Lords Sitting of 16 October 1968

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

LORD GREY OF NAUNTON
Sir Ralph Francis Alnwick Grey, G.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., O.B.E., having been created Lord Grey of Naunton, of Naunton in the County of Gloucester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hailes and the Lord Campbell of Eskan.

RHODESIA: COST OF BEIRA PATROL
2.47 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 state the cost to date of the "Beira Patrol", and what number of personnel is engaged in the operation.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, about £1·25 million in terms of additional cost; in terms of personnel, approximately 650.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of this expense, and since the Prime Minister is credited with having repeatedly stated that force would not be used against Rhodesia except in the case of internal disorder, would not effective action imply the use of force? Secondly, because it is well known that this operation is repugnant to Portugal, does it not suggest that its continuance reflects an undesirable effect on our relationship with a fellow member of NATO, and that therefore the operation should be run down?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this operation is being carried out in
1340
accordance with a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations of April, 1966. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government are carrying out this patrol.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, as Her Majesty's Government originally went to the United Nations and asked to be allowed to use this force, it is not possible to hide behind that resolution now. Therefore, why do Her Majesty's Government continue to maintain this patrol and at the same time keep repeating that they rule out the use of force in the case of the Rhodesian dispute? Does not the noble Lord agree that the two things do not go together?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a necessary operation which, although not completely successful, has been partially successful in bringing the Rhodesians to the negotiating table. It is a necessary part of the whole operation against the illegal régime.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, that does not answer the question as to whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to use force although they say that they will not do so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, does not the fact that we are members of NATO override any consideration regarding the United Nations as affeoting our responsibility?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the present situation is not unhopeful, and I should not like to say anything to-day that would make the situation more difficult.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, does the figure which we have been given include the cost of maintaining a R.A.F. detachment in North West Madagascar? If it does, would the noble Lord agree that a tribute should be paid from this House to the Malagasy Government for their co-operation in this matter and for their assistance in granting facilities at Majunga? Also, should not appreciation be expressed to members of the provincial Government of Majunga for the hospitality they are extending, most freely I understand, to all the members of the R.A.F. there?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. The figures include the R.A.F. contingent, and I think the whole House will agree with the noble Lord that our thanks are due to the Malagasy Government. If every member of the United Nations behaved with equal loyalty our situation would be somewhat improved.

CHOBHAM TELEPHONE SERVICE AND SEPTEMBER FLOODS
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
(1) how many telephones connected to the Chobham exchange were put out of order by the heavy rain on September the 15 to 16;
(2) by what date they had all been restored;
(3) why it was not possible to put an "out of order" signal on to the affected lines.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the heavy rain on September 15 flooded Chobham exchange and damaged its cable network, causing loss of service to all Chobham lines, totalling nearly 1,200. Nine hundred and fifty of these were restored by 3 p.m. on September 16, the next day, and all by September 24. Putting the "out-of-order" signal on faulty lines would have required the diversion of a disproportionate amount of effort from the main primary task of repairing them. I am sorry that people were not able to use their telephones. I should like to take this opportunity of mentioning the sustained response of Post Office staff under very trying conditions.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Can he explain why it was not possible to put the out-of-order signal on those telephones which were not rectified until right at the end of the rescue operation? My telephone in particular was not rectified until September 26, contrary to his information, and it had no out-of-order signal during any of that time.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, to put an out-of-order signal on faulty lines and remove it when the lines are repaired demands identification of all the lines concerned. In the case of Chobham, to put the signal on would have been relatively easy, as all the lines were affected. However, our jointers were restoring service, line by line, and it would have required considerable effort in the exchange to identify each of those lines as it was repaired. Had an out-of-order signal been connected, restoration of service would have been delayed in varying degrees for almost every customer.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the flooding of the Chobham exchange could have been prevented if there had been adequate early warning of the flood?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I cannot say anything of that kind. I should think not, because whether the warning had been given or not there is nothing you can do if you get some parts of the area with 11 feet of water, and even the Chobham exchange itself, I believe, with 18 inches. The warning would not have stopped the flooding.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what precautions have been taken to prevent flooding of the Chobham exchange that may occur in future? Is he aware that the exchange, which was only recently opened, is sited at the lowest part of the village?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, without referring specifically to Chobham, I would say that flood damage normally affects the underground cable network. I think the noble Lord himself is very learned in the matter of wires and things of that kind. The modern technique is to force dry air into main cables and maintain them under pressure, and this gives a good degree of protection. Pressurisation cannot be applied to the small cables which distribute service to the customers' premises, and therefore a new type of plastic-sheathed, insulated and jelly-lled cable is being introduced to protect this part of the network. Such measure; do not protect an exchange when the building is flooded, as happened in Chobham.

FOREIGN TRAVEL ALLOWANCE
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet able to announce a relaxation or abolition of the £50 foreign travel allowance.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as was announced in another place yesterday, the basic travel allowance for the twelve months beginning on November 1 will remain at £50.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I think he will appreciate that the Question was put down before the answer yesterday was known. Is he aware that the retention of this £50 travel restriction is causing serious repercussions in the airline industry? And is he further aware that arising out of those repercussions there is very widespread unemployment among air crew in general?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is exaggerating the effects of this particular restriction. I have no evidence at all which supports those claims.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, do the Government think that the virtual prohibition of private travel in France will help us to get into the Common Market?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are quite a number of British people who apparently are not quite so extravagant in their expenditure as the noble Lord, since they find it quite easy to go to France under this legal limit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how much it is calculated is saved by this rather vexatious restriction?
LORD BESWICK: The figure is estimated at between £25 and £30 million a year.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the letter in the Guardian, dated October 5, from Lord Cromer,
1344
which states in rather strong language that by this action we are in derogation of the O.E.C.D. code and that we ought to reassume our obligations in this matter? Could my noble friend say whether or not we are in derogation of our obligations?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity of replying to the allegation implicit in Lord Cromer's letter. We should get this point quite clear. There is no question of our having abrogated any international commitments. The O.E.C.D. rules expressly provide for an exemption in certain circumstances from the obligation to make available 700 dollars, or the equivalent, per journey. The O.E.C.D. in the present circumstance has given, without reserve, this exemption. If the I.M.F. have agreed to our arrangements and the O.E.C.D. think it right to make this exemption, I cannot see why a British citizen should think up these charges about British bad faith in this and other matters.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind— and I do not make any Party political point—that there is a rather unpleasant tendency on the part of our friends on the Continent to treat Britons as second-class citizens because they have only a limited supply of money for their holidays?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that may well be the tendency on the part of some individual citizens. I think that tendency is encouraged by the fact that they say we cannot balance our overseas payments account. What they will not accept, and what some people in this country find difficult to accept, is that if we are serious about balancing our payments account we have to accept in the short term these admittedly unpopular restrictions.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how long the £50 is expected to last the traveller to the Continent of Europe?
LORD BESWICK: I think it has some relation to the thirst of the traveller.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the great majority of people in this country have never had more than £50 to spend

1345
on themselves abroad, and does he not think that in view of that these questions are somewhat subjective?
LORD BESWICK: I am grateful to my noble friend.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is nonsense, though.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, contrary to his original belief, there is in fact widespread unemployment among air crews in the airline industry? Will he undertake to consult in this matter the British Airline Pilots' Association, of which I understand he is a Vice-President?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know there is some under-employment in the industry. What I am saying is not proven is that it follows from this restriction.
LORD CARRINGTON: If it is true that about £30 million is saved by this travel allowance limit, could the noble Lord say why he agreed with the question of the noble Baroness?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord finds it so difficult to reconcile these two factors. What my noble friend is saying is that no real hardship is imposed on the average person in this country.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as there was no adjustment of the figure after devaluation, does not the noble Lord think that there could be a case for considering a slight raising of the figure, bearing in mind devaluation? And would the noble Lord bear in mind that France, after the troubles of May/June, reimposed restrictions but has now, in effect, relaxed them, and there is complete liberty in that respect? If France can do it, does not the noble Lord think that this country can, too?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a case but not a sufficiently strong case for making an adjustment in the present circumstances.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would it not be correct to say that the noble Lady's question is about a quarter of a century out of date?
LORD BESWICK: On the contrary, my Lords; I should have thought the
1346
noble Lady was talking about present circumstances, where many people from this country are contriving to go overseas and enjoy a holiday on the present travel allowance.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Opposition find that the £50 allowance is inadequate because the cost of living is so high in the Common Market countries?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what other country has a comparable restriction to this? Can he also say why it is that apparently one may buy a Mercedes car, if one has the money and wishes to do so, but must not go for, I will not say a holiday, but longer travel in France?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the information for which he asks in the first part of the question. I will make inquiries and let him know. As to the second part of the question, it is a good question, but not one which would cause my right honourable friend to change his attitude towards the restriction on foreign travel allowance.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lards, can my noble friend say what country is comparable to Great Britain?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What! In the badness of its position?

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making two Statements at a convenient moment after 3.30, the firs on the changes in the organisation of Government Departments, the second on the merger between the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office. If it is possible, and in order to be helpful, I shall also make a Statement at the same time about the Business for next week.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
3.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Race Relations Bill, has consented

1347
to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. My pleasure in doing so is tinged only with the regret that my noble friend Lord Stonham is unable to make this speech himself. We all owe him a great debt for the way in which he took the Bill through its Second Reading and Committee stage and no one is more sorry than I that he cannot be with us to-day. When, in July, he moved the Second Reading, he said that he did so in the confident belief that your Lordships would give a lead to the country in unanimously supporting the principle enshrined in the Bill—the principle of equality of opportunity, the right of all sections of the community to equal treatment in housing, employment and the whole range of goods, facilities and services which are available to the public.
I believe that we have given that lead. There have been some disagreements between us. Some noble Lords opposite think that in certain respects the Bill goes too far in dealing, for example, with small employers and landlords who have at their disposal only a small amount of residential accommodation. They have criticised the provision about advertisements or about the appointment of assessors to the courts. Other noble Lords. on all sides of the House, think that it does not go far enough in that it makes certain exceptions from the general provisions, does not give power to the Race Relations Board to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents or does not make provision for mandatory injunctions.
I respect and understand the views of those who disagree with the Government on the detailed provisions in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said in Committee, we need not apologise for disagreeing with each other. As he said.
"That is what Parliament is for. We all put our points of view with sincerity, we argue them and, if necessary, we settle the matter by a majority vote at the end."
I believe, however, that we have now reached the stage where there are no major differences of principle between us and that we have improved in a
1348
number of ways the Bill which was brought to us from another place. A good many people genuinely felt that the Bill was defective in that it would have permitted the establishment of "separate but equal" facilities and it was right that we should put the matter beyond doubt. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on introducing the Bill in another place in April, one of the main objects of the Bill is that it should serve as a declaration of public policy that racial discrimination is anti-social, unacceptable and unlawful. It would have been intolerable if anyone had seriously thought that in making this declaration we were at the same time saying that "equal but separate" provision was all right; such a doctrine has no place in our society and I am glad that we have been able to make this abundantly clear.
We decided yesterday to give the Race Relations Board discretion in special circumstances to authorise the investigation of complaints which would otherwise have fallen outside the time limit of two months. As several noble Lords have mentioned in the course of our debates, serious injustice could have arisen if the time limit had remained absolutely rigid—if, for example, nothing could have been done in the case of a person who genuinely did not realise that he had been the victim of discrimination until after the two months had passed. Giving the Board this discretion is a useful provision which I am sure we can rely on them to exercise judiciously.
My Lords, several of the Amendments to which your Lordships have agreed have been rather technical—those, for example, concerning the validity and revision of contracts and those concerning conduct relating to acts abroad. These were matters which your Lordships probably felt had not been given sufficient attention in another place. These Amendments and a number of others of a technical nature have been important in enabling the Government to produce a Bill which is now I think comprehensive, fair and, above all, workable in practice.
Prejudice cannot be overcome by law alone but the overt manifestations of that prejudice in acts of discrimination can be controlled; and while prejudice can be overcome only in the long term, it is

1349
discrimination that causes resentment and tensions—and resentment and tensions are in their turn a breeding ground for prejudice. We have, I believe, provided an opportunity to break out of that vicious circle, to establish once and for all the right of our citizens to equality of treatment, irrespective of the colour of their skins or their racial origin while quite rightly rejecting the argument that by securing these rights we are creating a privileged class.
The clauses of the Bill which make discrimination unlawful and provide for enforcement have attracted a great deal of attention and comment ever since the Government first introduced the Bill; and they have occupied much of the time which your Lordships have devoted to consideration of the Bill. It is natural and in my view right that this should have been the case; but these provisions must be seen against a wider background of voluntary action in the field of race relations; and I am particularly glad that this has not been overlooked in the course of our debates. Legislation alone is clearly not enough. Other steps must be taken to increase our understanding of the fundamental causes of racial discrimination, to promote harmonious community relations and to combat other social problems such as a shortage of housing, which themselves encourage prejudice against minority groups.
It is in this context that the creation of the Community Relations Commission as the successor to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants as a central and co-ordinating body to encourage the establishment of harmonious community relations is so important. I should like here to pay my tribute to the work of the National Committee in pioneering the way ahead for the Commission. Their contribution to the solution of one of the most important—if not the most important—social problems facing civilised societies to-day has been invaluable and will provide a firm foundation on which the Commission can build. Equally important in support of this legislation is the new urban programme designed to supplement existing expenditure on the social services in areas of special need. Against this wider background the Race Relations Board will have a most significant part to play in implementing the new legislation and
1350
in securing good race relations in Great Britain. I am sure your Lordships will wish them well in carrying out the important task which lies ahead.
My Lords, may I say, in conclusion, that I am confident that there is no Member of this House who attaches more importance to this Bill than I do. This is partly because I do not believe that the main conflict which faces us in the world to-day is a conflict between capitalistic countries and a monolithic Communism, the gap which exists between Russia and China and in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe all bursting to be free. This is not, I think, the state of affairs. The real conflict for our children and their children will be the conflict between the one in five who are white and spend 90 per cent. of the world's income, and the four in five who are black, or yellow, or coloured and have to make do with 10 per cent. Part of that problem we are beginning to see in this country.
It was, of course, a matter of pain to me when many of my noble friends and those on the Liberal Benches thought that the Government were wrong in introducing the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, but I thought then, and I think now, that the first essential in this field is that we must be able to control the rate of immigration. There must be a rate beyond which it is impossible to assimilate or integrate those who come in large numbers within a small space of time, and the situation in which enormous numbers had a legal right to arrive at any time was one which simply could not go on. Secondly, I thought, and still think, that it is essential, in view of its importance to immigrants, that immigrants should have a right of appeal against decisions of Home Office officials, however well-intentioned, and as the House knows the Government have given a pledge, which I now reaffirm, that that will be done.
Thirdly, we must have a law against racial discrimination. We all appreciate, of course, that people's minds cannot be changed by the law, but the law can set the standard and it can provide, as this Bill does, for machinery to test to see how far unlawful discrimination is being carried on. Of course, in the last resort our most important weapons in this field are the conciliation bodies of the Board and those of the new Commission.

1351
My Lords, I must not conclude without expressing appreciation of the attitude with which the Opposition have approached this Bill. They have said that there will be no question of anybody being forcibly transported from this country, that there are to be no second-class citizens; and on this Bill from the start they have been anxious, I am sure, to see whether, free of matters of mere Party politics, we could not all join together to make the best Bill we could. As your Lordships know, that has been very much the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary who equally, very often against the judgment of the Government, has decided to accept Amendments proposed by the Opposition in order, so far as possible, to keep this matter free of Party politics and try to get the best Bill that we could.
Here in this House we have tried to do the same, the Government putting forward Amendments to meet points which have been raised. I am equally grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and others for the fact that they have followed us in that spirit and on many occasions not pressed to a Division Amendments which, in other circumstances or in other Bills they might have done. There was a slight fall from that yesterday when the lawyers "had at" the assessors, but this was a perfectly reasonable argument on both sides. There was a great deal to be said for both points of view. It must now be for another place to say what they make of that.
In a very fully attended Committee of 135 the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and I put forward these two different views, and your Lordships' House then decided that the other place was right and that we ought to have assessors. Yesterday, with 42 fewer Members present, the House took a different view. It was not that they were converted by new arguments; only one man changed his mind. Being interested, as I inevitably am, in the practices and procedures of this House, the other place will no doubt have to consider the interesting question: are the Lords more likely to be right when there are fewer of them, or are they more likely to be right when there are more of them there?
1352
My Lords, I should like again to say how grateful I am to all those in all parts of the House who have taken part in what I think have been first-class debates on the many different aspects of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.16 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be convenient for me to make my very brief remarks now or on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. There is a good deal of disquiet in insurance circles about the inclusion of insurance in this Bill. I have a small interest to declare, but I would explain it in this way. Most life insurance in this country is conducted either by mutual companies whose profits entirely belong to the shareholders or by companies where the vast bulk of the profits go to the shareholders. Therefore the admission of any badly underwritten life into the life fund is automatically to the detriment of the existing shareholders.
Now, there is a general belief in underwriting circles, and indeed outside underwriting circles, that, for instance, Oriental lives tend to be shorter than European born and bred lives. In this country for British lives there are tables of mortality that go back for 200 years, so the underwriters are on pretty sound ground when they underwrite. If they have to take immigrants' lives it will take a generation or two before any comparable statistics are built up, because they have not been able to find in the countries of origin that similar sorts of tables exist.
An underwriter might wish to quote a different rate for a man who is an immigrant from a tropical country, for instance, than for an existing white life in England. The disquiet is that this could be called racial discrimination. Can the Government assure us that the inclusion of insurance in this Bill is not intended to fetter the underwriter's discretion, ordinary commercial discretion, in any way, because that would go some way to reassure them? I think the Government can be reassured, on the other hand, that there is such intense competition in this particular field that the chances of anything that would amount to discrimination against an immigrant life are really virtually nil. But there is that disquiet,

1353
and if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to whom I have mentioned this point, could be kind enough to give some assurance it would be a help.
3.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, at Second Reading my noble friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, described immigration and its attendant problems as the greatest social problem of our generation. I do not dissent from that viewpoint, nor do I dissent from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack about its international implications. It is a problem which arouses deep, and indeed violent, feelings in this country. I should like to echo what my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Hogg—a man who I would claim has made as great a contribution as anyone else in this country to the rational discussion of this problem in recent months—said on the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place. He said that it would be a disaster for this country if any of the major political Parties were to attempt to draw purely Party advantage from this grave problem. I believe—I see that it is also the noble and learned Lord's belief—that it is in this non-partisan spirit that your Lordships have approached this matter.
Having said that, I should not wish to hide my concern at some features of the Bill. I personally regret that the ceilings in relation to housing and employment were set so low as to catch what has been termed the smaller operator. I also regret that the Government were unable to meet us, on either Report or the Committee stage, in our attempts to raise those ceilings, or at least to introduce more flexibility into their operation. While ventilating these criticisms, I also should like to say that I personally feel that it is a pity that we were not able to persuade the Government to knock more sense into Clause 6, the clause regarding advertisements. It was also, in my view, a pity that the Government were not able to be more responsive to the Amendments which were so ably advanced by my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Sandford and which would have legalised discrimination in certain fields of education where that discrimination is patently in the interests of racial harmony and integration. By the same token, I
1354
felt that it was rather unsatisfactory that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn received no satisfactory explanation of the question which he posed and which arose on Clauses 1, 6 and 16 of the Bill; namely, what sort of actions constitute discrimination which do not involve discrimination against somebody.
It would be churlish of me if I were not to recognise that in certain respects this Bill leaves us in a more satisfactory state than it came to us. I welcome the small Amendments to Clause 7 in regard to estate agents which the Government introduced in response to criticisms voiced by my noble friends Lord Conesford and Lord Brooke. I likewise, welcome the Amendment to Clause 9 to ease the position of charitable trusts, an Amendment again made in response to a suggestion from my noble friend Lord Brooke. I should like to congratulate my noble friends Lord Conesford and Lord Dilhorne for their persistence and skill yesterday in carrying the Amendments to Clause 19, thereby deleting those odd creatures, the compulsory assessors, from the Bill. Despite the special pleading, if I detected such a note, in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the interpretation which he placed upon his mathematical calculations, I only hope that the Government will not seek in another ph ce to re-create those odd creatures whom we have now succeeded in deleting from the Bill.
I should like to say how sorry I am that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who introduced the Bill is not with us at present, and to express the hope that he will soon be back with us fully restored to health. I would congratulate him and also his understudy, the noble Baroness, and her understudy, if I may put it that way, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, upon the courtesy with which they have taken this Bill through your Lordships' House.
3.25 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wish only to make one comment on the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. In all my interventions he has treated me with such invariable courtesy that I hope he will not mind my making this friendly comment in reply. I share the view which was expressed by

1355
my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that the other place will accept the Amendment which was carried in this House yesterday, being convinced. I hope, of the wisdom of the step then taken. The only comment I wish to make is on the noble and learned Lord's arithmetic. He has a good joke in saying that the attendance was greater on the occasion on which I was defeated than it was on the occasion when I succeeded. What he did not mention was the comparative figures. On the occasion when I was defeated I was defeated by 70 votes to 65; on the occasion on which I succeeded, the vote was 57 to 36. I think that the proportionate figures may be as important as the total. If I may mention one other new factor, though I do not know what importance either he or I should attach to it, I had yesterday some Liberal support. I think that on the previous occasion I had none.
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I reply to the question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke? The matter of life assurance companies is not an easy one. It has received a lot of friendly discussion between the life offices and the Home Office. The matter is primarily now not one for the Government but, in the first instance, for the Board, and any question of construction is a matter for the courts. I can certainly say that it was not intended that the Bill should interfere with the exercise of normal commercial judgment. The life offices do discriminate between one person and another, and they would probably have been insolvent a long time ago if they did not. Therefore they are not expected to do other than exercise normal commercial judgment, provided that the discrimination is based on evidence and not on a mere guess. In the case of one insurance company, it was found that they were basing their rates for coloured people in England on statistics which were applicable 26 years ago to Negroes in Tennessee. That does not seem to be sound. But in the absence of evidence they should not assume that coloured people are worse risks than white people.
This is what the Bill is about. It is not intended to interfere with the commercial
1356
judgment of employers, house agents or insurance companies; but an assumption that coloured people are bad workers, bad tenants or bad risks is precisely the sort of discrimination which the Bill was designed to prevent. If an Indian came here at the age of 30, the time when he arrives may be perfectly reasonable at which to fix rates having regard to statistics that may be available on lives in India, but it would be unreasonable to apply the same standard to a Jamaican who was born here and who was the son of a Jamaican.
All I can say as a whole, therefore, is that it is not intended to interfere with the life offices' exercising normal commercial judgment, provided that that commercial judgment is based on evidence. It is one of the purposes of the conciliation machinery to give employers and firms an opportunity to demonstrate that they have not been discriminating, in the face of allegations to the contrary. The noble Lord will remember that there is provision for assessors who can sit with the Board, and that is the sort of case where assessors with specialised knowledge in the insurance field might very well be useful.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for what he has said. I am fascinated to know that he is of the opinion that the House is more likely to be right when there are few people here than when there are a lot of people here. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has raised the interesting additional question as to whether you look at the total figures, or whether it is not better to have a large proportion among a small number, rather than vice versa. Finally. I should like, if I may, to join in the tribute which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has so rightly paid to the part which Mr. Hogg has played throughout in relation to this Bill, and I should like that to be my last word.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CLEAN AIR BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
DOMESTIC AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Civil Evidence Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 114 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 & 2.]
Clause 4, page 3, line 39, leave out from "person" to "in" line 40 and insert" acting".
Clause 4, page 3,line 42, leave out "by virtue" and insert "for the purposes".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Commons have made 14 Amendments to the Civil Evidence Bill. They mostly relate to different points, and must accordingly be explained separately. But I should say at once that they are all purely technical and, so far as I know. there has been no objection to any of them. Your Lordships will remember that this is the Bill by which we sought, as indeed we must, to make the output of computers admissible evidence in our courts. Your Lordships may also remember that we had quite a little difficulty in doing this here, partly because of the nature of computers, and partly in determining the conditions under which, from the point of view of the opposing party, such evidence should be admissible.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are drafting Amendments. They extend the meaning to be attached under Clause 4(3) to "a person acting under a duty", so as to make that expression include
"a person acting in the course of any trade, business or profession"
instead of,
"a person performing a duty falling to be performed by him in the course of any trade"
and so on.
1358
It is clear from the Report of the Law Reform Committee that they intended ordinary business records to be treated as having been compiled under a duty, as in most cases they are. But the concept of "duty" is not very appropriate to the owner of a one-man business who keeps his own records. He cannot be under any duty to himself (although he will find it in practice essential) to keep normal business records, and it would be anomalous if entries in his ledgers made by him were not admissible whereas entries in similar ledgers made by another man's clerk, simply because he was an employee, were admissible. Convenience and logic demand that entries made in the course of business by the proprietor should be treated on a par with similar entries made by an employee. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amend rents Nos. 1 and 2.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has asked me to reply for him on behalf of these Benches. He asked me to apologise for his absence and to start by saying that he is grateful for the consultations which he has had with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor upon these Amendments. In consequence of those consultations he personally is satisfied that these two Amendments, and indeed all the Commons Amendments, may be accepted. Furthermore, I gather from my other noble and legal friends on these Benches that they feel the same. On these grounds, I feel confident in saying that if the noble and learned Lord would like to move the rest of these Amendments en bloc there are unlikely to be any objections from this side.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3ߝ7]
Clause 5, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
"(2A) Where over a period the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above was regularly performed by computers, whether—

(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

1359

(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers,

all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as constituting a single computer; and references in this Part of this Act to a computer shall be construed accordingly."
Clause 5, page 4, line 32, leave out from "statement" to end of line 34 and insert "and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer;"
Clause 5, page 4, line 44, leave out "section" and insert "Part of this Act"
Clause 5, page 5, line 15, leave out "In this section" and insert "Subject to subsection (2A) above, in this Part of this Act"
Clause 5, page 4, line 16, leave out "the" and insert "any".
[No. 8]
Clause 6, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
"(5) If any person in a certificate tendered in evidence in civil proceedings by virtue of section 5(3) of this Act wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both."
[Nos. 9–11]
Clause 8, page 7, line 39, leave out from "of" to "connected" in line 40 and insert "such one or more of the persons"
Clause 5, page 4, line 43, leave out from "Act" to "concerned" in line 44 and insert "such one or more of the persons"
Clause 5, page 4, line 45, after "Act" insert "as the rules may in any case require"
[Nos. 12 and 13]
Clause 10, page 11, line 1, at end insert—
""computer" has the meaning assigned by section 5 of this Act."
Clause 10, page 11, line 35, at end insert "and any reference to a copy of the material part of a document shall be construed accordingly."
[No. 14]
Clause 12, page 14, line 33, after "action" insert ""affiliation proceedings" means, in relation to Scotland, any action of affiliation and aliment;".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
1360
Amendments Nos. 3 to 14. I shall gladly avail myself of the offer which has been made, although I apprehend that it is my duty to the House to explain as shortly as I can what these different Amendments are.
Amendment No. 3 enables a number of computers used successively or in conjunction for storing or processing information to be treated as a single computer for the purposes of Part I of the Bill. Without the Amendment, Clause 5 makes admissible a statement contained in a document produced by a computer only if the relevant information was supplied to that computer and only if one identifiable computer is involved throughout. Clause 5 does not, therefore, cover the far from uncommon case in which a "stand-by" computer is used on one or more occasions when the computer normally in use is out of order or otherwise unavailable. Nor does Clause 5 as drafted cover the case, which is also common, of more than one computer being used in combination to store or process the relevant information. In that case, the product cannot properly be described as being produced by an identifiable computer in that it has been produced by the joint operation of several computers.
The whole object of Clause 5 is to make admissible in evidence statements contained in what is already the normal form of many business records, a form which is likely to become more common in the not too distant future. If Clause 5 were too narrowly drawn and excluded any document where more than one computer had been involved in storing or processing the relevant information or in producing the document, it would not serve the need of the commercial and industrial community.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential on the insertion in Clause 5 of the new subsection (2A) to which I have just referred. As Clause 5(3) is drafted, it enables a certificate to be put in evidence to prove the conditions of admissibility of a cornputerised record.
Amendment No. 5 is a purely drafting Amendment. Part I of the Bill contains references outside Clause 5 to statements contained in documents produced by computers, and it is accordingly more accurate for subsection (4) to apply for the purposes of Part I rather than for

1361
the purposes of Clause 5. Amendment No. 6 is purely consequential upon the insertion in Clause 5 of the new subsection (2A). Amendment No. 7 is also a drafting Amendment. There is in Clause 5 more than one reference to information being derived from other information, and it is accordingly not strictly accurate to speak of "the" reference to such derivation; it should be "any" reference.
Amendment No. 8 attracts a criminal penalty to the wilful making of a false statement in a certificate tendered in evidence under Clause 5(3) (which becomes Clause 5(4) as a result of Amendment No. 3); that is to say, a certificate to the effect that the conditions have been satisfied under which a "computerised record" is admissible. Under Clause 5(3) a person holding a relevant responsible position may sign a certificate dealing with these matters, and such a certificate is admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents.
As introduced, the Bill contained no criminal sanction for a deliberately false statement contained in such a certificate. Whether there should be a criminal sanction is debatable. On the one hand, if the certificate procedure is to be freely used those concerned must not be frightened off, and the attachment of such a sanction could have that effect. On the other hand, not all parties to civil actions are scrupulously honest, and the absence of any sanction might lead a dishonest person to tell a deliberate lie in the knowledge that he would not in the normal case have to go into court to support his statement by giving evidence on oath and thus expose himself to a prosecution for perjury. Moreover, the honest but possibly not too careful man has nothing to fear under this Amendment because the offence is committed only if the falsehood is wilful.
The new subsection (5) added to Clause 6 by the Amendment follows Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 in this respect. It also follows Section 89 in attracting the criminal penalty only to a false statement which is material in the proceedings in which the certificate is tendered in evidence. Thus, in effect, the offence will be committed only if the deliberate falsehood relates to one or
1362
other of the conditions of admissibility applicable to the computerised record in question.
My Lords, if I may take Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 together, these drafting Amendments make it clear that rules of court will (a) not have to provide that a notice under Clause 8(2)(a) relating to a hearsay statement, or to an "ordinary" or "computerised" record, must name every person connected in the relevant manner with the making or recording of the statement, or the operation of the computer system, as the case may be, but (b) will be able to provide that one or more such persons is to be specified in the notice.
As drafted, Clause 8(2)(a) required the rules to provide for a notice giving to the other parties:
"particulars of any person who was in any manner so specified connected with the making or recording of the statement",
and so on. It was represented that the words "any person" might be construed by the rule-making authorities as making it mandatory for the rules to provide that every person connected with or concerned in any of the relevant manners must be included. It was not the intention to bring about such a result. What is envisaged is that, in the case of, for example, a computerised document, the rules should require the party to give particulars of a person holding a responsible position in connection with the system for supplying information to the computer, a person holding such a position in connection with the operation of the "hardware", and a person holding such a position in connection with the system under which print-outs are produced. In many cases one person will be able to cover all three aspects, and that person may also be the person who signs the certificate under Clause 5(3).
My Lords, Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment. "Computer" is an expression used in a number of causes in Part I of the Bill, and it is therefore convenient to include in the interpretation clause a reference to the definition of computer set out in Clause 5. Amendment No. 13 is also a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that the extended construction to be placed, by virtue of Clause 10(2), on any reference to a copy of a document "applies to a copy not

1363
only of the whole of the original document but also of a material part of such a document.
Amendment No. 14 is a drafting Amendment which was made in Committee in the other place to define "affiliation proceedings" in relation to Scotland as meaning "any action of affiliation and aliment". "Affiliation proceedings" is not a technical term in Scottish law, as it is in English law. The technical term in Scotland corresponding to affiliation proceedings in England is "an action of affiliation and aliment", and this is the expression used in the corresponding provision of the current Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It is obviously desirable that the two Bills should, as far as possible, incorporate the same definitions, and the Amendment achieves this object. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ORGANISATION OF GOVERNMENT: DEPARTMENTAL CHANGES
3.45 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): 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 changes in the organisation of Government Departments. These changes cover, respectively, the organisation of Government for overseas affairs, the social services and the management of the Civil Service. My right honourable friend's Statement continues:
"I explained in reply to my right honourable friend the Member for Easington on the 28th of March that I had asked my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to supervise the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office into a single office for which he would become responsible. Preparations are now complete and the merger of the two Departments into the
1364
Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take effect to-morrow."
My Lords, with permission, I intend to repeat slightly later on a more detailed Statement on that subject which has been made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place.
The Statement continues:
"The Queen has graciously agreed that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary should take charge of the combined Office as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
"The second change relates to the social services. I referred in an Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton on April 11 to my decision to amalgamate the Ministries of Health and Social Security. The Queen has graciously agreed to the appointment of my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council as Secretary of State for Social Services. An Order to transfer to the Secretary of State the functions of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Security and to dissolve the two Ministries, is being laid before the House in draft today."
Here again, my Lords, I am sure that we can consider through the usual channels the possibility of a debate in your Lordships' House on the necessary Affirmative Resolution.
The Statement goes on:
"Subject to this and to approval of a similar Motion in another place, the amalgamation of the two Ministries into the Department of Health and Social Security will take place on November 1. I am sure that the House generally will welcome this amalgamation. I am confident that it will facilitate the working out of policies covering the whole field of the new Department which at present cut across present departmental boundaries.
"My right honourable friend will continue after his appointment as Secretary of State for Social Services to co-ordinate the whole range of social services, in addition to his responsibility for the new combined Department.
"The third change relates to the management of the Civil Service. I

1365
told the House in my Statement on the Report of the Fulton Committee on June 26"—
and that Statement was repeated in your Lordships' House—
"that the Government accepted their recommendation that responsibility for the management of the Civil Service should be transferred from the Treasury to a new Civil Service Department under the direction of the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service. The arrangements for setting up this Department are now complete. An Order has been made, and will also be laid before the House to-day, for the necessary transfer of functions from the Treasury to the Minister for the Civil Service to take effect on November 1. As I have already informed the House, my noble friend the Paymaster General, the Lord Shackleton, will be responsible for the day-to-day work of the new Department, under my direction.
"The Civil Service Department will assume the Treasury's functions in respect of the pay and management of the Civil Service, and also for the co-ordination of Government policy in relation to pay and pensions throughout the public sector. The Civil Service Commission will form part of the new Department, but specific and formal arrangements are being made to ensure the continuing independence and political impartiality of the Commission in the selection of individuals for appointment to the Civil Service. I hope that the House"—
that is the House of Commons—
"will have an opportunity shortly to debate the setting up of the Civil Service Department on a Motion to take note of the Fulton Report.
"These developments will necessitate changes in the arrangements for answering Questions in this House and I suggest that discussions on this should be conducted through the usual channels."
My Lords, some of those remarks are not appropriate to this House because we have already had a lengthy debate on the Fulton Report.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would now read out the other Statement. He has read half the Statement about the new Ministries. I think it would be convenient if he took both together. Would this be possible?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether it might not be better to keep the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office Statement until the end and to have any questions directed to the merger of the other Departments a: this stage, so that we do not muddle up the two matters. I wonder whether this would be agreeable to the House?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in that case it falls to me to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for reading that Statement and to welcome at any rate that part of it which referred to the amalgamation of the Ministries of Health and Social Security. It has for a long time been a cardinal part of Conservative policy in this field that the administration of cash and care Within the social services should be the responsibility of one Minister.
There will remain the difficulty of deciding in which Minister the responsibilities that arise out of the implementation of the Seebohm Report are finally to be vested. A large part of the Seebohm Report covered the Children's Department, which at present is normally the responsibility of the Home Secretary. Perhaps it is premature to ask the noble Lord to say anything about that at this stage. But in so far as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of social Security are merged, it is certainly welcomed from these Benches.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for ropeating that Statement. There are only two points that I wish to raise. We welcome the streamlining of these arrangements; but may I ask whether, apart from the increased efficiency which should result, there will be a saving in manpower? Secondly, what is to be the position of the present Offices of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Security? Are they to be downgraded? Will it be possible not to lose the services of so competent a Minister as Mr. Kenneth Robinson?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords. The fact that this is in accordance with Conservative policy does not mean that it is wholly wrong. It is certainly different from the concept of "overlords" from which certain noble Lords on that side of the House may have suffered in the past. The noble Lord put his finger on a very crucial area. He was good enough to say that it might be difficult at the moment to answer the question relating to the consequences of the Seebohm Report. The noble Lord will have noticed that my right honourable friend's title goes rather wider than that of Social Security and Health. He will co-ordinate the discussions with local authorities and other interests on the Seebohm Report on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. It is really too early yet to say whether any changes in departmental organisation will flow from this Report. I must say that I should be rather nervous to start speculating on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked whether there would be any saving in manpower. I shall have something to say about that in relation to the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office; but these two Departments are only about to be merged, and although some of the work will have been done it is a little early to speculate on particular savings. For instance, on the Civil Service Department it may well be necessary—although the Government are anxious, indeed determined, to keep within the ceilings they have set themselves—in order to make economies sometimes to invest; and some manpower will be needed within the Civil Service Department. But I take the noble Lord's point.
Of course the object of increased efficiency is either to provide better and more services (and some of the increases in manpower that have come about in the past have been made in order to provide increased services) or to make economies and save manpower—which is either a net saving or the manpower can be used more profitably elsewhere. On the question of the present Offices, I echo the noble Lord's sentiments about the Ministers concerned but I think I ought not to speculate on a matter which is so much within the Prime Minister's prerogative.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether they are going to remain or are going to be downgraded?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it would appear to suggest that the two posts of independent Departmental Ministers will disappear; but I hesitate to use a word like "downgraded". Indeed, I hesitate to speculate at all. I do not know the answers.

MERGER OF FOREIGN OFFICE AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may I will now read the other Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place about the merger of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office. It reads as follows:
"On March 15 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring about the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office and in a Statement on March 28 he explained to the House the reasons for this.
"It was announced on September 18 that the new Office would be called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that it would come into being on October 17 this year.
"This change will take effect from to-morrow and for the first time in modern history the external affairs of this country will be in the charge of one Secretary of State and one Department. For good historical and political reasons, we have been the only country in the world to maintain separate Foreign and Commonwealth Offices. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in April the time has now come to amalgamate these two Departments. We shall continue to do everything possible to promote good relationships with the world community, whether through the United Nations or with individual countries and groups of countries. We shall continue to play our full part as a member of the Commonwealth and to maintain our close association with other Commonwealth Governments. In

1369
forming the new Office we have made certain that the interests of the dependent territories will receive the close and sympathetic attention which our responsibility for them requires.
"We have not merely put the two existing Departments together: we have examined the tasks of both and constructed a new Office to perform those tasks.
"In the planning of the merger, and in the work of both Departments over many years, the country is greatly indebted to the devotion, industry and skill of its permanent civil servants.
"The handling, under Parliament, of the external affairs of this country over the years has called for sensitive judgment, continuous hard work in numerous fields and the initiation of, and response to, peaceful change—all this in a restless and sometimes violent world. It is in this progressive spirit that this new Department of State will meet the challenge of the future."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. I must say that ever since some years ago I was a High Commissioner in a Commonwealth country, I have always felt that this amalgamation was the right thing to do—not in any way in a spirit of criticism of the Commonwealth Relations Office, as it then was, but because I thought the division between these two different Departments did not lead to efficiency. I do not think that the Commonwealth as a whole will regret this step; although I think they will wish to be assured that the service they get from the new Department will be as good as if not better than that from the Commonwealth Office. The noble Lord mentioned in the Statement that there is going to be some special attention paid to the dependent territories. May I ask him exactly what form that will take? Finally, may I ask whether he could give us any indication of how many Ministers are likely to be in this new Department? In the two old Departments, I think there must have been something approaching double figures.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, poised as I am between the Minister of
1370
State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, I would hesitate to speculate on how many Ministers there will be and who will occupy these posts. Here again no doubt time will shortly show. But on tilt particular point of the dependent territories—I know that noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shepherd, have worked manfully in this area and shown great interest—in order to maintain a body corpus of specialised knowledge of the problems of dependent territories, and to ensure that the welfare and interests of their inhabitants and our responsibilities for those territories are taken into account in our external policy, special arrangements are being made; and these are explained quite fully in the White Paper. In fact, there will be a special branch, or department, or division which will look after dependent territories which are close together, even though in other areas there will be geographical departments. So very special attention has been paid to that.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, sees this as an inevitable and rightful development. I assure him that the whole object is to produce a greater and more efficient set-up. For instance, relations with High Commissioners will be just as good; in some ways they may be made easier. High Commissioners will still retain certain special rights, and they may find it a simpler operation to liaise with Her Majesty's Government than in the past.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we, too, welcome this change very much. I am sure that it could—and I hope that it will—lead to greater efficiency. May I ask the noble Lord whether the White Paper will show the exact division of responsibility within the new Department regarding the different aspects of its work? If not, perhaps that could be done at some time for the benefit of Members of the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this White Paper is now in the Printed Paper Office. It explains in a good deal of detail what the arrangements will built may be that it does not give all the answers, but obviously, if the noble Lord or Members of your Lordships' House want further information on organisation, an opportunity can be found to provide it on some other occasion, either in answer

1371
to Questions, or perhaps in a debate on the Queen's Speech or on foreign affairs.
May I also refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in relation to the earlier Statement? There have been quite significant savings. For instance, in the merger the number of Permanent and Deputy Under-Secretaries has been reduced by 25 per cent. and there has been a significant reduction at Assistant Under-Secretary level. Over 100 posts have been saved in the first phase of the merger, in addition to the 398 previously saved at home since the unified Diplomatic Service was set up in 1965. There is also the further investigation, the Duncan Inquiry, into the Foreign Service.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I was proposing to express the hope that a place would be found for the services of Mr. George Thomson in the Government, but in the light of the noble Lord's previous answer perhaps I had better not press the point.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, may I join briefly in the welcome of this proposal, having myself served in both Departments as a Minister? Does not the Leader of the House agree that the best result will be that from now on we shall be able to have the best men available in the most important capitals without the necessity for cross-posting, which sometimes gave rise to rather unhappy comparisons of status?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, again I am much obliged to the noble Lord. This is an example of the advantages that will flow from this combined arrangement. It will take a little while to settle down, but I am sure that the noble Lord, who has had great experience in this field, is right in his judgment. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers (all your Lordships are being extraordinarily kind and tactful), that I understand that the services of my right honourable friend Mr. George Thomson, certainly during this crucial period in relation to Rhodesia, will not be lost.

FUTURE BUSINESS: RHODESIA
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, possibly it would be for the convenience of the House if I made the short Statement on Business to which I referred earlier. The
1372
Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1968 will be taken in this House after other Public Business next Tuesday, October 22. The Order will, of course, be open to debate, though I understand, after consultation, that a general debate is considered not to be appropriate at this juncture. Time for such a general debate can be given at some later date. This means that the House will not be sitting on Monday next.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that will be very convenient. If anything happens between now and Tuesday which makes it desirable, it will, of course, still be possible, because of the rather wide scope of our Rules of Order, for the House to debate Rhodesia on the Order. But I should have thought that it was the general wish of the House at this moment not to say too much, and though our views on the Orders may not have changed, perhaps we may not have too long a debate on them.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. That is our understanding of the position.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there are many in this House who retain to the very full their opposition to the original sanctions with which I understand these Orders are to be concerned, and I feel that I should make that clear now. But, with the Leader of the Opposition, I doubt whether it would be in accordance with our usual practice to raise a full debate on the whole subject of Rhodesia on such a comparatively narrow aspect. I think that the House would be prepared—at least I hope it will—not to debate these Orders at any length if the Government will give an absolute assurance that they will give us an early opportunity for a full debate if we ask for it. And when I say "an early date" I mean an early date.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords. I had the opportunity to have a few words with the noble Marquess. I am very much obliged to noble Lords opposite. It is, of course, always within the power of the House to initiate a debate, but I think it is the basis of our understanding that we should seek to facilitate any such debate.

DESIGN COPYRIGHT BILL
4.7 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is very short and has but one operative clause amending Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1956. It is an important Bill and one urgently required by industrialists. It is not merely a minor improvement of Statute Law. The mechanism of the Bill is not straight-forward and cannot be understood without reference to Section 10 of the Copyright Act which is itself a difficult section. I think I ought to point out that when this clause was going through the House in 1956 I raised an objection to one of the provisions, and the only way the Government of that time could meet it was to insert a whole new Schedule in the Act, which shows how complicated this section is. Your Lordships must take it from me that the Bill is as sound legally as it can be, and at this stage I shall deal only with its purpose and effect.
The Bill was promoted in another place by Mrs. Jill Knight, Conservative Member for Edgbaston, who had support from both major Parties in the House. I have little doubt that there would have been Liberal support if at the critical moment Mrs. Knight had been able to find a Liberal Member to add his name to those of her other supporters. Apart from the promoter, no other Member appears to have spoken on the Bill in another place but certain Amendments were made by the promoter in Committee. These were not concerned with the principle of the Bill and were highly technical.
The Bill is of great importance to any industry employing artistic designers and particularly to the manufacturers of toys, costume jewellery, furniture and textiles. Modern methods have loosed a rash of plagiarism. You can now have an industrial design copied very quickly. This is happening on a very large scale, particularly in Hong Kong, which is now connected to this country by a rapid air service. As I shall show, much of this copying is now quite lawful. The originator of a design may pay thousands of pounds to produce it; a plagiarist may pay hundreds of pounds for moulds to copy it. Not only is this discouraging to the point of prohibition to industrialists
1374
who commission designs, it also leads to a flood of inferior copies which may well seriouly damage this country's export trade.
Any artistic work is prima facie the subject of copyright under the 1956 Act but that Act specifically provides that artistic quality is to be irrelevant. Section 10 of that Act, however, deprives industrial designs of copyright, and if protection is required designs must be registered at the Patent Office as registered designs, with a term of monopoly of 15 years from the date of application for registration, instead of the term of artistic copy right, which is the life of the author and 50 years.
Your Lordships may ask: when are designs industrial designs? That is laid down by a Statutory Instrument (1957 No. 867), which says:
"1. A design shall be taken to he applied industrially for the purposes of Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1956, if it is applied—

(a) to more than 50 articles all of which do not together constitute a single set of articles as defined in subsection (1) of Section 44 of the Registered Designs Act 1949, or

(b) to goods manufactured in lengths or pieces, other than hand-made goods.'

The registration of industrial designs is a reasonably rapid process but not nearly fast enough to defeat the modern copyist. Regardless of loose talk about "copyright in registered designs", registered design protection under the Registered Designs Act 1948 confers a monopoly upon a proprietor and not a copyright. The Crown cannot grant the same monopoly twice, so a novelty search has to be conducted by the Registrar of Designs, which takes time. The registered proprietor of a design can restrain even a manufacturer who at a later date independently produces his design. The courts are thus reluctant to grant interlocutory relief against infringement of a registered design—that is to say, relief at very short notice until the trial of an action or a further order. If the defendant makes any serious challenge to the validity of the registered design, it is almost impossible to obtain relief.
The author of an artistic work is in a much stronger position than the proprietor of an industrial design as against a plagiarist. The artistic work need only be original, not novel—that is, the author has not himself copied it. Proof of

1375
copying is also simple, since copies are usually of the "Chinese" variety and the onus passes to the alleged copier to prove that he thought of the artistic work independently.
The Bill suspends the operation of Section 10 of the 1956 Act in the case of industrial designs which are also artistic works for 15 years from the date of commercial exploitation and thus gives them copyright protection for a period which in practice will work out slightly longer than the registered design protection, of which owners are also able to avail themselves if they desire a monopoly as well as copyright protection. This Bill does not restore the full period of the life of the author and 50 years for normal artistic copyright. In view of the ephemeral nature of the articles concerned, this was considered to be excessive.
In 1962 the Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Johnston, Q.C., appointed by the Board of Trade, reported on the law of industrial designs. It has not been possible to implement its recommendations because of the length of the Bill required and the priority of other legislation. This Bill in no way conflicts with the Committee's recommendations. It represents a half-way stage. The Committee recommended the introduction of a design copyright system in which copyright would depend on originality and not upon novelty. This Bill gives effect to this.
Secondly, as an incident of this, the Committee recommended the deposit of a representation of a design at the Patent Office. The purpose of this was not to define the design, but merely as a matter of record. The Bill does not provide for this because protection is confined to designs which are also artistic works under the 1956 Act. Thirdly, the Committee also recommended as a further incident, that the Board of Trade should have power to exclude certain articles from the system. This is not in the Bill. The deviation is unimportant. It was to satisfy one of two industries and in particular footwear manufacturers, who had reservations. The footwear organisations have now told the Promoter that they are satisfied with this Bill. The only other recommendation was that the deposit
1376
should include a statement of novelty. Since this Bill is confined to artistic works, this is unnecessary.
This Bill, as well as receiving general support in another place, has the support of the Confederation of British Industry, the British Toy Manufacturers' Association Limited, the British Furniture Manufacturers' Federated Associations, the British National Export Council and the British Jewellers' Association. The promoters have had every help from those who organise the Business both here and in another place and from the Board of Trade, who made available the services of a senior official of the Patent Office, who at one time practised at the Bar, who was personally concerned with the progress of the 1956 Act and who is himself an excellent draughtsman and takes a real interest in the improvement of industrial property law. This Bill is most urgently required and I hope that it will receive your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cawley.)
4.15 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, for his very clear and detailed explanation of the Bill, which makes it unnecessary for me to cover the ground which he has so admirably put before your Lordships. I would merely make reference to the Johnston Committee, following the point already made by the noble Lord. The numerous recommendations of that Committee would have involved a major piece of legislation, and it has not been possible to find time for that. But the present Bill meets the need felt by those concerned for a copyright type system of protection by the simple device of amending Section 10 of the Copyright Act so as to postpone its effect for 15 years. It is true that this does not accord in detail with the Committee's recommendations, but it is much simpler to enact and operate than the Committee's scheme, which would have involved two registration systems.
The present Bill does not call for the employment of any more civil servants, and therefore I feel that those noble Lords who from time to time raise questions as to the numbers of civil servants will approve the Bill on that account. Speaking generally, there is no reason

1377
why it should not work satisfactorily to meet the needs of those industries for whom the present system is admittedly unsatisfactory. In view of the facts presented by the noble Lord, that the Committee sat some six years ago and that it has not been possible to introduce legislation on the lines recommended, this Bill is heartily supported by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a brief moment, but on behalf of my noble friends I should like to congratulate Mrs. Jill Knight on having been successful in carrying this Bill through another place and also my noble friend Lord Cawley on a most admirable and informative exposition of the purposes of the Bill in this House. It has been most useful to your Lordships to have this explanation. I am grateful that the Government have given the Bill the encouragement that they have given and we shall be glad to see the Bill on the Statute Book.
I should like to ask one question to check up on a minor point. In the list of those whom my noble friend recited as having been consulted, I noticed that he did not mention the Council of Industrial Design. I should think that in this case it would have been desirable to consult the Council, and I hope that they were consulted. Even if they were not, I am sure that they would agree with this Bill, but I feel that a body of their eminence should have been consulted on such a matter.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend's question, but I will certainly inform him and the noble Baroness of whether the Council were consulted. I think that all I can do now is to thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks, and express my appreciation for the great help that the Board of Trade have given in the progress of this Bill towards the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAMING BILL
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lord, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 16 [Provision of credit for gaming]:
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: had given notice of his intention to move two Amendments dealing with the use of cheques in gaming. The noble Lord said: The two Amendments standing in my name were put down for two reasons: first, to avoid large sums of cash being carried about the streets by gamblers; and secondly, to limit the losses of compulsive gamblers by preventing them from drawing cheques in the heat of the game. The second Amendment lays itself open to the objection that it may be obviated by circumvention. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I have been in correspondence about these Amendments, and I understand from him that they are not acceptable to the Gcvernment. Therefore I do not propose to move them to-day, but I would put forward the suggestion that the Home Secretary should consider devising some way of implementing the second Amendment by embodying it in the rules of gaming clubs.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Certificates of exclusion
".—(1) If any person applies to the Gaming Board for a certificate of exclusion, the Board shall grant him such a certificate and shall enter his particulars in the Register of excluded persons, which shall be maintained by the Board.
(2) No excluded person shall be admitted to any premises in respect of which a 1icence under this Act is for the time being in force.
(3) The Register of excluded persons shall he conclusive evidence on the question of fact whether a person is an excluded person or not.
(4) The Board shall send particulars of any excluded person—

(a) forthwith, to the holder of a licence under this Act in respect of any club of which that person claims to be a member; and

(b) within one month of the grant of any such certificate, to all holders of licences under this Act.

(5) A certificate of exclusion shall last five years, but may be renewed on the application of the person to whom it was granted.
(6) This section shall not apply to bingo club premises."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third occasion on which I have moved an Amendment which has a simple and, as I hope will still be accepted, laudable aim; that is, to help the compulsive gambler to give up this demoralising habit: and not only the gambler who has reached that pathological stage of compulsion but also he who, although he knows it is against all his interests and is destroying his life in many ways, still goes along far more often than his better judgment would allow him to the casinos to play, and in all probability to lose his money.
On the two previous occasions when I moved an Amendment along these lines, neither of which I pressed because I was informed on both occasions that the draftsmanship was faulty, my proposals had very wide, if not completely general, approval from Members of your Lordships' House. I had the strong support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, whose absence to-day I am sure we all greatly regret; and the Church itself was aware that my proposal is also strongly supported by that admirable body, Gamblers Anonymous, who try to help those who have this affliction, in the same way as Alcoholics Anonymous try to help those who are afflicted with alcoholism.
My Amendment was supported from the Liberal Benches by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and by many noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, including, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—and again I must say how much I regret his absence to-day. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, may I be allowed to remind your Lordships of the support that he then gave to my Amendment, when he mentioned, in particular, that he personally
1380
thought that the underlying purpose of the new clause was thoroughly good. He went on at the end of his remarks to say:
"If I am right in sensing that the general opinion of the Committee is in favour of something being done on these lines, I trust that the Government will endeavour to take a less hostile attitude to the proposal and wilt co-operate in trying to put something of this kind on the Statute Book."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1/8/68; col. 451.]
The hostile attitude to which the noble Lord referred in that sentence was not as hostile as all that. My noble friend Lord Stonham (and once again I have to say how sorry we are that the noble Lord is not here; how greatly we appreciate the extraordinary work that he was doing on several major Bills, including this one; how glad we are to learn that he is now on the way to recovery, and our hope that he will soon be back among us), when I first moved this Amendment upstairs, was so kind as to say:
"I am sure we all have sympathy with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Gaming Bill Committee, 4/7/68; col. 131.]
And when I moved it again on re-committal, my noble friend said:
"I am quite sure, and the debate has made this obvious, that no one would oppose my noble friend's objective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1/8/68; col. 447.]
Unfortunately, he then went on to oppose it in a way which it is almost impossible to counter, because he said two things.
He began by saying that I had not created an offence, and that therefore there was no criminal sanction; it was no more than a statement of good intent. But, having said that, my noble friend towards the end of his remarks informed the Committee that if a criminal liability were put on the proprietor of a gaming house if he admitted an excluded person to his premises this would not be acceptable to the Government. I was therefore left in the position that if I made this a criminal offence the Amendment was ineffective, and if I failed to make it a criminal offence the Amendment was objectionable. That is a situation with which I have found it impossible to deal in a way that might be acceptable to the Government.
It had always been my intention that if a man had applied for a certificate of exclusion, and was admitted to any club

1381
licensed under the Act, the proprietor would be guilty of an offence. So, my Lords, I have decided, particularly as this was clearly the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I should without doubt make it an offence, and that I have done in this Amendment. In my last version I proposed that it should be the duty of the licensee not to admit an excluded person. In my present version, which is otherwise substantially the same as the first version, I say quite dearly in subsection (2):
"No excluded person shall be admitted to any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force."
This has to be read in conjunction with Clause 23, which deals with offences. Clause 23 states that if any provisions of Sections 12 to 20 of this Act—and my new clause, being No. 18, would be one of those—are contravened, then the holder of a licence shall be guilty of an offence.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (3) of this clause, which states:
"Where a person is charged with an offence under either of the preceding subsections…it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(a) that the contravention occurred without his knowledge and

(b) that he exercised all such care as was reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the provisions in question would not be contravened."

I think that is important, because if a compulsive gambler feels, "I must go and play to-night", he may go to a club and give a false name. But to begin with, he cannot be a member for 48 hours, and during those 48 hours he can have second thoughts and ring up the club and say, "I am not John Smith. I am Willie Jones. And I am an excluded person." But if some such subterfuge is used by an excluded person it would certainly be a defence under that subsection to prove that the contravention occurred without the knowledge of the proprietor, and so on.
Finally, we come to subsection (4), which states:
"Any person guilty of an offence…shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400".
and so on. Of course, a fine of £400 for admitting an excluded person would
1382
be completely excessive, but this is a maximum fine which applies to the breach of any clause of the Bill, including, for example, the admission of a young person under 18 years of age, or the cashing of a cheque—for which, again, obviously, a fine of £400 would be excessive. It is merely a maximum figure which would not be applicable is this case, any more than in the others that I have mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Stonham put forward his objection that it would be unfair to put a criminal liability on a proprietor in a matter of this kind. I have given the matter much thought and I really cannot see how that argument is acceptable. A gaming club proprietor is already under many obligations as to the people, the men and women, whom he is allowed to admit and those he wants to admit. Gaming house proprietors have men on the door who are trained, and trained to a remarkable extent, to keep out of the club those people whom they do not want or who are not allowed in. This is already standard practice. They have to keep out non-members; they have to keep out people who are still waiting for the 48 hours to expire; they have to keep out young persons under 18. They want to keep out people whose credit is known to be bad and whose cheques habitually "bounce", or who have got drunk frequently, or have caused disturbances. There is already elaborate machinery in existence to make sure that such undesirable or ineligible persons should not be admitted to the club.
If we are going to have proprietors who are responsible, as we must have, and proprietors who see that the law is fulfilled, as we must have—indeed, they will not get certificates of consent unless they are men of that calibre—I do not see how it can present any difficulty to ensure that, to the best of their ability, excluded persons are not admitted to the clubs. This is not a Party matter. This Amendment is in the name of three noble Lords, one from each of the three main Parties. I hope that my Amendment, which will help many unfortunate people, will commend itself on its merits and without political considerations to your Lordships, and that it will find its place in the Statute Book. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.34 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to re-echo the support my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor gave on Recommittal to the principle behind this Amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may feel able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on this point, and that unless there are insuperable reasons against it this Amendment will be accepted at this stage in your Lordships' House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS MOUTH: My Lords, I should like to reiterate the support which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester gave to this Amendment at the Committee stage, and to say that while I still feel that there may be extreme difficulties in its application, I am sure that the principle behind the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has moved is the right one.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, I regret to say that I feel I must oppose this Amendment. I say that I do so regretfully because, without the slightest shadow of doubt, as has been said by all the noble Lords who have spoken so far, the spirit behind it is absolutely admirable. But is it relevant to this Bill? I know, as many of your Lordships know, that this matter was considered in great detail in Committee, and there we had a strong argument, if I remember rightly, to the effect that it seemed to be workable abroad. I had prepared a list of the effects here, but the noble Lord moving this Amendment seems already to have given most of them. This Amendment creates a very unnecessary risk of committing a criminal offence, although I know that under subsection (3) of Clause 23, which will have to be amended if this new clause is included in the Bill, it is a defence to plead that it was committed without the knowledge of the proprietor and that he took all reasonable steps.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said that already there is an organisation for excluding undesirable people, but on the whole such people seem to be those who are socially undesirable or commercially undesirable. With the exception, I agree, of being under age, they did not seem to be undesirable as criminals. We are now asked to put the proprietors at very considerable
1384
risk. I would suggest that it is extremely difficult—indeed, almost impossible—to enforce this provision. I think that if we are likely to be swayed by the feeling that we should be doing good for some people—and no doubt we should—we ought also to consider a parallel. Should we allow alcoholics to obtain a certificate? Should such information be transmitted to all publicans and off-licence holders? No; we would not dream of that. Would we do the same for drug addicts? Admirable though it must be, I think that this proposal is quite impossible.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I too feel a considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and his motives in adding an Amendment to this Bill. Anyone who has, as I did as an undergraduate, played Scrabble for a pound a point must feel this very intensely. But I also feel sympathy with the noble Earl who has just spoken, in that I feel that here is a risk of handing over an area of personal morality to the landlord or licensee of such establishments, rather as if one were to decide to give up smoking and wear a button to that effect, acknowledging the right of the police to arrest one should one "light up". The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned the "elaborate machinery" (I think those were his words) which is already in existence to prevent unseemly or upsetting incidents at gaming houses. I feel that his Amendment may require that machinery to bear more than it should reasonably carry.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I briefly say this? If a man is conscious of his weaknesses, knows what he is, and is strong enough to admit them to himself, if he then performs an act of what can only be described as "self-abnegation" and goes to the authorities and says "Count me out", I think such a man is worthy of support.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I feel that if this Amendment were practicable it would fulfil a long-felt want to protect parents. One knows that in this gambling business offspring go very wrong, on occasion, and are probably full of remorse on the morning after: often they would sign the requisite forms, and the parents would be protected, perhaps until such

1385
time as the child came to years of discretion. But whether the Amendment is practicable or not I do not know.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, as I put my name down, with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, I should just like to say that I fully support the noble Lord. I think I said all that I wish to say on the Recommitment stage in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned the Liberal Benches, and pointed out that two Members on these Benches had supported him last time, perhaps I may say that there were a number of others who gave him silent support. I am still one of those, but I do not want it to be quite so silent this time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I have given the most careful consideration to this Amendment and we do not think that it is practicable. With three exceptions, it is the same Amendment as was put down and discussed, first of all on the Committee stage before the Select Committee, and then on Recommitment. The three exceptions are that the period within which the Board are to notify licence holders has been decreased from two months to one month; secondly, the certificate of exclusion is to last for five years instead of four, and, lastly, it does undoubtedly create a criminal offence.
In these days we all have great sympathies—and rightly so—with addicts, and we do not say, for instance, "Oh! he is an alcoholic—14 days' 'jug'—jolly good for him." Whether they are alcoholics or drug addicts we realise that it is something rather more of a disease than wickedness, and that if we can protect addicts we should do so. I think we all have great admiration for "Alcoholics Anonymous", and I am sure that "Gamblers Anonymous" are doing equally good work.
But this Amendment is proposing an entirely new principle which, if right, I would have thought ought to be extended to all addicts. That is to say, if an addict likes to write to the Government Department concerned and say, "I am an alcoholic: please put me on your
1386
black list", then the Government Department ought to write to anybody who supplies drink and make it a criminal offence for him to supply anyone on the Hack list. This would be an entirely new principle, because neither in the case of drink nor in the case of gaming would there be any obligation on the addict to do anything at all. There would be no obligation on him to apply for registration on the black list; no penalty for the addict who gives the wrong information to be registered; no obligations or penalty to be imposed, for instance, on the addict who nevertheless continues to indulge in the activity (whatever it is). But by putting himself on the black list he creates criminal offences for which other people have to pay the penalties. It means that any addict has it in his own hands to put at risk the livelihood of those who run the clubs, either it the sense of losing their licences or of being made to pay a fine or to serve a sentence of imprisonment up to two years.
We all realise that the addict is a real problem, and we have to-clay a much more sympathetic attitude to all kinds of addiction than the public have had in the fast; but in the view of the Government this is not a viable scheme for dealing with it. It places no obligation at all on the addict; he can abrogate all responsibility for his conduct, safe in the knowledge that sanctions can be applied only or the licensee. It means that for at least one month after he has written the letter the addict can go on using a club, membership of which he has not disclosed to the Board, or he can go to a fresh club, and be treated as a bona fide guest, in order to satisfy his predeliction for gaming.
I suggest that it is not reasonable to put every club in the country under a criminal obligation to vet all members and guests on arrival against a black list directed to saving a limited number of individuals from themselves. It also occurs to me that, a man having put himself on the black list, the occasion may arise when he cannot resist temptation, and so he will either go to a club of which he is a member or go to one of which he is not a member. That seems a reasonable proposition. So far as the club of which he is a member is concerned, surely his way out is simple: if he can screw himself to sitting down and writing a letter asking to be put on the

1387
black list, he can equally screw himself up to write a letter resigning from the club. If, on the other hand, he goes as a guest, having put himself on the black list, obviously he will give a false name and he will get in under that false name. I do not see how a licensee is going to be able to stop that; and he need not worry if he cannot stop it, because he has only to say that the contravention occurred without his knowledge and that he exercised such care as was possible in the circumstances.
The fact is, my Lords, that I am afraid an addict will always get what he wants in some way if his urge is strong enough. It would be an entirely new principle in the case of addiction, either to drink or drugs, to allow addicts of their choice to impose criminal sanctions, not on themselves but on a particular class of the community. And if one realises that such a man has only to write to his club and resign from it, and if he gets in afterwards as a guest and gives a false name he is not likely to be stopped, it seems that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. The Government do not feel this is a viable scheme, and therefore I hope that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken will withdraw his Amendment.
4.47 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I believe I have the right of reply. I would first express my appreciation to all noble Lords who have spoken, whether they spoke in favour of my Amendment or whether they found it impossible to do so. I should like to reply to one or two points that were made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and also by the noble Earl on the Cross-Benches. Both mentioned the fact that there are other forms of addiction and that I might as well propose an Amendment that would exclude an alcoholic from a pub or an off licence, or a drug addict or someone who smokes too heavily from premises where they could obtain what they wanted.
I respectfully submit that those are not comparable, because if I want to go into a public house it is just that—a public house. I can go into it without giving my name, without the landlord's being aware who I am, and it would be completely impracticable (although indeed it
1388
might be desirable in the case of an alcoholic) to have any legislation under which a landlord could conceivably be expected to stop a complete stranger from coming into his public house, any more than it would be possible for a tobacconist or a greengrocer, for that matter, to stop a person from entering his shop. So far as drug addicts are concerned, I should have thought that was not a good example, because they are already under very strict control, and unless a person is a registered drug addict and receiving drugs under prescription from his doctor then any dealing in drugs is already completely illegal and is subject—and quite properly so—to the most severe penalties.
My noble and learned friend thought it would be unnecessary to have this Amendment because all an addict has to do is to write a letter to the club of which he is a member, resigning membership therefrom. But that is a completely unsatisfactory remedy, if my noble and learned friend will excuse my saying so. I have a great many bad friends—good friends who are bad friends—who are members of clubs, and if the urge comes upon me to gamble to-night I have only to ring up Tom, Dick or Harry and say, "What are you doing this evening? Let us go and have a game at such and such a club". I can at once go with them, although I have resigned from club A, and play to my heart's content at club B.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in that case why should not Tom, Dick and Harry be put at risk as well as the club owner?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I do not quite see how my noble friend's intervention is relevant. Tom, Dick and Harry are members of certain gaming houses. They are entitled to go along and play at any time and take their friends as guests. There would be no way in which it could be ensured that all the friends of a particular person who had been excluded knew that he was an excluded person, and they would take him along in all innocence. The point is that the mere act of resigning from a club is not going to stop that person from finding an extremely simple way to go along there on any future occasion and lose all his money all over again.

1389
Another point that was raised by my noble and learned friend was this. Of course it is a pity that this is so, but it is possible for an addict to go along and give another name at a club where he is not known and thus after 48 hours secure admission. However, there are three points about this. The first is that if the proprietors under this Act abide by the law for a change, as we hope they will, such persons would not be admitted for 48 hours, and during that time they have 24 hours of daylight and sobriety when they can realise what they have done and ring up and say, "I am an excluded person". Secondly, we all hope that proprietors who obtain licences under the new Act will be responsible enough to take some steps, in their own interest, to check the identity of those who apply for membership. And thirdly, if all else fails, this will at least mean that it would not be possible for an addict to go into a club, obtain entrance
by false pretences, and then to lose money by drawing cheques—unless of course he went to the additional trouble of opening a bank account also in a false name.
So I am forced to the conclusion, and it is my last opportunity, that although this Amendment will not succeed in 100 per cent. of the cases of those who apply for a certificate of exclusion, it will save a great many people from a great deal of suffering and self-destruction; and I really put financial loss last on the list. I feel I must press it to a Division and I ask for your Lordships' support.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Barrington. V.

Dudley, L.

Moyne, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Bessborough, E.

Faringdon, L.

St. Just, L.

Boothby, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Byers, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Teynharm, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Glasgow, E.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Archibald, L.

Goschen, V.

Morris of Kenwood. L.

Arwyn. L.,

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Moyle, L.

Audley, Bs.

Hall, V.

Nunburnhome, L.

Beswick, L.

Headfort, M.

Pargiter L.

Blyton, L.

Helsby, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Bowles, E.

Henderson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henley, L.

Rusholme, L.

Carron, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe. L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Sandys, L.

Chorley, L.

Hunt, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Clitheroe. L.

Jacques. L.

Shackleton. L.

Collison, L.

Jessel, L.

Shannon, E.

Cromartie, E.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Daventry, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Sorensen. L.

Eccles, V.

Latham, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Energlyn, L.

Llewellyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strang, L.

Eniskillen, E.

Lothian, M.

Summerskill, Bs.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Teviot, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mersey, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Meston, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 28 [Restrictions as to terms and conditions]:
5.6 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 22, line 38, at end insert ("or if the machine is used exclusively in such a way that by virtue of section 52(5) of this Act it is taken not to be used for gaming.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is rather technical and I do not think it will interest many of your Lordships. It deals with pin-tables. There are various types, but their essential feature is that there is no pay-out mechanism. The only prize that a successful player receives is an opportunity to play a further game on a machine without inserting another coin.
Clause 52(5) of the Bill states:
"For the purposes of this Act a machine shall be taken not to be used for gaming if it is used in such a way that no game played by means of the machine can result in a player…receiving or being entitled to receive, any article, benefit or advantage other than…
(a) an opportunity afforded by the automatic action of the machine to play one or more further games without the insertion of any cash or token".
It appears, therefore, that in accordance with Clause 52(5), these machines provide amusement only, and that it should be possible to install them on similar terms as such devices as juke boxes, football game tables and so on.
But no, Clause 26 states that Part III of the Act:
"applies to any machine which—

(a) is constructed…for playing a game of chance by means of the machine, and

(b) has a slot or other aperture for the insertion of money or money's worth in the form of cash or tokens."

So a pin-table is caught by Clause 26 and becomes subject to the same controls as for the supply and installation, et cetera of gaming machines. The important result of this is that the person who installs the machine will have to hire it or buy it and will not be allowed to share the proceeds with the owner. These machines do not have the attraction of gaming machines. Their income is unreliable and subject to wide fluctuations, and it would be almost impossible to calculate in advance a fair rent. So I suggest that the right thing to do
1392
is that which this Amendment seeks to do; namely, to permit the installation of pin-tables on a sharing basis. They are not gaming machines, but are used to pass the time in such places as transport cafes.
I understand that the Home Office have had representations about this and have taken the line that they must be considered as gaming machines because people can bet on the result. But people can bet on anything if they want to. They can bet about who scores most on the pin-table or the colour of the hair of the next person to come into the café. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a sensible view about this. By no stretch of the imagination can these pin-tables be called gaming machines. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Home Office have of course painfully learned a very great deal of what goes on in the field of gaming, and what we are here concerned with are the considerable evils which have arisen from profit sharing. Clause 28 of the Bill imposes a general prohibition of the supply of machines on a profit-sharing basis—that is to say, arrangements by which, in lieu of rent, the takings of the machine are shared on a percentage basis between the supplier and user. This Amendment seeks to exempt from the prohibition machines used "exclusively" within the terms of Clause 52(5); which are those that give a successful player no more than another "go" or "goes" free of charge or return him his money. While these machines are used only in that way, and no prize is given for winning, they are not treated as being used "for gaming" within the meaning of Clauses 31 to 35 of the Bill, and therefore those clauses do not apply. They are still, however, machines "constructed or adapted for playing a game of chance" within the meaning of Clause 26(1) and, as such, made subject to the profit-sharing ban in Clause 28.
This has been done advisedly. Any machine constructed or adapted for playing a game of chance—such as, for instance, a pin-table—can very readily be used for gaming. Whatever the mechanics of the machine allow, prizes can always be handed to the successful players. We are anxious therefore to maintain the ban on profit-sharing for these as for

1393
the conventional "fruit machines" or "one-armed bandits". Indeed, if we neglected to do so we should simply be inviting evasion of this provision of the Bill. It should be noted that Clause 28(3) already confers an exemption on machines supplied for use exclusively at amusement places, such as fairgrounds, pleasure gardens, arcades and piers. The ban, therefore, applies only to machines used in such other premises as public-houses, coffee bars, shops and restaurants. One of its principal objects is to prevent the artificial stimulation of demands for machines in such places, where they have proliferated to a degree which many people find objectionable and this applies to pin-tables as well as to fruit machines.
My Lords, in explaining why the Government are unable to accept this Amendment may I make it quite plain that there is nothing whatever to prevent proprietors from obtaining machines in any of these places either on straightforward purchase or on hire-purchase, or on rental agreements, because these do not expose them to the commercial—and other pressures which profit-sharing allows the machines retailers to exert. I would hope, if he has given consideration to that, that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, as I know that I shall get nowhere on this, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Use of machines by virtue of licence or registration.]:
5.13 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 23, line 23, after ("machines") insert ("or such other number as may be specified by an order made by the Secretary of State on the advice of the Board for the purposes of this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my justification for putting down this Amendment again on Third Reading is that it raises an important question of principle on which I think the House should pass judgment. The whole point of the Amendment is that no arbitrary figure should be put into the Bill. The Amendment seeks to give the Home Secretary power to allow a greater or lesser number
1394
of machines than two on a club premises. My submission is that the Gaming Board will be able to advise the Home Secretary as to the proper number of machines which should be allowed. A club of a thousand members might easily justify the installation of three or four machines; on the other hand, one machine might be quite adequate for a small club. As the noble Lord, Lord Monyihan, pointed out when we discussed this matter in Standing Committee, the Government really must make up their mind as to whether these machines are a social evil or not. If they are, they should be banned altogether; if they are not, there is no reason for restricting the number to two in the Bill.
I am sure that the Gaming Board will make regulations as to the "odds on" machine and the percentage which the club will be allowed to retain. I do not want to see rows of "one-armed ban ins" in clubs, but I do not see why this arbitrary maximum figure of two machines should be put in the Bill. As I said in Standing Committee, I have more faith in the judgment of the Gaming Board than apparently the Home Office have. My argument is that after the Board have carried out their investigations they should then lay down the regulations. We all know that "Whitehall knows best", but I would rather wait for the advice of the Gaming Board and not, by this Bill, dictate their regulations it advance. This is the principle on which I now seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I should like to add a word of support to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. I regard it as somewhat extraordinary that for clubs of the size we visualise under this Act only two of these relatively innocuous machines should be permitted; and I agree that the number should be left to the decision of the Board.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I can only continue the opposition to this Amendment which the right reverend Prelate and I expressed in the Committee. I do not believe that these machines, "one-armed bandits" or whatever they may be, are a minor social evil any longer; indeed, they have become more and more a real menace in our community. Last Saturday night I was in the public bar of an hotel, among a

1395
number of men I knew very well. I said to them, "What would be the effect on you if these machines were barred altogether?" And to a man, unanimously, they said, "We wish they could be got out of the place altogether". I believe that some control over these machines is an absolute necessity, and I would continue to support the Government.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I believe that the right reverend Prelate is dead right in what he has said. The trouble about these machines is, first of all, that they create addiction. Anybody who goes into a club and sees people putting sixpence after sixpence into these machines knows that they have got that addiction. Secondly, they are extraordinarily profitable to the club, and there are a very great many clubs that could not exist without these beastly machines. Two of the golf clubs I belong to each had two. One of them has had the strength of mind to "sack" one machine, but there are still two in one and one in the other. Without the machines I think the clubs could probably not exist without putting up my subscription. The machines make an infernal noise and are a general nuisance to everybody else, but nobody has had the "guts" to throw them out, simply because the clubs exist very largely on the profits that they make. I feel sure that if the Government have the "guts" to keep this provision in the Bill the members as a whole will rejoice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the position has already been accurately stated. There is a good deal to be said for making this particular type of machine completely illegal, but of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, there are so many small clubs which have become financially dependent on them.
This Amendment differs from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in Committee in that, while it would allow the maximum number of gaming machines permitted in licensed and registered clubs to be varied on the recommendation of the Gaming Board it would provide, in theory, for a reduction as well as an increase. The variation could not, however, be made selectively: a common maximum would still apply to all clubs, from the large licensed
1396
casino to the small social or athletic club specially registered under Part III of the Bill. Partly for this reason, but more particularly because of the great difficulty of removing rights already enjoyed under the existing law, it would in practice be virtually impossible to reduce the present maximum of two machines.
Clearly, what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, wants is an increase. We cannot agree to abandon the present immutable statutory maximum. The Government take the view that these machines represent unequal chance gaming in its most addictive and least justifiable form. They require no skill; their rate of turnover is exceptionally rapid; they can be left unattended, and so in continuous use; and even if the odds are regulated they will still be highly profitable and capable of extorting very large sums from the players in a very short time. The supply and use of the machines has given rise to more crude criminality than almost any other form of gaming. Fortunes have been made out of it.
The Government have never concealed their opinion that the right given to clubs of all kinds by the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 to install two of these machines each was a serious mistake. They have concluded—with reluctance—that they cannot now go back upon that, but they are certainly not prepared to compound the original error by allowing more than two machines in any club premises. There is no point, therefore, in inserting a power of variation which there is no prospect of using, but which would simply expose the Gaming Board and the Government to continual pressure by the machine interests. Ordinary members' clubs should be very well content with the profits that two machines can bring them. If commercial clubs want more machines then they must make do with amusement machines offering limited prizes, as provided by Clause 32. Your Lordships will remember that the Royal Commission took the view that these should be banned altogether. Unfortunately—nobody is blaming anybody—in 1960, mistakenly, I think, two machines were allowed. The object of this Amendment is to have more than two. For the reasons which I have ventured to give, the Government hope that the House will not accept this

1397
Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, having heard the debate, will not take the Amendment to a Division.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for his support. Other noble Lords who have spoken have not addressed their minds to the principle of this Amendment. All they have done is to say that these machines are bad, which probably they are. My point is that, as they are going to be allowed, the decision should be left to the Gaming Board after it has conducted its investigations. I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division, although I should like to do so. I know that noble Lords have now come into the Chamber who perhaps did not hear my powerful arguments at the beginning. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Other uses of machines for amusement purposes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 26, line 33, leave out ("one or more tokens") and insert ("a token which is, or two or more tokens which in the aggregate are")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. In Committee on Recommitment the Government accepted, subject to further examination of the drafting, an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken to substitute the words "one or more tokens" for "a token" in line 33, on page 26. The purpose of that Amendment was simply to allow the delivery of, say, four 6d. tokens instead of one 2s. one. But, as a result of that change, paragraph (a) of Clause 34(3) might be interpreted as allowing an amusement machine to deliver, in one game, several tokens each exchangeable for a money prize of up to 2s. This Amendment removes that ambiguity. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government, with their great legal knowledge, for improving my Amendment; I am glad to see it included in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 27, line 18, leave out ("those') and insert ("the further game or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The expression "those games" at the end of subsection (4) of Clause 34 is ambiguous, because it might refer back to the expression "all those games" in line 11 or to the expression "one or more further games" in line 9. In fact, it is the latter which is intended, and this Amendment makes that clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Removal of money from machines]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10:
Page 28, line 35, leave out ("or winnings") Clause 37, page 30, line 11, leave out ("or winnings")
Clause 52, page 43, line 27, after ("includes") insert ("any prize or other")
The noble and learned Lord said: If no noble Lord objects, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together. They are drafting Amendments. Clauses 31 and 34 of the Bill cont tin a number of provisions about what "prizes" a machine is allowed to offer; and it is clear from these provisions that any money or tokens delivered by a machine is being spoken of in the Bill as a "prize". Accordingly, the references in Clauses 36 and 37 to money or tokens delivered by a machine as "prizes or winnings" is inappropriate, and the purpose of the first two Amendments is to delete the words "or winnings" in these two places. A prize is, of course, a form of "winnings", but it would make the Bill easier to understand, particularly in relation to the definition of "gaming" in its application to Part III machines, if that were stated expressly. The third Amendment therefore amends the definition of "winnings" in Clause 52 accordingly. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 100, line 14, leave out ("wholly or")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

1399
Schedule 11 amends Section 49 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, so as to allow premises such as amusement arcades which have a permit under Clause 34 of the Bill to provide amusements of the fairground type without also having to obtain a permit under Section 49 of the 1963 Act as amended by the Bill, which relates to amusements with prizes otherwise than by means of machines. That being the object, the word "wholly" appearing in Schedule 11, page 100, line 14, is a contradiction. If the premises are used "wholly" for the purposes of amusements by means of machines, then they cannot be used for providing amusements otherwise than by machines, and accordingly this Amendment deletes the words "wholly or" in line 14 on page 100. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 12—
Page 103, line 13, at end insert—
("() In this paragraph any reference to amusements with prizes includes any amusements provided by means of a machine to which Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 applies").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Part II of Schedule 11 of the Bill substitutes a new Schedule for that at present governing the issue of permits for amusement games under Section 49 of the 1963 Act. It allows the renewal of such a permit to be refused
"by reason of the conditions in which amusements with prizes have been provided on the premises, or the manner in which any such amusements have been conducted, while the permit has been in force".
In the context, the expression "amusements with prizes" includes amusements with prizes provided by means of machines to which Part III of the Bill applies, but since we are here dealing with a Schedule to be inserted in the Act of 1963, and since that Act as a result of the Bill will no longer regulate gaming by means of machines, it is important to make it clear that this expression "amusements with prizes" does include amusement by means of Part III machines. This Amendment does that. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do
1400
now pass. My noble friend Lord Stonham, when he introduced this Bill into the House on June 20, explained in some detail what the Government hoped it would achieve and why; and also, since the Bill itself, for all its complexity, is still largely an enabling measure, how the Government intended that the powers it conferred should be used. Since then the Bill has been very thoroughly examined at no fewer than seven meetings of the Select Committee, again on Recommittal and again to-day. It has been tested and probed in the most searching way, and more than 50 Amendments of greater or lesser substance have been made to it. I am sure that in the process the Bill has been much improved, but more important than the actual Amendments has been the opportunity for discussions given to us to explore the reasoning and motives behind the print of the Bill, and the whole philosophy of approach to this most tangled subject.
There has never been much dispute as to the ends. The whole moral impact of the Bill has been immeasurably strengthened by that. As to the means, I hope that your Lordships are satisfied of the Government's ability, through this measure, to carry out the common intentions of the House; and we ourselves have learned a great deal in a practical way from the experience and wisdom of noble Lords, particularly in the Committee. Let me now repeat quite shortly and simply what the objects are. We are in no way concerned with the morality of gaming as a private activity. Gaming commercially exploited is surrounded by great social dangers. The attempt to prevent it altogether has irretrievably failed, as it was bound to do, and it would be quite unrealistic to suppose that it could now be suppressed. But it can be reduced, and it must be controlled, in every shift and aspect, from baccarat and roulette to bingo and gaming machines, if criminal elements are to be prevented from meddling in it and the weaknesses of society remorselessly exposed.
Specifically, the Government intend to reduce the number of commercial gaming clubs providing casino games to a third or a quarter of their present number, and to restrict the more popular game of bingo to what it properly should be—a neighbourly and social activity conducted

1401
for moderate prizes. I do not propose to repeat here all the measures which we intend to take, or which will be open to us, to enforce a reduction in the number of casinos, since they were dealt with in some detail on Recommittal on the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
I hope your Lordships are satisfied that the Government have been indulging in no idle threats. And it is not only in the case of the clubs that the policy of reduction or containment is to be applied. The Bill will prevent a further proliferation of gaming machines of all kinds. Its aim is to purge every form of gaming and profiteering and dishonesty and to put a stop to the insidious process by which commercial gaming, with all the dangers of which experience should surely have taught us, has come to he spoken of as though it were some form of beneficial fund-raising activity, in support of live entertainment, a sociable life or the balance of payments.
To achieve these objects the Bill assembles a vast and sophisticated apparatus of control, making use of established authorities such as the justices and the police, and reinforcing them by a powerful new central authority—the Gaming Board. This apparatus has been examined in every part during the passage of the Bill. Some of it has been replaced or corrected, but the general design has stood up to the test. Control over its use rests, however, securely in Parliament's own hands. The Government have resisted—I am sure quite rightly—all attempts to make the Gaming Board an autonomous authority in the field of social policy. They have reserved to themselves and to Parliament all final decisions on the subjects to be pursued.
In taking leave of this Bill, your Lordships will by no means be divesting yourselves of further responsibilities on the subject of gaming. There will be numerous Statutory Instruments to he laid before you—on the recommendation, no doubt, of the Gaming Board, but for your final approval—and many of them are bound to raise issues of much social importance. The time your Lordships have devoted to the study of this Bill will, I am sure, serve all of us, and the country itself, in good stead when it comes to the scrutiny of these regulations.
1402
During the whole passage of the Bill, and more particularly while it has been before your Lordships' House, the gaming world has been put into something of a turmoil by certain important judicial interpretations of the existing law and the action of the police in enforcing them. Your Lordships will be fully aware of these developments and that a number of test cases are still pending. It was necessary for the Government to consider before ever the Bill was introduced whether these developments, welcome as they have been to us, removed the necessity of legislating at all. We concluded that they did not, for reasons which Parliament have fully endorsed.
However valiant the attempts to strengthen the fabric of the present law, it is badly outworn and cannot now be made serviceable by the patching of judicial decisions. But the effect of these decisions has been to put the clubs in a considerable predicament, the more serious because it will be at least 18 months before the new law contained in this Bill can be effectively substituted for the old. Let me say that from our own study of the situation as it has developed—and no doubt there are many other developments in store—this interval is likely to work to the benefit of our interests and those of the House.
The great boom in commercial gaining, out of which fortunes were made three or four years ago, has invited just this sort of retribution. I shall expect the more respectable of the clubs, into which considerable resources of capital and skill have been sunk, to survive the interval, though in somewhat straitened circumstances, and I am sure that their own good sense will convince them of the folly of attempting to stray during that time outside the strict limits of the present law, as the courts have established them or may in the future establish them. I shall also expect an appreciable number of the smaller and perhaps less reputable clubs which have mushroomed in recent years to go out of business. Certainly, if they resort to unlawful methods in the attempt to preserve their profits, they can expect to be put out of business as soon as this Bill becomes operative. The general effect of this will, I believe, be to take a great deal of the surplus weight off the industry before the new dispensation has even been introduced. That

1403
would be a healthy thing. It would help to anticipate the very objects that we are seeking.
We shall all have been aware that since the Bill was discussed on Recommittal, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced his intention of appointing Sir Stanley Raymond as Chairman of the Gaming Board. Sir Stanley is already at work with a nucleus of staff familiarising himself with the problems which he will have to face and equipping himself to do so. I am sure that your Lordships will all wish to join with me in wishing him the very best of success in this most challenging task. My right honourable friend is not yet in a position to announce the names of the other members of the Board, though he hopes that he may soon be able to do so.
Although the Bill leaves the number of members entirely at the Secretary of State's discretion, he has paid careful heed to the arguments so ably presented in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and I am happy to be able to assure him that there will be at least three members of the Board, in addition to the Chairman. The Board will he officially constituted immediately on the passage of the Bill, and it will then be for it to choose its staff and inspectorate. As I have said, so far as the headquarters staff are concerned—and it is they who will be most urgently needed—much has also been anticipated. We hope to have an organisation in working shape as soon as the Royal Assent has been obtained so that it will start at once in establishing the machinery of control, the first stage of which will be to require certificates of consent to be obtained from the Board by prospective licensees; the remainder to follow progressively on that.
The responsibilities which Sir Stanley and his colleagues on the Gaming Board will require to assume are so important as to character that your Lordships will, I am sure, excuse me if I dwell a little longer on them. During the debates on this Bill, particularly in another place, constant comparisons have been made between the functions of the Board and those exercised by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. But that comparison is incomplete since the turf authorities, with their wide disciplinary
1404
powers in the field of racing, have no responsibility for the law on betting, while the Gaming Board will become the principal adviser to the Secretary of State and to Parliament on the operation of the much more complicated laws on gaming, and to the justices and police on their administration and enforcement. In addition to this, the Board will have disciplinary powers in the issue of certificates of consent to prospective licensees and certificates of approval to machine retailers and gaming operatives and managers every bit as drastic and far-reaching as those exercised by the turf authorities.
The Government realise that these powers might be thought to trench unduly on the liberties and rights of the individual, and it was not without misgiving that they agreed, at the instance, and indeed on the insistence, of Parliament, that they should be conferred upon the Board. But, that decision having been taken, there is really no room in such a matter for half-measures or weakening the authority of the Board by allowing rights of appeal from its decisions either to the Secretary of State or to the courts. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, still feels considerable hesitation over this, particularly in relation to the Board's powers of approval of gaming machine retailers. The Government can well understand his reservations, but there is perhaps an assurance that I can give him.
It is a fallacy to believe that, in the exercise of these disciplinary powers, the Board will be able to act in a completely arbitrary way. They are not, and cannot be, exempt from the obligation to observe the rules of natural justice in dealing with the cases which come before them, and the courts will I am sure be vigilant to see that those rules are observed. It is important that the House should understand what these rules imply. They do not mean that the actual decisions of the Board will be subject to review by an outside authority, but they do enjoin that in reaching these decisions the Board should at least give an applicant an indication of the nature of any objections which have been raised against him, and an opportunity in such circumstances to be heard on his behalf. These are strict powers, but they are not tyrannical.

1405
My Lords, equally I think it is right that I should dispel any misunderstanding there may be over the Board's dealings with the justices. The Bill gives the Board considerable powers, by advice and rights of appeal, to influence local decisions, but these rights are at all points to be openly exercised. Whatever advice on national or local demand, or on other matters, which the Board are fit to give will be producible to any applicant whose case it may affect; and in seeking to oppose a particular application the Board will act openly as a party before the courts, though a party to whose views considerable authority must naturally attach. Saving only the certificates of consent procedure, in which the sole issue will he that of trustworthiness, all the licensing procedures will be conducted in the spirit and the letter in full accordance with the customary tenets of the law.
My Lords, a great deal of time has been devoted to discussion of the Gaming Board's powers and duties, and rightly so in view of the central position they will occupy in the control system. But we ought not, because of this, to forget the importance of the functions entrusted to the justices. We are singularly fortunate in this country to be able to rely upon such trusted and experienced authorities so deeply rooted in the traditions of our law and in the life of our society. Without this, the task of control would be immeasurably more difficult, if not altogether impossible. Nor should we forget the police, on whom the main burden of enforcement must rest and whose frustrations under the present law have not always been as fully appreciated as they should have been. This Bill will, we believe, dispel the worst of these frustrations, and while it will at the same time increase the load placed upon the local benches, we have done our utmost in the transitional provisions of the Bill to spread the load so that it can be properly borne without unacceptably delaying the establishment of controls already long overdue.
The transitional provisions are, I know, complicated, and at first sight not very easy to grasp. It may be convenient if I briefly summarise their effect. All existing clubs hoping to obtain licences will be required to apply to the Board for certificates of consent by an early date to be fixed by order—I hope not
1406
later than the end of February, 1969. Thereafter, they will be required to apply to the justices for licences by a date also to be fixed, somewhat later in that year. The justices will work through these applications as they come, and we hope that the work may be completed by the spring of 1970. As soon as it has been completed, the substantive provisions of Parts I and II of the Bill will be brought into operation. Any club which is unable to apply to the Board for a certificate of consent by the date appointed—that is, by February next or thereabouts—will have to wait for a full year or more before doing so, and the applications will not be capable of being considered by the justices until May, 1971. This enforced pause between the great bulk of initial applications for licences and the second flight of applications front newly-formed clubs is essential it the Gaming Board and the justices are to be able to handle all the work which will fall upon them, and also to turr their attention to other aspects of their duties.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend permit me to interrupt him for a moment? Did he mean to say May, 1971, or May, 1970?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I meant to say May, 1971. February, 1969, is the date for applying for licences to the Board. Then they will be required to apply to the justices for licences by a date in 1969 but, of course, later than February. It is hoped that the justices will work through all those and complete them by the spring of 1970. Then Parts I and II will be brought into operation.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I think my noble and learned friend said 1971.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I went on to say that any club which is unable to apply to the Board for a certificate of consent by the date appointed—that is, by February next or thereabouts—will have to wait for a full year or more before doing so, and those applications will not be capable of being considered by the justices until May, 1971. This enforced pause between the great bulk of initial applications for licences and the second flight of applications from newly-formed clubs

1407
is, as I said, essential if the Gaming Board and the justices are to be able to handle all the work that will fall upon them, in addition, of course, to their other duties. These will include the issue by the Board of certificates of approval to machine retailers and the special registration by the justices of the numerous small sporting and social clubs which wish to use gaming machines. The provisions of Part III cannot be brought fully into operation until this side of the work has been completed. It is too early yet to predict exactly when that may be, but at a guess it will be towards the end of 1970. Ample notice will be given to all concerned at each stage in this process.
What your Lordships are now being asked to approve, therefore, is the final blueprint for a machine which will take something like two years to construct in every part. The plans themselves have been constructed with the most painstaking care and with the best and most expert advice available to us. We have been greatly encouraged by their reception in this House and in another place, and we are indebted to all those of your Lordships who helped in examination of the Bill in the Select Committee. It is perhaps invidious to mention names, but I should like, if I may be allowed to do so, to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for the patience, wisdom and understanding which they brought to our discussions from the other side of the House; and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, for expressing so ably the Church's views on this subject and for raising certain issues of substance which merited the fullest possible debate, even though our conclusions on them were not in all cases identical.
I should like also to acknowledge the contributions made, from his great store of experience, by my noble friend, Lord Kilbracken, and, though perhaps in more restricted fields, by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and many others. The Government are indeed fortunate in the combination of talent assembled in Committee, and gratified by the friendly and constructive atmosphere in which the debates were carried on. The interests of the country have been well-served by
1408
this House, and I believe that we may all of us feel confidence, and perhaps a modest pride, in this measure as it now finally leave us. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Derwent and Lord Brooke of Cumnor are extremely sorry that they are unable to be here to-day to welcome the concluding stages of this Bill through your Lordships' House. In doing so on their behalf I should like to say one thing. We on this side of the House have the feeling that Her Majesty's Government perhaps consider gambling to be evil of itself. We feel that only uncontrolled and dishonest gambling is evil. We hope that the Gaming Board will make the same distinction that we do. If the Board were to disapprove of all gambling there is the danger that they might feel they must cut the profits to such an extent that respectable people would have to go out of business, leaving a black market open to the less scrupulous. It is the job of the Gaming Board to control what games should be played and how they are to be played. It is perhaps even more important that they should ensure that the most suitable people run the games. My noble friends and I welcome every attempt to control gambling and to make sure that it is run by responsible, honest people. To what extent this Bill will succeed remains to be seen. It certainly deserves to do so.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS MOUTH: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the words that have been spoken and the explanations given and also for the very generous tribute to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chester, which I shall certainly pass on. My own feelings about this Bill, I think, are still somewhat mixed. It is a relief that action is being taken after years of neglect of what has become an increasingly dangerous situation. There must be profound regret that it is necessary to enact a new law to establish commercialised gaming for high stakes partly only because a previous law has presented so urgent a problem; and to

1409
have to legalise what is in fact a social evil is perhaps a rather doubtful procedure. I think it must be said that had action been taken earlier a much better solution might have been found; and my noble and learned friend agreed with this. As it is, we have had to take as our starting point not what we would wish for the nation but the necessity of the situation that exists at the present moment.
I congratulate the Government on the firm line they have taken throughout the debates, and I join in the very warm tributes which have been paid to the careful work of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and to the Government's determination not only to exclude the criminal element and exercise control, but also greatly to reduce the number of clubs and to contain the spread and volume of gaming. On these grounds we welcome the prohibition of advertising gaming clubs. I think the promoters know that this prohibition can be effective and that the purpose of advertising is really to increase and encourage gaming. For the same reason I hope that, following the discussions with the Gaming Board, the Home Secretary will make regulations to the effect that gaming and other activities, such as cabaret, are not to be mixed. This point came up in Committee, and I would ask that it should be very much in the minds of the Gaming Board.
My Lords, I wonder whether I might be allowed to make what may seem to be a slightly personal explanation. The fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and I have supported this Bill through its processes has been interpreted by some people as the Church's giving approval to the licensing of gaming clubs. I think the attitude of the Church has been modified in the face of events. For some years it asked one Home Secretary after another to legislate to achieve Parliament's original intention of making commercialised gambling illegal. When Her Majesty's Government accepted that it was necessary to legalise gaming to prevent its going underground, the Churches' Committee and the Church in general endeavoured to help to achieve the best possible legislation for the good of the nation.
1410
At this point one comes up against the hard fact of life that although the motive may be to legalise gaming for those who now wish to take part, and particularly for the minority willing to attend illegal gaming sessions, the Bill must set up licensed premises and put people in business with a real interest in promoting gaming. And here there are obvious and apparent dangers. The Churches' Committee realised that once the decision to license gaming clubs had been taken consequences which they considered undesirable were inevitable.
When, as Home Secretary, Mr Roy Jenkins circulated his first proposals to interested bodies limiting profits to admission charges for four-hour sessions, gaming club proprietors said that they were impracticable because they could not make enough money that way. The Churches' Committee said that the proposals were unenforceable because club proprietors would probably consider themselves compelled to resort to cheating to increase profits. So we accepted that, albeit under close control and within limits, the Gaming Board would have to recommend the Home Secretary to make regulations to allow profits to be made from the play itself. The Committee would wish me to emphasise that it very greatly regrets this and to say that precisely to avoid this state of affairs it urged each Home Secretary to legislate in time.
My Lords, having said that, may I raise the matter of what I see as the very difficult stage between now and the implementation of the new Bill. What is going to happen? I think it is to be regretted that this Bill was pubished on the same day as the decision of this House in the case of Crickett v. Kursaal Casino Limited was announced. The impression was that although the existing law had now been shown, to the embarrassment of the gaming club proprietors, to be enforceable, a new law was being enacted in order to put things right for them and many have suggested that it is unfortunate for the police to be asked to suppress an activity which, soon enough, is going to be made legal. But my noble and learned friend stressed—and I was grateful for it—that a considerable reduction in the existing number of clubs will obviously greatly assist the successful operation of this Bill. I might all most pose this question. Were all to close,

1411
would the Board recommend the Home Secretary to delay indefinitely the remainder of the Bill?
I have congratulated the Government on being firmly resolved to reduce and contain gaming, as well as to clean up and control it, but I wish I felt convinced that even this Bill will achieve the Government's purpose. The Gaming Board will do obviously as good a job as possible, and I join in promising Sir Stanley Raymond every possible support in the task that he has taken on. Nevertheless, it seems to me that both the Board's powers and their resources are to be limited and that the dimensions of their task will be very largely determined by the local licensing committees. The Board have powers to help them limit the number of gaming clubs over which supervision will have to be maintained, but I think that what worries is that there is no guarantee that no more clubs than can be adequately supervised will be licensed. For this reason the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester moved in Committee that the Board, and not the local justices, should grant licences. To my mind this question is of fundamental importance to the success or otherwise of legislation which depends, as this does, on government by regulation. It is essential—and I make this plea strongly that any situation which requires the promulgation of a regulation should immediately be noticed and acted on by the police or by the Board and that there should not be weeks of uncertainty.
Furthermore, as soon as the regulation is made it must be known that it is universally and effectively observed. Any time of uncertainty, which might quickly lead to the belief that once again the law on gaming is uncertain, will create a state of affairs worse than the first. Therefore I am bound to say that though I value all the powers embodied in this Bill and the firm stand which the Government have taken in putting through the legislation, I still have doubts whether this legislation will work. But I wish this Bill well, as I am sure all noble Lords do, and assure the Government that the Church and the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation will give support to the Board in their attempt to reduce, contain and control gambling.
6.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, in supporting the right reverend Prelate I shall be brief. My only justification for speaking at all is that I had the good fortune to be a member of the Committee "upstairs" and that I am now sure of one or two important things; first of all, that this Bill will not work. Your Lordships may remember that I divided the House on recommittal. I regarded the powers of the Gaming Board as inadequate and those of the local licensing authorities as being too great. I still think so. I divided the House, and I was defeated by 58 votes to 4, which I think was a record. Have no fear, my Lords, I do not seek a similar trouncing to-day. Suffice it to say that I still view the excessive powers granted to the local licensing authorities with inspissated gloom. To-day I propose to launch a brief, but much sharper, attack on the essence of the Bill itself. It is now clear to me that what we are doing is throwing out of the window an Act which works but which has not been enforced—no names, no pack drill—and putting in its place an instrument which deliberately encourages the continuing growth of gaming clubs throughout Britain.
It is true that we now have a Gaming Board, the efficacy of which remains to be proved. True, there are many provisions in the Bill which we must all welcome, as the right reverend Prelate did. But what is going to be allowed in the way of gaming and what is not depends upon the Secretary of State and his regulations. Heaven alone knows what they are going to be, though I can assure the right honourable gentleman that some of us will be watching them like hawks!
We are told that the purpose of the Bill is to contain and control gambling, and more especially to reduce the number of gaming clubs. Is this going to happen? Certainly that august body, the Gaming Association, has misgivings with regard to the present Act, the 1963 Act. In a moving passage from its memorandum following the decision of the House of Lords last December it talked:
"of the possibility of all gaming clubs in England being obliged to cease playing games of unequal chance, which means that the larger clubs will have to go out of business."

1413
My Lords, I find myself feeling like the Walrus in Alice in Wonderland who, if you remember, before swallowing the oysters
"With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes."
Could this mean, temporarily, the end of Crockford's, of Aspinall's, of the Clare-mount? What a disaster for Britain!
Now we come to the point. The Gaming Association points out:
"The delay before—"
I repeat "before"
"the coming into law of the Gaming Bill—"
this Bill—
"would probably destroy the industry."
With great respect, I would point out that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used the word "industry". I always think about industry in terms of the cotton industry or the coal industry. In other words, the Gaming Association is clearly looking forward to this Bill in the belief that it will allow games of unequal chance, in particular, roulette with the zero.
My Lords, the only real justification put forward by the Government for this Bill is that unless you have some sort of gambling measure to allow games of unequal chance to he played, the "industry" will go underground. I am not in the least impressed by this argument. It is an argument based on pessimism and failure. We had it in the Street Offences Act, your Lordships will recall. Well, prostitution may or may not have gone underground: I do not know. All I know is that London is a cleaner and a healthier place because of it. Gaming might go underground, hut what are the police for except to take action against such subfuse activity? Have we lost all faith in our police and in the offices of the law? Can we not rely on them to do their duty? No. my Lords, by this Bill we are playing straight into the hands of the gaming clubs, and the Government must know it. We are simply admitting that it is tiresome and difficult to implement the old Act, therefore let us have a new one, even if it means knuckling under to the professional gamblers, the makers of vast and immoral fortunes. No doubt they look forward to the imp-
1414
plementation of the Bill with relish., "God bless the Government!", they must be saying. "Our millions, our tens of millions, will be safe."
My Lords, after that it may seen mere lip service to wish the Bill well, but wish it well I do. We all wish it well. But let me warn the House in advance, as said before, it is not going to work. I propose putting down Questions in this House every three, or at the moss, every six months, about the number of gaming clubs in this country. My forecast is that so long as the present Gaming Act remains in force, and is enforced— a very different thing—the number of the clubs will drop considerably. But once the Secretary of State puts the proposed Act into effect, and the new machinery of Gaming Board plus local authorities starts to grind its weary way, the number will reach to the sky. To use vulgar language, the gaming clubs are going to "have a ball". My Lords, to quote the right reverend Prelate, the last stage of the man will be worse than the first. But at least this House will have been warned.
6.9 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, if I may follow the noble Earl, Lord Arran, it will enable me to abbreviate my remarks to some extent if I say, with regret, that I find myself sharing almost all his apprehensions and that I agree with almost every word he has said except that in some cases my feelings of apprehension are stronger than those he as expressed. On Second Reading, those many months ago, I put forward certain feelings of apprehension that I had at that time, and in the interval, after much deeper study of the Bill and after listening to many hours of debate and in the light of circumstances that have taken place outside your Lordships' House, I can only say that my apprehensions about the success of this Bill, rather than being diminished, have increased.
We have to ask: what is the situation at the present time in Britain so far as gaming is concerned? For some five years now illegal gaming—gaming which, to anybody who knew anything about the games being played and the law, was clearly against the law gaming which, as my noble friend Lord Arran showed, the clubs themselves know to be illegal—has been taking place throughout Britain on an immense and increasing scale. It has now reached a turnover

1415
of something like £1,000 million a year, giving a profit of something like £50 to £70 million a year to the casino operators. For five years they have successfully defied Parliament; they have defied the police; they have defied the Court of Appeal. Now the Government are taking the view that this cannot be prevented, and they are saying in effect to those who have been blatantly breaking the law for five years: "We have found it impossible to stop you from doing this and so we are going to make lawful the games you have been playing and from which you have been making immense profits in blatant defiance of the law."
When I say that the Government are going to allow the playing of these games, unfortunately I am speaking in the dark. That is one of my criticisms of this Bill. We do not know the games that are going to be played and—this is a vital point—under what rules. Under the Bill as it stands at present all casino games, including even chemin-de-fer, which is supposed to be so innocuous, start off by being illegal. It is only when regulations are made by the Secretary of State that a game is permitted. We do not know what games are going to be permitted, although various rumours have been running around. At present I understand that most, if not all, the recognised casino games are going to be allowed by the Home Secretary. Under what rules? We do not know. If roulette is permitted, will a stake on the even money chances be lost or go into prison when zero comes up? If blackjack is allowed, how many cards will the player be allowed to draw if he doubles his stake or splits? If craps is permitted, will "lose" bets be "stand-offs" if the first roll is "snake-eyes" or if it is "aceydeucy"? These are technical points but they are relevant in deciding whether a game is being played in a fair way or not, assuming that the game itself is a fair one, which in many cases I do not believe it to be.
Gaming is thus being considered by the Government as an inescapable evil, which we cannot stop, but we must try to reduce its volume. Again and again my noble friend Lord Stonham expressed his confidence in reducing the number of clubs from the present figure of somewhere between 1,000 to 1,200 to a figure between 200 and 300. I have grave
1416
doubts, shared by my noble friend Lord Arran, about whether this will succeed. Even if it does succeed, I do not believe it will have the effect of substantially reducing the volume of gaming, because all that will happen is that members will transfer from the clubs that close down to the clubs granted licences, who will thus have three or four times as many members and whose profits will be three or four times higher.
Will the number of clubs come down from 1,200 or whatever it is, to 500, 400, or 300? I must say that I remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward by my noble but absent friend. In fact, the Gaming Board have little control over this matter. The first step towards getting a licence is an application to the Gaming Board for a certificate of consent. Here at once we have an extraordinary paradox. In deciding whether to grant a certificate of consent the Board shall have regard only to the question of whether the applicant is likely to be capable of and diligent in securing that the provisions of this Bill and of any regulations made under it will be complied with. In 99 per cent. of cases the applicants for certificates of consent will be those very proprietors who for five years have been blatantly disregarding the 1963 Act by playing games that are clearly against the provisions of that Act. I do not know how it could happen that anyone who applies for a certificate could possibly be considered one who is likely to see that the new Act is enforced. So perhaps no certificates will be granted and there will be no applications for licences. But if they are granted, the next step is to apply to the licensing authority, who are beyond the Board's effective control.
It is true that there exists what my noble friend Lord Stonham referred to as "the clincher"—Clause 22, under which the Secretary of State may by regulation provide that a licensing authority shall refuse to grant or renew a licence under this Act in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations. I cannot conceive of the kind of circumstances under which such regulations could be made to cut down the number of clubs, unless it be that a licensee must have blue eyes or that his name must begin with Z. It will be impossible for the Board to refuse a licenceto a single

1417
club; and I do not understand what kind of category can be included in such a regulation which will result in the exclusion of a large number of clubs. We are given to understand that clubs where there is a cabaret will not be granted licences. My feeling is that this is simply a handy package of about 400 clubs or so which can be refused licences and the total reduced by that number. But I myself feel that clubs where there is some other activity should be encouraged, and that nothing is more miserable than a club where all you can do is to go in and win or lose your money. Where there is a cabaret, it can be refused a licence—and in my opinion it is a category which rather than being excluded should be encouraged.
My Lords, the main point I want to raise, and it has been referred to already, is this. The Metropolitan Police have at last, after five years' delay, been taking action against clubs that are breaking the law. Several dozen clubs—I have not the exact figure, but it is something in excess of 50—have been prosecuted, or are to be prosecuted, and in almost every case a conviction has been obtained. But this has proved totally ineffective, because all that happens in each case is that the club pays a fine of £100 and goes on playing next day.
This state of affairs was considered in the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Blackburn last July, and the three learned judges on that occasion clearly and unanimously suggested the remedy for this state of affairs, where a club, despite conviction, goes on playing illegal games. The suggested remedy was that the time had come to seek injunctions against clubs breaking the law. I should like to quote what the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, said on that occasion. After a letter in which the Director of Public Prosecutions had been asked to take action along these lines, in reply to which the Director wrote:
"I do not think it appropriate at this stage to ask the Attorney General to institute civil proceedings for an injunction",
the noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"The words 'at this stage' should be noted. Maybe the stage might come, or might already have come and passed, when it would be
1418
appropriate. The clubs must not think they could continue indefinitely with their inlawful gaming so long as they paid the fries, for if they did, they might find that the Attorney General might intervene. But it was not for the Court to decide whether or not he should intervene… That could only be done in Parliament".
Well, my Lords, here we are in Parliament. I want to ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, when he comes to reply, whether it would be possible for him to say that the Attorney General is now, at last, going to instruct the Director of Public Prosecute His to seek injunctions against clubs which continue to defy the law. If this wenh done, there is every possibility that illegal games—that is to say, games of unequal chance—which are still being played, as everybody knows, in almost all the clubs in the country, would totally cease within 3 months of to-day, either because injunctions were granted against those clubs, or because clubs stopped playing the games through the fear that if injunctions were granted against them they would not be granted certificates of consent under the new Act.
If that happened, there would be two results. We now know that it is not until 1971, two and a half years from now, that this new Bill will become effective. In the meantime, of course, on this matter of the games that my be played, the 1963 Act remains effective. During those two and a half years or thereabouts we should have time to find out whether gaming would in fact be driven underground. Like my noble friend Lord Arran, I do not myself believe for one moment that they would be. The second point, my Lords, is that if during that long period of over two years these games of unequal chance, which are really pernicious games, have been stopped by injunction, then surely my right honourable friend would not propose regulations—because they are liable to be approved by both Houses of Parliament—permitting games the playing of which had ceased throughout that period.
My Lords, I finish by quoting from "the Gamer's Bible", Scarne's Complete Guide to Gambling. He refers to what happened in the United States in 1950, when the Senate Committee, led by Senator Kefauver, investigated gambling in the United States. As a result of that investigation, illegal gaming in many

1419
States came to an end; in particular, in Florida, New York, New Jersey and Ohio. What happened was that, once the law was enforced, the illegal operators moved to the State of Nevada. John Scarne quotes one of them as saying to him:
"I love that man Kefauver. When he drove me out of an illegal casino operation in Florida and into a legalised operation in Nevada, he made me a respectable law-abiding citizen—and a millionaire."
My Lords, that is what will happen here. The 1963 Act gave the proprietors a millimetre, and they took a yard. I regret and fear that the present Act will give them a yard—and they will take a league.
6.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest attention to everything that has been said by noble Lords, but I do not expect the House will want me to reply in any detail. I appreciate the difficulties about the hiatus: indeed, it was precisely because of that that I thought it right to take up a litle time explaining exactly what the timetable was and why it could not be shorter. I quite agree that a lot of things depend on regulations. That is why the regulations are subject to Parliament, and why we shall so much value the assistance of all noble Lords on the regulations when they are put before us.
With regard to the present law, and the matter of whether more prosecutions should take place, this is not a matter for the Government. It is entirely a matter for my right honourable friend the Attorney General, who in this capacity acts independently, and it would be quite wrong for me or any of my colleaugues to attempt to put any pressure or bring any influence to bear on him.
For the rest, my Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Stonham, whose absence to-day we so much regret, will read everything that has been said. I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and my noble friend Lord Kilbracken take a somewhat pessimistic view as to what the Bill will do. I know that my noble friend Lord Stonham has confidence in the Bill. I am sure that, having considered everything that noble Lords have said this afternoon, he will give my right honourable friend the
1420
Home Secretary such advice on it as he thinks fit. I am, in any case, grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

TERRITORIAL DRILL HALLS AND SOCIAL SERVICE
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will re-invigorate the Territorial Organisation of drill halls as centres for voluntary social service and recreation. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name. I should like first of all to thank their Lordships who have kindly remained for this moment. I have already given the noble Lord opposite notice of the few words I wish to say, which seek to show what a vacuum in the lives of some of the best of our younger generation has been created by the Government's decision to close down the T.A. and its drill halls.
Of course, it is true to say that when the decision was made the European skies seemed clearer than they do now. We know better now. The drill halls were centres of convenient access in the evenings after a man's work. There he found comradeship, incentives to train himself in other things besides athletics, and a source of emulation among his fellows. The armorials on the walls of the various doings of two preceding generations were a spur to his pride in his county and to his ambitions. Now the Government have decided to quash this movement without offering an alternative. Was it rather a lack of imagination or insufficient sensitivity to the feelings of those concerned? Could greater effort toward collaboration between the Defence Department and the Education Department have been pressed?
The rigid Civil Service rules say that when such properties are for disposal they must be offered first to other Departments, then to local authorities, and lastly on the open market. Some drill halls, of course, are held, or were held, under trust deeds; some were provided by subscription. May I earnestly suggest that such halls as belong to the Defence Department should be leased to the new

1421
occupier with the proviso for a break clause should national wishes for a resumption of occupancy obtain? I was informed in July that 624 halls out of double that number were in process of seeking new ownership. Perhaps 400 are now still on offer. Should Government wish to speed up collaboration between the Defence Ministry and that of Education, allied with the Sports Ministry, could they co-opt individuals specially known for interest in the youth movements, with a view to preserving the accommodation that remains in hand for the continued use of the best of all clubs by those who have hitherto gained much benefit therefrom?
6.34 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, the words in the Question put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, which prompt my few remarks, are those which speak of "centres for voluntary social service and recreation". Three or four weeks ago I was on the platform of a large meeting, a meeting of youth leaders—full-time paid youth leaders and many voluntary unpaid youth leaders—and when the formal speeches had been made the chairman asked the conference whether anybody would like to say something. A young fellow stood up and made as bitter a speech as I ever have heard anyone make on such an occasion. Can nobody, he asked, do anything to persuade our Government to take some interest in youth work and to give us some help? He then went on to tell us of the position in his town where he lives and works. He described the recreational facilities as lamentable. He said that if only he had more accommodation he could easily double the membership of his club in a week. He ended up by saying "We are back in the pre-Albemarle days".
There was a member of the local education authority on the platform, and he answered this speech, quite properly, by reminding the speaker that Government money is tight and that the Government have many demands and cannot meet them all. But I went up to speak to the fellow afterwards, and I found him very little satisfied by that reply. Then another leader came up to me and asked me whether I would meet some of the members of his boys' committee. We went away and sat down in a railway
1422
coach—never mind how we got it out of British Rail; but we did—and these fellows put their point of view. They were a bunch of young thugs who a year or two ago were virtually terrorising the countryside, careering about on their 'bikes, making a nuisance of themselves at roadside cafés and generally acting in a thoroughly unsocial manner. Then they were persuaded to form themselves into a club. The idea was a great success. They had a hundred members quite quickly, and they learnt to behave themselves well and to do things for the good of the community. Unfortunately, the premises in which they had their club were declared unserviceable, and members were told they would have to be pulled down. They made every effort they could to get new premises, but none could be found; and no money way available for the purpose.
I drove home that night feeling very sad about the things I had been told, and my mind went back to the debate that we had on youth in this Chamber last February. And I blamed myself again, as I have done indeed repeatedly since that debate, for my complete failure to evoke any enthusiasm at all from the Government Benches for the cause I was trying to plead. I hope that those two stories have not bored your Lordships. They do not, of course, in themselves, constitute arguments; but perhaps, like the illustrations in a book, they serve to make the text more palatable and more convincing. Much has happened since last February. We have had the events of the Soronne, and in Berlin and in Rome, in Berkeley and in other places, not excluding Mexico City, and even Grosvenor Square. I doubt whether some of the expressions about youth rebellion which were used by Government spokesmen in that debate would be used in the same language again to-day.
Be that as it may, my Lords, it is not nice to hear a fellow stand up and say, "We are back in the pre-Albemarle days". To-day a second Albemarle is come to judgment, and he comes to us with a simple proposal—a proposal which, so far as one can see, should not cost a lot of money. He does not propose heavy expenditure by the Government. The noble Earl is as well aware as I am that the Government have many difficulties, and that the call for money is constant, and it is very hard indeed for

1423
them to meet all demands. That we understand. But I think he was urged to put down his Question, as I am urged to support it, because we are both men who believe that the future of the country we love rests with our youth. We are both men who have a profound faith in the youth of this country, but we are both men who fear that our generation, and the generation that is governing the country at the present time, are failing in their responsibility to encourage youth and to give youth the facilities which they need to lead the life that will make them true upholders of the great tradition which they have been fortunate enough to inherit.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the Territorial Army has gone; its successors, T. & A.V.R. III, misleadingly called Territorials, are fighting for survival. But even if they do survive they will still have need for only a few of the drill halls which they have inherited. Therefore it seems logical to sell or otherwise dispose of the now unwanted drill halls.
It seems logical to whom? To me it seems to be a non sequitur of the most complete kind. As has been made perfectly clear in the terms of my noble friend's Question, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, this debate is not about defence but about the redundancy of drill halls, which has come about as a result of reductions in our defensive power, and therefore it is of considerable importance to remember why those reductions were made. The appreciation that led to those reductions was not strategic, it was economic; they were not made because for Great Britain the world had suddenly become safe but because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the Government believed (and rightly) that we could no longer afford to continue as a great military Power.
With the question of whether we can or cannot afford a Territorial Army we are not at the moment concerned, so I take it there is no objection to accepting, for the sake of argument only, that it is true. But we cannot say that we shall never need it, or something like it, in the future. Yet the Government have embarked on a course, as was made most
1424
abundantly clear by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in his memorable speech last January, that will make it impossible to re-raise such a force. Once the Territorials are disposed of, that is the end of them.
For such irreversibility in policy there can be only two possible reasons. One is that the Government intend that we shall never again have such a Territorial Army, whether we can afford it or not; the other is that the Government are convinced that we shall never again be able to afford it. I am inclined to think that the latter view may be correct, so far as the present Government are concerned, but I believe that we do need such a force and that, anyway in time, we shall be able to afford it again. But by that time it may be too late: we may be in the position, militarily speaking, of the man who, finding he cannot afford a car for the next few years, not only sells his car but pulls down his garage as well. Or, to put it another way, it is like demolishing the bridges on an abandoned railway, on the assumption, "We do not need the railway any more, so let us make it impossible for anyone else to use it as a road".
It may perhaps be said that in the great operation of dismantling the nation's defences the disposal of a few hundred drill halls does not bulk very large. I disagree; but I do not propose to argue the matter on purely military grounds. A drill hall is something more than a hall for drill. These centres vary in size and complexity, but, taken in the aggregate, they are also headquarters and offices, equipped with heating and plumbing and the like; they are rifle ranges, armouries and stores. All of these things, of course, are primarily for soldiers. But they are also canteens and messes and clubs; and they are places where, in the past, all kinds of social and charitable activities have taken place. But even if you add together all these activities, the social and the military, you will not by that means alone arrive at a grasp of the full significance of the drill hall, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
To begin with, there is a curious overlapping or interweaving between the military and the social functions of the drill hall. Possibly I should have spoken of

1425
that in the past tense, but never mind. This interweaving comes from an impalpable quality which derives from the word "Territorial". In cities and in small and distant towns the drill hall has for generations been the meeting place of soldier and civilian, the two being in most cases one and the same man—or, more recently, woman. It was here that your neighbour, your employer, your friend the postman, or the farmer, and perhaps you yourself, simply by a change of clothes, slipped easily into a different world. In this comradely world relationships were changed, sometimes turned upside down so that the taker of orders became for a time the giver, and sometimes vice versa, with benefit to both; and all learned that the military discipline of the Territorial Army was in fact self-discipline, voluntarily accepted and backed by only the most tenuous of sanctions.
It was unwise to brush all that aside simply by saying that it is all over now; for the cumulative effect of it all was something more significant than the simple things that I have described, valuable though they were. The effect was that the drill hall formed a visible link between the citizen and the Armed Forces of the Crown and symbolised, for all to see, the spirit of service to the community unselfish, patriotic and unpaid. This being so, drill halls stood for something vital, not only for the safety of the nation but also for its spiritual health; and they could—and I believe should—continue so to do.
My noble friend has not asked the Government to preserve them as tombstones or memorials of the dead past: he has asked whether they will reinvigorate them as centres for social service and recreation. Both these subjects we have had debated in the past months, notably in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, earlier in the year, and also in a debate on sport initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I think there is great difficulty in drawing a line between social activities and activities of social service: there is no particular reason to try to separate one from the other: they are both functions Or needs—or both—of the young. But so far as the needs are concerned this particular type of need is, in my opinion, gravely neglected. Some may feel that, whether these activities are one or the
1426
other, emphasis falls chiefly upon the social service, whether given or received. But there is no doubt, I think, that for social service among the young there is a most clamorous demand which is not being met, and that demand comes not least from those who wish to give the service. There is all too little from those who might benefit from it.
These drill halls ought to be preserved by the State if they are owned by the Defence Department or by the Territorial Associations. They may be made over to local authorities for letting or for use, as indeed in many cases they are; but what is important, I believe, is that they should not simply be sold off to the highest bidder, regardless of what happens to them. They should be preserved in such a way that they can be used for the public and not turned into factories or in any way rendered unusable for their true purpose; and they should remain available for repossession. The name boards of the regiments whose homes these drill halls once were should be preserved inside them, if it is not too late, as links with, and reminders an honourable tradition. It would not cost very much, and they could be devoted to purposes which I believe would repay the cost a hundredfold. Moreover, the garage would still be there whenever we have a Government that manage; our affairs skilfully enough to enable us to run a car.
The halls formed a small but not negligible part of the arterial system in which once the pulse of the nation beat. Cannot some thought be given to methods of putting new life and vigour into them, or (in the admirably chosen word of my noble friend) "reinvigorating them? There must be some in the Goverrment, if not in the Treasury, who have the vision to see that these are not mere redundant barns but vital and valuable reminders of the past and an insurance against need or peril in the days to come. Again—and this is the important point they can be used; they represent, they are an inspiration to and a ready made focus for, the generous spirit of to-day.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I hope that having given due notice, your Lordships will allow me, although my name does not appear on the list of speakers, to make a very brief intervention. It is of course to support

1427
most warmly the arguments which are inherent in the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Albemarle and supported by my noble friends Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge and Lord Cork and Orrery. Having been a Territorial myself, I have a sentimental affection for these halls. I have seen them in operation and use, in addition to the purposes that have been mentioned to-night, particularly by the cadet forces which have been a tremendous source of strength to this country.
There is one possible use to which I should like to refer, to which I hope the Government may give consideration, and that derives from the experience in recent months of natural disasters in this country, where former civil defence volunteers organised themselves in a most admirable and effective way to give help where help was so badly needed. Round this nucleus of ex-civil defence volunteers I am sure there can be built, and would want to be built, voluntary organisations which could be of immense value to the community, and these drill halls would form admirable headquarters for such organisations.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to say a very brief word about another aspect of this question, and that is the excellence of converting the old type of drill hail, especially with a height of 30 feet and upwards, into covered tennis courts. It goes without saying that covered tennis courts are essential for winter training for all players, particularly those of international standing who compete against players from countries which have more equable weather than ours. At the moment there is a great dearth of these covered courts because they are extremely costly to build. It would be of great help to the Lawn Tennis Association and their subordinate bodies if they were able to obtain some of these drill halls, or have access to them, which are readily convertible at very low cost. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the Minister would give this side of the question his due consideration.
6.56 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not adding my name to the list; I was anxious to take part in the debate but uncertain about my time of arrival. This is a subject which interests me greatly. I have served
1428
in a Territorial Army unit although never a Territorial, and I have served as a volunteer when very young in one of these drill halls to which we are referring. I am old enough to remember the circumstances in which many of them were brought into being, and both as a Minister and when I was a Member of another place, I have done some research into this subject.
One question I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply is just how many millions of pounds Her Majesty's Government are collecting as a result of the disposal of the drill halls. Be it remembered that considerable numbers of these drill halls—the noble Lord who opened the debate gave some figures which had been given to him and which I believe to be accurate—were brought into being through public subscription. The money was raised as a result of local enthusiasms, and the drill halls certainly played a major part in the life of the community, of which in many cases they formed a central point. Times change, but that does not mean to say that any Government, and a Government of which recently I was a member, has a right to come along willy-nilly, change their policy and pick up very considerable sums which have been raised by other people's sacrifice and effort and just leave it at that. I think that there ought to be a progressive policy. I have always thought so and have advocated it for long years, sometimes at the top of my voice, both in relation to the development and recruitment of Reserve forces, their use, and the Territorial Army. I am not sure that I would find myself in complete agreement with all your Lordships' views about the use of the Territorials and Reserves at the present time.
But my case is a rather different one. I begin by saying that I do not accept the military case that is made out for the T. & A.V.R. III but the point is that the previous Administration, in the Defence White Paper of 1957, for better or worse, decided to abandon conscription as a method of raising the Armed Forces of the Crown. Again, I was not a party to that decision, although my own Party supported it. It was a decision that was taken with the support of the House of Commons, although it did not carry me with it—and of course I realise that it is futile to protest against this

1429
policy now because the matrix of conscription has been broken. But the logic of the action taken by the Government ten years ago is that you depend upon voluntary recruiting, and it is palpable to anybody who studies this subject that voluntary recruiting in this country has broken down. There is going to be no Regular Army. It fills me with dismay when I listen to some of the protests raised about what has happened in Czechoslovakia, or the nonsense talked about the defence of Europe or East of Suez. We have no Regular Army; it is run down; and the rate of recruitment now (the figures are published every month, but they do not arouse much interest and certainly no enthusiasm) means that in the 'seventies the Regular Army will not amount to 120,000.
Now that conscription has been abandoned the future of this country depends upon the retention and development of the voluntary spirit. I suppose that I am old enough, and served long enough in the Armed Forces of the Crown, in a very humble capacity, to qualify now for the title of "Colonel Blimp," and if "Colonel Blimp" I am in thinking that the day may come when a disciplined force may again be needed. I am very glad indeed to serve alongside "Colonel Blimp".
Here I would point out that, with the exception of Canada, Britain is the only country in NATO which does not have some form of compulsory service. How do you talk to your NATO partners? How do you talk to the other members of the Commonwealth? What is the good of talking about an East-of-Suez policy while both Australia and New Zealand have some form of conscription and we have none? And it is as plain as a pikestaff that these drill halls are centres—focal points. I am not advocating that every drill hall in every back street should be kept in being, but I am supporting the noble Lords who have spoken before me when they say that we are forced by the very policies of the present Government, and its predecessor, to support the voluntary principle at all costs; and the drill halls and the T. & A.V.R. III enshrine just that principle of voluntary service which is vital to the security of this country.
1430
I have never believed in the nonsense that you must have the nuclear weapon to be able to talk at the council tables of the great. I do not believe that What makes a country great is not weapons; it is the spirit of its people. If there is a disposition, as there is at present, to put ball-bearings under policemen's horses hooves so that they slip up, and so that people can bash the policemen over the head with an empty beer bottle—that is the mood of the time—hen it is vitally necessary not that there should be a disciplined force to come along and hit those people over the head with two beer bottles, but that there should be a volunteer force which, by its devotion and its example to public service, the fact that it will give up some part of its space time in the service of the community in defence of the concept of law, will become a national obligation of the highest possible order. I apologise for coming late this evening to raise my voice, but it is for this reason that I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl on this Question.
7.2 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I have only a few points to add to those spoken of by other noble Lords on this matter. I think we are all glad it has been raised—it is clear that those who have spoken are glad—and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Albemarle for raising it. The Government will not learn anything about our attitude and conviction on this matter from anything I shall say this evening. We have been perfectly consistent, and indeed latterly we have had increasingly consistent cause for anxiety as to the survival of the Volunteer Reserve Forces which depend so considerably upon the drill halls which we are discussing.
We understood that the Government are now thinking again about the force levels of the Reserve Forces. Indeed, it would be remarkable if they were lot, in the light of the new thinking in NATO, and indeed in all other defence organisations in the Free World, concerning the increased importance of conventional warfare and the forces required for it. I wish that it were clearer that the Government were not as determined as they sometimes, indeed often, appear to be to emasculate the Reserve Forces upon which the Regular Forces will depend in the event of hostilities, and upon which

1431
they feel they depend already. I do not believe that the Regular Army is as far beyond recall as seems to be the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. We know how anxious and worried they are at what is being done to the Reserve Forces. The successor units of the Territorial Army will obviously have to play an essential role in any Reserve Forces.
For the past two or three years only I have been colonel of a T. & A.V.R.II regiment. Therefore my experience does not go back over decades, as does that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. None the less, I am aware—one cannot have anything to do with these forces without being aware—of the spirit which gives and sustains impetus. This spirit needs physical centres, bricks and mortar establishments. I am told, outside my own area, that in Scotland and in Wales, for instance, the feeling about the need for these buildings is even stronger.
It may be that drill halls have been under-employed recently. Nobody that I know of inside the Volunteer Forces themselves, or in the associations, would object to the buildings being used for other purposes which did not inhibit or reduce or destroy their usefulness to the proper occupiers, their usefulness to the original idea. This, I think, is one of the only two direct questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord opposite. We wish to be assured that if these buildings are transferred to other uses and therefore, for that reason, placed in other hands, they will always be available for this primary purpose as well as any secondary purpose, however useful or commendable. We should also like an assurance from the Government that no drill halls have been disposed of so far, or at least disposed of beyond recovery.
It seems an excellent idea that these buildings should be of a dual, or even treble or quadruple purpose in character. As a result, there have been to-night no bitter words of any kind, though I think we should understand the cause for bitterness of which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge spoke, though not directly as feeling that bitterness himself. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, as reasonable a character as we know in this House, will wish to be able to respond as reasonably as he can to the pleas and arguments gently
1432
put forward tonight. I also hope that his words, if they have that character, will also be significant.
7.7 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I know the House will excuse me if I direct my remarks to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, rather than to the debate that has developed from it, on the virtues of the Territorial Army and its successor. Before answering the noble Earl, I should like to make one point. What has been said in this House to-night need not necessarily be taken as falling on deaf ears. Noble Lords will remember the point made on the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, paragraph 64 of which ends with these words
"A review is therefore being carried out to determine what changes might profitably be made in the training and other commitments of T. & A.V.R. I and II, and in the organisation of other sections of the reserves in order to meet the new situation. This review will take a few months. While it is going on, T. & A.V.R. III units will remain in being on the present basis against the possibility that some modest expansion of the facilities and manpower for T. & A.V.R. I and II may be desirable and can be afforded. It is hoped to make a further announcement later in the year."
This subject is still under consideration; an announcement has not been made, and events in Eastern Europe and your Lordships' remarks must be factors that are considered by the Defence Ministry when reaching a decision upon this residual group of drill halls, which are not negligible in number. There is indeed a substantial number of this type of building in being.
Having said that, I should like to turn to the matter contained in the noble Earl's Question. As he knows, we had a most stimulating conversation on this subject in the late summer. He and I are in substantial sympathy with a greater social use of these drill halls once they have been given up. Of course, the noble Earl will be familiar with the procedure. If a drill hall is no longer required by the Territorial Army organisations it must be offered to one of the Service Departments. The next bodies in priority are the other Government Departments. Then come the local authorities. Finally, if none of these bodies requires the drill hall, then, and only then, is it sold on the open market.

1433
This is a point which I should like to make straight away. Much as one would like to retain the ownership of these halls and to lease them, unfortunately this is statutorily not possible. There is, however, one interesting point, which indeed I think is not generally known. A substantial number of them have been retained by local authorities for sporting purposes, and this use has a very high priority in their disposal. This use has a priority nearly as high as that of a Government Department. It is an anomalous situation, and I will read an official note on the position:
"A Government Department takes precedence over a local authority unless the hall is required for housing, in which case it takes equal precedence. However, if the local authority wishes to purchase the hall for conversion to a sports centre the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will make representations to try and persuade the Government Department to forgo its claims."
Those are words. I speak from experience in this matter, because I am chairman of the East Midlands Sports Council. As noble Lords will know, when the initial batch of drill halls was thrown up we, in the East Midlands, and I expect everywhere else, carried out a very thorough survey of the drill halls in the region, which is a substantial one, spreading from Derbyshire to Kesteven and South to Northamptonshire, to see which of them could be retained for use as sports and recreational centres. In fact, I am glad to tell the House that we got every one we asked for: in fact we got them all for the purposes which the noble Earl has so close to his heart and which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, is also so concerned about. I have figures here, but unfortunately they are not clear as to how many actually went for sporting facilities; but of the drill halls disposed of up to September 30, 1968, 149 went to local authorities, and I suspect a substantial number of these were in fact used for sports facilities.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, if the noble Lord would permit me to interrupt, may I ask how many in fact have been disposed of altogether? The noble Lord has told us the proportion that went in that way.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can. For use by other Service Departments,
1434
26; going to other Government Departments, 38; to local authorities, 149; and sold on the open market, 69. That is the position as at the end of September this year.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell us the actual amount of money which has been raised as a result of their being disposed of?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord about this. I cannot give him an answer immediately. He unfortunately, as a former Paymaster General, knows as well as anyone where it goes.
I should like to answer one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, about the use of these drill halls for indoor tennis courts. I should have thought the Lawn Tennis Association would have approached the sports Council and put their case to it. This is an eminently suitable use for these particular halls if they are the correct size, and I should be very surprised indeed if somewhere or other along the line approaches have not been made through the Sports Council and the regional bodies.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I had a word with the Lawn Tennis Association this afternoon and they were quite keen for me to bring this up. I will certainly let them know what the noble Lord has said and tell them to get in touch with the Sports Council.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain my namesake, who is responsible, will give them a sympathetic hearing. Those really are the only words of comfort that I can speak this evening. It would need a wider debate with a more senior Minister to discuss the wider issues of the future of the Territorial Army. The noble Earl is not alone in his concern, and from my own personal experience in the East Midlands I can say that we have not been unsuccessful in retaining a number of these halls for the purpose which he has close to his heart.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past seven o'clock.