Lords Sitting of 9 February 1971

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Earl of Donoughmore (Viscount Hutchinson)—Took the Oath.

ADVERTISING OF CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL
LORD SORENSEN: 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, in view of the possibility of advertisements for cigarettes being prohibited, or severely curtailed, in order to prevent encouragement of a disease-promoting habit, what action is contemplated to curtail advertisements on television and other media that encourage alcoholism and other diseases through excessive consumption of alcohol; and whether any proposals have been received from cigarette manufacturers, brewers, vintners and distillers in respect of voluntary advertising restrictions.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, there is already considerable curtailment of advertising on television: distillers have agreed not to advertise hard liquor, and television advertisements for other forms of alcohol are not permitted, under the Advertising Advisory Committee's code of practice, immediately before, during or after children's programmes. No further approaches have been received from the manufacturers about voluntary restrictions on the advertising of alcohol.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not think it is inconsistent completely to ban cigarette advertising and not the advertising of drink, which is the cause of just as much trouble? May I also ask him whether the Government have made any representation to the brewers and distillers to see whether they cannot further curtail the advertisements of their products on television?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, with respect it is true to say that there is a slight difference between cigarette smoking and alcohol. Even a moderate amount of cigarette smoking may be harmful to health, whereas alcohol consumption, in moderation, is not. On the second point, we have not made any representations.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that alcohol is one of the causes of cirrhosis of the liver, and similar complaints?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there is no evidence that the figures for cirrhosis of the liver have been rising. They are steady.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having regard to the fact that people are imitative, does the Minister think that prohibition such as he has already described is of any use while commentators and glamorous heroes of the screen are chain-smokers?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I agree that it is another form of insidious propaganda that comes through, but I do not think there is anything that the Government can appropriately do about it.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord another supplementary question? How can this prohibition be effective when this kind of encouragement is given on the screen? What is the purpose of the one prohibition when he takes little notice of the other licence?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not quite clear which prohibition the noble Baroness is talking about. There is voluntary agreement among distillers not to advertise hard liquor, and there is a further code of practice of the Advertising Advisory Committee, which controls the showing of advertisements during or immediately before or after children's programme.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if the advertisers of alcohol were obliged to put the price of their product on each advertisement it might deter some people from buying it?

RABBIT CLEARANCE GRANTS
2.39 p.m.
LORD BURTON: 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, in view of the withdrawal of the grant to rabbit clearance societies, what statutory powers within the Pest Act 1954 and the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 will be retained to control rabbits.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, rabbit clearance grants are payable under an enabling power given to the Agricultural Ministers by Section 3 of the Pests Act 1954. Legislation is not therefore necessary to carry out the Government's decision to withdraw the grants. The statutory powers under the Acts of 1954 and 1948 and the Orders made under them will remain, so that occupiers will continue to be required to control rabbits on their land, and the Agricultural Ministers will continue to have powers to ensure that this is done.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the pre-myxomatosis damage carried out by rabbits amounted in Scotland to several million pounds, and over the whole country was estimated at £50 million, what steps do the Government intend to take to see that we do not return to that position?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the present position is that while before myxomatosis the damage done in Scotland amounted to about £5 million to £7 million, it is now only about £500,000. One would nevertheless hope that after receiving grants for 16 years these rabbit clearance societies would remain in being, because farmers must realise that it is in their interests to keep the rabbit population down.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government have fully considered that while some owners of big arable farms would be quite willing to double their subscriptions to the societies the owners of smaller and marginal farms, whose income is usually less than that of the lowest paid agricultural worker, cannot do so? Would it not be a tragedy if rabbit damage to crops and grass in Scotland, which has been almost eliminated in the past 15 years, should now begin all over again?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree that it would be a tragedy if the rabbits were to increase in very large numbers again. While I understand perfectly the question of the noble Earl, I would point out that

5
the small farmers have been working very successfully together in co-operatives, and I should have thought that they would still be able to do so.
LORD HOY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us why the grants, which were so important under a Labour Government, are unimportant now that we have a Tory Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the reason is that these grants have been given for about 16 years, and it is felt that farmers, whether large or small, realise that it is in their interest to control these pests. It was one of the Election pledges of the Tory Government to try to reduce expenditure in every Department.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean that rabbits are less productive under a Tory Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am not yet aware of that.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the Government are taking a very big risk by withdrawing these grants in one step rather than tapering them off? Is the noble Baroness further aware that while she repeats that farmers are responsible for eliminating the pests on their land, and refers to the statutory powers, it was not in the main the farmers who were responsible for the spread of rabbits but the owners of building sites and such derelict areas as railway embankments, which are centres for breeding rabbits, where it was impossible to control them and extremely difficult for the agricultural Ministers to mount successful prosecutions against the owners of the land?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, this particular problem will not change, because powers are still there for the agricultural Ministers to ensure that occupiers of land will in fact be responsible for clearing their land of rabbits.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Does that mean, my Lords, that the Government can, under the Act, renew these grants again in a year or two if it should appear then to be necessary?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, that is so, although at the present moment we have no intention of doing so.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to promote private enterprise in all manners, including by the rabbits?
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, may I ask: my noble friend whether it is intended to step up the use of procedures for inspection and enforcement against those who harbour rabbits, and to make this procedure more stringent than it has been?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVEE: My Lords, the powers are all there. I agree that there are difficulties in enforcement, but there is every intention on the part of both agricultural Ministers to make clear to owners of occupied land what their responsibilities are under the Act.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would ask her officials if they consider that the powers are sufficient, because I think she would find that those who have to enforce them consider them insufficient. Furthermore, is she aware that the main reason rabbit clearance societies were not effective was that the present powers were inadequate and no compulsion could be nut on them to "blackleg" the farmer and landowner who refused to co-operate, unlike the compulsory powers which exist for marketing boards.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I realise that there is some difficulty in that a farmer can do a certain amount of work in controlling his rabbits without entirely eliminating them and is not therefore subject to the penalty enforcement. But I have not been advised that the powers are insufficient.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell her right honourable friend the number of questions that have been asked in this House? Will she tell him that both sides of the House believe that this is a false economy, and would he look at the matter again?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I could not undertake to do that because this is a

7
decision that was taken after careful thought, as indeed are all decisions taken by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that she is not prepared to do as my noble friend asked and inform her right honourable friend of the feeling in this House? Are all decisions of this Government always going to be immutable?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he said: would I ask that this question be reconsidered? I said I did not think I could do so at this time. So far as the opinion of the whole House is concerned, I should find it difficult to assess the opinion of your Lordships' House without a good deal more consideration.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is very unusual for any noble Lord speaking from the Government Front Bench not to undertake to convey feelings expressed in all quarters of the House on a matter? May I again ask her whether she will convey this feeling to her right honourable friend?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am always ready to convey feelings, but I was asked a specific question, whether I would ask for the matter to be reconsidered, and I know that that is not a fruitful question at this moment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, when the noble Baroness conveys feeling to her right honourable friend, will she please remember to convey that not everybody feels as some of her hostile questioners have, and that many noble Lords here believe that farmers are learning to stand on their own feet and would prefer to do so.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl for coming to my assistance, and also for justifying my feeling that it was difficult to assess the whole opinion of your Lordships' House.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the modern rabbit is not so inclined to burrow as his ancestor was, and that therefore he is
8
very much more easily dealt with than the rabbit of twenty years ago?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am grateful for that personal knowledge.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, if the noble Baroness feels that the Government are not prepared to reintroduce the grant, will she at least look at the powers available at the moment for compulsion and making people control their pests, and see whether these should not be improved?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords; I will certainly look at the powers, although I cannot give any undertaking that it will be possible to improve them.

DIVORCE PETITIONSIN SCOTLAND
2.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: 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, in view of the fact that all undefended divorce cases in Scotland can only be tried in Edinburgh, what is the cost of these cases to the taxpayer in legal aid charges, and whether they will give the reason why these cases, which on average take 11½ minutes, cannot be tried in sheriff-substitute courts.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is not possible to differentiate between defended and undefended actions in assessing the cost of divorce proceedings to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund. The total cost of such proceedings to the Fund in 1969–70 was approximately £600,000, an amount which was partly offset by contributions made by assisted persons. The proposal that the sheriff court should have jurisdiction in divorce proceedings was carefully examined by the Committee on the Sheriff Courts but was rejected on the ground that, although there would be certain advantages of economy and convenience to litigants if the sheriff courts could dispose of divorce cases, the importance

9
of such actions, whether defended or undefended, fully justified granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. The Government considers that the arguments set out in the Committee's Report are still valid in present circumstances.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that entirely unsatisfactory Answer, may I say that we admit that the present arrangement is of great advantage to junior advocates in Edinburgh? But does she really think it is fair on the public that they have to pay what is undoubtedly a large proportion of these expenses for something that could be equally well done in local sheriff courts, as it is done in equivalent county courts in England?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that about five-sixths of the undefended divorce cases take place in the central belt of Scotland. For that reason it is not felt that any great hardship is imposed on litigants. And because often undefended cases afterwards become defended in questions of allocation of property or capital, we do not think we could depart from the Grant Committee's recommendation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what happens to a litigant outside the central belt—say somebody in Caithness?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that 80 per cent. receive legal aid. I also understand that the largest number of divorce cases outside the central belt of Scotland occur for some reason in Aberdeen.

E.E.C. AND UNITED KINGDOM INSHORE FISHING
LORD BOOTHBY: 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, in the negotiations for our entry into the Common Market, they will take good care to protect the interests of the inshore fishing fleets of the United Kingdom.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in the negotiations with the E.E.C., Her Majesty's Government have reserved their position on the common fisheries policy of the Community. The detailed national and local implications of the policy, including its implications for all sections of the British fishing industry, are now under careful examination.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the new fishery regulations of the Common Market, which would allow Continental trawlers to fish right up to our beaches, would inevitably ruin the British inshore fishing industry if applied to this country, especially in Scotland, the West Country and the Isle of Man? Does the noble Earl not agree that this is far too heavy a price to pay for entry into the Common Market and, as such, is quite unacceptable; and can he give an assurance that our present fishery limits will be maintained at all costs by our negotiators in Brussels?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has made, and I think it is only fair to say that at the moment, although they have committed themselves to the common fisheries policy, all the details are not yet clear. It is for this: reason, among others, that Her Majesty's Government have fully reserved their position with regard to the fishing.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government, in these negotiations about fishing, are including the question of shellfish, and particularly of lobsters, which are now forming a growing export trade for this country?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the remarks which my noble friend has made about the shellfish industry of this country.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, how does the noble Earl justify the Answer he gave to the original Question, in view of the clause in the Treaty of Rome which provides, without any qualification or reservation, for the free movement of labour? Does not the content of that clause impinge on British fishing rights?

11
Also, is it not singular that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who for many years has been one of the most ardent advocates of British entry into the Common Market, is now beginning to realise that it is not all "beer and skittles"?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows very well that in all these negotiations there are bound to be problems, and that is the reason why the negotiations are taking place. I think it is fair to remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in the House of Commons that he was aware of the extreme importance which the Government and the House attached to satisfaction on this vital issue with regard to fishing. It is for this reason that the Government have reserved their position, in order that negotiations can be fully entered into.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that it is all very well to negotiate, but surely negotiations are inhibited by the clear, rigid and inflexible content of the clauses in the Treaty of Rome? How does he overcome that difficulty?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think if the noble Lord studies the Common business policy he will find that they are not clear and rigid and inflexible.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not the case that if Norway came into the Common Market with us the Scottish fishermen would then be able to fish all the territorial waters of Norway, to their infinite satisfaction?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is perfectly right in what he says.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that would not be very great compensation to inshore fishermen? Is he further aware that inshore fishing is the livelihood of many parts of our coastline, not only in Scotland but in England as well? Indeed, in the South West there is considerable dependency on the shellfish industry, and if this is lost then people in these areas will simply be unemployed.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am fully aware of the observations which the
12
noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has made, and I would remind him of something—because these words will carry far more strength than ever mine would—namely, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he could assure the House that the Government had no intention of allowing our inshore waters to be raped.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that last reply, may I ask him, arising out of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whether he is aware that we are not interested in inshore fishing in Norwegian waters? We are interested in Norwegian fishing in our own inshore waters, which is much more important. Will he at least give an assurance that our negotiators in Brussels will be informed of the discussion we have had in this House to-day?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I would merely say to him that he may not be interested in our people fishing in Norwegian waters but there may be others who are.
LORD BOOTHBY: No: nobody.
EARL FERRERS: However, I will certainly pass on his remarks.

LAOS: SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY OPERATION
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice:
Whether, in view of the now confirmed reports of extensive fighting in Laos, consequent upon the operation made by the Army of South Vietnam, the Government will make a Statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as Co-Chairman of the 1961 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

AUSTRALIAN, MERCANTILE, LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
LORD MOW BRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is a common practice in Scotland to navigate carts?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my noble friends from North of the Border will know that this is the river Cart.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDL ESHAM): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set clown to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is the Bill to facilitate the transfer of business from one organisation to another. During the earlier stages of the Bill I asked the noble Lord whether he could give an undertaking that the British Air Corporations would not be asked to make further concessions of business to any other organisation. The noble Lord was unable on that occasion to give me any undertaking. He said in fact that there was still the remainder of the package to announce. What I therefore now ask him is when the remainder of that package will be announced. I am sure he understands as well as any of us that it is essential to end the uncertainty in this matter. It really is not fair on the Air Corporations to leave them in any doubt as to what sector of their business will be theirs next week or the week after, and I therefore ask, before we give this Bill a Third Reading, if we are going to give it a Third Reading, whether he will say when this period of uncertainty is to be ended.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely important to end the period of uncertainty, which is bound to exist, as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I am not able to give a firm date on which we shall announce the remainder of the package. All I can say is that it is in everybody's interest that it should be announced as soon as possible. I hope that the House will be content with that assurance.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is it not a little surprising that the Bill comes before us on Third Reading without our having full knowledge of what is in it? With most Bills, if the contents are not included in the Bill itself they are in the Schedule. Here we are asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill without even knowing what is in it. This

15
seems the most astonishing arrangement. It is an enabling Bill to allow something to be done without any statement of what it is. I have heard Members on the other side and in another place say in the past that this is a peculiar way of conducting business; that, while other Governments might do it, they would never do it. Is it not time that they looked at their own past remarks and made sure that no Bill came before us in this condition?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is under some misapprehension. What we are doing is to declare what the law is. It is not a question of what is in the Bill; the Bill merely declares what the law is. There is nothing behind it, in the sense that there is a package involved in the Bill. There is, of course, the prospect that some of the routes at present operated by the national Air Corporations will be transferred. What this Bill does is to declare that it is possible for these routes to be taken away so far as the Air Corporations are concerned and for licences to be given to B.U.A./Caledonian to operate them. This is not in the Bill. The Bill declares that the existing law will already permit this to be done.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is the responsibility of any Minister who is responsible for a Bill going through the House to give some form of view as to what the Bill really entails, now that it has gone through Committee and is submitted for Third Reading?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been present throughout the debates on this Bill. The point here is that it was recognised that in order to get this new company, B.U.A./Caledonian, off the ground it would be necessary to transfer routes to the value of a certain amount from the Air Corporations to B.U.A./Caledonian. That amount has been stated at not exceeding 2½ to 3 per cent. of the total route revenue of B.O.A.C. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked about was the exact composition of routes to be transferred. We know what is involved financially and quantitatively. What is not yet certain
16
is what the exact composition of the routes is to be.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, the Minister will agree that I have obtained from him what I requested. He is an old Parliamentarian, like myself, coming from another place. We have got from him to-day something that he was not prepared to give in the first place; he has explained the reason for the Third Reading and what is in the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure whether we are not out of order; this is not a Committee stage but a Third Reading. I would make one correction to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, and ask one further question. I have not asked to-day what is the exact composition of this package. All I have asked is: when shall we know the remainder of the package, so that the uncertainty can end? The noble Lord is unable to give the answer, which is really important. I now ask a further question: can he give an undertaking that the open-ended powers in this Bill will lapse or be subsumed when the promised new aviation legislation comes before the House?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, certainly it will be for the House to decide what the powers of the new Civil Aviation Authority will be, and it would be quite wrong for me to predict exactly what they should be. All I can do is to repeat what I have said before: that it is not the intention that these powers should be used again. It is not the intention that these powers should be used again in this way once they have been used for the package. It has happened in the past, and it may be necessary in the future, that the powers are used where, for one reason or another, a route is abandoned. In such a case it is necessary to use the powers in order immediately to exempt whoever wants to operate that route from the necessity of getting a licence from the Air Transport Licensing Board; the new operator is then able to operate the route without such a licence. I have given the assurances that the noble Lord wants: that the Government will not delay longer than necessary the announcement of this package; and, secondly, that it is not intended to use these powers again in this way. May I say one other thing to the noble Lord,

17
Lord Slater? Throughout the passage of this Bill in both Houses the basis on which we have been operating has been the Statement that was made on August 3 last, which made clear the intention of the Government in this respect.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill passed accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Drunialbyn.)
3.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall now pass?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray, L.

Robbins, L.

Alport, L.

Grenfell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Sackville, L.

Balfour, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hawke, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bethell, L.

Headford, M.

St. Just, L.

Boothby, L.

Helsby, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bourne, L.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Brecon, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Brock, L.

Howe, E.

Shannon, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ilford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Burton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Cawley, L.

Ironside, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Sudeley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinton, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Tenby, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wolverton, L.

Essex, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blackett, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs, [Teller.]

Stocks, Bs.

Constantine, L.

Stonham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Faringdon, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Peddie, L.

White, Bs.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Willis, L.

Heycock, L.

Royle, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Liability for oil pollution]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Government a question which arises both on this Bill and on the Bill which we are to discuss immediately afterwards. I think it can as conveniently be taken under Clause 1 stand part as anywhere. The question is about the powers of the Governments of this country to seize ships. This clause of this Bill lays liability on shipowners in respect of sea pollution. Cases may be brought under that clause in the courts to which the Government may be party. The courts may award damages against the shipowner to the Government, or to the Government acting on behalf of local authorities or other parties, and the liable party may then fail to pay. In that case, have the Government sufficient powers to detain either the ship itself which was responsible for the original damage, if it is a British-registered ship or a ship which happens to be in this country; or, even more important, to detain another ship belonging to the same owner as that against which liability has been awarded, or, indeed, to distrain on other property of that owner?
I lay special emphasis on the latter point because I have seen a report of a court case, the precise circumstances of which are not familiar to me though they will be to the Government, in which the judgment appeared to cast doubt on the right of the British Government to seize a second ship belonging to the owner of a first ship which had incurred liability—or criminal liability, I forget which—
20
for pollution or for accident (again I forget which, but it does not affect the issue in this case). The question arises as much in the case of the next Bill which will come before the Committee of your Lordships' House and which concerns criminal liability as it does under the present Bill, which concerns civil liability. It may be that one of the Ministers concerned will find it convenient to give an explanation of the present situation to-day at either of the Committee stages. If they do not, so far as noble Lords on this side of the Committee are concerned, it will be quite all right if, at a convenient point in the Report debates on either of these Bills we can have the answer then. But I feel that the Committee would find it an advantage to know what is the actual sanction of power which backs up the liabilities and powers which are being introduced by these two Bills.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has asked about the power of the Government to detain ships. That is, in one case, the ship from which oil has actually escaped, or has been discharged, and which causes pollution damage. This is a question rather more for the next Bill than for this, because here, as he rightly said, we are dealing with civil liability, and it is those who have a claim arising out of Clause 1 of the Bill who would go to the court and ask for an order to detain the ship. One effect of Clause 13(1), which makes it clear that claims under Clause 1 come within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, is that by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Administration of Justice Act claims arising under this Bill will be included among those for which proceedings in rem can be taken. In such proceedings the ship which is the subject of the action, or a ship under the same ownership, may be arrested and may be security for any judgment.
The noble Lord is well aware that in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" it was possible to arrest in Singapore a ship under the same ownership. If proceeding are brought in personam a judgment can be enforced against a ship within our jurisdiction in the same way as against any other chattel. If the Government were the claimant, then no doubt the court would allow the Government to detain the ship. Further points which

21
assist in the enforcement of judgments are that if an owner wishes to limit his liability he has to pay the amount of the limitation fund into court. This will be available to claimants. In addition, the provisions for compulsory insurance, mutual enforcement of judgments and direct action against insurers are designed to strengthen further the position of the claimant. The noble Lord will also be aware, from reading the Bill, that on payment into court of the sum specified in the Bill (which is related to the tonnage of the ship), to cover the liability, the ship would be released. I hope this covers what the noble Lord wanted to know, but if there is anything further I shall be glad to deal with it at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD KENNET: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. On hearing it like that, I think it does cover everything that was worrying me, but perhaps I can read it to-morrow in Hansard. I am glad to know that the noble Lord will not be averse to corning back to it if need be.
LORD HAWKE: Suppose the ship is a one-vessel fleet and is a total loss: how do the Government proceed against the insurance company if it is a foreign company? Have they any power to distrain on some other ship which it happens to be insuring in our ports?
LORD DRUMALBYN: One of the problems in legislation of this sort is bringing to book certain kinds of offender where they have no property in this country and where it is not possible to lay hands on any. This is a real difficulty. If this was the one ship in the ownership of one person, and that ship sank, then it would be very hard to meet that situation within any kind of Bill. The question would be whether the owner had any assets, and whether it was possible to get at those assets from this country.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exceptions from liability under section 1]:
3.30 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, after ("hostilities") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 states that a shipowner does not incur any
22
liability if pollution occurs from—and I quote from paragraph (a):
"an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection "—
and so far I think all is plain sailing—
"or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon".
It seems to me, as it will seem to all of your Lordships—and, indeed, to all persons who have ever sailed the seas—that one keeps on meeting exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomena. They are called storms. A storm is exceptional in that most days there are not storms; but one day there is a storm and it is exceptional. It is certainly natural and, according to the size of your ship, it may or may not be irresistible; this is simply a matter of scale. In moving to delete those words, to get rid of the concept of the exceptional storm which lets the tanker owner off his liability, it seems to me that I am really suggesting that the Committee should close a very large loophole in this Bill. Because, of course, it would not be good enough if a chap could come to court and be able to prove that as there was a Force 9 wind blowing it was not his fault. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment, because the interpretation of this subsection could be so broad that the sea lawyers, qualified lawyers and even Lord Chancellors could have a whale of a time interpreting it. The semantics may look all right, but the logic and the law would certainly give a judge, let alone a Welsh layman, a headache in trying to interpret them. Paragraph (a) states:
"resulted from an act of war, hostilities "—
that is clear—
"civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon"
But if I were a little fellow running a tanker up the River Severn, I could make a good case for saying that on that special day the tidal bore upset my ship and spilled the oil on the waters, and that would exempt me from paying compensation because the tidal bore is an
"inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon".
Once in my life I was in a typhoon in the China Seas and I never want to be in

23
one again. But I believe that I could interpret that as exceptional, and could even say the same about the North Sea when some of us have had rough passages.
Without asking now for skilled legal interpretation, I really believe that this phrase should be narrowed, if possible; otherwise, most people could find an exemption at any time they were sailing on one of the Seven Seas. Although I may have appeared a little jocular about the interpretation, it is clear that there is a need for a more precise and concise interpretation of these words. Therefore, I support my noble friend and I thank the Committee for its attention.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely the paragraph cannot mean a storm or a hurricane or a typhoon, because they are not "exceptional". It surely means a tidal wave or an earthquake. I do not see how the noble Lord can use the argument of a typhoon or a hurricane. I should not call them at all exceptional.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The noble Viscount should be aware, if he has read his Henry IV, that when Owen Glendower was born there was a storm, but it was an exceptional storm. He will also know that Hotspur said that he, too, could call spirits from the deep; and in any storm a captain on the seas can occasionally call spirits from the deep. The point is that nobody, except the crew of the ship, is on the spot when the storm takes place. If it is a storm with cyclonic conditions it may have a radius of only five or ten miles. Not even the coastguard or the lighthouse keeper will be aware of its being in a certain spot, and who can deny my interpretation as captain of the ship? I believe that these words need looking at again.
LORD HAWKE: I think the fact that the noble Lord is standing opposite us at the moment is proof that typhoons are not necessarily irresistible. The word "irresistible" really governs this paragraph because the master mariner is expected, and expects, to weather typhoons, storms and so on, but is not prepared to cope with earthquakes and tidal waves. I am sure that "irresistible" is the key word in this phrase.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In dealing with this Bill, I think we have to bear in mind—it is perhaps as well that I say this now, because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is very well aware of it—that its main purpose is to enable the Government to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. This clause reflects the Convention, and the Convention states in almost identical words:
"No liability for pollution damage shall attach to the owner if he proves that the damage resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character "
and so on. I recognise that your Lordships will want some reason for this being contained in the Convention, and will want to know why it was that those who attended the Convention reached that conclusion. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is also to leave out the word "insurrection". He did not mention that, and I am not quite sure whether he meant it. But there is a slightly declining order of intensity from "war, hostilities, civil war" to "insurrection" which is, as it were, midway between riot and civil war.
The Convention then goes on,
"… or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character."
This exception is rather similar to the defence known as Act of God in English law. But the meaning of Act of God has never been clearly established and is difficult to translate into other languages and systems of law, especially in those countries which do not recognise God anyway. This exception was therefore intended to be both clear and more limited. If I were asked to give an example of what was at one and the same time exceptional, inevitable and irresistible, I should be very hard put to it to do so, and it is necessary to cover the cases which one cannot think of. I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord moved the next Amendment at the same time.
LORD KENNET: I moved Amendment No. 1 only, but I should have explained that I was speaking to Nos. 1 and 2 together. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 3 separately.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that

25
we are merely following up the Convention here. It may be that I shall have to say that more than once in the course of our consideration of this Bill.
LORD KENNET: First of all, let me disclaim any intention of haggling about the details of where one might propose to cut this clause. If "insurrection" is particularly important and should be left in, then let us leave it in and I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the desirability of deleting the words thereafter. The noble Lord has said that this is the form of words in the Convention, and that in this Bill we are following the Convention. I quite take the point. It is a strong point, but I should like to put the opposite point to the Committee.
If the noble Lord were to come to this House and say, "There is something in the Convention which we are not reproducing in our Bill because we think it goes too far", then that would be a difficult ground to defend and this House, and indeed any national Parliament, would probably be right to chastise this Government for excessive nationalism in lagging behind the other Governments of the world. If, on the other hand., a national Parliament to whom was submitted an international Instrument for ratification (which is what is being done now) were to find out that it did not go quite far enough, and was faced by the argument—as I submit this Committee is now faced by the argument—from the Government that, because, the international community had been prepared to go only one mile forward, therefore we in this country must not go two miles forward, then I believe that that national Parliament would be justified in rejecting the argument and saying, "Maybe they have only gone so far, but we ought to go farther. We shall have a better national law if we go farther than the international Convention suggests we should go." That is really the gist of my argument in moving this deletion.
Lastly, I think the noble Lord said that it was his purpose to cover something which he could not think of. It would be our purpose, the purpose of those on this side, to leave uncovered anything which we cannot think of, so that if something happens which never occurred to anybody the man will be
26
liable for the damages he causes rather than he should be let off simply because of the mere unthinkability in advance of what has happened. I should like this Bill to cover contingencies, not to leave them deliberately uncovered. It is not my intention to press this Amendment at this stage. I do not believe that the argument, "It is in the Convention, therefore that is all we should do", is a good one. I am glad that the Government are going as far as the Convention. I would urge them to go further in this respect, and I would urge the noble Lord to consider this wording again between now and the next stage to see whether he cannot meet the points we have made by agreeing to the deletion of these words and allowing this country to get a little bit ahead of the international community, though not so far ahead as other countries (and I instance in particular Canada), before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that a Convention of this kind represents a coming together of interests of various kinds. What this Bill does is to impose a liability of a strict character on the owner of the vessel. Now there are exceptions to that strictness. What the noble Lord is asking us to do is to make it a little more strict. The difficulty here is that in the course of the Convention there has inevitably been a lot of argument as to what the insurable limit is, and in arriving at the figures in the Bill, for example, which we shall come to, this has been taken into account. It would be difficult to alter the limits of coverage without at the same time altering the financial limits. They are all worked in together, and they are all part of the Convention. This is the problem here. I am not saying that at no part of the Bill have we not gone a little further than the Convention, but not in matters which affect all members of the Convention. Where we have gone a little further, it is entirely within our own jurisdiction.
Loan KENNET: I take that argument, and I think it is a strong one, but I wonder whether at the next stage, when we come back to this, as I think we should, the noble Lord will be able to tell us about present and intended legislation in the United States and in Canada, and whether all that is entirely

27
free of anything which might possibly be held to affect the liability levels later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

LAOS: SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY OPERATION
3.44 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may now answer the Private Notice Question which has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; namely, Whether, in view of the now confirmed reports of extensive fighting in Laos, consequent upon the operation made by the Army of South Vietnam, the Government will make a Statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as Co-Chairman of the 1961 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on February 3, he was willing at any time to join with the Co-Chairman to reconvene the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter. He repeated this to the Soviet Ambassador on the following day. The action which has now been taken by South Vietnamese forces in Laos is a direct consequence of the flagrant violation of Laotian neutrality by North Vietnamese troops which has been going on for years. When those troops proceed to kill South Vietnamese, the reaction of that country is fully understandable.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the reply which the noble Marquess has given me to my Private Notice Question. He will be aware of the very deep concern in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, at any extension of the fighting in South-East Asia. We recognise the difficulties of Her Majesty's Government, as Co-Chairman of the Conference, in dealing with the situation, but the recent developments in Laos must give us particular concern.
May I ask the noble Marquess three questions? First, has there been an
28
official approach to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Laos? Secondly, do the Government think that there is reason for a special initiative by the Co-Chairmen in this matter; and, if they do not feel that a special initiative is warranted, perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us why not. Thirdly, in view of the importance of our own relations in South-East Asia, and in view of what is, we understand, the new relationship between the Prime Minister and President Nixon, may I ask the noble Marquess whether there has been consultation between the Prime Minister and President Nixon on this matter?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while appreciating what was said in the Answer which the noble Marquess has just given, may I inquire, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, whether the Government feel that this operation by the South Vietnamese Army is likely to assist the process of withdrawal of the United States forces from South Vietnam? And would they not perhaps agree that when this withdrawal has been completed the future of South Vietnam will have to be decided by free elections in accordance with the decision of the Geneva Conference of 1954?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his comments, and I will attempt to answer the three questions which he put to me. So far as my information goes, there has been no official approach from the Laotian Government to Her Majesty's Government on this point. I think we all recognise the seriousness of the situation, and I do not want for one minute to underestimate that. That is why my right honourable friend said that he is still hoping that it will be possible to reconvene the Conference. I think that we shall have to watch the situation very closely, and I will certainly undertake to pass on to him what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said regarding perhaps taking a special initiative in this matter. On the noble Lord's third point, we were not consulted specifically by the American Government about this matter, although of course we are, as the noble Lord will appreciate, in consultation with them on a number of matters related to South-East Asia.

29
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked whether this matter would help the eventual American withdrawal from South Vietnam. I think that this is a very difficult question to answer offhand. The point of the present operation, so far as the South Vietnamese are concerned—and, indeed, with what support they have had from the American Army—is of course to bring the war to an end at the soonest possible time and to hasten the process of what they call the "Vietnamisation" of the war. The noble Lord also asked me a question as to what might happen after the war regarding free elections. I think that perhaps this is something that will have to wait a little longer, my Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite. Often they have to speak for Departments in which they are not directly concerned. The noble Marquess is a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, if I may say so, I think it very unsatisfactory for him to come here and say that he does not quite know whether there has been an approach by the Government of Laos. It must be the case either that there has been an approach or that there has not been an approach. I should have thought that the noble Marquess could give us a consistent answer to that question. I should also have thought that he could give a reason why Her Majesty's Government have thought it improper or inopportune to take a special initiative as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference in the light of the very dangerous, and developingly dangerous, situation in South-East Asia. Can the noble Marquess give any further assurances in this matter?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I can. As I thought I said in my original Answer, we are watching this situation very carefully. My right honourable friend, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, is, I know, only too anxious to do what he can to bring the situation under control. I am sorry that the noble Lord perhaps somewhat misinterpreted what I said previously. There has been no approach from the Laotian Government. I can give that assurance.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess still has not given us a
30
reason why a special initiative has not been taken.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that the first thing to do in this matter is to try to re-convene the Conference. This is what the Geneva Conference is about: it is to try to settle the problem in Laos. I think that at this stage it is up to the Soviet authorities to come forward and agree to talk about the matter.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that, what-ever philosophy of politics they may take, most sensible beings in the Western World are now feeling that this war has reached the height of brutality and that it is paying no tribute at all to the so-called free Western civilisation? May I ask whether the noble Marquess has asked his right honourable friend whether or not he has been in touch with the Soviet Union as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conferences of 1961, 1962 and 1954? Is he further aware that Chou En-lai himself said to me in Peking that if we could have left Laos as it was after the great efforts of Sir Anthony Eden (he mentioned him in particular) we should have had that neutrality? As one who has been on the spot, may I say that that neutrality was not broken by the North Vietnamese, as was borne home when the United Nations investigated an alleged invasion? The whole situation has grown to what it now is from a pack of half-truths—and in some cases direct lies.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend has been in touch with the Soviet Authorities on this point, through their Ambassador in London. On his rather more general points as to the causes of this sad situation, I do not think that he would expect me to comment very much. I think that one must agree that the action taken by the South Vietnamese forces at the moment has been provoked by the fact that the North Vietnamese have been unable to recognise the neutrality of Laos.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am encouraged by the fact that the noble Marquess has been more forthcoming to my noble friend. Am I to understand now that the Foreign Secretary has

31
been in touch with the Soviet Government since the invasion of Laos by the South Vietnamese forces?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend saw the Ambassador of the Soviet Union on, I think, February 4. At that time we were not quite certain what was happening.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, would the noble Marquess appreciate that in the operations last year, operations which were conducted by the Americans and supported by the Vietnamese, the Communists lost 80 per cent. of their lines of communication, and that what they are trying to do now, and have been trying to do ever since, is to replace the port of Sihanoukville by strengthening up the Ho-Chi-minh trial? Therefore, may I ask what is the difference between this operation, now being undertaken by the South Vietnamese and supported by the Americans, and the same sort of operation that took place last year?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that in many way there is little difference: both are preventive actions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the grave danger that the war in Vietnam may now be extended to Laos and to South-East Asia, may I ask the noble Marquess these questions? First, is it not the case that the Government of Laos, which is sincerely neutralistic, has opposed both the intervention of Communist troops and, now, the troops in Saigon supported by the American Government? Is it not the case that any intervention of foreign troops was prohibited by the agreement of the Geneva Conference, of which we are joint Chairman? And is not the action of Her Majesty's Government in endorsing the Saigon, American-supported, intervention now prejudicing the opportunity of Her Majesty's Government to contribute constructively and usefully to a solution of this problem?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is true that the Laotian position is one of neutrality; and I do not think that that is disputed. I think it is also true to say that the Laotian Government
32
take the view that their neutrality has been violated for a great many years by the North Vietnamese. We want to do what we can to stop the war. That is why my right honourable friend will carry on with his endeavours to try to get the Conference reconvened. But, as the noble Lord will realise, this is a matter for the Russian Government as well as for ourselves.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I commiserate with the noble Marquess, for this is a difficult subject? Would he undertake to see his right honourable friend and to ask him whether, in the light of the present circumstances and the very considerable dangers that are inherent in the position, this is not the moment, yet again, to make an approach to them as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can certainly give that undertaking. I shall convey exactly what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, as my noble friend and as Lord Shepherd has said, this is an important matter. It is. I understand, the Answer to a Private Notice Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. So far as I know, it has been our custom for Private Notice Questions normally to be taken after Oral Questions, unless a Statement was to be made in the House of Commons which made it necessary for them to be taken after 3.30 p.m. Your Lordships' House was very full at Question Time; and I am sure that a number of noble Lords would have liked to hear the questions and answers on this particular subject. Would it not be better in the future that where no Statement is made in the House of Commons, a Private Notice Question of this kind should be taken at a definite time, immediately after Oral Questions?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is a matter for what one would call the usual channels. In this particular instance, a precisely similar Question was tabled this afternoon in the House of Commons for answer at a certain moment after 3.30 p.m. Therefore I think it was felt, with the agreement of noble Lords opposite, that it would be appropriate to take it at that time.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (b) in Clause 2, which says that if the person liable can prove that the damage was due to
"anything done or left undone by another person … with intent to do damage"
he is not liable. Of course, this, too, is in the Convention, as the noble Lord could tell the Committee; and I am sure that he will tell the Committee that it is a very reasonable exemption from liability. So it is, on the face of it, and if one were to think in terms of an analogy with one's own private life one could instance spilling petrol on the road, or a motor accident, and one would indeed think it right that one should not be held liable, if the harm was done with malice and intent by someone else.
When we are dealing with possible pollution damage on such a colossal scale as this, running into tens of millions of pounds and affecting several countries at the same time, I believe that it might be justifiable to look at it in a different light. This is a question of the mad bomber, or the mad person with a one-man torpedo, or plastic mine, which he sticks on the bottom of a tanker on purpose; or a mad lighthouse keeper who deliberately shuts off the light when a super-tanker is passing. We are dealing with madness. Is not the risk of such a mad action a very calculable one? I should have thought that it was.
Tanker owners and oil companies know perfectly well the incidence of such actions over recent years. They would be able to make a reasonable forecast of the probable extent in future and get perfectly good insurance cover against the risk for a not very greatly increased premium. If that is so, as it may very well be, there is no particular reason to leave this loophole in the liability under the law of a nation which has very much at stake in pollution matters, as we have.
I move this Amendment in the same tone of voice as I moved the other two; not, of course, intending to press them at this stage, but to ask whether the Government would not be prepared to go ahead with the Convention in this respect; whether they have consulted shipowners and the oil companies about the possibility of so doing; and whether we can come back to the matter at a later stage.
LORD HAWKE: I would not suggest for a moment that Her Majesty's Government should go beyond the Convention, but I do suggest that the Convention must be a pretty silly looking affair if you come to consider that this is not a Bill for punishment but a Bill for indemnification. To the people who suffer the pollution loss it does not matter whether the cause of the accident is one that the shipowner could have prevented or one that he could not possibly have prevented. They want to be indemnified and, of course, insurance is a method of indemnification. I should not think that it would add greatly to the insurance premium to cover these extremely rare or
"exceptional, inevitable and irresistible"
actions by parties
"not being a servant or agent of the owner "—
and so on. It is a matter of calculation, and for the people damaged by the pollution it is a very unsatisfactory Bill because in all these events they are going to get no compensation whatsoever. Therefore I submit that the Convention, having arrived at this particular thing, has been muddling up punishment and indemnification and has produced a pretty daft result.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I certainly cannot complain of the logic of either of the noble Lords who have spoken, but I am afraid that again I must come back to the fact that we are here trying to pass preliminary legislation which will enable us to ratify a Convention. I am sure that the arguments put forward by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were rehearsed at great length in arriving at the Convention. But the Convention did arrive at these exceptions to the rule of strict liability, and it is very difficult to see how we can depart from them.

35
I think that the noble Lord himself recognises that these exceptions are, so to speak, pretty far-fetched. Apart from war, hostilities, insurrection and so on, the whole of the other exceptions are pretty far-fetched, so they are unlikely to affect us in any considerable manner, at any rate in this part of the world. There could be sabotage or madness—sabotage may be a form of madness, but it is pretty deliberate madness sometimes. That kind of sabotage would be more in line with civil war, an act of war, and hostilities and that sort of thing. I think one can justify this in our own terms—this particular exception, a deliberate act or omission by a third party with intent to cause damage. One can justify it in terms that it is close to what is known in law as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, which imposes a form of strict liability on the occupier of land for damage done by the escape of things he has brought on to the land. The exceptions there to that rule of law—that is, acts of God and the action of a third party—are practically the same as we have here in the Convention.
I take the point, and I sympathise with the noble Lord's argument that in this case it is really on a much bigger scale, though that would not necessarily be so. One can think of examples where the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher might apply on a big scale within our own country. All the same, the fact that it is well precedented so far as our own law is concerned is in itself a justification for adhering to the Convention decision in this matter.
There is, perhaps, another reason that I ought to give to the Committee, because it may crop up again later on. It is that this is the sort of Convention where it is particularly important that the law of all the member countries should be identical because occurrences may affect more than one country, as it did in the case of the "Torrey Canyon". Proceedings may be taken in either of those countries. Wherever the deposit in respect of liability or security is made there the case will be heard. In the other country the result will be registered, and the funds will be distributed between the claimants in the two countries; and it will all be on the basis of one common law. So it really is important that we should stick to the terms of the Convention. Unless we
36
do so, it will be difficult for us to ratify the Convention and get the benefit of it. I am sorry, but I am unable to accept this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: Between now and the next stage I will read Rylands v. Fletcher if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will do something that I shall come to in a moment, which would make it "fair dos." I do not know the case, and it may be that what I am about to say is irrelevant; if so, I apologise in advance. But one must be careful about carrying over provisions in the law which are very appropriate when a man is doing something which he has to do because he earns his living in that way. If a farmer has a silo filled with some noxious substance and if a mad bomber comes and blows it up which inflicts damage on his neighbour, the law appropriate to that is one sort of law, because the farmer is a farmer, and that is the way he earns his living. The oil tanker companies, though they have to earn their living, do it on purpose. They exist for the sole purpose of carrying these vast quanties of oil. But they are not bound to carry these vast quantities around. They could very easily carry smaller quantities more frequently in smaller ships. It is solely their own choice, because it is more profitable for them to go round the world in supertankers. The Parliaments of the world therefore have to introduce legislation like this to cover what may happen if the tankers are wrecked.
The noble Lord said that the law in all Convention countries had to be identical on this point. Could he let us know at the next stage whether the United States and Canadian law allow these exemptions and is likely to continue to do so? I lay particular stress on Canadian law. If this is not so, then his argument about the necessity for uniformity in all Convention countries goes by the board and can no longer be adduced. If it is so, then I think that this is a powerful matter. Secondly, the noble Lord said that our ratification of the Convention could be challenged if our law went ahead of it in any respect. I wonder if that is so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I said that it is not our practice to ratify unless our law is in conformity with the Convention. Of course, the same would apply

37
to other countries. The United States, if its law was not in accordance with the terms of the Convention, could not ratify it and could only do so if it brought its law into line with it.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord knows that there are penumbras in this matter and that it is very difficult to decide whether a given provision in national law will or will not lay one open to challenge by another party to a Convention on the validity of one's ratification thereof. I wonder whether the deletions I am suggesting here are such as to lay us open to the likelihood of challenge on the matter of our adhesion to the Convention itself by other member States. If the noble Lord says that that is so, then of course I will withdraw my Amendments, but if he is not yet, as I suspect he is not yet, in a position to state categorically that it is the fact, that there would be an appreciable risk of actual challenge by other Convention signatories if these deletions were to be made—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not say that. What I said was that we could not ratify—I mean ratify without reservations—unless our law was in accordance with the Convention. We can ratify with reservations, of course, but in order for the Convention to come into force at all a certain number of ratifications without reservation are required, and we are hoping that we will be able to ratify without reservation and so discourage other people from making reservations.
LORD KENNET: I am sure that the Committee will agree that we have been round this point quite enough at the moment. With leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment, with the the intention of coming back to it at the next stage, if I may be allowed to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Limitation of liability under s.1.]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("2,000 gold francs") and insert ("such amount as may be fixed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: I would speak to Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 together, since they have one single effect. The effect is to leave the concept of a limitation of liability out of the Bill as it is drafted by taking the actual figure to which the liability is to be limited from the Bill and allowing the Secretary of State instead to prescribe from lime to time by regulation what that figure shall be.
If I may sketch in the background to the proposal, my reasons for doing this are as follows. This Convention, with its limit of 2,000 gold francs, was negotiated in 1969, and it bears a close relationship, which I should not like to define in any more detail, to an organisation, TOVALOP—that is, the tanker owners' voluntary system for insuring themselves against liability—which has set up a fund on which tanker owners can draw, if they have damages awarded against them, up to a certain limit, which is the same as the limit that is written into the Convention. So the process we see here is that the industry voluntarily agree to cover themselves up to a certain point—that is, normally about 85 per cent. of tanker tonnage of the world. The nations of the world then sign a Convention saying that that is the right level, which is compulsory for the remaining 15 per cent. This, in my opinion, is the right way to do it.
But the industry have gone beyond this Convention. They have set up a second fund, CRISTAL but this has been set up not by the tanker owners but by the oil companies, once again representing about 85 per cent. of the tonnage of oil carried by sea in the world. They agree to cover themselves against claims up to a very much higher limit than TOVALOP—namely, up to 30 million dollars per accident. I think I am right in saying that the Convention limit we have before us now is £5·8 million, or between 12 and 13 million dollars per accident.
If history proceeds as it has been going in the past, and I think we may all hope it will, IMCO will come up with another Convention in a year or two—indeed, it is already beginning on this—which will give, as it were, statutory international force to the higher level of 30 million dollars. When that happens, Her Majesty's Government will have to come before Parliament once again seeking

39
approval of a complete new Bill, saying that progress has been made, that everybody is accepting his responsibilities making this double liability necessary. It may be that in future, if we get to million-ton tankers, there will have to be changes even in the 30-million dollar limit. One may imagine 20 or 30 years hence—though I hope it will not happen—the need for a liability of 100 million dollars per accident.
The purpose of my Amendments is simply to avoid having a new Bill every time. What I propose is that we take out the figure and let the Secretary of State prescribe by regulation, in the first place, the limit of £5·8 million—as I am sure the noble Lord would be able to tell us he would do, if he accepts the Amendment. Then if a new Convention was agreed by a sufficiency of States, he would be able to put the limit up to 30 million dollars without troubling Parliament again, except to the extent of laying an Order before it subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in either House. I regard it as given that such a Resolution would neither be carried nor even moved. The purpose of my Amendments is to avoid the difficulty of Parliamentary time, because under any Government, of any colour, it would be difficult to find a moment to get in a Bill simply to raise this limit to a new Convention level. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As the noble Lord said, the effect of these Amendments is twofold. First of all, it would exclude completely the ceiling contained in subsection (1)(b) of this clause, which is 210 million gold francs or £5·8 million. Secondly, it would leave the amount to which a shipowner might limit his liability by reference to the tonnage of a ship to be fixed from time to time by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument. There is a good argument for this on one assumption, the assumption that the noble Lord made; namely, that it is possible in the near future for the figures in the Convention to be altered. But I am afraid that there is very little chance of that. I think one has to bear in mind that, so far as the 1958 Convention is concerned, it was ten or eleven years before sufficient signatures were collected to the Convention to bring it into operation at all. It is not a common thing to
40
have Conventions altered quickly. There is a procedure laid down for the Convention to be reconvened, on the demand of a certain number of signatories, but it is not very likely to happen in the near future.
The noble Lord also referred to TOVALOP and CRISTAL, the two schemes. So far as CRISTAL is concerned, we very much hope that there will be an international conference in order to establish this fund on a compulsory basis. But if and when that happens, it will not in any sense be in replacement of the figures in this clause; it will be on top of them, because whoever is going to be responsible for funding this will be meeting compensation for damage over and above the damage with which we are concerned in this Bill. So that the figures in this Bill would not be altered. It would simply mean, as the noble Lord said, that the maximum compensation payable in the absence of fault or privity in the case of the shipowner under this Bill would remain at £5·8 million or £56 per ton, whichever is the less, and on top of that it would be possible from this other fund to get additional compensation. This is the way that it would work.
I think that the argument which the noble Lord had in mind—which is a perfectly sensible argument on his own premises—is really destroyed by the absence of any likelihood that there will be in the near future any variation to the figures in the Bill. It is not the first time that figures of limitation have been expressed in gold francs. They were expressed in gold francs, I think for the first time (it was altered from sterling), in the 1958 Act. I agree that it would be possible for us to adhere to the figures of the Convention and then not to put them in the Bill. That would be possible. But there is the danger that if we did so we might convey a false impression to other countries that were thinking of ratifying that we were going to fix limits according to our own sweet will without regard to the Convention. This would be a pity. There is really no advantage in not sticking to the figures in the Bill, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: I find this rather worse than I had expected, and indeed rather alarming. I had expected the

41
noble Lord to say: "It is quite all right. Don't bother to take the figures out of the Bill because as soon as we get a Convention with a higher liability limit in it we shall without doubt—and I hereby give an undertaking—find Parliamentary time for a small Bill either to amend this one or to impose a new separate higher limit." But the noble Lord, far from saying that, has said: "Well, don't take this limit out of the Bill, because there is hardly any chance at all of our ever being able to raise it by international Convention."
LORD DRUMALBYN: In the near future.
LORD KENNET: We shall not be able to do it in the near future—the noble Lord corrects me. It was my understanding that IMCO were already working on the possibility, and were proposing to hold a conference this year to set up a fund which should cover the distance between 12 million or 13 million dollars per accident and 30 million dollars per accident; that when this fund was agreed there should be an international Convention about it and members of IMCO should be once again invited to ratify that Convention and to bring their domestic liabilities into line with it. The mere fact that it would be two funds as opposed to one fund, is I submit, neither here not there. If the total liability, which is what concerns the Parliament of the country, goes up from 12 million dollars to 30 million dollars—this is the point—whether it is done by one fund, two funds or thirty funds is neither here nor there. The issue between the court and the polluter is: how much can you pay? How much are we going to enforce upon you?
I will study what the noble Lord has said. It may be that I have misunderstood the drift of his argument, and if so, no doubt I shall understand it in Hansard to-morrow. But at first flush I regard this as a rather serious matter, because I take it to be a declaration that the Government are not going to press very hard for a second Convention raising the liability limit; that they do not believe that such a thing is likely; that if such a thing does come about the Government are not going to ratify it immediately, and if they do ratify they do not feel that they are going to be in any way hampered by
42
the pre-existence on the Statute Book of a liability limit only half what the new one might be.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must be very had at expressing myself to the noble Lord, because I know that he is a very intelligent man. We are here dealing with legislation to bring into operation an international Convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, and Clause 1 puts the liability—which is a strict liability, but a limited one—on the owner. The next stage is going to be to say: who else can pay? The amount we are putting on the owner is the maximum for which he can obtain insurance, and we are limited by that. If the insurers will not insure for more than that, one will not get ratification of the Convention and the whole thing will fall down. One has to face these facts. It is precisely because one cannot put a greater liability on the owner and the insurer that these further compensations for the second tier, so to speak, which will equally be compulsory, is to be provided. But it will not come from the same sources. This is the point. I hope that I have now managed to make the point a little clearer, and I am sorry if I did not do so before.
LORD KENNET: I will not detain the Committee longer, except to say that it is of course possible to impose on somebody a higher liability than he can obtain insurance for. If you do that, he will cease carrying out that activity in an uninsurable way and will commence carrying it out in an insurable way. This comes back to my earlier point: that it is entirely the choice of the tanker owners to use 250,000 ton ships instead of the 50,000 or 100,000 ton ships which are insured. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Limitation actions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: I will be as brief as I can. The noble Lord was kind enough to imply that I was not below average intelligence, but I cannot understand Clause 5 (4). I will not detain the Committee by asking for an explanation now,

43
but if the noble Lord can understand it, will he explain it in Report stage?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If that will be for the convenience of the Committee I will certainly do that.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Compulsory insurance against liability for pollution]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 42, leave out from ("State") to end of line 44.
The noble Lords said: We come now to the kind of certificate which shall be taken as evidence of a shipowner having accepted the liabilities imposed by this Bill and therefore entitling him now to enter and leave the ports of this country. My Amendment is intended to delete one type of certificate. It would leave a certificate given by the British Government for a British registered ship. That is all right. It would leave a certificate given by another Convention Government for one of their own ships. That is all right. It would leave a certificate given by the British Government in respect of particular ships registered in non-Convention countries. This Amendment and Amendment No. 10 would take away the right of the British Government to make blanket regulations certifying and permitting the entry of ships registered in non-Convention countries, and would also take away the right of the British Government to recognise in a blanket way a class of certificate in respect of many ships issued by non-Convention Governments. My purpose is not to make life difficult for the Government in any way, but to remove what, it seems to me, might be an incentive to certain Governments not to join the Convention.
I should like this Parliament to pass a Bill which has this effect: "If we want to trade in and out of Britain we have to become Convention countries. They are going to make life really difficult for us if we do not do so." If we empower the British Government to give blanket exemptions to ships registered in non-Convention countries, I submit that that is making life easier for them than we
44
need to do. It would leave the Secretary of State with the power to issue a certificate in respect of single ships registered in non-Convention countries. That is enough relaxation of pressure from Britain to join the Convention. For the rest, I believe that we should keep up the maximum pressure.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord in this matter, and indeed it is a difficult problem. The Convention lays down that Convention countries must issue the certificates for these ships if they are going to operate; that is to say, a ship can operate only if it has a certificate from a Convention country. The difficulty is: what is to happen in non-Convention countries? All I can do is to put some of the considerations before your Lordships, because if we were to insist that only a certificate from the Secretary of State will enable tankers registered in a non-Convention country to come to this country, there would be two disadvantages. First, there is the practical point of the sheer physical disadvantage of not being able to get the certificate on board that ship before it came to this country, in which case the law would not be complied with. The other disadvantage is that other countries might insist on doing exactly the same thing; each country, Holland, Sweden, and all the rest, would insist that no tanker came to their country unless it had a certificate from the authority of the country to which it was going. This would be awkward.
It would be a mistake not to leave this power in the Bill. This is not a mandatory power; it is a permissive one. I do not doubt for one moment that it will need a good deal of preparation. The object of it must be to ensure that certificates are worth while; that they are given by countries which are able to appreciate the creditability of the insurer or of the person giving the security. It seems to us that it would be a mistake to deny the Government this power, and we think that by putting in this kind of power it will make the negotiations for the establishment of a viable system of certificates that much easier.
I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. If he wishes we can have another look at it. I hope that the system will work out, and I think he

45
should at least give us a chance to work it out.
LORD KENNET: I am very glad indeed that the Government will have another look at this matter. Of the two reasons which the noble Lord gave for maintaining this power, it seems to me that one is quite misconceived and the other cuts in the opposite direction, in favour of the Amendment. The noble Lord said that if the British Government did not have power to issue blanket certificates in respect of ships registered in non-Convention countries, this might be troublesome if other signatories to the Convention were to do the same thing. It would not be troublesome to us, because we should be a Convention country. So we need not worry about that.
The noble Lord spoke of the physical inconvenience of getting an individual certificate from the Secretary of State on board each separate ship registered in a non-Convention country before it came here. This is just the point. The inconvenience would be to the shipowner concerned. He could then take two courses: he could either re-register his ship in a Convention country (which I hope he would), or he could press the Government of the non-Convention country where it is currently registered to join the Convention. And I hope that non-Convention countries will do that, too. It seems to me that the physical inconvenience generated by the Amendment, such as it is, is good for the sake of getting the Convention adopted. How ever, I will not press the Amendment at the moment, but hope that the noble Lord will consider these two arguments before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: Once again I have to ask for a clarification to be made at the next stage. I am puzzled by the relationship between subsection (6) and subsection (7) of Clause 10. In subsection (6) we have the ship that enters or leaves, or attempts to enter or leave, in contravention of this section. If it does that, the master or owner is liable to a fine of up to £15,000. But, under subsection (7), if the master of the ship fails to
46
produce a certificate as required then he is liable only to a fine of £200. But when is it intended that he shall be asked to produce a certificate, except on the occasion of entering or leaving, or attempting to enter or leave, a British port? If he fails to produce a certificate, and continues to attempt to enter or leave, he is then liable to a fine of £15,000, which seems a great deal more than the £200 fine. Does this clause imply that we are to go charging around the High Seas demanding sea certificates in case people attempt to enter and then, if they fail to produce the certificate, and do not attempt to enter, the fine is only £200? If not, why is that minor provision there? Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us at the next stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think it is necessary to wait for the next stage. The essential point here is that the offence has been committed in not having a certificate. The offence is not that of not being insured, because if it were so it would be a very difficult task for magistrates to decide whether a person was insured and fully covered within the terms set down in the Schedule to the Convention. Therefore it was felt that it was necessary to make the certificate the point of action, so to speak. The question is whether there is a certificate on board. It may be that the master, for one reason or another, may not produce it although it is on board. If so, it is not a very serious offence. The really serious offence is not to be insured and therefore not to have the certificate, which is the touchstone so far as the courts in this country will be concerned. This is a very serious offence because of the risk the ship would be running, in case of any accident, of doing very considerable damage.
It was felt that this was in line with the very heavy penalty that is coming along in the next Bill to which my noble friend Lord Sandford will be referring—£50,000. But this £15,000 for not having a certificate was felt to be the right figure. With all these penalties, and the fact that the ship is going to be arrested, if necessary, for non-production of the certificate, if the master of the ship does not produce the certificate for any reason other than that he had not got it, it is not felt that he will go on maintaining that attitude for very long. Nevertheless,

47
it is felt that this was a justifiable distinction—the £200 being quite clearly on the master himself, and the £15,000 being obviously on the owner, although it might be the master who has to pay for it.
LORD KENNET: I quite follow that and thank the noble Lord very much for his full and courteous explanation.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
4.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Shipping casualties
".—(1) The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where—

(a) an accident has occurred to or in a ship, and

(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in the waters in or adjacent to the United Kingdom up to the seaward limits of territorial waters.

(2) For the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, the Secretary of State may give directions as respects the ship or its cargo—

(a) to the owner of the ship, or to any person in possession of the ship, or

(b) to the master of the ship, or

48

(c) to any salvor in possession of the ship, or to any person who is the servant or agent of the salvor, and who is in charge of the salvage operation.

(3) Directions under subsection (2) above may require the person to whom they are given to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the directions may require—

(a) that the ship is to be, or is not to be, moved, or is to be moved to a specified place, or is to be removed from a specified area or locality, or

(b) that the ship is not to be moved to a specified place or area, or over a specified route, or

(c) that any oil or other cargo is to be, or is not to be, unloaded or discharged, or

(d) that specified salvage measures are to be, or are not to be, taken.

(4) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is impracticable to ensure that oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, will be prevented or reduced by the giving of directions under this section, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, take, as respects the ship or its cargo, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the Secretary of State may—

(a) take any such action as he has power to require to be taken by a direction under this section,

(b) undertake operations for the sinking or destruction of the ship, or any part of it, of a kind which is not within the means of any person to whom he can give directions,

(c) undertake operations which involve the taking over of control of the ship.

(5) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above shall also be exercisable by such persons as may be authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State.
(6) If the person to whom a direction is duly given under this section contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement of the direction, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000,

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) above, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction.
(8) If a person wilfully obstructs any person who is acting in compliance with a direction under this section, or who is acting under subsection (4) or (5) of this section, the first mentioned person shall be liable on summary conviction to a file not exceeding £100.

49
(9) No direction under this section shall apply to a ship—

(a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and

(b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom,

and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.
(10) No direction under this section shall apply to any vessel of Her Majesty's Navy, or to any Government ship, and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such vessel or ship.
In this subsection "Government ship" has the same meaning as in section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906.
(11) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any rights or powers of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom exercisable apart from this section.
(12) Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing this section and this section is in that Schedule referred to as "the principal section".
(13) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—
"accident" includes the loss, stranding, abandonment of or damage to a ship,
"specified", in relation to a direction under this section, means specified by the direction."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with the leave of the Committee I suggest that we discuss with it Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, for they all hang together. I said during the Second Reading debate that I proposed to put down a set of Amendments at this stage which would give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry powers either to direct the owners or the salvors of a damaged ship within our territorial waters to take action to avoid pollution or, if necessary, to take action himself. I must first apologise to the Committee for introducing at this late stage such a substantial new provision. The fact is that we are here dealing with a matter which neither this Government nor, I believe, our predecessors had in mind when the original Bill was being prepared. However, the incident involving the tanker "Pacific Glory" late last year—one week before the Second Reading of this Bill in another place—highlighted our vulnerability and the need for the Government to have additional powers. It seemed wise to take advantage of the present Bill to provide such powers as soon as possible.
One result has been that the consultations have been rushed and the new clauses have been prepared with some
50
haste. I am therefore very willing to consider sympathetically any further Amendments which discussion in Committee may show to be desirable. Indeed, further minor Amendments to my Amendment have already been suggested, and I shall be mentioning them now and considering introducing Amendments to give effect to them on Report. And, in order to ensure that adequate time is available for all concerned to give this new clause and this new Schedule full consideration, my noble friend the Chief Whip has agreed that there shall be a clear fortnight between this Committee stage and the next stage, Report.
One of the Conventions signed at Brussels in 1969, which we have now ratified but which is not yet in force, deals with intervention on the high seas in cases of oil pollution casualties, and gives the State power, subject to certain procedures and safeguards, to take measures to forestall a threat of oil pollution arising from a maritime casualty—stranding or a collision. However, there is likely to be even more need to take such measures within our own territorial waters, to which the Convention does not apply.
The general object of the Convention does not need legislative implementation, since we consider that we have power to take any measures we think fit, and any action for compensation by the shipowner or other person injured would, if he were a foreigner, be met with a defence of "Act of State". However, in two cases not covered by the Convention this defence would not be available to Her Majesty's Government; namely, action against any ship in territorial or internal waters; and any action against United Kingdom ships on the high seas. Power to take such action is therefore required, both to protect Her Majesty's Government against legal action by a shipowner or any other person as a result of any measures and to enforce compliance where the measures involve the giving of a direction. This clause will provide the Government with such a power.
We have thought it right that the major emphasis should be placed on a power to give directions, in particular to shipowners and salvors. Under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause the Secretary of State may give directions

51
where oil has escaped or been discharged as a result of an accident, or is likely to do so, and in his opinion pollution on a large scale can be expected to result therefrom. It has since been suggested that the threat of pollution should also need to be imminent before these powers of direction are used, and an Amendment to this effect will be further considered. The directions must relate to the ship or its cargo; otherwise they may be unlimited in scope, but subsection (3) of the new clause gives examples of actions which may be required.
Under subsections (4) and (5) of the new clause the Secretary of State may himself, if he thinks it impracticable to ensure that oil pollution, or the risk of it, will be prevented or reduced by the giving of directions, take any action for that purpose. Again, examples of such actions are given, including actions which would not appropriately be the subject of directions.
At this point I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the powers given by subsections (1) to (5) operate only when the threat is one of oil pollution. There could be other threats for which similar powers would be desirable—for example, threats of damage by explosion or the escape of other dangerous cargoes. However, powers for such purposes could not reasonably be brought within the ambit of the present Bill, and the Government concluded that it was so urgent to provide against the danger of oil pollution that it was better to seek limited powers now than to await an opportunity for more general legislation later.
Failure to comply with directions under subsection (6) of the new clause is punishable in the same way as is a breach of Section 1 or 3 of the 1955 Act; that is, by a fine within a maximum of £50,000 on summary conviction, or by a fine without limit on indictment. It is appropriate that the penalties should be similar, for a discharge of oil as a result of wilful refusal to obey a direction is essentially the same as a deliberate discharge. Moreover, there could be the same need for quick proceedings before a magistrate, before the master or salvor of a ship left our jurisdiction. A defence is provided by subsection (7) for an accused who can prove that he used all due diligence to ensure compliance with
52
the direction. It has since been suggested that the phrase "all due diligence" is not altogether apt, and before the next stage I shall be considering an alternative form of drafting.
Suggestions have also since been made for two further defences under subsection (7). The first is that the action required should be what is practicable without causing risk to human life. This is a reasonable point and we will consider introducing an Amendment to give effect to it. The second suggestion is that it should be a defence to show that compliance with a direction was not reasonable in all the circumstances. I understand that this is intended to cover the situation where, for instance, a change in weather conditions has occurred after the direction was made. I can foresee some difficulties in regard to this point, but we will consider it.
Subsection (8) provides a penalty for wilful obstruction of a person seeking to carry out a direction, and subsection (9) confines the effect of the new clause to ships that are within United Kingdom jurisdiction. Subsection (11) makes it clear that the clause does not affect our rights under the Convention. Subsection (10) exempts naval and other Government ships from the application of the clause, which is obviously inappropriate to them. It has since been proposed that foreign Government ships and warships should be excluded, as in Article I of the Convention, and on Report I will put down an Amendment for that purpose. Subsection (12) introduces the Schedule, about which I shall have more to say in a moment, and subsection (13) gives certain definitions.
Perhaps I may now say a word about the Schedule, the subject of Amendment No. 3. The Schedule provides an important safeguard for the owners of the ship and the cargo, and for any other persons who may suffer damage as a result of action taken under the new clause. It is not intended that there should be any limit on the Government's powers or that any further defence should be given to a person disobeying directions, apart from that in subsection (7), as further amended if we find it necessary. However, in order to keep the situation in territorial waters in line with what applies on the high seas under the 1969 Convention, paragraph (1) of the Schedule provides

53
that if any person can show that he has incurred expense or suffered damage as a result of directions given or action taken by the Secretary of State, he shall be entitled to compensation if he can show that the action was not reasonably necessary to avoid oil pollution damage or was not proportionate to the actual or the threatened damage. Paragraph 1(2) sets out the matters which are to be taken into account by the court in considering whether measures are proportionate. These follow Article V.3 of the 1969 Convention. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule deals with technical questions relating to the giving and serving of directions.
Paragraph 3 of the Schedule is important. It provides that action taken in pursuance of a direction, or action taken by the Secretary of State himself, in respect of a ship in the custody of the Admiralty Marshal does not constitute contempt of court, and it relieves the Admiralty Marshal of any liability in civil proceedings for failure to carry out his duty to ensure the custody of the ship. This provision is necessary to protect the position both of the Secretary of State and of the Admiralty Marshal when directions are given or action is taken as regards a ship under arrest in civil proceedings in rem. A conflict of interest can easily occur in such a case, when the avoidance of pollution may make it desirable to move a ship away from our shores.
Finally, I turn to the Title, the subject of Amendment No. 4, which is to be found on the final page of the printed Marshalled List. The new clause and the new Schedule go beyond the present Long Title of the Bill, which relates to the Amendment of the 1955, 1963 and 1964 Acts and implements the 1969 Convention. They are still concerned with oil pollution but they make provisions of a kind which are not in the present legislation and so the additional wording proposed is desirable.
The whole new clause, the new Schedule and the new Title give the Government extensive powers beyond the mere ratification of the Convention, but we believe they are needed. We hope it will rarely be necessary to use them and that we shall be able in most cases, as we were in the case of the "Pacific Glory" incident, to obtain the willing co-
54
operation of all the interests involved in ensuring that a casualty is handled in a way which will minimise any threat of pollution to our coasts. Indeed, I would emphasise that although the clause does not embody a requirement to consult, corresponding to Article III of the Convention, it is of course the Government's firm intention to proceed by means of consultation in any such future disaster, both with the owners of the ship and its cargo, with any salvors involved and with anybody else who can help. I say this not only from respect to the legitimate interests of those directly concerned but also because there may be expert knowledge not available in the Government of which we shall want to take advantage. But, as I said on Second Reading, we may not always be able to rely on co-operation, and I believe we must have the power in reserve to protect our reasonable interests from damage or from the threat of damage. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: I may not have heard the noble Lord aright, but did he by any chance say that this clause has been drafted in full consultation with the underwriters? Because some quite extraordinary actions can take place under it which could seriously prejudice the interests of the underwriters of any damaged ship. I should like to draw his attention to paragraph 1(1)(b) of the Schedule. It seems to me that this sentence might well have been drafted for the benefit of the members of the Admiralty Bar in future years. I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand, and I am sure the courts will have a splendid time arguing exactly what it means. I wondered whether, before the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord would consider drafting it a little more closely.
LORD SANDFORD: There have been consultations, but during my remarks I said that they have not been as thorough and deliberate as we should wish; and if the noble Lord or any of his friends can give us the benefit of their counsel between this stage and the next we shall be grateful to them.
LORD KENNET: I think the noble Lord's question must have been addressed to the words "proportionately less". Is "proportionately less" less

55
than "less" or more than "less"? This new clause is indeed a large one to introduce at Committee stage, but I think the Committee must welcome it because it is a response to a new situation. In a way, when reading it I had the impression that it was rather shocking that all these things were not already possible to the Government. It is like waking up one morning and finding that there is not a law against murdering your aunt, but of course you do not find that out until somebody murders his aunt. That is what happened in the "Pacific Glory" case: gaps showed up, and gaps are being plugged, and in my view rightly, by the Government in this new clause. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord say that the Committee ought to accept it although it goes beyond the Convention. I think it is right to go beyond the Convention in this case, and, as I was arguing just now, it would be right to go beyond the Convention in other cases on the other Bill.
The noble Lord said that he had been pressed to add the word "imminent" to the qualification in a situation which would entitle the Secretary of State to take these actions—that the probable pollution had to be not only large scale (or whatever the wording was) but also "imminent". I would urge the noble Lord to think carefully before agreeing to include the word "imminent", because one could lose a lot of time considering a submission by an owner or a salvor that although there might be danger of something terrible happening there was in fact no danger of its happening for perhaps three days; and would the Government kindly wait while it became more imminent and while the time for doing the right thing decreased? I will not go so far as to say that I hope he will not add the word "imminent", but I hope he will look carefully at it before adding it.
The noble Lord said that the Government intended to take corresponding powers to deal with the risk of pollution from causes other than oil and to deal with the risk of explosion. It is open to question whether he should not have taken the powers immediately in this new clause. The new clause itself goes outside the Bill as drafted: so much is clear about it from the fact that the Government
56
have already had to amend the Long Title. Once one starts amending Long Titles it seems to me one might as well finish the job in one. The Government are not doing that, and I hope they will be able to tell us when we can expect legislation to finish the job and take corresponding powers to deal with other dangers. I do hope it can be in this Session. There seems to me no justification for leaving all the other dangers of chemical pollution and chemical explosion uncovered while dealing very properly with oil pollution.
May I turn to two particular points which seem to me open to question in the drafting of the new clause? Subsection (6) says that if the Secretary of State tells somebody to do something and he fails to comply with his direction, the person can be fined £50,000. But under subsection (8) if the Secretary of State then takes action himself and the other person obstructs him in carrying out these operations directly, that other person can only be fined £100. At first sight that seems to be reasonable: if I refuse to do what the Secretary of State tells me, I am fined £50,000 and then, if he does it for me I am fined only the small amount of £100. One can see the Government's point: that there is no point in fining me another £50,000.
But supposing I fail to do what the Secretary of State tells me, and supposing I am able to sustain the defence under subsection (7), that I have used
"all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction",
but have nevertheless failed to comply, I cannot be fined £50,000. The Secretary of State comes along and does it himself; I obstruct him, and I can be fined only £100. So it seems to me that a fiddly company could get off the hook rather easily by appearing to try to comply, to establish the "all due diligence" defence, but obstructing the Navy when it comes along. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at that.
Lastly, can the noble Lord tell us quite clearly about subsection (9), which says that the Secretary of State cannot give directions or take action in respect of non-British registered ships outside territorial waters. It is specifically stated that he cannot do anything about non-British ships outside the three-mile limit, even though it looks as though they are going

57
to pollute within the three-mile limit. Have the Government powers to do something about this in other legislation; and, if so, which? If they have not, how do they propose to enforce the admirable system of traffic control in the Channel, outside the three-mile limit which they have recently proposed?
5.4 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this late Amendment and for his agreement that it was nevertheless desirable to try to incorporate these provisions in the Bill at this late stage, and for his welcome for the fact that we have gone beyond the Convention. In going beyond the Convention, we are now setting an example to other countries, and the kind of legislation we are enacting here will be examined by them to see whether there are lessons to learn from it. It is therefore especially important that we proceed, though with haste, with the greatest possible care; and for this reason the observations of your Lordships are particularly welcome. I fully take the point which the noble Lord made about the word "imminent", and will consider it carefully between this stage and the next. As to the question of when we will take action on the wider issues of damage by explosion, or damage by the leakage and discharge of chemicals other than oil, I cannot give him an answer now, nor can I give him any assurances about that. But I will do the best I can before the next stage.
I am also grateful for the points that he has made in dealing with subsections (6), (7) and (8) and the apparently wide disparity between the fine that can be inflicted for an offence under subsection (6) and the very modest fine for an offence under subsection (8). I promise, as I think I have done already, to look at that before the next stage.
The noble Lord asked me about the powers that we already have to deal with ships threatening or causing pollution in territorial waters and outside territorial waters. I think this phrase in my original remarks answers the point. There are two cases not covered by the Convention, and the defence which this clause provides will not be available to Her Majesty's Government; namely, in an action against any ship in territorial or internal waters or any action against
58
United Kingdom ships on the high seas, I hope that makes it clear.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord has described the law as it now stands—that is, before this new clause is passed into law. My question related to the situation after this clause becomes law. The new clause will give the Government power to take action over all ships in territorial waters and British ships outside territorial waters. My question is what about non-British ships outside territorial waters after this new clause is passed? Will they be covered by other provisions; and, if so, which? And, if not, how do we get the compulsory traffic discipline in the Channel which we are proposing?
LORD SANDFORD: I think that traffic discipline is rather a different question. The whole purpose of the main Bill is to deal with ships of the category the noble Lord was mentioning. What the "Pacific Glory" incident showed was that we have no powers at present to deal with casualties, collisions and strandings of any ship inside our own territorial waters. The original Bill ratifying the Convention gives us the powers we need to deal with the other situation. If the noble Lord is not satisfied with that, perhaps we can have a word together and return to it at the next stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments of Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955]:
LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 2 is a minor consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
("6. In section 22(3) for the words "this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the provisions of this Act other than section 10".")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope that my explanation of the whole purpose of these three major Amendments has made Amendment No. 3 clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule,
"SCHEDULE
SHIPPING CASUALTIES
Right to recover in respect of unreasonable loss or damage
1.—(1) If any action duly taken by a person in pursuance of a direction given to him under the principal section, or any action taken under subsection (4) or (5) of the principal section—

(a) was not reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce oil pollution, or risk of oil pollution, or

(b) was such that the good it did or was likely to do was disproportionately less than the damage resulting from the action, or the risk of such damage,

a person incurring expense or suffering damage as a result of, or by himself taking, the action shall be entitled to recover compensation from the Secretary of State.
(2) In considering whether subparagraph (1)(b) above applies, account shall be taken of—

(a) the extent and probability of imminent damage if the action had not been taken,

(b) the likelihood of the action being effective, and

(c) the extent of the damage which has been caused by the action.

(3) Any reference in this paragraph to the taking of any action includes a reference to a compliance with a direction not to take some specified action.
(4) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and of the Court of Session shall include jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim arising under this paragraph.
Directions
2.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a company or other body is not one to whom section 412 or section 437 of the Companies Act 1948 (service of notices) applies so as to authorise the service of a direction on that body under either of those sections, he may give a direction under the principal section—

(a) to that body, as the owner of, or the person in possession of, a ship, by serving the direction on the master of the ship,

(b) to that body, as a salvor, by serving the direction on the person in charge of the salvage operations.

(2) For the purpose of giving or serving a direction under the principal section to or on any person on a ship, a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State shall have the right to go on board the ship.
(3) If a person wilfully obstructs any person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in connection with the giving or service of a direction under the principal section, the first-mentioned person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
Ship under arrest
3. It is hereby declared that any action taken as respects a ship in the custody of the Admiralty Marshal or as respects the cargo of such a ship, being action duly taken in pursuance of a direction given under the principal section, or being any action taken under subsection (4) or (5) of the principal section—

(a) does not constitute contempt of court, and

(b) where it deprives the Admiralty Marshal of custody, does not thereby make him liable in any civil proceedings.")—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 3, at end insert ("to make further provision for preventing pollution of the sea by oil; and for purposes connected therewith.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
5.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD W1NDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, before the Question is put, I wish to express some concern about the way in which the business of this House has been arranged. The Committee stage of this Bill was on the Order Paper for last Thursday for at least a week previously, and everyone concerned with the Bill made their arrangements accordingly. At half past four on Thursday afternoon we were discussing the first Amendment only when we were informed that the usual channels had agreed that the Committee stage should be adjourned at six o'clock until to-day.
Channels are, I think, means of communication, and whoever the "usual channels" may communicate with—presumably with one another—no attempt was made to communicate with persons

61
interested in the Bill, all of whom had made their arrangements for the Committee stage last Thursday. There are 59 Amendments down to the Bill, 27 of them, I regret to say, in my name, and this short notice rearrangement was extremely inconvenient.
May I also point out that, owing to the postal strike, anybody who did not happen to be here at the right moment on Thursday, or does not happen to be here to-day, could have no possible way of knowing that this business was to be taken to-day. Finally, I should like to say that if this rearrangement was absolutely unavoidable I should have thought that the least that could have been done would be to give us the first place on the Order Paper to-day.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Baroness in this matter. What happened was that on Thursday last there were representations from noble Lords opposite that the Committee stage should be curtailed. The discussions were conducted through the usual channels, and it was decided that the Committee stage should be adjourned at six o'clock. I am more than sorry that the noble Baroness was not aware of this or was not consulted previously.
With regard to the position of business to-day, I must admit that I was in some difficulty. As the noble Baroness has mentioned, owing to the postal strike it is difficult to communicate with people. I thought that if I put this Bill down for first business to-day (which is the normal practice) a number of people who were not aware of the arrangement on Thursday and had an interest in later Amendments, would not know of the arrangement for to-day. I also thought that noble Lords who were involved in the business which was already down for to-day might equally not know about the arrangement. Therefore, I thought that in the long run it was better to leave the existing business as it was and to insert the new business at the end. This would give more time for noble Lords to acquaint themselves with the arrangements.
We have done our best to keep your Lordships informed. The Press have been helpful about printing the information as to forthcoming business in your Lordships' House, and the B.B.C. have
62
also helped by mentioning forthcoming business at the end of "To-day in Parliament "and" Yesterday in Parliament". But I am afraid that in the circumstances there will be occasions when inconvenience will be caused to your Lordships. I am sorry that this should be so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think it is only fair to say that if any blame is to be taken here I ought to take a share of it. I was part of the "usual channels". But I am bound to say also that the noble Earl faced a problem which I myself faced on occasions; namely, of satisfying everyone, everybody having a different idea as to what should be the solution. I thought the noble Earl was being fair when he said that he would announce the arrangement at the Thursday Silting, the point being that those who were interested in this matter would be present in the House and, if there were any objection, it could be voiced at the time the announcement was made. I can only say that I know that the noble Earl was anxious to help and to serve the House as a whole. I realise that it is not always possible to achieve that objective.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Restriction of cultivation of cannabis plant]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FOOT: I shall not detain the Committee for long, not because I think this question unimportant, but because I think it can be dealt with quite quickly. Your Lordships will see that the object of this Amendment is to eliminate Clause 6 altogether. Clause 6 creates new law. It provides that:
"it shall not be lawful for a person to cultivate any plant of the genus Cannabis".
My objections to this clause are three in number: first, that I believe it involves a considerable danger of the wrongful conviction of innocent people; secondly, that I think it is unnecessary; and thirdly, that it raises what I might describe as a theological issue. I am rather

63
sorry that nobody is sitting on the Bench of Bishops to help me out in this matter, because cannabis and cannabis resin are not, as I understand, artificial man-made things: they are in fact of natural growth and grow in many parts of the world.
I presume that the earliest record and reference to cannabis that we have is in the first chapter of Genesis, although, of course, it is not mentioned specifically by name. Your Lordships will remember that it was on the third day of Creation that God Almighty decided to create flora. As your Lordships may remember, the circumstances are recorded in Verses 11 and 12 of the first chapter of Genesis. Verse 11 reads:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so".
Verse 12 reads:
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind"—
and the words to which I direct your Lordships' particular attention are the concluding words:
"and God saw that it was good."
So far as cannabis is concerned, obviously that is an opinion which is not shared by Her Majesty's Government, nor, I may say, by Her Majesty's Opposition, because this clause appeared in their Bill which the present Government took over.
This is not perhaps the first time that the Tory and Labour Parties have found themselves in what, quite literally, might be described on this occasion as "an unholy alliance". The Government clearly do not share the view that this was a good thing, because they have provided in the Bill that if anybody seeks to carry on the good work he will be liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment—that is, unless the person concerned can, under, I think, Clause 28, show that he did not know what he was doing. I can only infer from that that the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the Almighty did not know what he was doing in the first place. I have not the assistance of the Bishops, and I have not even the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, to-day, who could have helped us on this matter.
64
A NOBLE LORD: You have a reverend Lord behind you.
LORD FOOT: The only reason I did not refer to my noble friend was that I thought any assistance I could get from the opposite side would be of greater help than assistance coming from my own Benches.
May I turn to the more mundane objections to this clause? They are these. I said that I think there is a serious danger here of innocent people being wrongfully convicted, because I presume—I am not an authority on this matter—that it is perfectly possible to cultivate cannabis inadvertently, even in this country, without knowing what it is or what you are doing. Therefore there is always the risk that somebody may engage in the cultivation of cannabis and commit an offence, without being aware that he is committing an offence at all. Clause 28 provides that with regard to various offences under this Bill, and in particular this offence of cultivating cannabis, proof of lack of knowledge shall, in certain circumstances, be a defence in proceedings brought under the Bill. I am not at all satisfied, in this context, that that clause does in fact provide protection against the innocent cultivator of cannabis. I say that because the way in which Clause 28 is framed shifts the onus of proof to the accused person, so that it is up to him to prove positively that he did not know what he was doing, and it requires him to prove a negative.
May I quote the relevant words of the relevant clause? They are these:
"Where in any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is necessary, if the accused is to be convicted of the offence charged, for the prosecution to prove that some substance or product involved in the alleged offence was the controlled drug which the prosecution alleges it to have been, and it is proved that the substance or product in question was that controlled drug, the accused "—
now I leave out some words which are irrelevant,
"(b) shall be acquitted thereof—
(i) if he proves"—
and if I may introduce the word there "affirmatively", because that is what it means,
"that he neither believed nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that the substance or product in question was a controlled drug;".
So if somebody inadvertently grows cannabis in his garden—and I gather that

65
this is something that does in fact go on, although the quality of the cannabis (and this may be some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill) for drug-taking purposes is very poor indeed—and is found to be doing so and is prosecuted, he then has to prove the negative: that he did not know that this was cannabis. It will be immediately apparent to your Lordships that in some circumstances it may be very difficult for a person, however innocent, to prove positively to the satisfaction of a court that he did not know that what he was cultivating was cannabis.
The second branch of my more mundane argument is that this clause is really unnecessary. I say that because if your Lordships will look at Clause 4(1) and (2) you will see that that deals with production. It provides that:
"Subject to any regulations under section 7 of this Act for the time being in force,"—
those are the regulations giving power to the Secretary of State to issue licences—
"it shall not be lawful for a person—
"(a) to produce a controlled drug;".
Then, if you go on to subsection (2)(b), you will see that it is an offence for a person to produce a controlled drug, or
"to be concerned in the production of such a drug in contravention of that subsection by another."
Why is it necessary to introduce a special clause making it an offence to cultivate cannabis? Surely if you cultivate cannabis you are automatically producing it. I do not see the necessity for this provision.
The other curious contradiction, or anomaly, is that if you are going to make it an offence, punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, to cultivate cannabis, why is there no corresponding prohibition against the production of the plants from which you get the hard drug, heroin? Why is there no specific prohibition in this Bill against growing the poppy, from which you get morphine and from which you get the heroin derivative? Those are the reasons why I suggest that this clause is both unnecessary and, in one sense, if you are going to have it at all, does not go far enough.
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I find it difficult to understand what prompted the noble Lord to put this Amendment on
66
the Order Paper, because leaving out Clause 6 would enable the unstable, and those with criminal tendencies, to cultivate cannabis. On the debate that we had on the first Amendment, I thought the Committee had made it clear that they did not favour Amendments which took a lenient view of the consumption of cannabis and the traffic in cannabis. Therefore, I feel that it is not necessary for me to emphasise the danger of this Amendment. I think that the noble Lord, on thinking it over, felt a little remorse and tried to explain that the reason why he had put it on the Order Paper was to protect the poor gardener who, thinking he was planting sweet peas, discovered cannabis growing in the garden. I do not think the noble Lord should worry. He should know the legal profession, and I am sure that we have enough confidence in our lawyers and courts to know that if a simple individual went to them and said, "This come up when I thought a different plant was coming up", they would recognise that it was not a deliberate piece of cultivation on his part which had resulted in the cultivation of this evil drug.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I quote from a report made last week by the International Narcotics Control Board. This report has been published since we last met. Having heard this report—and It think we should put it on record—I think that all the Amendments on the Order Paper should fall, including, with all respect, the twenty-seven Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Wootton.
The Times reported this review, under the heading, "Cannabis habit said to be nearly an epidemic", on February 6, and of course the report was from Geneva:
"Widespread indulgence in cannabis has now reached almost epidemic proportions and is still increasing sharply, particularly among the younger generation, according to the International Narcotics Control Board.
"Its latest annual review says that, while progression from cannabis to heroin may not be inevitable, there is evidence that many heroin consumers have begun with cannabis.
"While the existence of a process of transition from cannabis to other psychotropic substances, including LSD, had also been noted, the board says that for many people the ultimate progression is still to heroin.
"The review emphasizes that the public debate on cannabis is clouded by misunderstanding because of the 'wide variation in

67
quality of the material consumed as cannabis by different people in different places'.
"Because of conflicting views about the degree of danger attached to the consumption of cannabis there is a dubiety of public opinion 'which fails to provide a corrective to heedless attitudes".
"These, the board says, arise more readily where cannabis is relatively novel than in countries such as India, which 'are alert to its dangers to the individual and to society '.
"The board expresses particular concern over the drug situation in Asia. It reports indications that opium, morphine and heroin traffickers are turning their attention to south-east Asia.
"Abuse of drugs is now geographically more widespread, includes much larger numbers, and has invaded all levels of society in the countries affected."
The International Narcotics Control Board did not introduce any amendments of the character which we see on the Marshalled List to-night; their review indicates that they would be opposed root and branch to every one of them. It is quite clear that there is a tendency in some parts to feel that the youth of the world must have its way, and that if it wants new experiences then the older generation should not be bigoted and conservative; that young people must be allowed either to cultivate cannabis or to try it out in their rooms. The International Narcotics Control Board have made it quite clear that this is a danger, particularly in those countries which are not accustomed to the evil effects—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble Baroness—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am just finishing—and Britain is one of these countries. Therefore I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment and to turn your faces with me against any effort to take a lenient view of the traffic in cannabis.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I should like to call the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that there is no Amendment on the Marshalled List which would make it legal to try cannabis in one's room.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I can only say that we are discussing an Amendment which will make it legal for a man to grow cannabis in his back garden. I presume that he does not leave it in his
68
back garden; he takes it into his room and tries it out.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Will the noble Baroness forgive me for correcting her? The Amendment is not to make it legal: it is to keep it legal.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to support this Amendment, but almost entirely on the grounds that this clause, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned, is completely unnecessary. There was one point which he did not make: that, according to the interpretation clause, to produce a controlled drug includes the production "by manufacture, cultivation or any other method". It therefore seems quite clear that cultivation of any controlled drug is already illegal under Clause 4. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I do not understand why cannabis is singled out for mention here when the garden poppy, for instance, contains 25 per cent. morphine. I cannot understand why cannabis in particular should be prohibited.
LORD HAWKE: If this clause goes through, I hope that the Government will tell the people a little more about what cannabis is, because there is no doubt that the vast majority of the population do not have a clue what the plant is or what it looks like. I heard of a case the other day when two wicked young people—possibly Young Liberals, for all I know—planted some cannabis and persuaded their old family nanny to keep it weeded and watered. Fortunately, she forgot to water it and eventually the plant perished; but she certainly never knew what it was, and other innocent people may fall into the same trap.
5.37 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, let me say that the plant cannabis is not a controlled drug. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, whose remarks bear on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I would say that cannabis can be cultivated without being productive of resin. The resin comes from the flowering tops of female plants and the plant is not in itself a controlled drug. The reason why this clause is necessary is that we have an international obligation under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic

69
Drugs of 1961, to which this country is a signatory, to prohibit the cultivation of the cannabis plant. For that reason this clause is included in the Bill. It is not a new prohibition: this is already the position under existing legislation. Under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, exactly the same prohibition applies. But, leaving aside the international obligation, it seems sensible that, so long as the supply and production of cannabis are prohibited, the possibility of evading the prohibition by private cultivation should also be prohibited. The Bill prohibits outright the production of controlled drugs, but it seems safest where the source is a plant—as is the case here—which has no legitimate purpose, to go further and to forbid its cultivation.
There have been very few prosecutions for this offence under the existing law; contravention has been extremely rare. The climatic factors make it most improbable that there will be intensive cultivation of cannabis under natural conditions in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, underground publications have shown that there is some interest in using artificial sunlight and other methods for indoor cultivation of cannabis, and it therefore seems expedient to the Government to maintain this restriction. In closing, I should say to the Committee that the defences in Clause 28 apply to the clause under discussion. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with this Amendment and will be willing to withdraw it.
LORD FOOT: I shall not carry this Amendment to a Division, and in a moment I shall ask leave to withdraw it, but I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. He spoke of the Convention of 1961, under which we have an international obligation to prohibit the cultivation of the plant cannabis. I should like the noble Lord to tell us, not necessarily now, whether that Convention extends to the cultivation of the plants from which one gets morphine and morphine derivatives. I should like him to explain that, and if the answer is that it does extend to those plants, why is it not necessary to have a specific provision, similar to this one, covering the morphine plants?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to take note of that point and deal with it on Report. It is unwise to speak without
70
checking, but the difference probably lies in the fact that the cannabis plant is not a drug. It may or may not produce a drug in certain conditions. But this is an extremely technical matter, and I should prefer to check up and give the noble Lord an informed reply at a later stage.
LORD KILBRACKEN: When the noble Lord is taking up that point, will he also look at the definition of "produce" in Clause 37? That clause states:
"'produce', where the reference is to producing a controlled drug, means producing it by manufacture, cultivation or any other method".
If he is taking the line that the cannabis plant is not a controlled drug, how is it possible to cultivate a controlled drug? I do not see how it can be.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Let me add that question to the one I shall be answering from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on Report.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Authorisation of activities otherwise unlawful under foregoing provisions]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert ("and (c) that it is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession if that drug has been lawfully prescribed for him.").
The noble Lord said: Under subsection (1) of this clause the Secretary of State is permitted to make certain regulations; under subsection (3) he is required to make certain regulations, and one of these is to secure that it is not unlawful for a doctor to prescribe a controlled drug. However, there is no corresponding provision that the Secretary of State shall make regulations permitting a person to whom that drug has been prescribed to have it in his possession. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to say that regulations may be made—as of course they may—under subsection (1) enabling an addict to have such a drug in his possession; but, if so, I suggest to the Committee that that is not enough, and that if there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to permit controlled drugs to be prescribed then there should

71
also be an obligation to permit the addict to have them, or to have it, in his possession. That is the intention of my Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I very much appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. But I am not going to say that regulations may be made under subsection (1)(b) but that in fact they will be made, to satisfy, I hope, the noble Lord's point. As he rightly pointed out, the Secretary of State may by regulations
"make such other provision as he thinks fit for the purpose of making it lawful for persons to do things which under any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do";
and I can give the noble Lord the categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will be making regulations under this provision to ensure that it will be quite lawful for persons to have in their possession controlled drugs which have been properly prescribed for them. This follows the present Regulation 9(2)(b) of the Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations 1964, which provide for that exactly.
There are other cases where regulations are required to make sure that people are not committing offences when they obviously should be in possession of drugs. Another example which I might give the noble Lord is that of a police constable acting in the course of his duty. That situation, too, will be covered by regulations. The reason why the medical profession is dealt with differently in Clause 7(3) is simply that this is a kind of charter for the medical profession, whose members are vitally involved in the whole of this Bill, and it was thought wise to have their rights specifically safeguarded in subsection (3). But were we to go further and put other categories of persons into the Bill, it would be difficult to know where to draw the line. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree that the patients are better covered under regulations, as they are at the present moment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I realised that the Secretary of State would be able to make such regulations, and I felt perfectly certain that he would, but I
72
felt that he should be under the same obligations to the patient as he is to the doctor. However, in view of the categorical assurance that the noble Lord has given me that these regulations will be made, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Occupiers etc. of premises to be punishable for permitting certain activities to take place there]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: In Clause 8 are set out offences which are committed if the person who is the occupier or is concerned in the management of the premises allows certain activities to take place. Among these we find, in paragraph (d):
"smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium".
The other offences are all offences of a much more serious kind, such as,
"producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug",
or,
"supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug",
or
"preparing opium for smoking".
I am absolutely in agreement that it ought to be an offence to allow any of these things to take place on one's premises, but I cannot see why paragraph (d) should be included in this category.
The first point that I want to make—it is really a minor one, but it has to be stated—is that smoking cannabis or cannabis resin, or indeed prepared opium, is not an offence under this Bill. The offence, of course, lies in possession. It is quite possible, I think, although about this I am not sure, to smoke a reefer which is not in your possession, which has been handed to you; but whether that is so or not, it is certainly true to say that smoking cannabis is not an offence. Possession is the offence; but here the owner of premises is being made liable for an offence of allowing something to take place which is not itself an offence.
But the second point, which is of much more substance is that I cannot begin to understand why, of all the drugs set out in Classes A, B and C in the Schedule, it should be an offence to permit the taking only of this one on premises that you control. We have had eloquent words from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Gifford, and from others, about the dangers or the lack of dangers in smoking cannabis, and of course it is a controversial subject; but whether it is completely harmless or less harmful than many noble Lords tried to indicate at earlier stages of the Bill, there surely cannot be any doubt whatsoever that cannabis is far less harmful than, and in a completely different category from, many of those in Class A, of which heroin, morphine and LSD are the best known to the general public. Therefore, why is it necessary to include smoking cannabis under this subsection?
A really absurd situation can arise here. If I give a party in my house and I become aware, in the course of the evening, that two or three of my guests are smoking cannabis—which can happen only too easily, and many of your Lordships may have had the experience—and if I turn a blind eye to it, I become liable to an offence punishable on indictment by 14 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. But if I am living in an establishment where there are three or four heroin addicts and night after night, or day after day, or whenever they use the stuff, they are injecting themselves by means of hypodermic syringes, and if I am fully aware of this fact and do not do anything about it, I do not commit an offence.
This seems to me to be absolutely nonsensical. It must be more serious to allow people to take Class A drugs on my premises, to permit them "knowingly' to do so, than to allow two or three kids at a party to smoke a reefer—or to turn a blind eye to it. So far as I am concerned, paragraph (c) is also unnecessary because to prepare opium for smoking involves "supplying a controlled drug" and so on, and is thus illegal under the provisions of an earlier clause. I cannot see any reason for picking out cannabis. Some noble Lords have quite hysterical feelings about cannabis; some speak as though cannabis were more serious than
74
Class A drugs. I am not speaking in favour of legalising cannabis; I am saying that it is not as serious as those drugs which I am allowed to encourage people to use on my premises without committing an offence. Therefore, I propose that paragraph (d) be deleted. I beg to move.
5.52 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the liability imposed under Clause 8 on the occupiers and persons concerned in the management of premises who "knowingly permit" or suffer those premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium. Here again I must say to the noble Lord that this is already the law. These provisions are taken from Sections 5 and 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965.
The noble Lord explained that he tabled this Amendment because he sees no reason to single out these drugs when it is not an offence to allow premises to be used for taking more dangerous drugs such as heroin. The reason is that, so far as is known, only cannabis, cannabis resin and prepared opium are smoked; other drugs commonly used are taken either orally or by intravenous injection. In the case of prepared opium, the liability on the occupiers and managers of premises used for smoking goes back to 1920, when legislation was enacted enabling the United Kingdom Government to give effect to treaty obligations which were entered into under The Hague Convention of 1912. At that time, the problem of opium dens, particularly in the docks, was much more acute than it is now. Bat places used for the purpose of smoking prepared opium are still discovered here from time to time.
As I have said, the smoking of cannabis or cannabis resin is already an offence. It was originally introduced in the 1964 Act and carried forward into the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The party at which cannabis smoking takes place is a common occurrence, and the police are much concerned that some such parties are promoted for profit and that these parties may be in private premises or in public premises. For this reason it is desirable to retain the provisions of the present law as regards the smoking of cannabis or opium. I think noble

75
Lords will accept that the main distinction between taking drugs orally or intravenously and smoking them is that if drugs are smoked it is reasonable to suppose that others, people who are in charge of the premises—the owners, occupiers or managers—are likely on balance to know what is going on because of the distinctive smell. This may not be the case with drugs taken in other ways. For that reason it is not possible to accept this Amendment.
LORD FOOT: I find great difficulty in following the logic of the Minister's argument in reply to this Amendment. This clause of the Bill is concerned with what moral guilt and legal guilt ought to be attached to a person who allows his premises knowingly to be used for certain activities. Surely, as a matter of moral guilt it is a very much more serious matter for somebody knowingly to allow his premises to be used for the injection of heroin than it is for him to allow his premises to be used simply for smoking cannabis. Surely there is no argument or dispute about that. The Minister does not seem to me to answer in any way the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
All right! if you are going to include smoking cannabis, then why not make it an offence to allow premises to be used for something very much more serious? The Minister cannot get out of this by saying that it is much easier to detect it when people are smoking cannabis than when taking heroin or injecting amphetamines into their systems. But the clause says "knowingly". A man cannot be convicted unless he knows about it, and unless the prosecution in any particular case can satisfy the court that the person concerned knew about it. Surely the person who allows his premises to be used for the purpose of heroin taking should be certainly as open to prosecution as the person who allows his premises to be used for the purpose of smoking cannabis.
LORD JANNER: I wish merely to ask one question with regard to the answer given by the Minister. I am strongly in favour of preventing the smoking of cannabis or the use of any other dangerous drugs; but I understand that the law as
76
it stands at the moment prevents anyone from participating in what is now to be included in the Bill. If that is so, may I make a suggestion? It is that the Dangerous Drugs Acts be consolidated and that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, be included in that consolidation. That would avoid repetitions of this nature. I cannot see why it is essential in a fresh Act to include something which is already the law and which in any circumstances would prevail whether or not these words were in the Bill.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Bill will take the place of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Therefore, in some clauses we are carrying over parts of existing legislation and in others changing it. There are some major differences in the present Bill. There is the distinction between possession and trafficking and the classification of drugs into categories A and B—all this is quite new. But in many places, aspects of the existing law, including the one to which we are referring, are carried over.
There is a practical point at issue here. I have explained the origin. The introduction into the law of offences of this nature resulted from opium smoking; and the law goes back to 1920. The smoking of cannabis is easily identifiable because of the smell. Parties take place, promoted for profit, where cannabis is smoked and the police have told us in the past (they already prosecute under this clause) that this is an important part of the law. For these reasons it is not realistic to expect the Government to say that they are going to remove the existing liability.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, said in her remarks on the first Amendment, this Amendment, together with many others on the Marshalled List, all form part of the same argument. It does not matter particularly to the movers what is the effect of some of these Amendments; when we get on to the penalties later we shall see some curious consequences of the arguments which have been put forward. But it is all part of a campaign to liberalise our attitude towards cannabis; and, as I explained in the long debate on Amendment No. 1, that is not a position that the Government can accept. For those reasons I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I must point out to the Minister that although it may not be part of the Government's policy to take a liberal attitude towards cannabis, in this Bill they are halving the maximum penalty for possession.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not taken any part in these discussions and I cannot pretend to be an expert on drugs. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will not press his Amendment to a Division. As I understand it, the Government's argument on this particular Amendment, and on other matters connected with cannabis, is not that cannabis is such a very bad thing in itself but that it leads in a great number of cases to people proceeding from cannabis to the use of more serious drugs. If that is the case, I think the Government are bound to maintain their position. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, spoke about heroin. If I may say so to someone so able as himself, I think that he is guilty of what we used to call a non sequitur. The fact that heroin ought to have been included in this Bill and has not been, or should have been included in this Amendment and has not been, has no bearing on whether we put in cannabis. Heroin is quite a different subject, and to say that because heroin is not mentioned here we ought not to mention cannabis does not make sense to me.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I listened with attention and respect to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, but I am bound to say that I cannot agree with him on one point. The point has been made by my noble friend Lord Gifford—and I think it was also indicated by the noble Baroness—that cannabis is likely to lead on to the use of other drugs. This has been suggested from time to time, and by noble Lords who perhaps have not studied the history of cannabis as closely as others. I believe I am right in saying that the general belief among those who have specialised in the subject is that there is no real evidence to that effect. It may well be found that many who take heroin have previously taken cannabis, but to state that one is responsible for the other is, I suggest, a post hoc, propter hoc argument. It may also be found that the great majority of those who take heroin, or morphia, or
78
LSD, have previously smoked cigarettes or consumed whisky. I do not think that one may infer anything from that. Also, of course, it is well known in the medical profession that cannabis is not habit forming; is not addictive. Therefore I support those of my noble friends who have said that cannabis is probably the least serious of all the drugs; in the Schedule.
I must say that I was not greatly convinced by the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He said that one reason for insisting on this provision was that it was already in the existing legislation. To that I would only say that the fact that it is in existing legislation does not mean that we cannot try to improve the situation by this Bill. Naturally I would not wish to divide the Committee on this issue, but such a contradiction is involved that I would even prefer that the paragraph made the taking of controlled drugs an offence. I could understand, that, and it would be logical. But I feel that to single out cannabis in this way is completely unjustifiable and therefore, although I shall not divide the Committee, I do not wish to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8; agreed to.
Clause 9 [Prohibition of certain activities etc. relating to opium]:
6.6 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Clause 9 relates entirely to the
"prohibition of certain activities et cetera relating to opium."
Once again I am at a loss to understand why opium has been singled out for attention and given an entire clause to itself. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred recently to the fact that some years ago all one's thoughts about drug-taking turned at once to opium dens at the quayside. But that is all completely a thing of the past. We never hear of anyone taking opium nowadays. I am informed that it is seldom taken and I believe that opium dens are practically non-existent. Even if opium is taken,

79
I ask again: why is it necessary to have a clause in the Bill which specifically prohibits doing certain things with opium which are prohibited nowhere else in the Bill?
A special offence is created in Clause 9(1)(a):
"to smoke or otherwise use prepared opium."
It is nowhere stated in the Bill that it is an offence to smoke or otherwise use cannabis resin, about which all your Lordships have an obsession. It nowhere says that it is an offence to take morphia or heroin. Yet opium has been specified in this particular case. It seems to me almost an anachronism to include it. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is proposing the deletion of paragraph (c). I hope that he will express eloquent reasons for doing so. I am of the opinion that the entire clause is unnecessary, but, above all, paragraph (a), and I move this Amendment which would delete it.
LORD JANNER: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will not press his Amendment to a Division. I do not agree with him when he says that opium is not being smoked in some places much more frequently than any other drug which is used on those premises. In my mind there is no question at all that a considerable amount of opium is being smoked, and has been smoked for many years, at seaside places. I am not talking about seaside resorts, but shipping places. In prosecutions which have taken place it has been difficult to find the people who have actually participated in the smoking, because they have cleared off when the police arrived; but utensils have been found on the premises. I am not aware whether the discovery of utensils on premises is, in itself, grounds for a prosecution. Years ago there was a considerable amount of opium smoking in ports like Cardiff, but in many cases, although utensils were on the premises, the prosecution could not prove its case. I think it is important that this provision should be specifically put in the Bill, so that people will know that if utensils are found on their premises, that will be an offence. I do not know why other drugs have not been referred to, but I am sure that this drug should be referred to in the manner in which it is in the clause.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Special precautions against the smoking of opium are a long-standing feature of the law. The offence of smoking prepared opium was originally introduced in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 in order that the Government could give effect to their obligation, as a party to the International Opium Convention of 1912, to take measures for the gradual suppression of the manufacture of, trade in, and use of prepared opium. We are still under that obligation. Prepared opium is opium that is specifically prepared for smoking, and therefore the imposition of a ban on smoking at that time, when the opium den was quite a common feature, particularly in the docks, was a necessary and prudent step to take.
Since 1920, the law seems to have brought about a reduction in the incidence of opium smoking until it is comparatively rare for cases to come to the notice of the police. There seems, therefore, good reason to retain a law that has been demonstrably effective in the past. I understand that a small number of offences are committed every year in connection with opium; opium smoking is not unknown, and cases have recently come to light where opium has been smoked not only in the docks but in the West End of London. For these reasons, it seems a wise step to retain this provision. Therefore I must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I certainly do not intend to press my Amendment, in view of what the noble Lord has said: that it has been infrequently used. May I ask him one question? Why, of the dozens of drugs listed in the Schedule, is it made an offence to ingest prepared opium alone and no other drug on the list at all?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord is approaching this Bill as though he has a clean sheet of paper in front of him and can write offences down on the basis of what is known to-day. That is not so. There has been legislation in this field for fifty years. To answer his question one would have to go back to the Hague Convention of 1912.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: But surely my noble friend is quite right to call attention to the fact that when

81
legislation is carried forward without revision, we get a great many unnecessary things and illogicalities. I think my noble friend is calling attention to some important illogicalities which might be nut right when we have this Bill, which in substance is a consolidating Bill.
Loan ST. JUST: May I follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said and take a slightly more positive attitude on this position? Cannabis is going to be made illegal. Often this is a group experiment. I think that the same should be done for LSD and also for heroin, because these, too, can be a group experiment among the young.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am glad of the intervention of my noble friends. After what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, I should have thought it better if the Parliamentary draftsman had also started with a clean sheet of paper in front of him and begun from scratch, instead of producing a Bill clearly based on previous laws which are irrelevant and outdated. But I have no intention of pressing the Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 7, line 33, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not designed, rightly or wrongly, in any way to liberalise the Bill on drugs or to go soft on any particular drug. It is an Amendment concerned entirely with civil rights. I think it would be accepted by everyone that it is a dangerous thing to make something an offence which cannot morally be any kind of offence. In paragraph (c) we have such a situation. I have never smoked opium in my life, but I have an opium pipe. I should not be at all surprised if some noble Lords, particularly those who own historic mansions, with accumulations of belongings, also have opium pipes. We are now told by the Minister himself that opium smoking in this country is rare. I am certain that there are a hundred times as many opium pipes as there are people who smoke opium. This paragraph seems to me be taking a steam hammer to crack a nut and to be putting people
82
in unnecessary jeopardy. It is not as if this were a major problem which we have to combat. There are few cases of conviction because the police find opium on premises, and there must be far fewer convictions because the police find utensils. It is ridiculous that we should make it an offence for people to do something which they have done for a long time, perfectly honestly and without moral danger, in order to catch occasional odd cases. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment falls for consideration under the same category as the previous two Amendments we have been discussing. The effect would be to do away with the offence of possessing pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking of opium, or of any utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking. Again this is a provision of long-standing, going back to the 1920 legislation to which I have referred. The provision has proved effective in that opium smoking in this country is no longer widely practised. Nevertheless, I am advised that occasions do arise where the provision in question assists the enforcement of control.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation where somebody has in his possession an opium pipe. This point has been raised from time to time in connection with museums or private collections where opium pipes are held. But the thing to stress here, and to point out to museum curators and others, is that the offence under this provision rests in the words:
"possession … for use in connection with the smoking of opium or … used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking
In the case of museum curator or a private collector, the offence would not arise if the pipes were kept for purposes of exhibition only and there was no intention by the owner or the curator to use them for their original purposes. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his Amendment.
6.21 p.m.
LORD FOOT: I have listened to the explanation given by the noble Lord, but I am still uncertain whether these words

83
mean what he says they mean. He says that the words,
"should have in his possession any pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking of opium",
mean for use by that individual for the purpose of smoking opium. And when we come to the words,
"used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking",
he says they mean used by him. I very much doubt whether those words do necessarily mean that. I suggest that what they may mean is this: to have in his possession any pipes or other utensils such as can be used in connection with the smoking of opium. I do not wish to push the matter further than this, but perhaps between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord will consider whether those words can be improved so as to put the matter beyond doubt.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I will willingly do that, but without making any promises. The noble Lord has explained his point, and it is one that might usefully be looked at again by the draftsmen and by my, legal advisers. We can discuss it further on the Report stage.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I thank the noble Lord for that undertaking. It seems to me also that the words do not mean what he says they mean. I should be quite satisfied if we could be assured on the Report stage either that they do mean that, and cannot be construed otherwise, or that they can be changed so that there would be a burden of proof on the prosecution to show that these particular utensils were intended to be, or were, used for the smoking of opium. As I have said, it is totally a civil rights point that I am raising, and that would meet it. I will put down a similar Amendment on the Report stage so that we can discuss it again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to make regulations for preventing misuse of controlled drugs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD PLATT: Before we give our approval to Clause 10 in its entirety, I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to one or two points in it on which I should greatly appreciate an assurance from the noble Lord who speaks for the Government in this matter. To some extent any misgivings that I may have may be dispelled if the Committee pass Amendment No. 18. If I may refer to that Amendment for a moment, it would make it obligatory for the Secretary of State concerned, before making regulations, to consult such organisations as appear to be representative of the interests concerned and so forth. We have not yet reached that Amendment but, with your Lordships' permission, I wish to raise one or two items in this clause, which does give the Secretary of State very wide powers to make regulations about all kinds of things.
If these regulations follow the existing regulations in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 there could be certain anomalies that would need to be smoothed out. I will call attention to two of them. First of all, under Clause 10(2)(a) there is the question of safe custody of controlled drugs. I understand that considerable difficulties have arisen as to whether drugs kept in a locked car are in safe custody, and this point needs to be mentioned. It may be that they should be kept in a separate container which is also locked; but it is quite as easy for a thief to steal a separate locked container and open it at his leisure when he gets home as it is to steal drugs from a locked car. That is really a minor point but it is perhaps indicative of the things that need answering.
Then I think that subsection (2)(i) of Clause 10 requires a little further study, because it gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations whereby a doctor may be prohibited from administering to an addict certain scheduled drugs. This is really one of the objects of the Bill. If the doctor does not obey this injunction, of course, he has committed an offence. But there can be cases in which a doctor, quite unwittingly, prescribes drugs for an addict, not knowing the patient to be an addict and not suspecting that he is an addict. The patient then becomes suddenly ill, or gets into trouble with the law, and he is discovered to be an addict. In such a case the

85
doctor, quite unknowingly, has been committing an offence under this Bill. I am quite certain that that is not the intention of this Bill or any of the regulations, but I should like to draw attention to the point to see whether I can get a little further assurance.
LORD ABERDARE: I think I can give one assurance that will satisfy the noble Lord. This clause tidies up and extends the miscellaneous powers that already exist. But under the first subsection the making of regulations is subject to the provisions of this Act. That is, notably, subject to Clause 31, which deals with the procedure that makes consultation with the Advisory Council an essential prerequisite to the making of regulations which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will accept that these regulations are safeguarded to some extent by the fact that the Secretary of State, before making them, must have consultations with the Advisory Council. On the detailed point about the doctor who may find himself in trouble unwittingly in the case of prescribing for an addict, I should like to look into that more closely and give the noble Lord a more considered answer later.
LORD PLATT: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Attempts etc. to commit offences]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 26, leave out ("or the foregoing").
The noble Lord said: Clause 19 is quite a short clause, but I find it rather confusing. I only hope that I do not get confused in moving this Amendment. The clause consists of two subsections, the first of which makes it an offence for a person
"to attempt to commit an offence under any provisions of this Act other than this subsection."
I should have thought that the words, "other than this subsection", were unnecessary. I should not have thought
86
that it was possible for a person "to attempt to attempt to commit an offence", but the draftsmen think that those words should be included.
When we come on to the next subsection we read:
"It is an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence under any provision of this Act other than this or the foregoing subsection".
So far as the words "other than this subsection" are concerned, I again feel that they are unnecessary, because it is hardly possible to incite someone to incite someone to commit an offence. Your Lordships will notice that the words "or the foregoing" which we find in subsection (2) are not included in subsection (1). Therefore—if only I can get this right—it is an offence for a person to attempt to incite another to commit an offence, but it is not an offence for a person to incite another to attempt to commit an offence. Surely one is as necessary as the other? I wonder whether I may leave your Lordships to work out that little puzzle—or, at any rate, I will attempt to incite you to do SO.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to support the Amendment so briefly but eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I should have thought that the words, "other than this subsection" were wholly unnecessary in subsection (1), and the words, "other than this or the foregoing subsection" wholly unnecessary in subsection (2). Subsection (1) merely makes it an offence
"to attempt to commit an offence under any provision of this Act."
That is perfectly clear if the subsection stops there. I agree with the noble Lord's comments on the extra words. It seems to me bad and unnecessary drafting, and I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see that this point is looked at again.
LORD FOOT: I do not want to fall out with the noble and learned Viscount, because I am hoping that in a minute he will give some support to me upon another Amendment. Nevertheless, on this occasion perhaps I might ingratiate myself with the Government by saying that I think they are right. It seems to me perfectly reasonable in Clause 19(1),

87
because of the way in which the clause is framed, to say:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any provision of this Act other than this subsection".
It has to be remembered that the people who have to interpret this Bill, and decide whether somebody can properly be prosecuted, may come to the conclusion that they can be prosecuted for the attempt to commit the offence under Clause 19(1) which is in itself an attempt to commit an offence. So it may well be argued that you can charge a person with attempting to attempt. That is what the final words of that subsection seem to me to put beyond any doubt.
When you come to Clause 19(2), where it provides that:
"It is an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence under any provision of this Act other than this or the foregoing subsection",
this means that in the first place it is an offence for a person to incite another to incite another to commit an offence, which is a nonsense. Equally—I am sorry if I am a little muddled about this—if the concluding words, "other than this or the foregoing subsection" were left out, then you would be in the position that it would be an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence under Clause 19(2) which is in itself the offence of incitement. Equally it would be lunatic (would it not?) to leave out the words, "or the foregoing subsection"—that is the one that relates to attempt—because then it would be possible for a person to be accused of the offence of inciting somebody to attempt to commit an offence. But that is something which could not conceivably happen.
Suppose that Fagin, when he was presiding over his den of little thieves, had incited the Artful Dodger to go out and pick somebody's pocket, but had strictly enjoined him not to go beyond the attempt, but to confine himself to the preliminaries and never go through with the execution, then he would be inciting the boy to attempt to commit an offence. But if he strictly enjoined the young man not to carry the attempt into effect, how can he possibly be convicted of an offence? He is specifically informing the young man that he is not to commit
88
it Therefore, for those reasons it seems to me that in point of fact—with all due deference to the noble Viscount—the draftsmen of this Bill have got it right.
LORD CONESFORD: I hope that the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that the matter should be further considered will be adopted, because I believe that there would be no difficulty in construing the Bill if this particular clause were less wordy. But I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that a good deal of the criticised words can be justified. If I have rightly read the whole of this clause, with the words as they stand, it seems that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, put it, in the view of the draftsman it is possible to attempt to incite. I should have thought you either did incite or you did not. I find it very difficult to know how you distinguish "attempting to incite" from "inciting". For those reasons, I think that on balance first of all we could have a clause less wordy than this, and secondly, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, there is an imperfection.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may add one word—
LORD FOOT: Will the noble and learned Viscount allow me to answer that question before he replies? The noble Lord asks: "Is it possible to attempt to incite something?" I suggest that it could occur in the following circumstances. Suppose you write a letter to somebody, especially during the postal strike, suggesting—
LORD CONESFORD: Could the noble Lord speak a little louder? I find it very difficult to hear him.
LORD FOOT: I am sorry. I was trying to suggest the way in which a person can attempt to incite somebody to commit an offence. I suggest that it can happen in this way. Suppose I were to write a letter to somebody suggesting that he should break into a bank, and that letter is held up in the post, or there is a postal strike at the time and it never reaches him. Surely I should have committed the offence of attempting to incite him to commit the offence; but in fact the attempt remains an attempt because the letter never reached him.
LORD CONESFORD: I had considered that, in the circumstances imagined by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that would be an incitement, but I may be wrong.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In view of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has had in justifying this clause as it now stands, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that to have two subsections are wholly unnecessary. If you had one subsection saying:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence or to incite another to commit an offence under any provision of this Act",
I think that would cover the situation. I do not believe that there would be the slightest difficulty such as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, suggests. I therefore ask that this matter should be reconsidered. Unnecessary verbiage leads to difficulties. It is often assumed that Parliamentary draftsmen have sound reasons for the inclusion of every word in a Bill. It would be found difficult on thorough examination to justify the inclusion of two subsections and so many words.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Before the Minister replies, may I make two small points? As regards what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, may I say that he will find that in the 1965 Act there is a single clause in which these two different matters are dealt with in one sentence. He has been stressing the virtue of existing legislation; and if on this occasion the wording used to cover these points in the 1965 Act were used again it would overcome the difficulty completely. I wonder whether I may give the noble Lord, Lord Foot, an example of how one can incite a person to attempt. I may be quite wrong about it, but I should have thought that if Fagin told one of his little boys to go out and try to pick people's pockets in the Strand, or wherever they were operating, and the boy failed to do so because he was not sufficiently skilled or did not come across a suitable victim, he would nevertheless have attempted to commit an offence, and Fagin would have incited him to attempt to do so.
6.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hope that noble Lords who have spoken in the Committee will give their services to Hansard,
90
because, if I give an undertaking to look at this matter again, I wonder just what the Parliamentary draftsman and legal advisers will be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, whose support on this occasion is most welcome, seems to be thinking on the same linen as the draftsman. The effect of adopting the Amendment would be to make it an offence under this clause to incite a person to attempt to commit an offence under any provision of the Bill. It is on the whole undesirable to have a provision of this kind. The reason, I am informed, is that the act of incitement is itself the offence; and that is so whether the person incited attempts to commit or actually commits an offence, or indeed makes no attempt at all. It is the act of incitement that is the offence. To be convicted of a charge of inciting a person to commit an offence requires only proof of incitement, therefore, and whether or not the incitement was successful is immaterial.
However, far be it from me, when faced with a very powerful opinion by the noble and learned Viscount who formerly sat on the Woolsack, to say that on a matter as complicated as this I can be quite certain that the view I have explained is the correct one. Without giving any undertaking, I am sure it would be right for me to look at the wording of this clause again, so that we can discuss it at Report stage. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord might be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Before doing so, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his contribution which has been responsible for eliciting an undertaking from the noble Lord. It enables me to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Offences relating to the doing of things outside the United Kingdom]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am seeking clarification about Clause 20. I think I am right (the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will correct me if I

91
am wrong) in saying that this provision is not in the existing legislation which this Bill supersedes. Would the noble Lord confirm that point before I go further?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be more helpful to the Committee if the noble Baroness went further, and I will see if I can then give her the reply.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am quite willing. There are two subsections of this clause. They both create offences. There may be similar sections in Acts that I do not know, but I think I am right in saying that they are new in relation to drugs legislation. The first offence seems to me an odd one in two ways. First of all, it says that an offence is committed if somebody in this country
"does any act preparatory to, or in furtherance of, the commission in any place outside the United Kingdom of an act which, if committed in the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under this Act."
In other words, it makes it an offence for somebody in this country to take steps to bring about some result overseas in a country where the action is perfectly legal. It seems to me very odd that one may not in this country assist somebody who wants to do something that is legal in his country though it happens to be illegal here. The second thing that I find odd about it is that this is an offence under this Bill, but when I turn to the Schedule of penalties I cannot find any penalty on it. I should very much like to know what the penalty is.
When one comes to subsection (2), I fully understand that one has no right in this country to plot, as it were, to do in another country something that is illegal in that country. That is a serious offence, and that, I think, comes under the large category of 14-years offences, about which I shall have something to say later. But I should be very grateful if some reason could be given why one should not help a person to do something which is perfectly legal in his own country even though, owing to the ridiculous and antiquated laws imposed upon us by our Government, it happens to be illegal in this country.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have the answer to the question the noble Baroness put as to whether or not this
92
is a new power. The answer is that it is not. It is already on the Statute Book in Section 13(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Indeed, it has been a feature of drugs legislation for over twenty years; it is not a novel provision. The reason for the clause, and the reason for the existence of the power in the 1965 Act, is that it is designed to give broad effect to the principle of international cooperation in penalising unlawful activities with regard to dangerous drugs in one country having, or likely to have, effects in another. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs deals with this matter at very considerable length, and so I will spare the Committee the quotation which is in front of me. But it is an aspect of the international treaty to which I have already referred.
The noble Baroness asked whether the penalties for this offence had been omitted in some way from the Bill before us. I understand that that is not so; the penalties are contained in Clause 25(3), which provides penalties for offences under this clause. That answers the two specific questions. We have an international Treaty obligation; it is to assist people in other countries, as well as in this country, to prevent the trafficking in, the supply and the misuse of drugs generally. It is an aspect of the law which, on the whole, it seems worth carrying forward in the present Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord rose before I noticed he was going to, because I wanted to put a point to him on this clause, though I have to say that there has been no attempt by the noble Baroness to incite me to do so. Although I should not want in any way to weaken the penal provisions of this Bill there is always a considerable difficulty of definition with regard to "an act preparatory to the commission of an offence". I know there are precedents for having that, but it is extremely difficult to define; and, although there are statutory provisions to that effect in other Statutes, I think it is very seldom indeed that there is a prosecution for "an act preparatory to the commission of an offence".
Here, as we may see from this clause, the act may be merely the fact of having something in your possession. So, if you had something in your possession, presumably in some way the prosecution

93
would have to prove that that possession by you was preparatory to the commission of an offence. I think that would be extremely difficult to prove, and I am wondering whether it really is necessary again to repeat in this Bill these words which, I believe I am right in saying, have caused such difficulty in the past. There is quite a different aspect of it when one refers to an act in furtherance of the commission of a crime". I should have thought that was pretty specific; but where do you draw the line here? I would ask the noble Lord to have a look at it before we get to the Report stage.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I will certainly have a look at it. As I have said, this is a matter of international obligations under the United Nations Convention. I did not have warning of this particular point that the noble Baroness has raised, and perhaps if I study it with greater care I can make a fuller statement in regard to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his clarification. I still think this is a very odd provision, and a very odd form of legislation, that one finds in a Schedule of penalties the penalty for subsection (2) of Clause 20 but not for subsection (1) of that clause. It seems odd that they should be separated in this way. I should have thought that there might be a more intelligible way of presenting this. The other thing I would say is that we are constantly running up against the Single Convention. We are not bound to all eternity by the Single Convention, and it seems to me that we ought to think about suggesting a modern version of our obligations under that Convention.
On Question, Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene at this point to say that it has been agreed through the usual channels—and I hope that all those most directly concerned have been consulted—that we should continue with this Committee stage until 8 o'clock; or that, if by any chance we should reach Clause 40 before 8 o'clock, we should stop at Clause 40. We will resume the Committee stage on Thursday next.
Clause 23 [Powers to search and obtain evidence]:
6.54 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert:
"A person commits an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under the foregoing subsection; or

(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are referred to in the foregoing subsection."

The noble Lord said: I shall try to be as brief as I can on this Amendment, but may I start by saying, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that there is no hidden or overt intention in this Amendment to "go soft on drugs". Indeed, this Amendment is concerned only peripherally with the subject of drugs. It is mainly concerned with the state of the English law and whether on this occasion we are going about it in the right way.
May I say this by way of explanation and clarification? Clause 23 provides three different ways in which searches can be made of persons and premises. Under subsection (1) a constable or other person can be authorised by the Secretary of State to go into the premises of anybody who is carrying on a business of producing or distributing drugs, such as a chemist, and so on—carrying it on presumably, under licence. He can then call upon the occupier of the premises and the person carrying on the business to produce for his inspection various documents, records, stocks, drugs and the like. That is, of course, a perfectly proper and reasonable provision.
The next form of search which is provided for under subsection (2) is the form of search about which I have no doubt there will be some debate later on; that is, the search which can be carried out by a constable who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is in possession or control of drugs. It gives the constable powers to stop and search that person and to detain him for the purpose of a search, and it also gives him powers to seize and detain any drugs which he may find on that person or in any vehicle.
The third kind of search, which is under subsection (3), is the search carried out under a search warrant issued by a magistrate on evidence being given to him that there is reasonable grounds for thinking that certain premises may contain drugs, and which authorises a constable to enter those premises and to search for any drugs which may be on the premises, to seize them and so on. Those are the three kinds of search which are provided for in this clause.
Then if we look at subsection (4)—and this is the subsection which concerns me—it is provided in relation to all three forms of search that a person commits an offence if he:
"(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under this section".
If I may pause there, I have no objection to that at all, except only to say this—and I will perhaps refer to this in a slightly different context later on. My understanding is that under the present law there is already a perfectly clear offence committed by anybody who obstructs a constable in the exercise of his duties. The part of the subsection to which I wish to draw the special attention of the Committee is that which goes on to say that a person commits an offence if he:
"(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as aforesaid."
May I say at once that I see no objection to that particular part of the subsection in so far as it applies to the first kind of search of which I was speaking, where a person goes into the premises of somebody carrying on the business of the production or the distribution of a drug and calls upon that person to produce his records and his stocks and his documents. I see no objection to that, because there are ample precedents for it. One thinks, for example, of the law which requires scrap metal dealers to keep records and that those records shall be available for inspection by any authorised person. One thinks of the Firearms Act, which requires the dealers in firearms to keep records of all their transactions. It even comes down to the fact that there is an obligation under the Road Traffic Acts on anybody to produce his licence, his certificate of insurance, and so on.
There are multitudes of precedents for that kind of thing, but how does subsection (4)—and particularly the fact that a person commits an offence if he fails to produce any drug—work with the other two kinds of search; that is, where a policeman stops a man in the street under the powers to stop and search, and wants to search him? Supposing the policeman says to that man, "I am looking for drugs; have you got any?", and if that man has a drug in his possession but remains silent or says to the policeman, "I do not want to say anything to you", is not that person, under the terms of subsection (4)(b), quite clearly committing an offence of failing to produce a drug?
Let me take, if I may, another illustration. Under the subsection (3) procedure, where a police officer gets a search warrant enabling him to go into premises where it is reasonably suspected that a drug offence may be being committed, he goes in and says to all the people present, "I am looking for drugs". He may not go as far as this, but he could. He may say: "I require anyone with any drugs in their possession to produce them to me". Suppose the people remain silent. They would, as I understand this provision, automatically thereby be committing an offence, because they are failing, without reasonable excuse, to produce the drugs which they have in their possession. Therefore, if a police officer goes into premises in circumstances of that kind and in fact finds drugs in the possession of people who had previously been asked to produce them but who had remained silent, passive and inactive, they can, as I interpret this clause, then be prosecuted not only for having that drug in their possession, the substantive offence, but also for having failed to produce the drug when they were invited to do so.
It is a fairly serious matter, I suggest, because the penalty for such silence, for such passivity, if I may call it that, in such circumstances, is, on summary conviction, six months or £400, or both, and, on indictment, two years or a fine, or both. As it seems to me, this requirement, in the context of those two kinds of searches, is a clear breach and abrogation of what is a very ancient common law principle, that no man should be called on to incriminate himself. In this case,

97
as I understand the clause, it is requiring a person in those circumstances to speak up; he is not entitled to remain silent. If he remains silent, or fails to produce the drug when required to do so, he is then committing an offence, and, therefore, under pain of penalty, he is being required to incriminate himself. I hope that I interpret the matter rightly. This seems to me to carry with it a matter of considerable principle.
On Second Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was winding up the debate, he said that this Bill took no new powers. I intervened to ask him whether this subsection was not taking new powers. I was wrong about that, as the noble Lord will no doubt now know, if he did not know then, because there is a similar provision in the 1965 Act; it is not exactly in identical terms but it is substantially the same. Of course, if you go back to the 1951 Act, you will find what is a similar provision there, although, of course, at that time, in 1965 and in 1951, there was no right of search comparable to the one we have under subsection (2) in this Bill; that is, the right of the constable to search a man in the street. There was no comparable power in those days, because, of course, that was only introduced in the Act of 1967. But so far as the subsection (1) and subsection (3) kind of search is concerned—that is, under a search warrant—it is correct that there has been this, as I think, objectionable power, running back certainly as long ago as 1951, and it may be before that, because my researches have not gone that far.
One of the questions I would ask the Minister is this. I have made what investigations have been open to me to see whether this power requiring a person to incriminate himself has in fact ever been used; that is to say, whether anybody has ever been charged with the offence of failing to produce a drug in the circumstances which I have described. So far as my researches have gone, I cannot find that there ever has been a case. If that is so, may it not be because the prosecution would have been ashamed to bring a charge under this objectionable clause, as I think it; that is to say, that they would double up the charges, charging the person with the substantive offence of possessing the drug or supplying the drug, and then go on to charge him with the
98
further offence of having failed to disclose it.
This constitutional principle that a man should never be obliged to incriminate himself can, of course, be illustrated from many sources. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than necessary, but I would give one illustration of the way in which this principle has been recently enunciated in the courts. It is the case of Rice v. Connolly, which is reported in [1966] All England Law Reports. It was an appeal to the Divisional Court by way of Case Stated against a conviction for wilful obstruction of the police, aid the Divisional Court consisted of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, the late Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice James. The headnote of the case reads:
"The appellant was seen by police officers in the early hours of the morning behaving suspiciously in an area where on the same night breaking offences had taken place.
"On being questioned he refused to say where he was going or where he had come from. He refused to give his full name and address, though he did give a name and the name of a road, which were not untrue. He refused to accompany the police to a Police box for identification purposes, saying, 'If you want me, you will have to arrest me'. He was arrested and charged with wilfully obstructing the police contrary to S. 51(3) of the Act of 1964. On appeal it was conceded that 'wilfully' imported something done without lawful excuse. It was held that … the appellant had been entitled to decline to answer the questions put to him and (prior to his arrest) to accompany the police officer on request to the police box to establish identity; accordingly, in the circumstances, 'wilful obstruction' by the appellant was not established, although he had been obstructive, because no obstruction without lawful excuse had been established."
I should like to quote two short passages, one from the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, and the second from the judgment of Mr. Justice Marshall. The Lord Chief Justice said this:
"'Wilful' in this context in my judgment means not only 'intentional' but also connotes something which is done without lawful excuse, and that indeed is conceded by counsel who appears for the prosecution in this case. Accordingly, the sole question here is whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed "—
and I would emphasise these words—
"the whole basis of the common law is that right of the individual to refuse to answer

99
questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest".
Then he went on:
"Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that it is undoubtedly an obstruction, and has been so held, for a person questioned by the police to tell a 'cock and bull' story, to put the police off by giving them false information, and I think he would say"—
that is, counsel for the respondent—
"'Well, what is the real distinction, it is very little away from giving false information to giving no information at all; if that does in fact make it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties then there is a wilful obstruction'."
Then the Lord Chief Justice concluded with these words:
"In my judgment there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story, something which on no view a citizen has a right to do, and preserving silence or refusing to answer, something which he has every right to do."
Mr. Justice Marshall in the course of his judgment, which was only four lines in length, said this:
"In order to uphold this conviction it appears to me that one has to assent to the proposition that where a citizen is acting merely within his legal rights, he is thereby committing a criminal offence."
I hope it is not going too far to say that that is precisely what this subsection, of which I am complaining, provides. In so many words it says that if a person stands upon his constitutional right to say nothing, to be silent and to be passive, then under this subsection he is guilty of an offence for which he may be liable to two years' imprisonment. I ask myself this question: can one think of any other similar form of search authorised by the law where there is any comparable provision to that which I am criticising? One thinks first of all of the Theft Act and stolen goods. There is in the Theft Act provision for the issue of search warrants authorising premises to be searched for stolen goods, but there is nothing in the Theft Act comparable to this subsection. There is nothing in the Theft Act—one would be astonished if there were—to the effect that where a person's premises are entered by a police officer looking for stolen goods, if the occupier fails without reasonable excuse to produce any stolen goods to the police officer, then he would be guilty
100
of an offence. There is nothing comparable to that. I have also looked at the Firearms Act. I will not go into that because it is rather complicated; but the provision in that Act is quite different from the provision in this Bill.
The other matter which concerns me is this. Under the Road Safety Act it is provided that where a person is taken to a police station on suspicion of having too much alcohol in his blood, and is then invited to provide a specimen of urine or blood, he must be told at the time when he is invited to give that specimen that if he does not do so he may be committing an offence and may render himself liable to imprisonment, to disqualification and to a fine. There is nothing comparable to that provision here. A person in possession of some drug may be on premises which are entered tinder the protection of a search warrant. He may be told by the police officer, "If you have got a drug I want you to produce it to me". If he remains silent there is no need for the police officer to warn him, saying, "If you do not produce it you are rendering yourself liable to two years' imprisonment". There is no protection of that kind, comparable to the protection which we give to somebody under the provisions of the Road Safety Act.
Perhaps your Lordships would be good enough to look at Amendment No. 8, which I am now moving, and at Amendment No. 11. What I am proposing is that we should take subsection (4) from where it stands in Clause 23 and bring it up immediately under the first kind of search—that is, under subsection (1). Then I propose that we should slightly amend the wording of the subsection so that it reads
"A person commits an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under the foregoing subsection; or

(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are referred to in the foregoing subsection."—

that is subsection (1). Thus we should retain the full power to require a person who is carrying on a business to produce all his documents and his stocks and so on. The change which this Amendment would bring about is that that subsection

101
would no longer be applicable to the two types of search under subsections (2) and (3) of the Bill. I do not think there is anything objectionable in principle to that, because obviously there is a clear distinction between requiring a person to incriminate himself and requiring a person to produce evidence that he is in fact complying with the law—as in the case of the chemist, who has to keep records and so on.
I do not think that this difficulty to which I have attempted to draw attention is cured by the words which appear in subsection (4); namely:
"… without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him".
I ask myself whether these words conceivably put the matter right. I think that manifestly they do not, because if a reasonable excuse for not producing a drug is that the common law of England says that you need not, then subsection (4) becomes a nonsense, for everyone would automatically be entitled to be acquitted. I apologise to the Committee for taking up so much time, but I hope that your Lordships will think that this is a matter of some legal consequence. My last word is this. I started off by saying that this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with one's views concerning the drug problem. Although it is not a new clause I believe that it represents a grave departure from one of the basic principles upon which the criminal law of this country has so long rested. I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be helpful if I intervened fairly early in this discussion, not to curtail it but rather to open it up. The effect of the Amendment would be to apply to only subsection (1) of Clause 23 the provisions of subsection (4) of the clause which, as the clause stands now, apply, with some exceptions to which I shall refer, to the whole clause. I accept at once what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said in moving the Amendment, that he is concerned entirely with the clarity of the law and not with policies towards cannabis or drugs misuse generally.
As he said, this clause does not assume a power which was previously unknown to English law. He has told the Committee that Section 14(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 contains similar provisions.
102
Indeed, these are to be found in earlier drugs legislation. The 1965 Act—the present legislation—by Section 14(3) makes it an offence for a person wilfully to delay or obstruct a person who is exercising his powers to enter premises, whether with or without a search warrant, for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the law. It also makes it an offence for a person to conceal any books, stocks, drugs, substances or documents that he may be required to produce for purposes of inspection. Those who have power to enter premises under these provisions are police constables and persons duly authorised by the Secretary of State—that is, Home Office Drugs Branch Inspectors and Regional Medical Officers of the Health Departments in England, Scotland and Wales.
The principle that is embodied in Clause 23(4), that a person is obliged, on pain of criminal proceedings, to co-operate with authorities who are lawfully investigating an offence, has its parallel in numerous other Statutes. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has mentioned some of these. He gave the example of the car driver who has to produce his driving licence when required to do so by a police constable, under Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. I shall not go through any other examples in the law, although I will mention one that he did not include in his selection, namely, the Exchange Control Act 1947. Schedule 5, paragraph 1, enables the Treasury to require:
"any person … to furnish … any information in his possession or control which the Treasury or the person so authorised, as the case may be, may require for the purpose of securing compliance with or detecting evasion of this Act."
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has argued that subsection (4)(b) is objectionable in principle, in that as paragraph (b) appears to relate to subsection (2)—that is, the "stop and search" subsection—and subsection (3)—which relates to the "search of premises by warrant"—it could mean that a person would commit an offence if he failed to produce evidence that might incriminate him. Despite what the noble Lord has said, I do not believe that this is the draftsman's intention. He has explained his point of view in a very full speech, and it is a somewhat fine point of interpretation, but if noble Lords will look at the wording of subsections (2)

103
and (3) they will see that it is difficult to envisage how an offence of concealing items could, in practice, be committed, if for no other reason than that if a search failed to produce such items there would be no proof that they were being concealed. However, I know this is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has strong feelings, and he has looked into it very carefully. It would not be right, therefore, to take up an inflexible position at this stage in the Committee's deliberations. Other noble Lords would like to take part, and the Government certainly want to hear what they have to say. Perhaps I could leave what I have to say at this stage at that point, and possibly come in again towards the end of the discussion on this Amendment.
VISCOUNT D1LHORNE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has performed a valuable service in drawing attention to the provisions of this paragraph (b) tucked away at the end of the clause. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has just said, that there are exceptions in our Statute law to the rule that a man is not compelled to incriminate himself, but I think it is right that when any such proposal comes before Parliament the reasons for it should be most carefully examined and a strong case made out for any such provision. The noble Lord who has just spoken seemed to suggest that this paragraph was in some way linked with the preceding contents of this clause. It is not, and that is where I think there is a real defect in drafting. It is a subsection of general application.
It is perfectly true that the first part, paragraph (a), is linked with what goes before in the clause. It reads:
"A person commits an offence if he—
(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under this section;"
I am quite sure that that is fully warranted, and I disagree with the noble Lord's Amendment, in that he restricts the intentional obstruction to obstruction in the exercise of the powers under subsection (1). I think it is right as it stands that the intentional obstruction should be obstructing a police officer, or anybody else, in the execution of the powers given in subsections (1), (2) and (3).
104
But when one comes on to paragraph (b), it is a new offence, wholly unlinked and unassociated (except for the words "as aforesaid"), with the other contents of the clause. It provides that:
"A person commits an offence if he—
(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as aforesaid."
That is a perfectly general criminal offence. It is committed if you conceal any drugs. It does not matter whether or not a police officer, or anyone else, is seeking to exercise the powers under the preceding subsection. If a man has a drug in his hand, he will be in possession of it. That may be one offence. But if he puts it in his pocket he has concealed it, and therefore will be guilty of two offences. He will have concealed it, and he will be in possession of it. Is that really necessary? This provision about being guilty of a criminal offence if you fail to produce a drug is also an offence of a very general character.
When I read this clause I thought—and I am always reluctant to criticise the draftsman, because drafting is a very difficult art—that, so far as paragraph (b) was concerned, it was just an example of bad drafting. I am not really worried by the fact that in earlier drugs legislation there may be precedents for this kind of drafting: if there are, it is quite time that we improved it. I should have thought that the real intention behind (b) was that it should be linked only with subsection (1). I may be wrong about that: it might go on to subsection (2). But certainly it should be linked to what precedes it in this clause. Why I say I thought it must be intended to be linked with subsection (1) is by reason of the words "as aforesaid". It refers to:
"such books, documents, stocks or drugs as aforesaid".
When you look back to what the words "as aforesaid" mean, you go straight back to subsection (1) which says what kind of books or documents they may be, and what may be inspected.
I should have no objection at all if the offence created by paragraph (b) were linked with subsection (1). I cannot but think that that really is the intention. If I that is so, then you get to the position that if the producer or supplier of any

105
controlled drugs conceals them, or without reasonable excuse fails to produce them when the demand is made on him by the constable or other person to do so, he will be guilty of an offence. In that context this offence is complementary to subsection (1). It is not complementary, perhaps, to subsection (2)—at any rate, I doubt if it is. But what I think is absolutely wrong is that it should be a distinct and complete general offence committed in any circumstances, not just when the powers under this clause are being exercised. If no adjustment of this is made—which I think is really no more than a matter of drafting—then I, for one, would support any Amendment to delete the words of paragraph (b) as they now stand. But I could not, for the reason I have given, go so far as to support the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his Amendment, because I think he limits the first part of that Amendment too narrowly. He limits it to subsection (1), and it certainly should extend to the other parts of the clause.
LORD AIREDALE: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount's interpretation of this clause is correct. So far as I know, if you are being searched by the police for a small piece of valuable jewellery, such as a small diamond ring, which you could easily conceal in the lining of your garment and make it very difficult for the police to find, you commit no offence by failing to produce it when the police begin searching. That being so—and it has been so for centuries: indeed, so far as I know, being so ever since the English criminal law began—it seems very curious that if you are being searched, not for a small piece of valuable jewellery but for a small quantity of not very valuable drugs, you commit an offence if you fail to produce to the police the drug that you are carrying.
That is a very strange anomaly, and one wants to know what is so special about drugs that this new breach in the English criminal law has to be made, in order to compel people to produce drugs, so making the life of the police easier when they are searching for drugs, but not when they are searching for other commodities which may have been stolen. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount's interpretation of the meaning
106
of this clause is the correct one and that we shall have the matter clarified.
7.33 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I have added my name to this Amendment, so I naturally support it. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, "I do not believe it is the draftsman's intention", and that may well be so. But what I am sure he will agree about is how this is going to be interpreted. As I see the matter, looking at it from the more lowly position of one who, as a magistrate, would have to enforce this, it means (and to me this is a most important matter) that people could be charged with two offences instead of one. We seek to move these paragraphs up under subsection (1) because that is where we consider they may apply. I am not sure that I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the point about paragraph (a), because I should have thought that the intention in the words "obstructs a person", and so on, was already covered by various other Acts. I should have thought these paragraphs did not need to be put in subsection (4) and that they could be put where the Amendment puts them, which is after subsection (1). In view of what has been said, I hope that the Minister will either accept the Amendment as it is, or will consider it further and bring back something which certainly eliminates what could be a very grave injustice.
LORD FOOT: I do not know whether it is permissible for me to intervene at this stage in order to try to shorten matters. If it is permissible within the Rules of the Committee, I should like to say at once that if, in view of the assistance which I have received from the noble and learned Viscount in this matter, with all the weight of his authority behind it, the Minister is inclined to say that he will have another look at this point before the next stage, then I will certainly withdraw the Amendment. That will not put him to the trouble of making a long answer this evening. I do not know whether that is helpful.
In making that proposal, I should like to make one observation upon some of the words which fell from the lips of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, upon this matter of obstruction.

107
I agree that it would be perfectly appropriate to leave paragraph (a) where it stands, having shifted the whole of subsection (4) up under subsection (1) and making it applicable in toto only to subsection (1). But I should have thought that under the Police Act 1964, with which the noble and learned Viscount will be familiar, there were perfectly ample powers to deal with anybody who obstructed a police officer—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am not very concerned about this obstruction. But I think there is some convenience in repeating it in the same Act which is dealing with drugs, since it is easier to refer to than having to look at a various number of books. It is paragraph (b) with which I am concerned.
LORD FOOT: Equally, of course, I should have no objection to its being repeated at the end of this clause, as the noble and learned Viscount suggested. I do not know whether that assists the Minister.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for the opportunity which the noble Lord has given me, and I have listened, as I undertook to do, with close attention to what has been said in this discussion. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has very rightly drawn attention to paragraph (a) of subsection (4)—that is, the one dealing with obstruction—because it is an extremely important part of subsection (4); we cannot consider that subsection without looking at paragraphs (a) and (b) together. There seems general agreement that paragraph (a) of subsection (4) is unobjectionable; the argument is centred on whether or not paragraph (b) of subsection (4) applies only to subsection (1), or whether it could apply also to subsections (2) and (3).
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect, it goes further than that. I have contended that it is not linked to any of those subsections. It is a perfectly general criminal provision creating a new offence.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I accept that correction, of course. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded the Committee that
108
when I spoke earlier on this Amendment I said that I did not believe it was the draftsman's intention that this power in subsection (4)(b) should refer to subsections (2) and (3); nor do I. But in the light of what has been said, it is wise that we should try to avoid any possible doubt on this matter. I think therefore that the Committee would be well advised to accept the implications of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt in the future. I am advised that the best way of achieving this, bearing in mind what has been said about paragraph (a) of Clause 23(4), would be to leave paragraphs (a) and (b) where they are, but to remove the word "aforesaid" from paragraph (b) and to insert instead some new words—possibly, "as referred to in subsection (1) above".
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect, I do not think that that would do what is required, because that would only refer back to the books, documents, stocks or drugs, and that is the same as "aforesaid".
LORD WINDLESHAM: As I understand it, that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I think he is quite happy that people who have an obligation to keep books—chemists, pharmaceutical manufacturers and so on—should be subject to the provisions of subsection (4)(b). I am sorry if I misunderstood him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but merely changing "as aforesaid" to "as referred to" in subsection (1) does not achieve that object. That is the point I am making; and if I may say so I think the noble Lord would be well advised to reconsider the wording again. The object of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, so far as I can see, is the same as mine: really to make paragraph (b) relate to subsection (1); and that is not done by changing the words "as aforesaid" to "as referred to" in subsection (1). That is a change without a difference.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I am interested in the point which the noble and learned Viscount has made. At one time he said that paragraph (b) was related to subsection (1)—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, I did not. I said that the trouble was that it was not.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: That it should be related to subsection (1)?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Yes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ANINGER: But at another stage he said that it created an entirely new criminal offence of concealment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Of course it does, as it now stands. What I am saying is that it should be amended to relate it to subsection (1). My objection to it now—I hope I have made it clear—is that it creates a completely general offence unrelated to subsection (1).
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: It surely would be a complete absurdity to create a completely new criminal offence in a subsection of a main clause of this Bill; and it would appear that, if it does that, it is creating an offence of concealment, which means that if you have any drugs you must walk about with them in your hand all of the time.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hope that members of the Committee will realise that I am trying to be helpful. Instead, I am assailed on both sides. It may be found that the solution I have proposed will do the trick, though I am open to correction. We are to have a Report stage, and I will certainly look at this extremely carefully to see how the aims which the noble Lord has explained can best be achieved—whether it be by the method I have suggested or by some other method. If the noble Lord is happy with that assurance, perhaps we can leave the matter until Report stage.
LORD AIREDALE: May I suggest that there is one other difficulty in paragraph (b) which might be cured if we got rid of the words "any such" and substituted "the"? Then it would read,
"… fails to produce the books, documents, stocks or drugs as are"
mentioned in subsection (1). I think that might do it. But if you keep the generality by retaining "any such", then I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that I do not think it does it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think that will do it, either.
LORD FOOT: I am very grateful to the Minister for having gone so far as he has. I think we are agreed in principle upon this, and the only question now remaining is as to how it is to be done. I should like, if I may, to recommend my own Amendment, which seems to me to achieve the object in the best possible way, because your Lordships will remember that it comes in after subsection (1) and says:
"A person commits an offence if he … intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under the foregoing subsection"—
Let me pause there to say that I do not mind that being repeated later in relation to the other forms of search—
"or … conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are referred to in the foregoing subsection".
I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount thinks that that goes far enough—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think it does.
LORD FOOT: Then I take the noble Viscount's point. If it does not go far enough, then I shall be only too anxious to find words that will carry it all the way. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I said earlier that we would adjourn the Committee stage of this Bill at 8 o'clock. The next Amendment is an extremely important one of principle, and I know that a large number of your Lordships have stayed particularly in order that you might record your verdict about it. On the other hand, I feel that it is an Amendment which will take a considerable time to discuss, and it would mean that the rest of the business would be extremely late. Therefore, if your Lordships agree, I would move that the House do now resume on the understanding that the proceedings on the Bill should be continued as first business on Thursday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships may recall that the Bill is promoted by the Bristol Corporation for the purpose of authorising the closure of the City Docks, which are in the centre of the city and have now become obsolete. I think it is now generally conceded that the City Docks are no longer a viable proposition and must be closed. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House, to which I shall refer later, certainly came to that conclusion themselves, and accept that these docks are no longer viable. We had a most interesting debate on the Bill on March 5, 1970, when your Lordships were good enough to give it a Second Reading. The Bill was then opposed on what I may call amenity grounds, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Henley, whom I see in his place to-night; Lord Methuen, who is not here; Lord Chorley, who I am glad to see is here, and others. Indeed, on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Henley, described the point at issue as of very great amenity consequence.
Subsequent to the Bill's having been given a Second Reading on that day it was considered by a Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who will be speaking later this evening. The hearing by the Committee last May took no less than six whole days, I understand; and in addition the Select Committee paid a visit to Bristol in order to see for themselves the City Docks and the other parts of the city which are affected by the proposals. To cut a long story short, the Select Committee found the Preamble to the Bill proved, but they made certain amendments to the Bill the short effect of which is to provide a new means of access to the St. Philip's Reach section of the Floating Harbour from the New Cut. The Amendments which they incorporated give St. Philip's Reach, after the closure of the City Docks, the same status as the remainder of the Floating Harbour; that is to say, in general terms the whole of the water area of the Floating Harbour will remain undiminished. It will be preserved for the use of pleasure
112
craft not exceeding certain dimensions laid down in the Bill.
Now these amendments by the Select Committee followed one of the suggestions made by the Petitioners, the Bristol Civic Society and others, who appeared before the Select Committee on their Petition as representing amenity interests, and I believe that they are now satisfied with the Bill as amended. The proposals contained in the Bill are important, and they have aroused a good deal of interest in this House and elsewhere. For this reason the Select Committee made a special Report on the Bill—the Report which is dated September 29, 1970, and which is now before us. If I may be allowed to say so, I think that this Report is an admirably lucid summary of the various complicated issues which fell to be considered by the Select Committee and is really a model of what a Report of this kind ought to be. If I may say so, had the Select Committee been able to prevail upon Her Majesty's Stationery Office to put a map at the back of their Report, we should then have got a very valuable document indeed. It is extremely difficult without a map to follow the complicated business of what is happening in central Bristol. I have a map, but I am afraid that most noble Lords have not. I do not need to refer to the Report in detail, because no doubt such noble Lords as are interested in the matter will already have read it. As I say, it is extremely clear and lucid. But the fact is that the Select Committee found the case for the Bill proved, and recommended that it be allowed to proceed, subject to Amendments made which are now incorporated in the Bill and to which I have referred.
In conclusion, I would only say that I regret that it was not possible to bring this Bill before your Lordships before now, the Second Reading having been last March. This was due in part to the fact that, following the General Election, it was necessary to carry the Bill into the new Parliament, and in part to the very real desire of Bristol Corporation to negotiate with people who may be affected by the detailed provisions of the Bill without subjecting them to the expense of petitioning against it. I am happy to say that the Corporation have been able to conclude negotiations satisfactory to both sides with most, if not

113
all, of what I might call the potential petitioners. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
8.2 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, last March, I wish to say that this Bill enjoys the continuing approval of Her Majesty's Government. As the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has told us, this Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, is now one which should commend itself to your Lordships.
This Bill is a local measure promoted by Bristol Corporation in their role as port authority for the Port of Bristol. The Bill falls within the field of concern of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But, so far as his general responsibility for ports is concerned, his interest is very limited because the proposal to close the City Docks is essentially a management decision by the Corporation. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend recognises that Bristol need to adjust their statutory responsibilities to the facts of modern commercial life. Geographically, the City Docks are at a disadvantage. They are situated about seven miles from the mouth of the Avon. The physical limits of the river restrict the size of vessels able to reach the docks. The dock area itself is restricted and is unsuitable for modern forms of traffic. As a result, the City Docks have for some years been losing trade to the more modern and easily reached docks downstream at Avonmouth and Portishead, also operated by Bristol. I understand that City Docks are run at a substantial financial loss. Modernisation is not worth while because the restrictions imposed by the River Avon would still remain. In this context, closure makes good sense and would allow the Corporation to concentrate upon the management of the modern docks downstream.
During the debate in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill, anxiety was expressed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the filling in of the Floating Harbour and its subsequent development. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the then Government pointed out, this development would have
114
been subject to full planning control, including the possibility that, since the Corporation are themselves the local planning authority, the Secretary of State could call in for decision by himself any such development if the circumstances at the time called for it. As the House has heard, the Bill was amended in Committee so as to exclude the power it originally contained to fill in the Floating Harbour.
The Government were themselves anxious about certain buildings of special architectural or historic interest which appeared to be affected by the proposals in the Bill for constructing a fixed bridge over St. Augustine's Reach. The Corporation have assured the Secretary of State that only four such buildings would be endangered. Before anything could happen to three of the four, which are listed buildings, the Corporation would need to obtain consent. The Secretary of State would be almost certain to call in for decision by himself any application for this consent. The fourth building, a warehouse, is not listed, but the Promoters have undertaken to consult the Secretary of State about the effect of their proposals on it.
Some concern has been expressed about the need to improve on the Bill's provision for compensation. The Department have accepted that three firms are affected by the proposed constraint on navigation. The Compensation Code is at present being reviewed by the Government, and I have to advise the House that it would, in our view, be quite wrong to anticipate in this Private Bill the outcome of that review. Any changes of the Code which were decided upon should properly be made in general legislation applying universally in similar circumstances.
In view of the increasing use of inland navigation for pleasure cruising, the Government consider it desirable that there should continue to be a route for pleasure craft to proceed between the tidal Avon and the upper river. We note that this is provided for in the Bill. Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, on his hard work on this Bill and to express to your Lordships the hope that you will give him your support on this Third Reading.
8.7 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I have many people to congratulate, but I cannot be quite so quick about it as were the two preceding speakers in their admirably short speeches. First, as one who spoke in support of the Petitioners' case, may I say how much I admire the admirable Special Report produced by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in saying that this is a model of a Report? On Second Reading, I said that I sometimes feel that Select Committees cannot examine issues of this sort in the way in which they ought to be able to do so. I said jokingly to the noble Earl before the debate began to-day, "It's a lucky dip, isn't it?" He replied, "You must not say that!" My Lords, I do say it. Sometimes it is a lucky dip; but it came out to be a good dip this time—not only lucky but good. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee for having performed their task so admirably.
What, in effect, they have done is to preserve the whole of the Floating Harbour. That is only one of the things they have done, but it is the principal one. The Floating Harbour is unique not only to England but to Europe. Even if it costs something to preserve, even if it means that one must forgo a certain amount of land that would otherwise be developed, it is nevertheless something for which future generations will look to Bristol City with gratitude. I can think of castles and houses which in the past were destroyed for railway lines and on which we now look back and say, "If only we had had that extra bit of sense, we could have preserved them and still have made the railway lines as good."
This is what I felt when I embarked on this case of Bristol. I know the land fairly well. It seems to me to be something of incomparable beauty which does not exist anywhere else in the world, and I felt that, before destroying it, another "think" was required. The advantage of our debates is that we have had that other "think". When the Bill came up for Second Reading the noble Earl suggested that a Second Reading debate on a Private Bill of this nature was unusual. Indeed, it is, my Lords. He also suggested
116
that it was perhaps due to the failure on the part of certain interests—myself—to appreciate the underlying processes and perhaps to misunderstand the true intentions of the Promoters of the Bill. He may well have been right; we may have misunderstood some of the things that the Corporation, with the best intentions, were trying to do. We are all weak vessels and we can all feel concern at what is put before us.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I think that the virtue of having put forward the views that we did is that there has been a fairly extensive debate on this issue, and I believe that it has been a useful exercise. Whereas my friends and I had felt that perhaps this matter had been ill-considered in certain respects, we now feel that it has been considered, and considered very fully; and I believe that more or less the right answer has come up. Even if the Corporation feel that the right answer has not been given, it is still entirely open to them, if they so wish, to abandon any of the suggestions and to start again from scratch. Obviously they are not going to do this, but it is open to them. This is where I think, as I said, that we have many congratulations to extend. In fact, the congratulations are due to us on having forced the issue into the public view.
As I say, the Petitioners' case has been conceded in very large measure. There are one or two matters on which I should perhaps have liked to go even further than the Select Committee went. But I can understand that there are very good reasons—as no doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—why some of the things that I should have liked are not possible. First, I feel that in the small points that I shall put before your Lordships there are aspects of the matter which help to give full effect—I say that with great emphasis—to the wish of the Select Committee, and indeed to the express desires and intentions of the Corporation; that is to say, to ensure a large variety of craft on the whole of the Floating Harbour.
I should like to see it made a duty, rather than left merely permissive (subject of course to by-laws, to ensure the minimum of inconvenience to road traffic), that the Corporation swing the bridges at Cumberland Basin. Before the Select Committee the Corporation

117
accepted that it is one of the traditions of Bristol that tall masts come into the heart of the city. The Corporation told the Committee that they intended to keep the two bridges at Cumberland Basin swinging, thereby enabling large yachts to sail as far as the point at which the Outer Circular Road crosses the Floating Harbour. Unless these two bridges continue to swing, tall ships will be blocked from the Floating Harbour. I think this point should be safeguarded by a further proviso to Clause 24, because it seems to me that such a provision would ensure that fairly large ships, like the "Winston Churchill", would be able to come; and that is what the Corporation said they wished to see. This is the sort of thing that could be the subject of an Amendment in another place. I think it would be quite unsuitable for me to suggest anything of this nature to your Lordships to-night. As the noble Earl has already said, we have worked long and hard on this Bill, and it would merely be tiresome to your Lordships if I were to attempt to modify in any way the admirable conclusions arrived at by the Select Committee.
Secondly, if I had my way entirely, I would in one respect go against what the Select Committee said. I should like to reinstate the lock at Bathurst Basin. I know that the Select Committee said that this was unnecessary, and that may well be. All the same, I feel that the Floating Harbour would be more interesting with a way through in the middle into the New Cut, and it would be a pity just to preserve a dead end at Bathurst Basin, particularly in view of the fact that the Committee expressly condemned the dead end which the Corporation had intended to create at St. Philip's Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will probably tell your Lordships that maybe I am asking for something which is unreasonable, in that by opening the Totterdown Lock there is already a circular way round, and there is no point in making, as it were, a figure of eight. But I should have liked to see that; it would cost only about a quarter of a million pounds, which is a very small sum compared with the total that the Corporation are to spend.
I am prepared to admit that this is something the Select Committee did not think necessary, and I am also prepared to concede (I did not know it until this evening) that this comes within the provisions
118
of an attempt to extend the powers of a Private Bill, which is something that neither House can do. In your Lordships' House, or indeed in another place, the powers asked for in a Private Bill can be restricted, but they cannot be added to or extended. This I fully concede. Nevertheless, as I say, if it were entirely open to me, I should like to see the lock at the Bathurst Basin put back again. Although Parliament cannot do this, it may well be that Bristol Corporation may in time feel that from an amenity point of view it would be worth doing. I should like to leave that thought in the minds of members of the Corporation.
There is one other point which I feel would help to procure what I wanted in the first place, but which the Select Committee ruled out as being unnecessary; that is, that the prescribed dimensions of the craft should be slightly increased. The existing bridges across the Floating Harbour, with the exception of Prince Street Bridge, which swings, are 11 ft. above the water. The Corporation told the Select Committee that any future bridge to be built over the Floating Harbour would have a headroom of at least 11 ft. Why therefore limit craft of the "prescribed dimensions" to 9 ft.? There is no reason for this arbitrarily low figure and good reason for not having it. Sea-going cabin cruisers require more headroom than most little inland waterway craft. It seems to me a mistake to fix the height for bridges below what now exists or will exist. The same applies to the question of draft. Why limit the "prescribed dimensions" to 4 ft. 6in.—that is in Clause 4—when the present draft is already something like 20 ft.? It would cost very little more to dredge in years to come to 6 ft. 6 in. than to 4 ft. 6 in. Anyway, it will take a lifetime for the Floating Harbour to silt up to 6 ft. 6 in. The importance of good headroom as well as good draft is that it guarantees the sight of a variety of craft for the people of Bristol.
I said that I did not want to be greedy. Perhaps the three points to which I have referred were being greedy. The Petitioners have had a very great deal conceded to them, one might say almost all of what they asked; and they are entirely satisfied with the Bill as it now stands, with those very small exceptions.

119
I think my friends and I would agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we are satisfied with the Bill as amended. With that satisfaction and those very small points which I have added, which no doubt will be commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I commend this Bill to your Lordships and ask that it should be given a Third Reading.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, owing to the importance of this Bill and the interest disclosed on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the Committee felt that a Special Report should be made, and this is available to your Lordships. With hindsight, I think my noble friend's remark regarding a sketch to accompany the Report is valid, and I am sure that this will be noted for the future. I should like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their kind remarks regarding the Committee and also those who assisted in compiling the Report. A number of Petitioners withdrew, leaving one Petition jointly lodged by the Bristol Civic Society, the Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society, the Cabot Cruising Club and the South-Western Branch of the Inland Waterways Association.
The history of Bristol Docks goes back to the early days of the merchant adventurers, when there was a flourishing trade in tobacco, chocolate and copra. Since those days, Bristol has gradually turned its eyes more to industry rather than to maritime commerce, and the building of the docks at Avonmouth and Portishead sounded the knell for Bristol docks as a viable concern for oceangoing commercial ships. There was ample uncontested evidence to show that the losses in keeping the docks operational could no longer be considered as a commercial proposition. It was immediately evident to the Committee that the extinction of navigational rights for large ships after 1980 was in no way an issue in this Committee. The Corporation wished to make an exception in the case of social visits by tall ships, such as the training ship "Winston Churchill" and ships of the Royal Navy, which could enter via the Cumberland Basin.
As my noble friend has said, it is difficult to discuss the plans of the Corporation
120
without diagrams, but many of your Lordships will have a knowledge of Bristol and know that the River Avon runs South of the city in a canal called the New Cut, which, being tidal, is navigable at high tide but which at low tide is merely a trickle and hence has not been for many years of any value as a means of maritime transport. It is proposed in the Bill, and it is not contested by the Petitioners, that a barrage and lock should be constructed at the seaward end of the New Cut, which would ensure that occupants of pleasure craft who wished to by-pass Bristol would have a permanent access down to the Severn, subject to the tides on the Severn side of the barrage.
May I at this point explain that, as defined in the Bill, the Floating Harbour is kept at a static level by a lock at Cumberland Basin and that floating the New Cut will mean that the level of water will be maintained in spite of tidal differences which pertain at any one time. So far as the New Cut was concerned, the Committee felt that floating this would be a great advantage to the amenities of pleasure craft of the prescribed dimensions. Here may I say, in answer to one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me about the prescribed dimensions, that we had evidence from the Harbour Master that these dimensions were a safety factor in passing under some bridges and that it would be inadvisable, because of the tide, that they should be any higher. I am going back nine months now, but I think that was the explanation we had.
I do not propose to go in detail into the works to be done in the Floating Harbour, except to say that the clearance of the docks installations and the evidence as to the beautifying of the city appealed to the Committee and were not contested by the Petitioners. It would also appear that a fixed bridge across St. Augustine's Reach would assist to a great degree the traffic problem within the city, in the fact that it would help to clear traffic from Queen's Square and allow this to be converted into a pedestrian precinct, except for service roads adjacent to the houses.
Before continuing our journey through the Floating Harbour, I feel that I should say that there was apprehension by the Petitioners that the Corporation, on

121
extinguishing navigational rights, might consider filling in part of the harbour, to the detriment of pleasure craft. The Committee did not feel that this was a likely consideration, and in fact the Promoters tabled an Amendment to the Bill to ensure the right of way to pleasure craft. May I now follow the Floating Harbour through in an easterly direction, which brings me to St. Philip's Bridge. It was at this point that the Corporation proposed to terminate any movement of small craft. Beyond St. Philip's Bridge is St. Philip's Reach, which leads into two waterways, one going East and called the Feeder Canal and the other, the continuation of St. Philip's Reach, running South and joining the New Cut at Totterdown Lock, where at the present time there is no access for shipping into the New Cut.
Evidence was given regarding the Feeder Canal, and there could be no doubt that it was in bad repair and was in fact leaking. It was proposed in the Bill, and the Petitioners did not seriously contest this, that the Feeder Canal should be closed and filled in, so that a road-widening project could be brought into operation. The Committee concurred in this decision. It was at this stage that the Committee surmised that the continued navigation of St. Philip's Reach by pleasure craft and an entry into the New Cut were the main bone of contention in the Bill. It did not appear clear to the Committee what definite plans were visualised by the Corporation as to what they wished to do with this waterway, except that the extinguishing of all navigational rights would provide flexibility for the future planning of the road system of Bristol.
The Committee now felt that they should visit the site. They proceeded to Bristol on Monday evening, May 18, and spent the next day in the city. We should like to thank the Corporation for the excellent arrangements made for our comfort. We travelled by car and launch along the waterways of this beautiful city and got a good picture of the proposals in this Bill. The Committee sat again on Wednesday, May 20, and heard the final speeches of counsel for the Petitioners and for the Promoters. The Committee were not satisfied as to the technical position should they consider the retention
122
of St. Philip's Reach as a navigational channel for craft of the prescribed dimensions through Totterdown Lock. Counsel were therefore recalled and it was indicated to them that the Committee were minded to make this decision and required the assistance of both sides as to the technical position. The question was also put to counsel whether Work No. 5, being the entrance from the New Cut into the Floating Harbour through Bathurst Basin, would be required if the Committee decided to keep open St. Philip's Reach. Here may I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that in closing the Bathurst Basin the Committee felt that, having incurred rather a large expense in opening Totterdown Lock, we should then save the money on the entry into Bathurst Basin, and thus the overall amount of money spent on the whole project would be very little altered.
After a short adjournment for consideration, the Committee heard counsel on this subject and announced their opinion that the Bill should proceed with Amendments. The effect of the main Amendments is as follows. First, St. Philip's Reach is now included among the waterways which the Corporation will be statutorily required to keep open for craft of the prescribed dimensions. This means that the whole surface area of the existing Floating Harbour will remain as it is. The Corporation will now be empowered to close the Reach or to build a culvert at St. Philip's Bridge. Secondly, Totterdown Lock will be reopened so that boats will be able to pass from the New Cut into the Floating Harbour. This will provide an alternative way into the Harbour, instead of the present access through the Feeder Canal, which will disappear when the canal is closed.
The Bill, as amended, will ensure that the Floating Harbour is available as a through navigation in the future, even when the dock installations have gone after 1980. The Committee felt that in this way the main objectives of the Bill would be achieved and there would still be boat traffic passing through the heart of Bristol.
8.22 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what

123
has already been said, particularly because I was one of those who on Second Reading made what I think the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, still feels was a rather fierce speech. I am glad to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee, on this admirable Report. It certainly is one of the clearest Reports that we have had from a Select Committee. Unfortunately, we do not get many of them now.
I think the Report is valuable not only because it is so clear, but because of the conclusions to which the Committee came, after what was obviously a very careful consideration of the whole problem and a detailed inspection on the spot. I think it is a vindication of the method which we still use, although rather less frequently than in the past, on these matters in which amenity is in issue: it is a vindication of the Select Committee method of going about the business, because it means that a number of men of considerable experience and sensitivity bring detailed consideration to bear on matters of national importance. The result of this has been, I am sure, not only a much improved Bill but also a much improved situation, because the people of Bristol obviously feel that careful thought has been given to their problems. It is right that they should have this feeling as citizens of a very proud city. I feel also that the amenity interests over the whole country will feel a similar gratitude.
I approach the matter as one who has known Bristol for some time. It is a very fine city, one that holds its own as a matter of history and of beauty, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, emphasised, with many of the great historic ports and cities of Europe. It is not in the same class as the greatest capitals, but it is a town of really high value. It is from that point of view that I think this Report is so valuable, and the way it has been received in Bristol is greatly to be commended. We have not got all that we perhaps hoped to get—one seldom does. But we are getting a great deal. Not only is Bristol getting a great deal, but so also is England, because with a city like Bristol the interests of the nation as a whole have to be considered.
124
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it is a pity that the bridges are no longer to swing. I think that a timetable which would have obviated such continual interruption of traffic at the bridges as has occurred in the past would have been better. I am sorry that it may be difficult for the tall ships still to be seen from the City of Bristol. I remember, on the first occasion of a visit to Bristol, how surprised and gratified I was to see in the very middle of the city the mast of a tall ship. I had not realised at that stage that the magnificent Floating Harbour was there. It is one of the great engineering feats of possibly the greatest of our 19th century engineers, Brunel, and is certainly a living memory to his genius. I hope that Bristol will see its way to ensure that these tall ships will still be visible from the streets and squares of Bristol. But even if that cannot be done, I feel that what has been done represents a considerable contribution not only to the amenities of the city of Bristol itself, but to the increasingly valuable hobby of sailing small boats, not merely in our inland waterways but around our coasts. This is a spendid sport, and one that is, I am sure, contributing a great deal to the health and adventurous spirit of our young people, and also to the national historic welfare as a whole. I congratulate the Committee, and I am glad to know that this Bill is going through.
8.27 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I feel that we shall now send the Bill to another place with blessings. It seems to me that what we have done this evening is to demonstrate that the democratic process has worked and will be seen to have worked. Our Second Reading debate—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was quite right to say that I thought he was very fierce with me—is on record for people to see that he was very upset about what he felt were the provisions of the Bill. I am glad that he is happier now. This is how things should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a fuss. I am delighted that he should now receive some of the congratulations. He made a fuss and has been instrumental in preserving the whole of the Floating

125
Harbour. I do not want to be churlish, but I must say that the Promoters originally proposed to cut off only a small part of the Floating Harbour; now, of course, we are not going to cut off any. The Feeder Canal is a horrible place; it has not been saved, and I am glad about that.
I am not going to reply to Lord Henley's three points: that it should be a mandatory duty to swing the Cumberland Basin Bridges; that he wished it was possible to reinstate the lock from the new cutting to the Bathurst Basin; and that he would prefer the prescribed dimensions to be a little larger. He is quite right in thinking that to reinstate what was Work No. 5, which is now no longer in the Bill, would be an extension of powers, and I am advised that it would not be possible for one House to take out a power like that and for the other House to put it in again. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to whom we are very grateful for giving us a Sunday Times-like "Insight " as to how the Committee worked, was very interesting and fascinating. What he has said may be true in this case. He has removed the main bone of contention regarding St. Philip's Reach. Now I hope everybody will enjoy St. Philip's Reach, and will go and boat there. Some people may count how many people actually boat there, but that is neither here nor there at the moment. We shall have the New Cut, although nobody has been able to say what it will look like, which will now have the new barrage down at the Under-fall Yard, and the dam removed up at the other end, at Netham. The New Cut will no longer be a very utilitarian Victorian ditch—early Victorian, 1803—to take the tidal water. Instead of the very thick cocoa-like stuff which now comes in from the Bristol Channel—and which seems to us when the tide ebbs to leave only a little sewage—there will be river water. There will no longer be this thick "cocoa" coming in from the Bristol Channel. It is extremely thick, and you only have to look over the new suspension bridge to see how thick it can be. It will now be fresh water; it will now be the Avon coming down, and it will be navigable. The old constructed harbour originally was the course of the Avon and the Frome, and was then turned into an artificial harbour, with the Avon
126
diverted down the New Cut. Now the New Cut will be full of fresh water, fish and boats, and Lord Henley's children will be playing on the marina; the Floating Harbour will no longer have the commercial docks, and we shall really have a most beautiful centre to the city of Bristol. It has been rather expensive to provide all this amenity, but the expenditure has no doubt been right and proper in a great commercial city.
I anticipate from what I have heard this evening that this Bill is likely to proceed to another place, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed, and stayed late to do so tonight, and to put on record their appreciation of the work carried out by the Select Committee in the preparation of their Special Report.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SCOTTISH RENT LAWS
8.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Scottish rent laws could be so altered that tenants and private landlords can enter into a lease, or renew a lease for a contracted number of years with the rent officer acting as arbiter. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I would ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House on this my maiden speech, particularly as I am initiating a debate. This is, however, the fruit of two years' research.
My Lords, the subject matter of this question really applies to the whole of Britain and I am seeking the opinions of as wide a section of your Lordships' House as I can; but I must, because of the maze of Rent Acts and other Acts applying to rents in Scotland, limit my field to the rural areas of Scotland. I should like at this stage to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for introducing the consolidation of the Rent Acts in Scotland. I shall refer to the new consolidated Rent Act as the "1970 Act". From the first Rent Act of 1915 circumstances have changed, and legislation has been introduced which gives the tenant either complete security of tenure or no security at all.
Let me assure your Lordships that, because of the rent laws in private property, there are people who are unable to get accommodation when there are, close to them, cottages standing empty. There are people who are tenants living in one half of a county and working in another part of that county who have no opportunity whatever of getting accommodation nearer to their work; they are prisoners in their houses. There are landlords who would like to have a rented house back in hand for an employee or a relative, or even for themselves, but who have no hope of ever getting their house back in hand.
Let me illustrate this statement, but first let me remind those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with all the implications of the Rent Acts that many of the sections, particularly those giving security of tenure, do not apply to houses or fiats owned by a local authority, the Scottish Special Housing Association, a New Town Development Corporation, or other housing associations, as well as a few specific cases where a house is in private ownership. The procedure for a person wishing a local authority house is that he must be domiciled in that authority's area, or employed in that area—in most cases for not less than one year—before his name can be entered on the waiting list. Even after his name has been entered on the list, a further waiting period of two years may be involved.
My Lords, I should like you to consider what you would have done if you had been in my position a year ago. I do not want to bring personal experiences into your Lordships' House, but I have found no better example. A married man, with two young children, had been living in England for some years and very much wanted to move back to Scotland. He had been offered an ordinary job in my county, but as he had not previously lived in that area he was not eligible to be considered for a local authority house until he had lived there for one year; and then after his name was on the housing list he would probably have to wait at least a further two years. I had a house which I wanted to reserve for a maintenance worker when my present maintenance worker retired, and I was prepared to let this family
128
have this house during the intervening period.
I have taken a serious and expensive risk, possibly ending in court. If I entered into a contracted lease for four years (which is the maximum period of time I can spare that house), the tenant would have every right at the end of that period, under the Rent Acts, to convert that contracted tenancy to a regulated tenancy which would provide not only him with complete security for the rest of his lifetime, but his children as well. If I transfer the registration of the rates to his name then I have acknowledged him as tenant, and if I had to take him to court to regain possession, the court would evict him only if it was satisfied that I was suffering the greater hardship. I could seek no protection under Section 14 of the 1965 Rent Act for owner/occupiers, because I had not actually lived in the house; nor under Section 16, because the person I wanted the house for was not covered by the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949.
I cannot afford to let that man live there both rent-free and rates-free, but again I must be careful. The court would almost automatically evict him under Section 12(7) of the 1920 Rent Act, or Section 2 of the proposed 1970 Act, if I did not charge him a rent of more than two-thirds of the rateable value that was applicable in 1965—which means that, to safeguard myself, the maximum contribution towards the rates payable by this tenant is only £8, whereas the present rateable value is £30. So he is not only living rent-free, but is contributing only about one-third of the rates.
My Lords, would you in similar circumstances have let this family have this House? I had not the heart to see that family living in "digs", or being prevented from returning to Scotland. But I may still end up in court when I want that house back in hand.
Next I should like your Lordships to consider the case of a tenant being a prisoner in his own house. In most counties, and certainly in my own, an engaged couple are not considered eligible to have their names entered on the house waiting-list for a local authority house, and can enter their name only after they are married. There is a great demand for two-apartment houses, so they usually have to wait three years. I provided such

129
a couple with a cottage—and there are in rural Scotland a number of two-apartment cottages at present standing empty. The husband has to travel 15 miles to his work, almost to the other end of the county. If he became a statutory tenant he would not then be considered for a local authority house, because most authorities would regard him as adequately housed; whereas, if he had been a council tenant, he could have put his name on a transfer list for another part of that county closer to his work. The result is that he does not want to become a regulated tenant; and it was agreed between us that no rent should be paid.
How nice it would have been if he and I could have entered into a contract for a lease of three years, with a rent fixed by the rent officer. He would then have been living under a restricted tenancy, which would not have excluded him from a council house, and I should have been reimbursed in rent and rates. Nothing in any of the Rent Acts allows us to do this with any security to me. So this is a case where a private tenant can so easily become a prisoner in his house. Yet I know of a man who sold his house, moved into rooms, demanded a council house and got a council house. At present there are almost no facilities enabling a council tenant living in one burgh to seek a council house in another burgh, and an applicant for a local authority house is forbidden by most authorities to have his name on any other burgh or county housing list.
The next case I should like your Lordships to consider is that of a house owner. It is quite common for headmasters or janitors of local authority schools to be compelled to live in a school house, or for employees in bridge building firms or other public works contractors to live in other areas than they would eventually like to retire in. I shall assume that these people would like to retire to Ayrshire. I know quite a number of contractors who buy and sell houses fairly regularly as they move from contract to contract around the country, and it is not uncommon for a head teacher or a janitor to transfer from one school to another. A headmaster or a contractor, or such person not domiciled in any one area, is usually earning a good salary and could easily, but for the
130
rent laws, obtain a mortgage while he is working, to build or buy a house for his future requirements; but, as we all know, it is very difficult for a person to obtain a mortgage after he is retired. Many of these people have said to me how much they would like to buy or build a house for their eventual retirement and let it for the period of years that they did not require it.
In the case of a headmaster, who would be paying an ordinary rent for a school house and would be automatically evicted if he left his job, if he had bought or built his house in Ayrshire, and let it, he might on the grounds of hardship persuade the court to allow him to gain possession of his house back again. But in the case of a contractor who might have had a house in Bedfordshire, the courts, if they followed the wording of the Rent Act, would not grant him possession of his house in Ayrshire, on the grounds that he already possessed a house. So, what happens? The headmaster who possesses, as many do, a house of his own, if it is mortgaged has to sell it, because the mortgagors would not allow him to let it, and when he retires he gets a council house from the last authority he worked for. The contractor also sells his house if he is keen to move to Ayrshire, then moves into rooms for the domiciliary period, and gets a council house.
Here, my Lords, is a case where two families who might have been able to rent a house for possibly 15 years are being deprived of accommodation. But, what is worse, here are two families retiring into council property who should be living in their own homes. Even under the Consolidated Rent Act 1970, in Schedule 3, case 12, possession of a manse or vicarage can be obtained only by a minister of religion; but this section does not cover the case of anybody else who is necessary for the efficient running of the church. Yet quite recently a gravedigger employed by a local authority was sacked and evicted from his house, although he was paying a rent well over the gross annual value.
Having criticised the Rent Acts, I shall now describe how I should like to have them improved in a way which would give the tenant security of tenure, but would also make it possible for private

131
lairds to rent their property without the serious pitfalls and hardships which exist at present. This is, briefly, that a clause should be inserted into the Rent Acts to allow a tenant and landlord to enter into a lease, or renew a lease, for a contracted number of years without resultant further security of tenure. It might read something like this:
"A tenant and landlord shall be permitted to enter into or renew a lease for a contracted number of years, which shall be registered with the rent officer, under the following conditions:

(i) In the case of a new lease that lease shall be for a period of not less than two years.

(ii) In the case of an existing regulated tenancy for the remaining number of years of that lease, or 14 years, whichever is the greater period of years, and if at the end of the contracted or existing tenancy the tenant will then he over 65 years old the lease shall be extended for the tenant's lifetime only.

(iii) If an improvement grant has been obtained through either a local authority or other Government approved scheme which was contributed to equally by the tenant and landlord, such a contracted lease shall be for a period of not less than 14 years from the date when the grant was paid and again if the tenant will be over 65 years old at the end of this contracted lease, this contracted lease shall be extended for the rest of the tenant's lifetime.

(iv) If the tenant is at present or at any future period carrying out and paying for all repairs, then no such terminating contract shall be permitted.

(v) Provided that in the case of the tenant the lease shall not be extended beyond the contracted number of years without permission being given in writing from the landlord, but that the tenant may give notice to quit at any time under the conditions already existing in the Rent Acts."

If your Lordships accept my recommendations, I am sure that many estate owners in Scotland would then allow their tenant farmers to sub-let any of the farm cottages under a contracted lease. But at present many of the tenant farmers are not permitted to sub-let any of their cottages, and many of these cottages are falling into disrepair, because only the landlord is covered by Section 16 of the Rent Act 1965, and the position of the tenant farmer was not very clear until case 15 of Schedule III of the Consolidated Rent Act 1970 made this position clear.
Some noble Lords may feel that my proposals defeat the purpose of providing
132
a tenant with security of tenure, and that people should not be allowed to contract out of the law. In this case I hope that I have illustrated how I should like people to contract into the law, because at present the rent laws either give the tenant complete security of tenure or no security at all, and, as I have already stated, a local authority or housing association is expressly excluded from these Acts and has the power to move or evict tenants. A private landlord has no such powers, and I am not asking that he should, except at the expiry of the regulated contract period.
In the cases I have illustrated I am not thinking of the man who can afford to buy his house. I am thinking of the ordinary man who does not have much money behind him and who can only afford to rent a house. I am also thinking of the man who would like to buy or build a house in the area in which he would eventually like to retire but who cannot get a mortgage because he will not be moving into the property immediately, and who cannot let the house during the period that he does not require it, because of the rent laws.
Let me put this whole matter into a nutshell. If a clause could be inserted into the Rent Acts whereby a willing landlord and a willing tenant could agree to enter into a lease for a contracted period of years, with the rent officer acting as arbiter, I am certain that no rural cottages would remain vacant and that Her Majesty's Government would, by this one clause, do more to prevent the depopulation of rural Scotland and the Highlands than any other thing I can suggest. I thank your Lordships for listening to this speech.
8.53 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is the pleasing custom of your Lordships' House that a succeeding speaker should regard it as his first duty to congratulate the maker of a maiden speech, no matter what he may think of the content of that speech. I am certain that there must have been occasions in the past when this weighed rather heavily on the consciences of some people. The fact that I do not agree with what the noble Earl has said and the remedy he proposes does not in any way detract from the pleasure I have had in listening to him,

133
and I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that it has indeed been a delight to listen to a speech resulting from a great deal of hard study and an attempt to find a solution to a problem which undoubtedly exists.
The fact that I do not agree with the noble Earl's solution does not mean that I differ from him in the facts which he has placed before your Lordships. It is undoubtedly the case that there are houses in the country parts of Scotland which are difficult to let because of the circumstances which the noble Earl has recounted. However, in a country where still the majority of people live in rented accommodation, the houses which are standing empty in rural parts form a very small minority of the total number of houses available for renting in Scotland. If one knew for certain that the landlords of Scotland were all animated by the same kindly thoughts as the noble Earl has given voice to this evening, then we could take the kind of risks that he suggests; but it is a fact of life that many of the properties in Scotland are not in the possession of landlords like the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In fact, in many cases they are not in the possession of individuals at all but are in the possession of companies whose desire it is to maximise the profit which they can get from this perfectly legitimate commercial enterprise, but one which is not necessarily in the interests of their existing or their would-be tenants.
I do not know that we ever suffered from the worst aspects of the letting of property that came to be known in this part of the world as "Rachmanism", but we did have some landlords who approached that kind of attitude, and there are some property companies in Scotland whose reputation is perhaps not of the best. They may be in the minority, but unfortunately in some of these cases they own large numbers of houses. If we were to accept the solution put forward by the noble Earl, it would not be merely the kindly disposed who would take advantage of it. In fact, it would be an open door to the abandonment of the Rent Acts entirely so far as these people were concerned.
None of these people, when giving a new tenancy, would contemplate for one moment entering into a tenancy which
134
would become a regulated tenancy. Every one of these houses would be let on a lease for a period of two years, three years, five years—whatever it might be—and at the end of that time, no matter how great the need of the tenant, no matter how great the difficulty he might have in getting alternative accommodation, he would have no right to remain in the house, and no court could, or would, give him protection in those circumstances. So what the noble Earl suggests would be to remove the undoubted difficulty of—I would go so far as to say remove the undoubted injustice which is being done to—a small minority of people, by placing at hazard a very large number of people, particularly in our cities where housing is still in short supply, where many people are still living in houses totally unfit for habitation. Their chances of getting not merely a council house but a decent house in private ownership would be very much diminished it anything of this kind were done.
I do not for one moment expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, will be able to give any assurances to the noble Earl that amendment of the law along these lines could be forthcoming. I am certain that if she does she will then have a battle on her hands very reminiscent of the battle over the Rent Acts in the 1950s, and I am sure that the Government have enough trouble on their plate at the present time without searching the highways and byways of Scotland for new ways of getting more. However, in conclusion, I would say to the noble Earl that he is to be congratulated on having applied so much thought to this subject. If it is the view of your Lordships generally, as it is mine, that he has come up with the wrong solution, he should not be dismayed, but perhaps look around and try to find another solution which does not transfer the difficulties to a much greater number of people in other parts of the country. Whether he does so or not, I hope that having ventured into speaking in your Lordships' House and having done so in the difficult way of asking this Unstarred Question, he will be encouraged by the reception which we have given him, and will be led to favour us frequently in future with his contributions.
8.59 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on his maiden speech; and in particular I would congratulate him on the enormous amount of research into which he has quite clearly gone in what is a very difficult and complex branch of the law. Indeed, I think it is a subject that often defeats many professional lawyers, and it is for that reason that I was particularly grateful that he was good enough to send me a copy of his speech. I would say to him—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hughes has said—that I am sure the whole House will be grateful to him for having gone into this subject, which affects so many people so intimately, so carefully, with all his knowledge, as I understand it, of eight years on his own County Council and on the housing committee. That knowledge showed through all his speech and, as I say, I am sure the House as a whole will be grateful to him and will wish to consider more carefully the various questions which he has raised to-day.
I think the noble Earl has chosen rather a good time to make his maiden speech, because, as your Lordships know, a Bill consolidating the Rent Acts for Scotland is now before your Lordships' House, and in addition a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Francis, which was established by the previous Government to review the workings of the Rent Act 1965, has just reported to Ministers, and the Report will be published in about a month. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that in considering this Report, we will take very carefully into account the various matters of great concern which he has raised.
His speech, of course, had one clear purpose: to ensure that houses now standing empty can be used. The tenor of the noble Earl's argument has been that the Rent Acts, in seeking to give security to tenants, had gone too far, and that some amendment should be made to meet the particular problem which he detailed with such care. Perhaps I should first make clear to whom the Rent Acts apply. Your Lordships will recall that they apply to houses owned by the nationalised industries in exactly the same way as they apply to houses owned by
136
private landlords. They do not, however, apply to houses owned by local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, the New Town Development Corporations or housing associations. In Scotland, however, no tenant, whoever his landlord may be, can be evicted without a court order. This, I am proud to say, has been the law of Scotland since 1555. It applies to local authorities and to the S.S.H.A., as to any other landlord. Of course, the sheriff is bound to grant an order for possession, provided that the local authority has served the proper notice to quit. Perhaps I should just say, in passing, that the English came into line only in 1965, over 400 years later.
The Rent Acts have always had two interlinked functions: to control increases in rents and to give tenants security of tenure. The purpose of giving tenants security of tenure is to make effective the limitations of rents and to prevent the landlord from avoiding rent restriction by evicting the tenant. As the noble Earl has pointed out, one of the effects of security of tenure for the tenant is to discourage landlords from letting houses which otherwise would become available. The problem is without doubt a very real one, and the difficulty is to find a right balance. The object must be, in the country as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has pointed out, to prevent tenants from being unreasonably evicted while at the same time enabling landlords to obtain possession of their own houses.
The noble Earl suggests that a landlord and tenant should be able to enter into a contract for a lease for a definite period, with the rent officer acting as arbiter. There is nothing in the present laws to prevent contractual tenancy when the tenant eventually leaves at the end of the agreed period. But, of course, the problem arises if the tenant refuses to leave and then becomes a statutory tenant, with security for himself, his widow and children. If an amendment on the lines suggested by the noble Earl were made to the Rent Acts, it would in effect enable people to contract out of the Rent Acts; and it would clearly be very difficult to draft an amendment that would at the same time give adequate protection to tenants. It is therefore for this reason, and because we have to consider the laws as they affect the whole country, not only the rural areas but also

137
the industrial areas, that I am afraid I cannot say to-night that the Government have considered what really would be a major change in the Rent Acts and one that would affect security of tenure.
The noble Earl has done us all a service, because he has given the House an opportunity to give their opinion on the subject, and perhaps read this debate at leisure and consider it again. The noble Earl also mentioned the very important problem of a house that is bought or built by a man for his own occupation after retirement, and who cannot gain possession of it if he has let it without first having lived in it himself. When the Rent Act 1965 was going through Parliament, this matter was extensively debated in both Houses, and your Lordships inserted a clause to allow such a house to be repossessed when required. That clause was removed in another place, but the Government of the day expressed considerable sympathy with its object. In the debate in your Lordships' House the late Lord Mitchison said that the then Government had made great efforts to find a formula but had failed. I can assure the noble Earl that we will certainly look at this problem again and, difficult though it is, see whether it is possible to devise a way of meeting the problem which he has raised.
The noble Earl also asked about estate houses, and whether landlords could not be put in the same position in relation to estate houses for maintenance workers as they are now in relation to houses for agricultural workers. Under Section 16
138
of the Rent Act 1965, an agricultural cottage let to someone other than an agricultural worker can be recovered when it is required for such a worker, provided that the tenant has been given notice that this may happen. The Government will certainly examine the noble Earl's suggestion that the definition of an agricultural worker might include other estate workers such as those engaged on maintenance.
The noble Earl mentioned restrictions on the allocation of local authority houses, but there is nothing in the Rent Acts or in the Housing Acts, or in any directions of Government, which prevents a local authority from providing houses for those people he mentioned if they wish to do so. The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, in their report called Allocating Council Houses recommended strongly that residential qualification requirements should be abolished and that the current housing need in each individual case should be the overriding criterion in allocations.
The noble Earl has given us an opportunity to consider some very important questions. I should like to say that I am grateful to him for that opportunity and for the fair way in which he has addressed himself to a very difficult and what can be a very politically controversial subject. I would only add that we shall study carefully all that he has said, and that we all hope that it will not be long before we hear from him again.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.