a big man sitting at the table, was: "How long is it since you worked?" And he answered, "Eight years". To another man, who had been there six months (he sat at the head of the table, and was their natural leader), I said: "How often have you relapsed in the six months?"—"Once". These men make their own rules to a large extent. One man, who was found by the warden, had plenty of money on him. The man was in a good job, but was already drinking shaving lotion. He was brought hack. The man on my left was a man of about 60, and I asked him, "How long since you have worked?" He replied, "I don't remember. This is the first time I have ever come out of prison and not got drunk the same day". "How long do you think you will need support?"—"How do we know? It has never been tried before".
I cannot convey the tremendously heartening impression gained from talking to these men in a normal, intelligent, on the-level way, with no question of covering up or of "telling the old story" or anything of that kind. This was something new. At the time I saw them this had been going for six months, and these hopeless "Skid-row" types, an offence to society and a burden to themselves, had been working all the time. I have no doubt whatever that this is the only way.

895
I asked the warden, "What do you do when they slip up?" His reply was: "Well, you go and find them and bring them back, or they come to you from the hospital." The hostel has an arrangement with a hospital near at hand. This is another link-up that we so badly need. When these people have been "dried out", it is not right to take them straight to the hostel because it upsets the other men; and at Rathcoole House they have made their own rule that this sort of thing should not happen. When you see these things you are convinced that the only way that these habitual drunkards who are social misfits can benefit is from a voluntary regime. They will fall down, they will come back and cry all over the carpet. But they can be made men again, and this is the only way that it can be done.
I do not know if I have answered all the noble Lord's questions. I come back to his Amendment. We shall see what the Working Party says. A century ago we tried compulsion in respect of inebriates, and we abandoned it fifty years ago because it was found to be useless. If it was found that compulsion would help, we could use that legislation or a modified form of it. Having seen what I have seen, and relying on the medical evidence that I possess, I do not think compulsion is any good. I believe with absolute certainty that with the kind of regime which we have now started; with the right kind of men and women, properly trained and sufficiently dedicated to administer these places; with understanding from the courts, and with the devotion and help of the voluntary bodies, as well as the assistance of the Home Office, these people can be rescued. Within a comparatively few years we shall know not only that prison is not the way, but that it can be dispensed with and that these people can be helped to be decent citizens who are no longer a burden on society.
7.8 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sure the Committee will agree that we have had a useful and helpful debate; and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for giving us the benefit of all this information. I will not now pursue all the further matters which he raised, because I do not think that would be appropriate. It is quite clear from what he said that
896
we need many more hostels to deal with this particular class of offender, and with many other offenders and discharged prisoners who are homeless. I am afraid it is also clear from the figures given by the noble Lord that the existing provision is hopelessly inadequate and must be greatly speeded up before we can say that this form of custodial treatment, on which I personally pin so much hope, really even exists within our system. At the moment all we can say is that we have a few pilot projects.
In dealing with this class of offender we are dealing with two groups: the alcoholic, about whom the noble Lord has spoken at some length and in relation to whom we have had the recent experiments at Springhill, as well as the much longer and greater experiments at places like Spellthorne St. Mary, which has been looking after alcoholics for eighty years or so, and among the ranks of Alcoholics Anonymous. I agree that all that experience points to the fact that compulsion does not contribute very much to their treatment, and compulsion without any therapeutic support does not achieve anything at all. But within this group we also have drunks—not alcoholics; there is quite a clear distinction between these—and I have yet to be persuaded that for this category of offender compulsion combined with treatment is not going to be extremely helpful.
So we are really left with this summary: that all earlier experience has shown—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord—that compulsion and incarceration without any form of treatment is absolutely useless in every case, and the sooner we can stop it the better. But I would go on to say that, although it is useful in many cases—and in most cases when dealing with alcoholics—it has yet to be proved that treatment without compulsion is effective in every case. The object of my Amendment was to ensure that, in cases where we needed a combination of treatment and compulsion, magistrates had power to sentence accordingly. I do not think I have persuaded the noble Lord that this is so, but we have had a useful debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Probation and after-care areas and committees]:
7.12 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: With this Amendment I should like to discuss Amendment No. 107, which is associated. Both of these Amendments are drafting. Subsection (2) of Clause 79 was intended to empower the Secretary of State in appropriate cases to appoint additional members of probation and after-care committees and probation case committees. This course was advocated by the Advisory Council to ensure the presence on these bodies of persons with experience of after-care who are not justices. As it now stands, the subsection will achieve this purpose in single probation areas. where the probation and after-care committee is also the case committee, but it will not do so in combined areas where each petty sessional division in the area has a separate case committee consisting of a prescribed number of justices appointed by the justices for that division. The first Amendment is intended to remedy that difficulty, and the second Amendment is consequential upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 12, after ("1948") insert ("and each case committee so constituted, which is not such a committee as aforesaid")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 28, leave out ("any such committee") and insert ("a probation and aftercare committee for an area comprising more than the petty sessions area").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [New provision as to appeal against sentence passed at assizes or quarter sessions]:
LORD STONHAM: This is a drafting Amendment which merges paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 81(3). The clause deals generally with rights of appeal to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal against sentences passed by a court of assize or by quarter sessions (otherwise than on appeal from a magis
898
trates' court) for an offence for which the offender was not convicted on indictment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—
("(a) where, either for that offence alone or for that offence and other offences for which sentence is passed in the same proceeding, he is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more; or").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment omits the closing words of subsection (3)(d)(iii) of Clause 81 and removes an inconsistency between that sub-paragraph and Clause 31(4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 35, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 37.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment deletes the reference to Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 from paragraph (5)(a) of Clause 81. That paragraph provides that certain provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 (being provisions as to procedure and other incidental matters arising on an appeal) shall apply with the necessary modifications to appeals under the clause. Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, as your Lordships are aware, enables the Secretary of State to refer a case of a person convicted on indictment to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, or, if he desires the assistance of the Court, to refer any point arising in a case to them for their opinion. It does not deal with procedure and incidental matters arising on an appeal, and the reference to it was included in error in the clause. It is just as well if we acknowledge our errors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 41. leave out ("17 and 19") and insert ("and 17").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with Amendment 43 and the revised definition of "sentence" in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4. It makes minor changes in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (7) of Clause 81, which relate to the power of the Court of Appeal to deal with an offender on appeal against sentence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 24, leave out from ("sentence") to ("when") in line 28 and insert ("or order which is the subject of the appeal; and
(b) in place of it pass such sentence or make such order as it thinks appropriate for the case and as the court below had power to pass or make")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Amendment of enactments relating to criminal appeals]:
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 82 is consequential upon Clause 81, which was inserted in the Bill in Committee in another place. This subsection makes it a duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to defend an appeal when required to do so by the Court of Appeal or (in the case of an appeal to the House of Lords from the Divisional Court) by the Divisional Court. The Amendment adds the duty of defending an appeal under Clause 81, which provides new rights of appeal against sentences passed at assizes and quarter sessions. I think this is a necessary and useful provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 19, at end insert ("or section 81 of this Act")—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: We all appreciate the care with which the noble Lord is explaining each of these Amendments to us, but at this stage of the Bill, when he comes to an Amendment which is purely of a drafting character or is purely consequential, I think noble Lords on both sides of the Committee would be entirely content if he just mentioned the one word, either "drafting" or "consequential", in which case we would probably accept it. If we found that it was more than that, we should say so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Extension of powers of Northern Ireland Parliament]:
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his great kindness, which I
900
very much appreciate. I beg to move Amendment No. 113. I cannot claim that this is purely drafting. It contains a number of provisions which extend to Northern Ireland. Some of these provisions could only be made in legislation passed by Parliament at Westminster, but others could equally well have been made in legislation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, as they relate to subjects within the powers of that Parliament. This Amendment allows the Parliament of Northern Ireland to amend or repeal provisions in the Bill which that Parliament could have made itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"( ) for the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 this Act shall, so far as it relates to matters within the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day within the meaning of that section."—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 114A, 114B, 114C, 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119. These are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 67, line 5, after ("(7)") insert ("(Enforcement in Scotland of fines imposed at assizes or quarter sessions)").
Page 67, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Part III (except sections 52, 54, 55 and 56) and Schedule 2;")
Page 67, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert ("Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954, the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963; and")
Page 67, line 15, leave out ("aforesaid") and insert ("provided by this subsection and except so far as it relates to the interpretation or commencement of the said provisions")
Page 67, leave out line 20 and insert—
("(b) sections 29(8), (Extension of enactments relating to persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention to young offenders sentenced to detention), and (Power of magistrates to issue warrants for arrest of escaped prisoners and mental patients).")
Page 67, line 25, leave out ("and section") and insert ("the Administration of Justice Act 1960, as it extends to Northern Ireland, and section 7 and")
Page 67, line 33, leave out ("aforesaid") and insert ("provided by this subsection and

901
except, so far as it relates to the interpretation or commencement of the said provisions")
Page 67, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subsection (1) of section (Extension of enactments relating to persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention to young offenders sentenced to detention) and").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Application of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 to Attachment of Earnings Orders under Section 37]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is convenient to the Committee, may I take Amendments Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 and 127 together? Amendment No. 74 and the subsequent and consequential group of Amendments were to alter the arrangements made in the Bill for the collection of contributions ordered by a court to be made by a legally-aided person towards the costs of legal aid. These Amendments, Nos. 120 to 127, are all consequential upon the Amendment No. 74, which the Committee accepted. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 68, line 4, after ("37") insert ("or 63")
Page 68, line 8, after ("37") insert ("or 63")
Page 68, line 12, leave out ("(4) and") and insert ("(3) to")
Page 68, line 14, after ("37") insert ("or 63")
Page 68, line 26, leave out from ("said") to end of line and insert ("amount")
Page 68, line 32, after ("37") insert ("or 63")
Page 68, line 39, after ("37") insert ("or 63")
Page 68, line 41, after ("37") insert ("or 63").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Increase of Fines]:
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment makes it clear that the increase of the maximum fine for contravention of regulations concerning disabled and old persons' homes also applies to regulations concerning residential homes for mentally disordered persons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 47, column 1, after ("40(3)") insert ("(both as originally enacted and as
902
applied by section 19 of the Mental Health Act 1959 or section 19 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960)").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Miscellaneous Amendments of Enactments relating to Criminal Appeal]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 130. This Amendment adds new sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) to paragraph 5 of Schedule 4. Sub-paragraph (a) makes minor amendments to Section 9(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, which concerns the power of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal to order witnesses to attend and be examined before the Court. It substitutes "in the proceedings from which the appeal lies", for the words "at the trial", where they first occur and, "in those proceedings", for "at the trial" the second time that phrase occurs, since the words "at the trial" are inappropriate to the proceedings from which appeals lie under Clause 81. The new sub-paragraph (b) similarly substitutes in Section 9(c) of the Act of 1907, which relates to the power of the court to receive the evidence of certain witnesses, the words, "in the proceedings from which the appeal lies" for the words "at the trial". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 29, after ("court") insert—
("(a) for the words at the trial' where first occurring in paragraph (b) of the section there shall be substituted the words 'in the proceedings from which the appeal lies', and for those words where occurring for the second time in that paragraph there shall be substituted the words 'in those proceedings';
(b) for the words 'at the trial' in paragraph (c) of the section there shall be substituted the words 'in the proceedings from which the appeal lies'; and
(c)")—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This and a number of other Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, which carry out certain improvements and modifications of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, simply tempt me to ask this question. We have heard about Consolidation Acts. Never have I seen such a mess as has been made of the 1907 Act in this Bill and in the Criminal Appeal Act of last year, which was also

903
effective on this particular point. Are we soon going to have consolidation of this as well? Because I think it is high time we did.
LORD STONHAM: I cannot be drawn on that one. I will make inquiries and inform the noble Viscount, if I am in a position to inform him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment adds new paragraphs 6 and 7 to Schedule 4. Paragraph 6 amends Section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907. That section provides that an appellant, notwithstanding that he is in custody, shall be entitled to be present if he so desires at the hearing of his appeal except where the appeal is on some ground involving a question of law alone. In the latter case, and in proceedings preliminary or incidental to the appeal, he has a right to be present only if Rules of Court provide that he shall have a right to be present or the Court gives him leave.
Regarding the noble Viscount's point on the last Amendment, information has come sooner than I thought. The consolidation of criminal appeal is in hand, and we hope to do it next Session. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 31, at end insert—
(".In section 11(1) (right of appellant to be present at hearing), the words 'rules of court provide that he shall have the right to be present, or where' shall be omitted.
.In section 15 (duties of registrar with respect to appeals), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (3) and (4):—
'(3) Rules of court may enable an appellant to obtain from the registrar any documents or things, including copies or reproductions of documents, required for his appeal and may authorise the registrar to make charges for them in accordance with scales and rates fixed from time to time by the Treasury.'")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment, to paragraph 27 of Schedule 4, is a paving Amendment which introduces Amendment 132. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 21, leave out ("subsection") where first occurring and insert ("subsections").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 132. Its effect is to add a new subsection (1B) to Section 3 of the Criminal Amendment (Insanity) Act 1964. This is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"(1B) An order of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal allowing an appeal in accordance with section 2 of this Act shall operate as a direction to the court before which the appellant came for trial to amend the record to conform with the order'".—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment adds a new paragraph 30 to Schedule 4 and makes minor Amendments to Schedule 5 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1966.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 44, at end insert—
(".In section 5 (duty to admit evidence on appeal) for the words 'at the trial' where they occur in paragraph (a) of the section there shall be substituted the words 'in the proceedings from which the appeal lies'; and for those words where they occur in paragraph (b) of the section there shall be substituted the words 'in those proceedings'").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
7.31 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 134.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 14, at end insert—
(" THE VAGRANCY ACT 1824 (c. 83)
1. In section 5 (committal of incorrigible rogues to quarter sessions) for the words from 'to the house of correction' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'to quarter sessions, either in custody or on bail'.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 134A.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 8, leave out from first ("the") to ("twenty-eight ") and insert ("words from 'subsections', where it first occurs to 'thirty' there shall be substituted the word 'section'").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 135.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 10, at end insert—
("8. In section 28 (committal for borstal sentence), in subsection (1) after the word 'custody' there shall be inserted the words 'or on bail' and in subsection (4) after the word 'committed' where it first occurs, there shall he inserted the words 'in custody'.
9. In section 29 (committal for sentence for indictable offence tried summarily) after the word 'custody' there shall be inserted the words 'or on bail'.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: Amendments Nos. 136A, 136B, 137 and 138 have all been dealt with on earlier Amendments. I hope that I may put them to the Committee together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 114, line 14, at end insert—
("9. In section 72A(2) (court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland to be specified in a transfer of fine order) for the words 'twenty pounds or more' there shall be substituted the words 'more than fifty pounds or is a fine originally imposed by a court of assize or quarter sessions'.
10. In section 72A(3) (termination of functions of convicting court) for the words 'convicting court' there shall be substituted the words 'court which made the order'.
11. In section 72B (powers of magistrates' court under transfer of fine order from Scotland) there shall be added the following subsection—
'(3) Where a transfer of fine order under section 44 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 provides for the enforcement in a petty sessions area in England and Wales of a fine originally imposed by a court of assize or quarter sessions, a magistrates' court acting for that area shall have all the like functions under this Part of this Act, exercisable subject to the like restrictions, as if it were the magistrates' court by which payment of the fine fell to he enforced by virtue of section 38(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and as if any order made under the said Act of 1954 in respect of the fine before the making of the transfer of fine order had been made by that court.'").
Page 114, line 32, at end insert—
("THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1954 (c. 48)
12. Section 44 (transfer of fine orders within and from Scotland) shall be amended as follows, that is to say—

(a) in subsection (2) for the words 'fine was imposed' there shall be substituted the words 'order is made';

(b) in subsection (3) for the words 'imposing the fine' there shall be substituted the words 'which made the order'; and

(c) at the end there shall be added the following subsection:—

'(5) Where a transfer of fine order under section 72A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 or this section provides for the enforcement by a sheriff court in Scotland of a fine imposed by a court of assize or quarter sessions, the proviso to the last foregoing subsection shall not apply, but the term of imprisonment which may be imposed under this Act shall be the term fixed in pursuance of section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 by that court of assize or quarter sessions or a term which bears the same proportion to the term so fixed as the amount of the fine remaining due bears to the amount of the fine imposed by that court, notwithstanding that the term exceeds the period applicable to the case under section 49(1) of this Act.'").
Page 115, line 13, leave out ("In") and insert ("For")
Page 115, line 15, leave out from ("etc.") to end of line 17 and insert ("there shall he substituted the following subsection—
'(2) The following are the enactments extended by this section, that is to say:—

(a) section 45 of the Prison Act 1952;

(b) sections 19 and 33 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952;

(c) sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland), 1953, and Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to that Act;

(d) section 13 of and Schedule 1 to this Act;

(e) sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 and Schedule 1 to that Act; and

(f) sections 49 to 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967'.").—(Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to insert after paragraph 14:
"The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 39)
15. In section 12(1) (supervision of persons released from young offenders institutions), after the word 'more' there shall be inserted the words 'but less than eighteen months'."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary to avoid overlap between the supervision provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963, and the release on licence provisions of this Bill. I think on this occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, might like me to say a few words of explanation. Section 12(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 provides for the supervision for a period of twelve months from the date of his release of any person detained in a young offenders' institution for a period of six months or more. Under Clause 49(2) and (5) of the Bill such a person, where he is serving a sentence of eighteen

907
months or more, will be subject to licence for any period between the date of his release and the date of the expiration of his sentence. Accordingly it is no longer necessary to retain Section 12(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963, for young offenders in Scotland other than those whose term of detention has been six months or more but less than eighteen months as provided in this Amendment.
The effect of the change from the Act of 1963 to the new provision will on occasion mean that supervision is for a longer period. Thus a young offender serving a three years' sentence who is released on licence after one year may remain on supervision for two years—that is, until the date of the expiration of his sentence. On occasion the period may be shorter. For example, a young offender serving a two years' sentence who earns, but loses, some remission and is released after serving twenty months can remain subject to supervision for only four months. The advantages of adopting the licensing provisions in Scotland generally, however, are considered to outweigh any apparent disadvantage of this sort. I realise that on first hearing it may perhaps not be altogether clear to the noble Viscount, but I feel sure that he will agree that it is a necessary change and is certainly one which is wanted by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I will study his explanation with interest. There is rather more to it than I thought.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 139, and—
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not know what the noble Lord will think, but so far as I am concerned I should be entirely content if all the Amendments to Schedule 6 were put together.
LORD STONHAM: I should be most grateful. They are all consequential on matters we have already considered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing it out. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 139 to 152.
Amendments moved—
Page 115, line 36, at end insert—

("5 Geo. 4. 83.

The Vagrancy Act 1824.

In section 10, the words from "the house" to "general or", and the word "further".")

Page 115, line 39, at end insert—

("3 & 4 Wil.4. c. 99.

The Fines Act 1833.

Sections 34 to 40. section 47.")

Page 116, line 8, at end insert—

("12 & 13 Vict.c.45.

The Quarter Sessions Act 1849.

Section 17.")

Page 116, line 12, column 3, leave out ("38") and insert ("39").
Page 116, line 16, at end insert—

("45 & 46 Vict.c.50.

The Municipal Corporations Act 1882.

sections 222.")

Page 116, line 29, column 3, at end insert ("In section 11(1), the words 'rules of court provide that he shall have the right to be present, or where '.").
Page 116, line 36, leave out ("subsections (3) and") and insert ("subsection").
Page 116, line 44, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58.

The Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914.

Section 27."

Leave out lines 48 and 49.
Page 116, line 57, column 3, at end insert ("Section 6.").
Page 116, line 58, at end insert—

("1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6. c. 12.

The Firearms Act 1937.

In section 12(3), paragraph (c) and the words 'in each case'.")

Page 117, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("In section 37, in subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (c) and in paragraph (b) the words 'the High Court or' and in subsection (6) the word (c)'").
Page 117,line 46, leave out from ("eighteen") to ("and") in line 50.
Page 118, line 5, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 52(2) the words from 'and a draft' to 'Act', in the second place where it occurs").
Page 118, line 6, column 3, at end insert ("In section 15(2), proviso (a).").
Page 118, line 42, at end insert—

("3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 18.

The Army Act 1955.

Section 99(2).

3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 19.

The Air Force Act 1955.

Section 99(2).")

Page 119, column 3, leave out lines 12 and 13.
Page 119, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 39 and insert ("Section 2.")
Page 120, line 3, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58.

The Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914.

Section 27.")

Page 120, line 15, at end insert—

("15 & 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2.

The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.

Section 20(2) to (6). Section 21.")

Leave out lines 18 and 19.
Page 120, line 19, at end insert—

("1963 c. 39.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963.

In Schedule 5, the amendment of section 32(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961

In Schedule 6, the reference to section 20(2) to (6) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.")

Page 120, line 21, at end insert—

("1965 c. 71.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.

Section 2.")

Page 120, line 24, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58.

The Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914.

Section 27.")

Leave out lines 33 and 34.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 153 to alter the Long Title, and to speak to consequential Amendment No. 154. Before I move this Amendment I should like to express to noble Lords in all parts of the House
910
my appreciation of their great help and co-operation, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor for his extremely kind thoughts for myself. Our discussions have been useful and amicable. This is something I very much appreciate.
Amendment moved—
Line 7, leave out first ("and").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: We are all greatly obliged for what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said. Although we disagree with some of the things in the Bill, I think we should all like to join in congratulating him on his skilful piloting of it. There will be a great deal of work to be done on the Report stage. It may be possible to think out some of the controversial problems between now and then. I venture to think that this House has done some very valuable work on this extremely important Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 154.
Amendment moved—
Line 8, at end insert ("and the arrest of offenders unlawfully at large").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.