Sitting of 2 June 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time and passed.

  ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 21st June.
PETITION

  Houses, Leyton (Rents)
  Mr. Sorensen: I desire to present a humble Petition of the Lea Bridge Tenants' Association of my constituency, the Borough of Leyton, and it is addressed to the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  It is in respect of the grievances of 83 of my constituents in the Borough of Leyton who are among the decontrolled tenants in an estate of 750 working-class flats recently acquired by a property investment company that has demanded from those tenants increase in rents of from 150 to 200 per cent.
  In addition to the 83 signatories are the signatures of the 17 members of the committee of the Lea Bridge Tenants' Association on behalf of its full membership and of 3,413 persons whose signatures of support to this Petition I am forwarding separately to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  In respect of this drastic increase the Petitioners conclude:
  Your Petitioners feel that this is unjust and abuse of the Rent Act, 1957, and that it runs counter to the purpose for which the Act was intended.
  1606
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this House will take steps to secure such an amelioration of the conditions aforementioned that real hardship may be avoided.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    Further Education, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education what discussions have taken place between his Department and Staffordshire Local Education Authority about the project for a college of further education in Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what steps will be taken to provide permanent accommodation for further education in the borough.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): As the hon. Member is aware, a full discussion of this project is to take place between representatives of the local education authority and my Department on 27th June. I hope this talk will prove useful.
    Mr. SwinglerWhile thanking the Minister for offering to receive this deputation, may I ask him whether he will ensure that on that occasion he hears the voice of the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme where there is at the moment such serious discontent with the present balance of further education facilities on the site of the Clayton Hall Grammar School? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Newcastle-under-Lyme is well represented?
    Sir D. Eccles: That and all other considerations will be taken into account.

    Grants to Students (Report)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the Anderson Report.
    Mr. Hornbyasked the Minister of Education whether he is yet in a position to announce the date of publication of the Anderson Report.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Report of the Committee on Grants to Students, appointed in 1958 by the Secretary of State for Scotland and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd), is being published today and copies are available in the Vote Office.
    The Report brings out how complicated the subject is and what difficult issues of finance and administration it raises. Of these issues the decision relating to the means test is a matter for the Government. On others we shall need to obtain the views of universities, local authorities and schools and we are arranging to do this immediately, so that the Government's decisions can be announced as soon as possible. I ought to tell the House that the earliest date by which any new arrangements could be introduced is the autumn of 1961.
    In the meantime, I am sure that the House would want to join with the Secretary of State and myself in thanking Sir Colin Anderson and his colleagues for the thorough, careful manner in which they have dealt with so many acutely controversial issues.
    Mrs. White: We on this side of the House would, of course, wish to associate ourselves with the expression of thanks to Sir Colin Anderson and his colleagues. In the nine minutes since the Report was available my study of it has been cursory.
    Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House attach very considerable importance to any decision made being on a fully national basis so that students will not be deprived in future, as many have been in the past, according to the location in which they happen to live?
    Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, important as grants to university students may be, we also attach considerable importance to the maintenance of children at school beyond the age of 15, because if they are not enabled to remain at school beyond 15 they will have no chance at all of taking advantage of any decisions made on university grants?
    I think it would be advisable if we kept other comments until we have had time to study the Report.
    Sir D. Eccles: I sympathise with the hon. Lady, who has done well in nine minutes. We also agree that the question of uniformity as between one student and another in England, Wales and Scotland is a very important matter. Naturally, we feel that grammar school education is the foundation of university students, but it does not come under this Report. We shall consider that separately.
    Mr. Hornby: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of having a debate in this House on this subject, as well as discussing the recommendations with local authorities, universities and others? Will he discuss this suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will talk it over with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As the decisions to implement this cannot be made until 1961, does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in a position yet to decide whether the means test should exist or not? Would he consider, in arriving at that decision, whether it could be made retrospective to 1960?
    Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps do well to read the Report. He will see that there is a division of opinion about the means test and a very difficult question of administration arises on taking either one decision or the other.
    Sir J. Duncan: In considering the Report, will my right hon Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland try to arrange things in future so that Scottish students get roughly uniform treatment with English students? There has been a feeling in the past that English students have been doing better than Scottish students in the amount of national help received.
    Sir D. Eccles: That is one of the matters that arises in the Report. The Committee is quite firm in its recommendation that the three parts of the United Kingdom should receive the same treatment. I think my hon. Friend can take it that we accept that.
    Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, when he is conducting consultations

    1609
    with various authorities, he will also consult those who are very closely concerned—the National Union of Students?
    Sir D. Eccles: I cannot be sure about that. The National Union of Students is always making submissions to me, and I would be very glad to hear what it has to say. We are very pressed for time if we are to legislate early next Session.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education if he will now award adequate dependant's allowances to all categories of training college students.
    Sir D. Eccles: I shall be examining the whole field of grants to students, including dependant's grants, in the light of the report of the Anderson Committee.
    Mr. Boyden: Is there any reason why mature students taking three year courses should not have the same treatment as mature students taking two-year courses? Is this not an anomaly which could be removed at the stroke of a pen?
    Sir D. Eccles: It may be better to consider the whole range of awards to teacher training colleges.
    Mr. Greenwood: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the principle that there should be uniformity of treatment between these two classes of people who are in exactly the same financial position? There is a growing sense of injustice on the part of some of these students.
    Sir D. Eccles: I will look at this problem urgently.

    Teachers
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have not been able to recruit sufficient teachers to reach their January, 1960, quota.
    Sir D. Eccles: Provisional figures show that in January, 1960, 54 local education authorities were 1 per cent. or more below their quota. This is slightly better than last year.
    Mr. Boyden: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he is taking to carry out the suggestion of the Crowther Report that some experiments should be made to see what effect financial inducements will have in steering teachers to under-staffed areas?
    Sir D. Eccles: A system of differential allowances according to area would be very difficult to operate.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Education what inquiries he has made into the effect of the aggregation of incomes for taxation on the number of married women prepared to return to teaching in schools or training colleges.
    Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir.
    Mrs. White: As the right hon. Gentleman makes a stronger appeal to married women than, I should think, any of his Ministerial colleagues, with the possible exception of the Minister of Health, would he not consider taking the initiative, perhaps with some voluntary organizations, to make an inquiry into this matter? This affects not only teachers and the staff of training colleges, but also school dentists and school architects, of whom there appears to be a chronic shortage, which he uses as an excuse on many occasions for not being able to undertake certain works. There is a strong feeling among organisations of professional women that this is a serious factor. Would he look into this, because it affects the supply of highly qualified professional married women?
    Sir D. Eccles: The recruitment of architects and dentists lies outside my responsibilities, but the head of the School of Social Studies at Sheffield University is now undertaking an examination into the wastage of women teachers. We are giving him all the help that we can, and no doubt some interesting information will come out of it.
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Education what steps he proposes to take to include the widows and orphans of teachers in the Teachers Superannuation Scheme.
    Sir D. Eccles: Provision is already made for this in the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1956, but the teachers have so far felt unable to agree to a scheme in the form provided for in that Act.
    Mr. Fitch: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme in its present form is entirely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that widespread representations have been made to local education

    1611
    authorities on this matter? Does he not also agree that when a man has served a lifetime in a profession which is not too well paid he should at least feel that in the event of his death his widow is provided for?
    Sir D. Eccles: When the Act was introduced we thought that this provision would be worth taking up by the teachers, but they have decided otherwise. I agree that if we had endless finance it would be a very good thing.
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Education what plans he has to solve the staffing problems, which will occur during the year 1962–63 as a result of the introduction of the three-year training course for teachers.
    Sir D. Eccles: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary outlined our plans during the debate on the Crowther Report. I am holding a conference in July with representatives of the local authorities, teachers and others concerned to encourage speedy action.

    School Pupils (Political Allegiances)
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at a school, details of which have been supplied to him, security officers have interviewed the headmaster and brought pressure to bear upon him to ascertain from his sixth form pupils the nature of their political allegiances; and what guidance he will give to principals of schools to ensure that, when any approaches of this kind are made, both principals and pupils are aware of the proper procedure for dealing with them.
    Sir D. Eccles: I looked into this as soon as I heard of it. The headmaster of the school assured me that the statements made in the first part of the Question are entirely without foundation and that no inquiries have been made about boys still in the school. No guidance from me is, therefore, required.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is rather worse than I had expected? I am informed that this matter arose in the following way: there is no doubt that the headmaster interrogated one class of the lower sixth—containing about 27
    1612
    boys—about their political affiliations, telling them, for instance, that they should not wear the badge of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and warning them of the danger of holding left-wing views. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that subsequently, when parents and boys protested to the headmaster, he told them that one of the reasons he had asked them about their political affiliations was because he had been asked to do so by M.I.5?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have supporting evidence for this which I would be glad to show him privately? Finally, is it not, in any case, highly improper that headmasters should ask questions of this kind, whether they are prompted to do so by the police or anybody else?
    Sir D. Eccles: What advice on the facts of life a headmaster gives to his pupils is entirely within the province of the headmaster.[HoN. MEMBERS:
    "Nonsense".] A headmaster is entitled to say to his pupils that in his opinion, this or that is not good for them in the rest of their lives. He is entitled to do that, and the Minister has no control over that whatever—and I am sure that the House would not wish me to have any control. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, if he will send me the information, I will, of course, look into it.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that this must be the first time that a Minister of Education has enunciated the principle that it is perfectly proper for a headmaster to seek to interfere with the political view of his pupils? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the complaint made by my hon. Friend and seek to ensure that the Prime Minister will represent to the security authorities that, if any steps of this kind have been taken, any information obtained in this way will immediately be expunged from the records?
    Sir D. Eccles: The headmaster informed me—as, I think, I said in my original answer—that no inquiries were made about boys in the school. [Interruption.] It is common practice when a young man seeks an appointment with the Atomic Energy Authority for inquiries to be made into his past political affiliations.
    Mr. Grimond: When the Minister says that no inquiries have been made about boys still in the school, will he make it clear that this is not to be taken as casting any imputation on boys who have just left the school? Is that his intention, or were the inquiries of a more normal sort?
    Sir D. Eccles: It does not cast any aspersion on anybody who has left the school, but it is routine practice when an appointment to a security job is being made to inquire into the antecedents of the person.
    Mr. Peart: Is not the Minister aware that no headmaster in any school should interfere with the political views or liberties of a student in the school, either inside it or outside? Will he give an assurance that the Ministry of Education would disapprove of any interference with that fundamental liberty by police, M.I.5, or any other organisation?
    Sir D. Eccles: Of course, I give an assurance as to interference with liberty, but in education some advice is given about different things the whole time. That, under our system, is left to the headmaster.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that we cannot debate this now.
    Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that in view of this very unsatisfactory answer from the Minister on the threat to the liberty of the subject, I shall take steps to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Rockets (U.S.S.R. Achievements)
    .Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, what recent reports he has received from the Scientific Attaché at Her Majesty's Embassy in Moscow regarding the latest Russian achievements in the sphere of rocket projection.
    Sir D. Eccles: Rocket propulsion is generally regarded as a military subject and lies outside the field of the Scientific Attaché.
    Dr. Johnson: As my noble Friend the Minister of Science must receive infor-
    1614
    mation of some kind which is of interest both to himself and to us all, would my right hon. Friend none the less consider issuing an authoritative statement from time to time assessing Russian performance with rockets? Many people would have considered that of particular value at the time of the U2 incident in giving us all some guidance in assessing both the truth of the incident and the Russian performance at the time.
    Sir D. Eccles: I will inform my noble Friend of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Electronic Equipment Orders (Scotland)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the orders placed by Government Departments for electronic equipment, currently, goes to firms in Scotland; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by Scottish companies in this matter; and whether he will take immediate steps to increase the Scottish proportion.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The form in which records are kept does not make this information readily available. I understand that a few Scottish firms have complained about Scotland's share of orders, but in the placing of Government contracts preference is given to development districts, and we shall continue to operate these arrangements.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Economic Secretary look at this again, as I understand that the manufacturers of this equipment in Scotland have complained to the Department about the lack of orders being given to Scottish firms? Will he, at least, see that more work of this nature from the nationalised industries goes to Scotland?
    Mr. Barber: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are two schemes. There is what is known as the general preference scheme, and there is the special preference scheme. I will not weary the House with the details of the schemes now, but a great deal is done for these development areas. If the hon. Member has any specific complaint, I should be very happy to look into it.

    Unemployment, Scotland
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. HECTOR HUGHES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that unemployment in Scotland has risen during the past few weeks with consequent urgency in the need to attract new industries; and what special financial facilities he therefore plans to rectify these industrial and employment disabilities.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that a Question should remain on the Order Paper unasked, when it is demonstrably untrue?
    Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member puts down a Question, he takes responsibility for the fact.
    Sir T. Moore: Then the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) should be here to ask it.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not for me.

    British Museum
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether as a result of the talks that have taken place at No. 10 Downing Street with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum, the Lord Chancellor, an ex-officio Trustee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Works, he will announce the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to assisting the requirements of the British Museum for rebuilding and expansion.
    Mr. Barber: The policy of Her Majesty's Government will continue to be to meet the agreed needs of the British Museum as rapidly as resources permit.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does the Economic Secretary realise that that reply will be regarded as very disappointing? Is he not aware that there is urgent need for the Trustees of the British Museum to be able to commence operations in connection with the proposed National Library on the site that has been designated for that purpose? Can we now have an assurance that those responsible, including the Minister of Works, will take the necessary steps to acquire the site in order that this much-needed expansion can begin?
    Mr. Barber: As a result of the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question, it is proposed that discussions should take place between the Trustees and Government representatives covering, among other things, the timing of the various building and reconstruction works to which he refers.

    Go-Karts (Tax)
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of Purchase Tax charged on the wholesale value of go-karts used for racing purposes in this country.
    Mr. Barber: Go-karts are taxable at 50 per cent. of their wholesale value.
    Mr. Hilton: Is it not the fact that other articles of sports equipment, such as tennis racquets, hockey sticks, football gear and the like are not subject to the tax? As go-kart racing is comparatively new and mainly a working-man's sport, will he consider reducing or removing Purchase Tax from go-karts to bring them into line with other sporting articles? Will he also bear in mind that the manufacture of these go-karts is a most useful light industry and would be encouraged if Purchase Tax were removed?
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a Question on this subject, asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) on 10th May. My right hon. Friend said in his Answer that he did not feel able to recommend a reduction in the rate of tax on go-karts, and I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Would my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider this matter again? Is he aware that this is a very new industry in this country and that a 50 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax makes it extremely difficult for it to become established? Is he further aware that this industry is starting in areas of high unemployment, that there is a large potential export market, and that this high rate of Purchase Tax is reducing home sales, reducing production, and making it very difficult to reduce manufacturing costs in order to compete with the longer-developed American market?
    Mr. Barber: I will certainly convey my hon. Friend's observations to the Chancellor, but I must repeat that only a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the matter and to express views on it.

    Business Firms (Payments to Political Parties)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent payments made by firms to political parties are now regarded by the Inland Revenue as a legitimate business expense for tax purposes.
    Mr. Barber: Payments to political parties are not regarded as a deductible expense.

    House Building
    Mr. Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to spend a smaller proportion of the country's financial resources on building council houses this year compared with last year and with 1954, respectively; and what methods he proposes to use to achieve this purpose.
    Mr. Barber: The number of local authority houses completed in 1960 should be appreciably higher than in 1959. The fall in local authority house building since 1954 reflects the Government's successes in overcoming the housing need in many areas away from the big cities, and also in encouraging house ownership.
    The level of local authority house building is taken into account in considering the total of all public sector capital investment.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not the fact that this proportion was deliberately halved between 1954 and last year, that the proportion this year will be very much the same, and that this results directly from the Government's policy of increasing interest rates and removing most types of housing subsidy? Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply, which shows a manifest ignorance of the situation, also show that the Government are not putting first things first?
    Mr. Barber: Perhaps I may first take up the hon. Gentleman's remark about
    1618
    ignorance of the situation. He refers in his Question to the Government spending on local authority housing a smaller proportion of our financial resources this year as compared with last year. The fact is that the estimated expenditure on local authority house building will be greater this year than last year; that the proportion of the total public sector investment to be spent on local authority house building will be greater this year than last year, and that the estimated number of completions will be greater this year than last year.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's reference to 1954, I am sure he would be the first to admit that he has taken the best year since the Conservatives came into office —235,000 completions of local authority houses in 1954—and that, I think, one can fairly compare with the best year under a Labour Government—1948 —when the number was only 190,000.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member himself, for his standard of reference, chose the worst of many years, namely, 1958? Is it not a fact that in 1958 the number of council houses was lower than at any time for very many years, lower than under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Barber: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was referring to the three years mentioned in the Question.

    Royal Commission on Historical Monuments
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary to the Treasury Whether, in view of the unsatisfactory progress made by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) in recent years, he will recommend bringing the work of the Commission to an end and transferring its functions to the Ministry of Works.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I cannot yet add to the statement which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made during the debate on the Adjournment on 24th May.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the operations of this Royal Commission have been very disappointing and very slow? It was

    1619
    appointed over 50 years ago. As a permanent Royal Commission is becoming an anachronism and as this one has outlived its usefulness, would it not be much better if it were merged with the National Buildings Record and the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works?
    Mr. Barber: Only last week my hon. Friend the Finanical Secretary explained that his predecessor initiated some months ago an inquiry to examine all these questions and that as soon as the result is available he will himself take the chair at a meeting to decide what action is necessary.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Committee on Consumer Protection (Evidence)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the President of the Board of Trade which organisations have now submitted written evidence to the Committee on Consumer Protection.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): As the Answer contains a long list of names, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider the possibility of publishing this evidence at a suitable time, preferably sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is up to the Committee to decide whether to publish the evidence. Up to date, it has taken no objection to organisations publishing their own evidence if they like.
    Mr. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman give an indication when the Committee is likely to report? Is there any truth in the rumours that it will be on the job for another two years?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly a very long and complicated job. I should not expect the report within a year or two.
    Following is the information:
    I am informed that written evidence has now been submitted by the following organisations in addition to those of which I advised the hon. Member for Swindon on 15th February.

    Advertising Inquiry Committee.

    Apparel and Fashion Industry's Association.

    1620

    Association of British Chemical Manufacturers.

    Association of Folding Furniture Makers. Association of Scientific Workers.

    Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Factors.

    British Association of the Hard of Hearing. British Federation of Textiles Smallwares Manufacturers.

    British Furniture Manufacturers Federated Associations.

    British Jewellers' Association.

    British Man-Made Fibres Federation.

    British Pressure Cooker Manufacturers Association.

    British Safety Council.

    British Toy Manufacturers Association.

    British Wool Marketing Board.

    Butter Information Council.

    Champagne Association.

    Consumers' Association.

    Cotton and Rayon Merchants Association.

    Council of Industrial Design.

    County Councils Association.

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

    Electricity Council.

    Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers.

    Fire Extinguisher Trades Association. Fire Offices Committee.

    Footwear Distributors Federation.

    Furnishing Fabric Federation.

    Gas Council.

    Home Office.

    Incorporated Federated Association of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland.

    Independent Television Companies Association.

    Institute of British Launderers.

    Institute of Weights and Measures Administration.

    International Wool Secretariat.

    Manchester Chamber of Commerce Testing House and Laboratory.

    Margarine Manufacturers' Association.

    Market Research Society.

    Ministry of Health.

    Ministry of Power.

    National Dairymen's Association.

    National Farmers' Union.

    National Federation of Dyers and Cleaners. National Federation of Engineers' Tool Manufacturers.

    National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades.

    National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation.

    National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (Women's National Advisory Committee).

    Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association.

    Portable Electric Tool Manufacturers' Association.

    Proprietary Association of Great Britain.

    Rhyl and District Trades Council.

    Richmond and Barnes Joint Home Safety Committee.

    Textile Institute.

    Torquay Trades Council.

    Women's Co-operative Guild.

    Wool Textile Delegation.

    Working Men's Club and Institute Union.

    World Trade Fair, New York
    Commander Courtneyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the extent to which British industry participated with Government support in the fourth World Trade Fair held in New York in May, 1960; and if the British Government was officially represented at this fair.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that only one United Kingdom firm participated in this trade fair. There was no Government support and no official exhibit.
    Commander Courtney: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent our principal competitors were represented at this fair?
    Mr. Rodgers: Sixteen countries had official stands, but British businesses did not show any great interest in the fair. In 1960 only one firm took a stand. Five agents exhibited goods of United Kingdom principals. That is why we decided to concentrate on the British Trade Fair in June, where the Board of Trade is staging an official display.

    Industrial Development, Hartlepools (Land)
    Commander Keransasked the President of the Board of Trade how many acres of land are immediately available in West Hartlepool and Hartlepool, respectively, for industrial development.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Thirty-eight acres of land are available for immediate industrial development on the Board of Trade's Hartlepools Estate, 24 in West Hartlepool and 14 in Hartlepool, My right hon. Friend understands that, in addition, there are several privately or municipally owned industrial sites, totalling 28 acres in West Hartlepool and 7½ acres in Hartlepool, but that not all of these are available for immediate development.
    Commander Kerans: Will my hon. Friend explain why his regional controller, in a tour from Jarrow to The Hartlepools, said that he could find only 20 acres immediately available for industrial development and in The Hartlepools only 8 acres suitable for building?
    Mr. Rodgers: The regional controller said that he was looking for one site of 20 acres which was immediately available and that no such site existed in the area. That, I understand, is the position. The largest site on the Board's Hartlepools estate is 8 acres. One of the other sites mentioned is about 13 acres.
    Mr. Chetwynd: While it may be true that no site of that size exists in the development district, is it not also true that people living on the perimeter could easily travel from the development district into this area where I am sure sites are available?
    Mr. Rodgers: To the south of West Hartlepool there is a site of 106 acres. Industrialists have looked at this and have not found it attractive.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Do the Government intend in the near future doing something about this problem of industrialists looking for land? The extortionate prices asked are a social scab on the system. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to do something to control the prices of land?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is another question. Our regional controller is, however, in touch with the local planning authority about the possibility of more land being made available for industry in the boroughs of West Hartlepool and Hartlepool.

    Machine-Tool Industry (Castings)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the exports of the machine-tool industry are being jeopardised by a shortage of castings; and what action he is taking to assist the industry to overcome it.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no evidence of a general shortage of castings for the machine-tool industry.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one of my constituents sent him a mass of evidence, from the Foundry Trade Journal, and so on, showing that there is a shortage of castings and that many firms are complaining about how this is jeopardising their export trade, as is the call-up of

    1623
    apprentices as soon as they have completed their training? Will the hon. Member consider this matter?
    Mr. Rodgers: The Newcast Foundries have sent copies of letters from four other companies complaining about delay. In the main, these companies seem to be connected with the Newcast Foundries. I have examined the correspondence, but it does not appear to have established that there is a general shortage of castings which is preventing the export of machine tools.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it not clear that there is a shortage of castings which is jeopardising the production of important exports? This is due to the call-up of specially skilled men who are required for the maintenance of production. Will the hon. Gentleman look into that aspect and send an urgent message about it to the Minister of Labour?
    Mr. Rodgers: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but if any machine-tool firm is finding difficulty in obtaining supplies of castings it will be well advised to get in touch with the Iron and Steel Board and discuss its problems with that organisation.

    Petrol and Oil
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now refer the distribution of petrol and lubricating oils to the Monopolies Commission for study and report.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 17th May.
    Mr. Darling: Surely the Board of Trade ought to have something to say in view of the fact that the world oil situation is now very favourable to buyers and that the lack of competition in this country is preventing the motorist from having the benefits of the world situation. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nine out of ten garages are now tied to the big petrol companies? If the party opposite believes in competition, why does it not allow competition to operate in the petrol world?
    Mr. Rodgers: The Monopolies Commission has three references before it.
    1624
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the hon. Member's observations.
    Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether petrol distribution would qualify under the legislation setting up the Monopolies Commission for an inquiry?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is one of the subjects under consideration at the moment.
    Mr. Lipton: How much longer will we have to wait before the Government make up their mind in this matter? Millions of £s are being extracted from the people of this country quite unjustly.

    Silicon Manganese Steel
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the effect which the shortage of home-produced silicon manganese steel, used for making coil springs, is likely to have on the imports of steel and exports of products of which springs are essential components; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend understands that the Iron and Steel Board is examining, in consultation with the Coil Spring Federation and with the steel producers, the reported shortage of silicon manganese steel used for the production of coil springs, and until this examination is completed it is not possible to say whether imports of steel are likely to go up. He has no reason to think that exports of products incorporating coil springs will be adversely affected.
    Mr. Darling: Those observations certainly are not borne out by the statements made by the manufacturers in Sheffield. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one of the biggest manufacturers has said that he is going as far away as Japan in search of steel to bring to Sheffield? Does not that cause the Parliamentary Secretary any alarm? Is he not aware that this situation arises from the fact that the private steel companies will not plan ahead to meet demand but wait for demand to catch up with them?
    Mr. Rodgers: As I have said, the Iron and Steel Board is conducting an examination. Through the Ministry of Power we are keeping in touch with the Board. Should a shortage of silicon manganese exist, we shall take any steps necessary in order to avoid loss of exports.

    Jute
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the Government of Pakistan about the need for a continuity in the supply of raw jute to the United Kingdom jute industry.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is sure that the Government of Pakistan and the jute trade there fully appreciate the need for continuity of supplies.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that drought in Pakistan has caused a great deal of anxiety about the continuity of supply and concern about the possibility of unemployment in this country later this year? Will he do his best to ensure that this situation does not arise in another year?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is difficult to control the effects of weather, and it is not yet known to what extent last year's drought may affect the jute crop. The 1960 crop should be much better than appeared likely a few weeks ago. The Pakistan Government have set up a Jute Inquiry Commission, which has visited Dundee, as the hon. Member knows. We will certainly watch the position.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Nature Conservation
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent community development methods and techniques are used to popularise nature conservation projects in territories under United Kingdom administration.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Governments of the territories concerned are giving closer attention to the education of Africans in the need to preserve wild life, by organised visits to National Parks, publicity at local shows and through the Press and radio, and by the
    1626
    establishment of local committees to advise on conservation and game management. If there are any other particular methods which the hon. Member has in mind and he will send me details of them, I shall be glad to consider the matter further.
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the outstanding economic and cultural value of wild life to the East and Central African territories, what steps he is taking to secure the continual and improved conservation and development of these resources.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am glad of this opportunity to reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's concern for wild life in Africa. Wild life conservation measures are continuously under review in the East and Central African territories and in spite of financial difficulties much has been done in the last ten years to establish and consolidate National Parks and Reserves.
    But more use can be made of technical knowledge in developing the wild life reserves, which contribute considerably to local food supplies as well as being of economic value to the tourist industry.
    I recognise that the voluntary co-operation of the African populations is essential if conservation is to be lasting and effective, and have been glad to learn that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, in consultation with other international agencies, is exploring the possibility of a conference on conservation being convened in Africa next year.
    Mr. James: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this question is not prompted solely by sentimental considerations, but that any change in the wild life structure is inevitably followed by change in vegetation, and that large areas of Africa at present capable of supporting human life could easily be rendered incapable of so doing?
    Mr. Macleod: This is not by any means only an economic question. There are many aspects of it, and all of them point to the importance of this matter. That is why I was glad to have the opportunity of making a statement on it today. and I am glad to know that this

    1627
    meeting, to which I have referred, which is to be held in a week or two, has the idea of a conference in view.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that there will be a general welcome for his announcement on this subject? Can he say what participation the Government are taking in this meeting?
    Mr. Macleod: Amongst the people who will be there are Dr. Worthington, who often advises me on these matters, and who has just returned from a visit to Africa. He has prepared a detailed report on his visit, and I will be able to study that and the need for further help in a few weeks' time.
    Sir Godfrey Nicholson: While also thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him if he is satisfied that it is generally recognised as a modern scientific truth that controlled game slaughter over a large part of Africa provides more protein to the square mile than any form of agriculture? Will he realise that this is not just sentimental and colourful, but has remarkable economic significance?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree with that. I was most impressed when a deputation which I met recently on this subject proved the extraordinary contribution from the point of view of protein that this sort of scheme can make.

  FIJI

    Education
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether he is aware of the need for the development of increased educational facilities in Fiji; and what proposals he has for meeting it.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware that in its recent report the Burns Commission, while making certain recommendations on education, particularly in regard to agricultural and technical training, laid emphasis on the Colony's need for economic rather than social development and expressed the view that the Colony cannot at present afford facilities for a higher standard of education. The Commission's report is being studied by the Fiji Government, and I await their reactions to it.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is it not the case that the increase in the educational facilities has not even kept pace with the increase in the population, the result being that the educational facilities are growing less rather than greater?
    Mr. Macleod: No, I do not think that is so. The figures I have show that the total school roll in the period 1946 to 1958 increased by about 100 per cent. as against an increase of 44 per cent. in the total population. I should have thought that on that basis we were clearly keeping pace, but that does not mean to say that there is not a great deal still to be done, which is now being studied by the Government.

  NYASALAND

    Agriculture
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he has for the improvement of African agriculture in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The current development plan envisages the expenditure of some £250,000 on agriculture, and £500,000 on land re-organisation. I recognise, however, that there is room for additional effort in this field, and I am at present in consultation with the Governor about the possibility of more comprehensive plans for agricultural development over the next few years, and their financial implications.
    Mr. Peyton: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that African agriculture is of vital importance if progress is to be made in this very backward country? May I further ask him to bear in mind that, as this is a territorial subject, there is a very great responsibility on Her Majesty's Government, and whether, for purposes of comparison, he will bear in mind the great progress made in Southern Rhodesia in this field?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes. I accept the importance of this subject. I always bracket African agriculture and African education as the two subjects on which it is most important to keep one's mind in the economic development of the country. I am, as I have said, studying more comprehensive plans in relation to Nyasaland.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Narcotics (Use)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the possible danger to animals in the use of crops treated with narcotics for the purpose of killing wood pigeons; and whether he will make a statement with particular reference to the experiments carried out near Newmarket in the last six months.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I am aware that there is a possible danger to animals from crops treated with narcotics. So far their use has been restricted to official experiments to ascertain whether or not narcotics can be used safely. In the experiments carried out by my officers on one farm near Newmarket, wheat treated with narcotics has been laid and some 300 wood pigeons and about fifty other harmful birds were caught. No animals have been reported as affected.
    Mr. de Freitas: May I ask the Minister to be extremely careful before encouraging this practice, in view of how little we know about possible danger to wild life, not only animals but birds?
    Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is so. That is why I am carrying out this very strictly controlled experiment under my own auspices on one farm.

    Crop Insurance
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation on the lines of the recent Canadian Crop Insurance Act, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lincoln.
    Mr. Hare: According to the report the hon. Member has sent me, the Canadian Government may now make grants and loans toward the cost of crop insurance schemes run by Provincial Governments. Conditions in our two respective countries are very different, and the causes and extent of crop failures are not the same.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that I and anybody who has been to
    1630
    Canada is well aware of that? Will he at least say that he is not against the principle of State insurance of crops on the lines of American and Canadian practice?
    Mr. Hare: I would not go as far as giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Conditions vary so much more in this country than they do in Canada. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that it is possible for farmers to insure their crops against failure, and that insurances of this kind are taken into account at the Annual Review.

  NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION (TALKS)
  Sir J. Duncanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving the results of his official conversation with the President of the National Farmers' Union on 25th May.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to Questions on this matter on 31st May.
  Sir J. Duncan: I have read that Answer. Will not my right hon. Friend explain that the inquiries by the agricultural Ministers referred to in that Answer will go wider than the purely agricultural Ministries and will deal with imports and exports of agricultural produce? Will he also explain the position regarding Scotland and Northern Ireland, both in so far as Ministerial responsibility is concerned, and in regard to the National Farmers' Unions?
  Mr. Butler: In answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. I understand that Mr. Woolley came with the full approval of the unions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A meeting has already taken place between Mr. Woolley and the Minister of Agriculture, I understand, also with the approval of the unions concerned. It is important that my right hon. Friend concerned, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and myself in my relationship with Northern Ireland, should be in touch with these talks, and we propose to be so.

  1631
  In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, Mr. Woolley put forward certain subjects which he wishes to have discussed, and these have been accepted. I agree that it is important that the talks should be as wide as possible.
  Mr. Willey: While we welcome the Prime Minister's recognition of the mistake in the White Paper on the Price Review, may I ask whether we shall have another White Paper on the Government's new agricultural policy?
  Mr. Butler: The Government's agricultural policy is perpetually unfolding in a more and more satisfactory light. I cannot promise an extra White Paper, nor can I accept the insinuation in the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Hayman: Did the Prime Minister take into account the telegram sent to the Minister of Agriculture by the Cornish branch of the National Farmers' Union saying that it had lost confidence in him and his policy, and whether the Prime Minister also took into account and discussed with Mr. Woolley the fact that Lord Netherthorpe voted with the Opposition in a Division in another place?
  Mr. Butler: We do follow what goes on in another place, and I believe that to be correct. I am not absolutely certain whether the message to which the hon. Gentleman refers was received, but after I have made inquiries I will inform the hon. Member.

  NATIONAL SERVICE
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent the statement of the Minister of Defence on 22nd May on the question of conscription and the call-up represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  I presume the hon. Member is referring to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 21st May in answer to a Press inquiry. I can certainly confirm, as stated by my right hon. Friend, that we have no plans for the continuation of National Service.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable alarm and concern, especially among young people, about the report that the defence advisers of the Government are advising them to continue National Service in some shape or form? Can he give a firm assurance that that is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I repeat what I said in my Answer, that "we have no plans for the continuation of National Service"

  MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister of Defence about rockets, missiles, and the nuclear deterrent, made at the Micro-Cell Factory, Camberley, on 20th May, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable for the Minister of Defence to boast about his defence arrangements when they are so inefficient? What is the purpose of boasting that a bomber can take off from the ground in under four minutes when everybody realises that in the next five minutes there will probably be action which wipes out the defences?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot follow all the complication of the hon. Member's question. My right hon. Friend made a particularly forceful speech on the occasion of the opening of the factory in his constituency, and his views are endorsed and supported by Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that statement contains the clear indication that there are circumstances, though undefined, in which this country would use nuclear weapons first? Does he not further realise that to say that we would use nuclear weapons first is merely a prescription for national suicide?
  Mr. Butler: That matter is dealt with by Question No. 46. I think we had better wait until then.

  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Prime Minister what proposals he advanced at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference concerning the status in the Commonwealth of a future Republic of South Africa.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  It would not be proper for me to give details of these confidential discussions. I have nothing to add to the agreed statement on this subject in the cornmuniqué issued at the end of the recent meeting.
  Mr. Dugdale: While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the reasons for it, is he aware that the Prime Minister of South Africa has made a statement in which he has inferred that the conference decided that a Republic of South Africa would be admitted into the Commonwealth? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no such decision was reached and, as stated in the communiqué, that the matter was to be left for the next Prime Ministers' Conference to decide in the light of events?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I can confirm that to be the case. If the hon. Member would turn to paragraph 13 of the communiqué, he would see that it runs as follows:
  "In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, the meeting suggested that the South African Government should then ask for the consent of the other Commonwealth Governments either at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers or if this were not practicable by correspondence"
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in that case the decision of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers must be unanimous?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot confirm or deny that. What I can say is that the decision cannot be taken until the suggested procedure has been gone through.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In the event of South Africa becoming a republic, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that before she can be admitted to the Commonwealth in her new capacity, every other member of the Commonwealth must be agreeable?
  Mr. Butler: I would not like to give an inaccurate answer; therefore, I should not like to go further than I have done. I should, however, like to reserve the absolute liberty of all members of the Commonwealth to state their opinion

  UNITED STATES AIR BASES, UNITED KINGDOM (ALERT)
  Mrs. Hartasked the Prime Minister what information was given to him by President Eisenhower of the American intention to send a combat readiness alert to its forces in the United Kingdom on the eve of the Summit Conference; how many American planes were sent into the air from bases in this country; and how many British planes were similarly alerted.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Mi nister whether he will seek an assurance from President Eisenhower that no combat readiness alert or other order preliminary to belligerent action will be given to the United States forces stationed in this country without the prior approval of the British Government.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  As has often been explained to the House, the use in emergency of bases in this country by United States forces will be subject to joint decision by the United Kingdom and United States Governments. As I said on 30th May in answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), the recent alert was a routine test of the efficiency of United States communications, and there was accordingly no need for consultation between the President and my right hon. Friend. I understand that no extra flying resulted from this test. The Royal Air Force did not take part or carry out any similar exercise of its own at the time.
  We see no reason for altering the terms of the agreement reached with the United States Government by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, and confirmed by subsequent Prime Ministers.
  Mrs. Hart:While accepting that the incident was described by the American Government as a normal alert, does the Home Secretary not agree that its timing immediately before the Summit Conference was a highly provocative action

  1635
  and likely to do untold damage to the progress of international relations? Does he not agree that, in these circumstances, the failure at least to notify the Prime Minister of this country that such an alert was to take place was appalling and shocking? Will he take note of the desire of many Members of this House that, in future, information should be given to the Prime Minister of Britain when bases in this country are involved in an act of this kind, so that the objections of the British Government may be made known to the Americans?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that that is a matter of judgment. It is a matter upon which I do not wish to comment further. In answer to the latter part of her question, I do not think we should alter the arrangement as it exists. I have said that any use of the bases in emergency is a matter for joint decision, but I do not think that we can interfere with what I have described as a routine test of the efficiency of the United States communications, nor do I expect or wish that the United States Government or authorities should interfere with any such arrangements which might be made by the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Warbey: If these tests are routine, does not that imply that they may be a frequent occurrence? Has it occurred to the Government that, whatever happened on this occasion, on future occasions the American Air Force might set off in the direction of the Soviet frontiers loaded, possibly, with hydrogen bombs and that this could lead to all kinds of dangerous consequences? Do the Government seriously mean that they do not know and they do not care when this kind of thing happens and that they have no means whatever of preventing it from taking place?
  Mr. Butler: Of course, we care fundamentally, and so did the Government of right hon. and hon. Members opposite care fundamentally when they made the initial agreement, which was that no use of these bases in an emergency should be made without a joint decision of the two Governments. We cannot let this govern ordinary routine practice, exercises or tests, and we would not expect reciprocity in that sense.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Home Secretary aware that while we are not discussing this afternoon the question of the original agreement, some of us are rather concerned about the way in which it is implemented in connection with these alerts? How frequently do they take place? Do they sometimes involve aircraft leaving the ground with bombs? If this was merely a routine alert, why was so much publicity given to it just at that moment?
  Mr. Butler: As I said on the question of the timing and the occasion of the alert, it is a matter for judgment whether the resulting situation gave confidence or lack of confidence. I cannot add anything to my original answer, because I cannot give the internal arrangements of the United States Air Force in relation to tests of this nature of the efficiency of their forces
  Mr. Gaitskell: What we are concerned with is whether Her Majesty's Government are consulted on these occasions or whether, if they are not consulted, they should not make some kind of protest about it. While we recognise that it may be necessary to have alerts from time to time, the right hon. Gentleman would help the House if he could be a little more frank about exactly what takes place. Would it not be a good plan that, in any event, if aircraft leave the ground Her Majesty's Government should first be consulted in the event of an alert of this sort? In addition, if publicity is to be given, surely they should be consulted beforehand.
  Mr. Butler: I think it would be an extension of the agreement which was never foreseen that there should be prior consultation before tactical exercises of this sort, particularly as on this occasion no extra flying was involved. On the question of carrying hydrogen bombs, I cannot add to the many answers which have been given by my right hon. Friend and myself on this subject. It is a very serious one on which there has been no change at all.
  Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman said that this alert was a routine test. When did he discover that? Did he know it was a routine test before it took place or after it took place?
  Mr. Butler: I said in my original Answer that there was no prior consultation.
  Mrs. Hart: Would the Home Secretary not agree that when circumstances are such as they were on the occasion of this alert, the alert in itself could constitute an emergency? Would he, therefore, convey to his right hon. Gentleman the desire of some of us that negotiations on this agreement should be reopened, in particular at least concerning the possibility of consultation about alerts when international negotiation is under way?
  Mr. Butler: The very fact that this serious interchange is taking place on the Floor of the House of Commons will not have escaped, I expect, the attention of the Administration chiefly concerned, and if this is the case perhaps some good will have been done.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme.
TUESDAY, 21ST JUNE, and WEDNESDAY, 22ND JUNE—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 23RD JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill.
FRIDAY, 24TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
The proposed business on Monday, 27th June, will be Supply [16th allotted Day]: Committee. A debate on the proposed transfer of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited to private ownership.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of Transport yesterday referred to the non-co-operation of one local authority in refusing to put up any signs of his Department over the Whitsun holiday? As many Members will be travelling along that road and we want to get back in one piece, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the offending authority is the County Council of the North Riding of Yorkshire?
Mr. Butler: In answer to business questions, I should have to reserve the position, and consult my right hon. Friend. I will certainly do so in the light of the hon. Member's question.
Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the Leader of the House, although time is very short, whether any opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the case of Mrs. Hazel Anna Wolf, who is to be deported to this country from the United States, who has not lived here for a very long time and has no relatives or money here, and who will have to be kept out of public funds here? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether something is being done by the Government to try to dissuade the United States in this matter?
Mr. Butler: I am informed that representations are being made by Her Majesty's Ambassador. In any case, I will undertake to look into the matter myself.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in another similar case representations were, as promised, made by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington, but so great is our influence with the United States authorities that the result was completely negative? If the deportation is to take place, is it not time the House did have an opportunity of discussing these matters?
Mr. Butler: I do not see an easy opportunity of discussing them, but I have undertaken to give this matter immediate personal consideration, which I will do in the light of the questions which have been put.
Mr. Fletcher: Will the Leader of the House find time for a general debate on the recommendations of the Simonds Committee on the Powers of Subpoena

1639
of Disciplinary Tribunals and the general question of the production of evidence taken by police officers? Will he bear in mind that it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of a general debate on that Report before considering any Amendments which may be made in another place to a certain Bill which is now under consideration?
Mr. Butler: If Amendments are made in the sense of the answer I gave on the Government's acceptance of the Simonds Report, the House will have an opportunity of considering those Amendments when they come from another place. We have many Supply Days still to fit in at this time of the year, and I cannot give any easy undertaking, but in saying that I do not wish to minimise the importance of this Report.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is really a matter of Government responsibility and, therefore, for Government time, especially as it seems that the Government are at the point of changing their policy in this matter, and that, therefore, it is important that we should debate the general question and not only amendments which may obscure the general question and make it difficult to raise?
Mr. Butler: There are really two questions, the question of the powers of subpoena and the bodies to which they are given, and the question of the use of evidence, and, therefore, there is certainly a case for an interesting discussion, but all I can do at this stage is to register the right hon. Gentleman's point of view.
Mr. Short: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said a few weeks ago, that the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955 (Amendment) Bill was of great merit, and as on another occasion he recognised that there were very important humanitarian principles involved, would he say when we are to have time for the Second Reading of that very important Measure?
Mr. Butler: I am not in a position to do so.
Mr. Ginsburg: In considering whether the Government will have a debate on the Simonds Committee's Report, will
1640
the right hon. Gentleman recall his own words of 16th December, when he implied that, before proceeding with the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, the House would have an opportunity of considering what was involved in the Simonds Committee's Report?
Mr. Butler: As I say, there are two aspects to this question. On the aspect of restoring powers which were taken out of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, the House should have an opportunity, if another place decides to restore those original powers in conformity with the Simonds Committee's decision, to consider it when it comes back here. I do not think I can go further on that. On the other question, it is a matter of finding time, which I think will be difficult, but I have undertaken to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Lipton: Have the Government come to any decision yet about the right of these professional bodies to subpoena police?
Mr. Butler: The Simonds Committee made it quite clear that if these bodies were set up they should not be deprived of any such powers, and that, in general, we have accepted.

CYPRUS (NEGOTIATIONS)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am glad to have an opportunity of making a short statement on the Cyprus negotiations before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess. The Government recognise that the House has been very forbearing in not seeking to press us in this matter and are most grateful.
The House will have seen Press reports according to which Archbishop Makarios considers that the remaining issues could be quickly settled. I am sure that this is right, and I hope, therefore, that the Archbishop will soon see his way to resume discussions with my hon. Friend. By the Archbishop's wish, there have been no formal meetings between the leaders of the delegations for some little time. I feel confident that the points which are still causing difficulty can in practice be resolved by discussion.

1641
The Archbishop has, in his public statement, made known the points of difference. The House will not expect me to say now what we shall say to the Cypriot leaders if, as I hope, confidential negotiations are very shortly resumed. I can say that I do not think there is much between us on the delimitation of the boundaries of the sovereign base areas. We have done our utmost to meet Cypriot wishes on Cypriot participation in the administration of those areas, within the framework of British sovereignty. It is common ground that the areas to be retained have to serve a military purpose; military considerations must, therefore, be given full weight, as regards both the boundaries and the administration.
On the long-term view of the base areas, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which we might want to relinquish them. This is a hypothetical situation to which many factors might apply. At present we are seeking a settlement, in which the retention of base areas under British sovereignty is one of the principal elements. But we recognise that the Cypriots have an interest in this matter and we shall be glad to discuss it with them.
The other main outstanding question is financial aid. On this, our offer of £10 million over five years is, I think, generous.
We have approached these negotiations throughout in a spirit of accommodation and good will. We are sure that if the outstanding questions are tackled together in that same spirit an agreement can very soon be reached, and for our part we are very anxious to see such agreement.
Mr. Driberg: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, is there any indication that recent events in Turkey have had any effect on the attitude of the Turkish Cypriot minority? Secondly, if the Archbishop's statement of the relatively minor differences on the points still at issue is correct, as quoted in the Press yesterday, is it really not possible, as the right hon. Gentleman indeed says he hopes it is, to reach agreement very soon indeed? Cannot the Government let the Archbishop have that letter about this remote hypothetical future situation?
Mr. Macleod: On the first point, I do not think that recent events in Turkey have had any effect on the position. On the second point, it is true that the question of cession, which is considerably hypothetical, seems the main point at the moment and I believe, and I think that I agree with the hon. Member, that this is in a way, though it may seem the most important, the least of the difficulties and might well be the one which, if resolved, will be the lead into settling the others. We are trying to find the right sort of formula, in conjunction with the other parties to the London Agreement, which will achieve that.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to rumours that Her Majesty's Government have entered into financial commitments recently for expenditure on this base, or are about to enter into further financial commitments at a time when these negotiations are far from being concluded? Can we have an assurance that no commitments are being entered into which may be entirely wasted if negotiations break down?
Mr. Macleod: I should not like to go as far as my right hon. Friend's suggestion. Naturally one is reluctant to enter into financial negotiations unless one can see a clear and settled future, and it would certainly help very much if that could be achieved. But so much depends on this matter and so much is involved in the financial matters to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention that I believe that the recent announcement that the work will be continued has been widely welcomed.
Mr. Grimond: Is it not a fact that there are many people who will feel that this is one of the points which it is feasible for the Cypriots to make about the future of the base areas, were we ever to have to give them up? Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on this? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is that the Government's position is that they are not averse to giving them up to a Cypriot Government, if they give them up. Is the position that the Government feel that they must agree to this with other parties to the negotiations before they give any such undertaking?
Mr. Macleod: The exact position is that I believe that a formula can be found in this matter, and we are now seeking to find such a formula in conjunction with Greece and Turkey, who were parties to the London Agreement.
Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he could get and sign agreement on this letter concerning the return of the base areas to the Cypriot people and not to any outside Power, the rest of his problems would soon be settled?
Mr. Macleod: All I can say is that I hope that my hon. Friend is right. We have often seen our hopes go up and down like a yo-yo in the last few weeks in these discussions, and it has seemed that matters have been solved only for others to be raised, but I agree with my hon. Friend that this is the most helpful matter on which to concentrate now.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to those who try to follow the reports in the Press the present arguments really seem more suitable to medieval philosophers than to politicians? Is he aware that we are asking the Government that they should come to a conclusion on these very tiny matters? Am I not right in assuming that one of the major matters in dispute, apart from the final destination of the bases, is over an area of 600 square yards? If my arithmetic is right, that is about the size of a tennis court. Surely we are not going to argue over a thing like that?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member says that he would like us to come to a conclusion. So would I, but it takes two to come to a conclusion in these sorts of matters. Moving away from future concession to the size of the base, I said in my statement
"…I do not think that there is much between us on the delimitation of the boundaries of the sovereign base areas"
Indeed, the Archbishop said that in his statement. I do not believe that the two sides on that issue are any distance apart at all.
Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that in many negotiations with Cypriots just as agreement is about to be concluded some new factor is brought in by them? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we do not intend to surrender in any way British sovereignty over the base for
1644
what may be, after all, only a temporary agreement with the Cypriots?
Mr. Macleod: There has been no change in relation to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the sovereignty position in the base areas.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of us have quite a different view about the importance of sovereignty as applied to this base from that held by the Government. Is he aware that, frankly, we think that this is a lot on nonsense and that whether or not these are sovereign areas is much less important than that we should be on good terms with the new Republic and its inhabitants?
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot say more positively that he recognises the interest of the Cypriot Republic in the future of these areas and the very reasonable apprehensions generated by the reluctance of the British Government to give a positive assurance on these matters? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the back of the Archbishop's mind there is an idea that we may be intending to install some other Power in our place in the base areas? Is it beyond the wit of man to make a statement which does not upset our sovereign rights for the time being but at the same time makes it plain that we have not the kind of sinister intentions that some people may have ground to think we have from recent negotiations?
Mr. Macleod: 1 do not think that there is any basic dispute about sovereignty, and it was common doctrine to the parties that signed the London and Zurich Agreements. On the second point, I said in my statement that, even though this may be hypothetical, naturally the Cypriots have an interest in it and it is perfectly reasonable that they should seek a form of assurance. The only matter between us is the precise wording that formulation should take.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Cypriot in my constituency who has recently been to Cyprus told me only yesterday that the question of the hypothetical future of the base areas, if they are not required militarily, was, in the opinion of the man in the street in Cyprus, a very small point and should not be a stumbling block holding up agreement?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
  3.48 p.m.
  Lords Amendments considered.

  CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL

    Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF LICENSING AUTHORITY, AND RESTRICTION OF UNLICENSED FLYING.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, leave out "furthering" and insert:
    "exercising their functions under this Act in such a manner as to further".
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not think that anyone would disagree with the Amendment. It does not seem to make the slightest change in the Bill. If, however, anybody thinks that the wording of the Bill would be improved by the Amendment, we would not object. We do not oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. William Shepherd: It often happens that if one puts in a few words that are not necessary one ends by putting in a lot more unnecessary words.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(REGULATIONS.)
    Lords Amendment In page 6, line 40, at end insert—
    "() for the making of representations to the Minister by the Government of the Isle of Man or by the States of Jersey or Guernsey as respects any such decision of the Board as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, and for applying in relation to those
    1646
    representations, with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit, any provision relating to appeals contained in this Act or in any regulations made thereunder;"
    Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to meet certain views expressed to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the authorities in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Government of the Isle of Man, and the States of Jersey and Guernsey, have the necessary powers, as sovereign authorities, to overate their own system for licensing civil aviation if they wish, but by agreement the existing arrangements for regulating civil aviation have been applied to these Islands by Order in Council. It is now proposed to extend the new system by Order in Council to these Islands.
    In the course of our discussions with the Island authorities about the application of the new system there has been general agreement on the form of consultation that ought to take place with the Board. Where, however, the views of the Island authorities are not upheld by the Board, I think the House will agree that it would not be appropriate for these sovereign authorities to have to appear as appellants in precisely the same way as ordinary appellants—for example, a disappointed applicant for a licence.
    The Amendment ensures that their representations can be dealt with without their having to go through the ordinary formalities of making an appeal. In practice the Minister will deal with their representations in exactly the same way as if there had been an appeal, but it seemed to my right hon. Friend reasonable to accede to the views of the Island authorities on these matters of procedure.
    Mr. John Rankin: One thing that astonishes me is that during the Second Reading debate, and also during the Committee stage, the Government Front Bench, with all the advice and aid that it had—and I presume still has—passed over what appears to be a fairly important matter.
    I do not object to the Amendment which has come from another place. I suppose that is one justification for its

    1647
    continued existence. It keeps a watchful eye on the Government Front Bench. During the discussions in Committee, we were accused of prolonging—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is confined strictly to the proposition before the House. We cannot discuss the constitutional value of the House of Lords on this Amendment.
    Mr. Rankin: I was merely seeking to make the point that it might be said that the Opposition did not fulfil its duties properly when it allowed these things to pass, but we do not have the help and guidance that the Government have, and it is perhaps as well that another place keeps a watchful eye on what happens.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: We do not disagree with the object of the Amendment. I only ask why it was not noticed before so that we could have dealt with it in our own way in this Chamber?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 41, leave out from "payment" to end of line 46 and insert:
    "to the Board in connection with air service licences or applications relating thereto of such fees determined in such manner as the regulations may with the approval of the Treasury provide;"
    Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I think that it has been accepted from the outset that the fees payable in respect of licences will cover the cost of the Board. The Amendment has been introduced to provide greater flexibility in the manner in which fees may be determined. As originally drafted, there was no provision, for example, for any fees for transitional licences or for annual fees and it is felt that we should have the Bill in a sufficiently wide form to enable the case to be brought in the most equitable fashion. There are, of course, to be discussions about the fairest way in which fees can be levied, and in any event the regulations will be laid in draft.
    Mr. Rankin: I presume that we are carrying out this procedure today because to some extent we failed in our duty during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Government mast bear the respon-
    1648
    sibility for that, and hon. Members opposite ought not to make dissatisfied noises when I seek to deal with Amendments that have come from another place.
    I hope that we on this side of the House will not commit ourselves on the Amendment for the simple reason, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that we will not know the implications of this until we see the regulations. While it may possibly be that more flexibility will be brought in, I suggest that we await the regulations before we say anything further about the Amendment.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The regulations cannot be made until the Bill has been passed, because the regulations will be made under the Bill.
    Mr. Strauss: We appreciate that that is the case. It is still rather puzzling why the original words did not cover all that the Government required. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they did not cover transitional or annual licences. I assume that the Government receive advice from legal people, which is not available to us. To the layman it appears that the original words are all-inclusive because they are on the question of granting licences. If the Government assure us that that is not so, and that the Amendment is necessary to tighten up the thing, we have no objection to it, but it still rather puzzles us.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 7, at end insert:
    "() as to the liability of any of the persons heard by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section at any meeting of the Board in respect of costs or expenses incurred in connection with that hearing;"
    Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    There is already provision in the Bill in respect of costs on appeal. On reconsideration of the position of costs it seemed right to enable regulations to be made to cover the possibility of awarding costs on original hearings. It might be that normally no order for costs would be made, but I think the House will agree that there might be cases when the need would arise, for example, in

    1649
    connection with applications to the Board for another operator's licence to be varied, revoked, or suspended. That might put a defendant in the position of incurring considerable costs with no remedy against a frivolous action.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(ENFORCEMENT OF LICENSING PROVISIONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 15, leave out any "and insert "all such".
    Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Amendment is designed to remove a minor drafting ambiguity, and really must be considered with the purely consequential Amendment to line 16. The intention of the Clause is to provide that the information and documents to be furnished will be those specified in the regulations. The technical point has been made in another place that the subsection could be read as meaning that it was the journey or proposed journey which had to be specified in the requirement, and not the information or documents. It is not the journey that needs to be specified in the requirements, but that is not made clear by the present wording. It would be perfectly all right to ask for information and documents, and to ask what journeys were made.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Rankin: I am not impressed by the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made. This is one of those profound alterations which demand very close scrutiny. The Clause contained the word "any", and the Lords, after due and grave consideration, have decided that instead of that word we should have the two words "all such". I want to read the Clause as it stands in order to put the word "any" and the words "all such" in their proper perspective. The subsection reads:
    "For the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements of section one of this Act, the Minister or anyone acting under his authority may require any person who, in the United Kingdom, whether by providing an aircraft or negotiating a contract or otherwise howsoever, makes available, or offers, facilities for travel or the consignment of goods upon any journey by air, and any servant or agent of any such person, and any person who is the
    1650
    holder of an aerodrome licence, to provide the Minister with any information…"
    That is only part of the subsection.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Read it all.
    Mr. Rankin: I cannot read it all at the moment. I can deal only with that part which is pertinent to the suggested Amendment and which comes with the purview of my argument.
    The Lords suggest that instead of "any" we should insert "all such". If we take out the word "any" we are limiting the evidence or information that would be available. We are leaving it to the individual concerned to provide all such information as he may determine is necessary. That is wrong.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member is not correct in saying that the information to be provided is such information as the operator may think is necessary. If he will read it carefully, he will see that the words are
    "all such information…which may be specified in the requirement"
    The requirement is made by the Minister or anybody acting under his authority, as the hon. Member will see in the second and third lines of the subsection.
    Mr. Rankin: Even accepting that interpretation, I suggest that it is merely an afterthought, because when the Bill went through Committee and was subjected to the careful scrutiny of the Opposition, not even when the Minister helped us in the interpretation did he see any necessity to substitute "all such" for any". However, if he now confirms that no limitation is imposed by the Amendment I cannot press the matter any further. It still appears to me that the change is not worth making.
    Mr. Strauss: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I do not agree with him that the change in any way limits the power of the Minister to ask for documents, but I cannot see what difference it makes. The Parliamentary Secretary did not convince me, but if this Amendment pleases the Government or their legal advisers, we have no objection.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendment made: In page 8, line 16, leave out "which" and insert"as".

  PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL

    Clause 7.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 10, at end insert:
    "() Any reference in this Act to the particulars required by subsection (5) of section two thereof shall be construed as including a reference to the particulars required by that subsection as modified by the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, or by those provisions together with any provisions of an order made under that section which are applicable to the payment in question"
    4.7 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the other Amendments are complementary, and their combined purpose and effect is to carry out an undertaking given on Report by my right hon. Friend to try to find a form of words to apply the provisions of the Schedule to payments made under Clause 4, which deals with emergency payments by way of money order or postal order in the event of the employee being away for some reason.
    It might assist hon. Members if I reminded them what my right hon. Friend said on Report. He said:
    "It would be reasonable that where an employer is using a system which fits in with the Schedule…it should be in order for him when making a payment under Clause 4 to make the normal pay statement which would be made for the week—that is the logical way of dealing with it—and he should not interrupt the rhythm of the process to produce anything more. On the other hand, if the employer is not using a system which is acceptable under the schedule, he should provide a full statement if he is taking advantage of the provisions of Clause 4. If my hon. Friend"—
    that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) —
    "is willing to accept my assurance, we will endeavour to find a form of words—I think we have one—which we could put down in another place, so that when Clause 4 is used that would be the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 1385.]
    This and the following Amendments are the form of words my right hon. Friend has found. The substantive Amendment is the one in page 11, line
    1652
    5, leave out from "Where" to "a" in line 6. All this does is to remove from the operation of the Schedule the restriction imposed by the words to be left out. Those words restrict the application of the provisions of the Schedule to payments of wages made in pursuance of a request made under Clause 1. It is the purpose of the Amendment to enable the Schedule to apply to payments made under Clause 4.
    Mr. R. E. Prentice: When the new Schedule was moved on behalf of the Government on Report, it was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, and it seems logical that the Amendments now proposed should flow from it. We are jealous of the right of every workman to get complete information about any deductions made from his wages, and the new Schedule seems to be reasonable in this respect. There seems to be no reason why these provisions should not apply to payments made under Clause 4 as well as to those made under Clause I. There is no reason why there should be a more onerous obligation upon an employer in respect of these emergency payments as compared with payments made under the Bill generally.
    As I understand the position, if an employer is making payments in accordance with the Schedule and then the workman concerned is away from his normal pay station, either because he is sick or because his work takes him away, and the employer sends him his wages by postal order or money order, he now need send only a statement giving the aggregate deductions, having previously made a complete statement of these deductions to the employee. That seems reasonable. If not, if the emergency payment is made suddenly, without the other provisions of the Bill being complied with, the employer will have to send a complete statement. That is also reasonable.
    Without the Amendment a slight extra duty would be imposed on the employer if he were making payments under Clause 4 which might discourage him from making those payments, and it seems to us that payments made under Clause 4 are a useful part of the Bill. It is convenient to the workman to get his wages

    1653
    in this way. In fact, we suspect that this already happens in many cases, although, strictly speaking, it is illegal. The Bill will legalise payments of this kind, and it would be foolish if we did not extend the provisions of the new Schedule to those sorts of payments.
    Question put and agreed to

    Schedule
    Lords Amendments made: In page 11, line 5, leave out from "Where" to "a" in line 6.
    In line 6, after "wages" insert "or a part of wages".
    In line 9, leave out "in connection with that payment" and insert:
    "at or before the time when that payment is made"
    In line 11, leave out from "person" to "and" in line 12.
    In page 12, line 40, leave out from "in" to second "as" in line 46, and insert:
    "Part I of this Schedule to the requirements of paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of section two of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to the requirements of that paragraph as modified by Part II of this Schedule or by the last preceding paragraph"

  CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.13 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. I do not know whether I am right in anticipating that you are not going to call my Motion to recommit the Bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I am glad of the opportunity the hon. Member has given me, because I have reached the conclusion that I am unable to call it.
  Mr. Ross: I should be the last person to question the wisdom of your decision, Mr. Speaker, but I am the first person to draw upon the sources of your wisdom and Parliamentary experience to ask you if you can help me. This is the last opportunity we shall have of amending the Bill. The Amendment upon which I sought Recommital arises out of the Amendment which the Government made in Committee, so that we had no chance of making this Amendment in Committee. In drafting my Amendment I had considerable help from the Government draftsmen.
  If you will look at the substance of my Amendment, you will see that it is of such a nature that it cannot be dealt with in another place, being privileged. Can you give me some advice to rescue me from the consequences of that fact? The Amendment which the Government put on the Order Paper, and which was accepted by the Committee, will be rendered ineffective unless the power contained in my Amendment is put into the Bill. I took the natural precaution of finding out whether my Amendment would be acceptable to the Government and I understood that it would be. Can you give me your advice about how further we can proceed?
  Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is that the fact that the hon. Member's Amendment is acceptable to the Government does not assist me in my duty towards the House and, strictly in that sense, that is irrelevant. The only hope I can give the hon. Member is that in the distressing circumstances which he has mentioned, the House will be willing to waive Privilege in order that the matter can be dealt with in another place.

  CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL

    New Clause.—(DUTY OF LICENCE HOLDER TO SURRENDER LICENCE FOR ALTERATION.)
    (1) A local authority who have issued a site licence may at any time require the holder to deliver it up so as to enable them to enter in it any alteration of the conditions or other terms of the licence made in pursuance of the provisions of Part I of this Act.
    (2) If the holder of a site licence fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement duly made under this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.15 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the new Clause is to make sure that any amendment made in a site licence under Clause 6 or Clause 7, either by a local authority itself or by the Minister on appeal, will be put into the site licence. This will make sure that when a site licence is exposed on the site, it is a current site licence and incorporates any amendment which has been made in it. I am sure that that will meet the wish of the House, and I hope that the House will agree to the new Clause.
    Mr. Edward Short: I do not wish to object to the new Clause, but there is one thing which I ought to point out. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that he expects that licences and planning permission for sites will be given for considerable periods—I think that in one case he used the expression, "if not permanently". It is tremendously important that, if we are to improve sites and the conditions on sites and expect site operators to spend a good deal of money on them—and the amount of money spent per caravan on the site, per berth, varies from about £100 to about £200—there should not be many changes in conditions. I hope that local authorities will not withdraw site licences arbitrarily in order to impose new conditions from time to time, but will see that site operators have some security of tenure for a good period ahead so that they are encouraged
    1656
    to spend the necessary amount of money on them.
    Question put and agreed to
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(EXCLUSION OF LONDON FROM PART I.)
    Except as otherwise expressly provided. Part I of this Act shall not apply to land in the administrative county of London.—[Sir W. Wakefield.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Section 22 of the London County Council (General Powers) Acts, 1959, gives Metropolitan borough councils powers of control over moveable dwellings. That Section was intended to operate in London as a means of controlling caravan sites and their use.
    The Bill includes Metropolitan borough councils as local authorities, in accordance with the definition in Clause 23. The House will agree that it is undesirable that the position should be duplicated in this fashion. It will be appreciated that, that being so, the Metropolitan boroughs are left with two alternatives—they can continue to be included in the provisions of the Bill, with the prospect of Section 22 being repealed, or they can be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
    The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee has carefully considered those alternatives and has decided that the second is preferable. The reason is that action has been taken under Section 22 and would be wasted if the Bill repealed it. Section 22 required advertisements to be made before 31st October, last year, giving notice of intention for what will come into force on 1st October of this year. The Metropolitan boroughs feel that the provisions of Section 22 are wide enough to cover the London position. All of those who were members of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill will feel that it is inappropriate for London, but very desirable in many respects for handling the problems of the Provinces and the countryside. For that reason, I hope that the House will approve of the new Clause.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W Wakefield) has made a good case. Parliament cannot wish there to be two concurrent codes for the control of caravans in London and it is as recently as 1959 that the London legislation was enacted. Much of the reason for the Bill in general is that the legislation is out of date, but in the case of London it is not. It was considered as short a time as a year ago, and, although they are not precisely identical with those of the Bill, there is no reason why we should repeal the London provisions and substitute these.
    I observe that there is an Amendment to Clause 20 in page 14, line 17, at end insert:
    (9) This section extends to the administrative county of London and the expression "local authority" in this section as so extended includes the council of a metropolitan borough.
    to retain the application of Clause 20 to London, and I appreciate that the effect of the new Clause, therefore, will be to cut London out from the whole of Part I of the Bill, except for Clause 20 —if that Amendment is accepted. I can see nothing objectionable in that course of action, and I recommend the House to agree to it.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I fully appreciate the case which the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has made. However, is it not a fact that the 1959 London legislation is much narrower than the scope of the Bill? If the additional powers contained in the Bill are not extended to London, will not the law relating to London be much narrower than for the rest of the country?
    Mr. Brooke: I speak again by leave of the House. I do not think that it will be narrower. The caravan problem in London is rather different from that in the hon. Member's constituency of Anglesey. Although there are caravans in London, the number is relatively small and the licensing provisions in the London Act are similar to those of the Bill. I have examined the matter and I cannot see that any difficulty will arise if we allow London to have its own code which has been framed so recently and which has been endorsed so recently by the House.
    Mr. Hughes: I fully appreciate the difference between the rural areas and London. However, the Minister is preparing model standards which will come into force when the Bill comes into force. They will not apply to London if the new Clause is accepted. I know that there are not many caravans in London, but there are some, and model standards, which the Minister is preparing in consultation with authorities concerned, should be applicable to the London area.
    Mr. Brooke: It is true that technically the model standards will not apply in the London area. Nevertheless, every Metropolitan borough council will be able to familiarise itself with them. The London Act provides for the right of appeal to a magistrates' court against refusal of a site licence, or against conditions in site licences which are not acceptable. The magistrates will not be under any statutory obligation to see whether the site licence conditions are in line with those in the model standards, but in practice, surely, the effect will be that everybody will take note of the model standards. I do not see any difficulty arising.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION FOR CARAVAN SITES.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Town and Country Planning Acts. 1947 to 1959. and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. 1947 to 1959, an application made after the commencement of this Act for planning permission for the use of land as a caravan site shall not be entertained by the local planning authority—

    (a) in the case of any agricultural land which is held by the person making the application on a lease or tenancy under which the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural purposes is prohibited; or

    (b) in the case of any agricultural land which is held by the person making the application on a lease or tenancy and in respect of which the local planning authority are satisfied that its use for any purpose other than an agricultural purpose would be contrary to the implied terms of the lease or tenancy.

    (2) Section thirty-six of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (which relates to publication of notices of application for planning permission), shall be read and have effect as if the use of land as a caravan site

    1659
    were included among the classes of development to which that section applies and section thirty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (which relates to notification of applications for planning permission to owners and agricultural tenants), shall in relation to any application for planning permission for the use of land as a caravan site be read and have effect as if after paragraph (b) of subsection (I) thereof there were inserted the following paragraph—
    "(bb) a certificate stating that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to all the persons (other than the applicant) who, at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application were owners of land immediately adjoining the land to which the application relates, and setting out the names of those persons, the addresses at which notice of the application was given to them respectively and the date of the service of each such notice".
    (3) For the purposes of this section the expression "agricultural" has the same meaning as is assigned to it by section one hundred and nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and section one hundred and thirteen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.—[Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    When application is made fur planning permission and all the procedure has to be gone through, it is a great waste of everybody's time if the application is made in respect of land let on an agricultural tenancy where there is specific provision in the lease that the land shall be let for agricultural purposes only. The first part of the new Clause deals with the case where there is a farm lease which says specifically, binding upon the farmer, that the land shall be used for agricultural purposes only.
    The Clause also deals with land which is let for farming purposes, but where, although the lease does not expressly say that the land could be used for farming purposes only, that is an implied condition of the letting. It would be a great waste of time to go through the procedure of applying for planning permission and having it granted and so on for the establishment of a caravan site on such land if it were then found that the land could not be let for that purpose.
    The effect of the Clause is to preclude applications for planning permission in
    1660
    both cases on the ground of the trouble and expense of dealing with planning applications when it is expressly provided, or where it is the intention of the parties to the lease, that the use of the land should be restricted to agricultural purposes.
    The second part of the Clause is necessary in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. That Act provides for the notification of an application for planning permission to the owners and tenants of agricultural land before an application is made, and a certificate stating that the requirements of that Section have been complied with must accompany the application for planning permission.
    The Clause provides for an additional safeguard to cover the case of applications for planning permission in the use of land as caravan sites. It is proposed that it should be a statutory requirement that the owners of the land immediately adjoining the land for which application is made must also be notified of the application. I think this necessary because the owners of adjoining land are obviously very much concerned in land that is to be used as a site for caravans.
    4.30 p.m.
    I speak as a caravan owner. As I said when we were considering the Second Reading of the Bill, I enjoy mobile caravanning, spending my time in an entirely different way from that in which it is spent here. I enjoy caravanning the countryside, and I have every sympathy with those who want to provide sites for people like myself who enjoy spending a night or two in a caravan at different places on our journeys, or perhaps staying even a little longer.
    Nevertheless, I recognise that there are objections to the establishment of caravan sites and that the strongest objections may well be by those people who are owners of adjoining land. The last thing I want is for caravanning to come into disrepute because people are able to get their sites easily, without proper examination and against the wishes of owners of immediately adjoining property. I think that it is only right that when an application is made for planning permission for establishing a caravan site, notification should be given that the adjoining owners have been notified of the

    1661
    application for planning permission. It is for that reason that the second part of the Clause is added.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Acceptance of the first part of the proposed Clause would surely constitute a rather important departure in principle from what has been regarded hitherto as desirable in governing these matters. At present there is perfect freedom to anybody to apply for permission to develop land. The right to make that application and to explore the matter does not derive from any interest in the land of a pecuniary character or from title or anything of that kind.
    This has certain advantages. It leads to flexibility. It means that the advantages of planning permission can sometimes attach to land when the owner of the interest in the land would not have thought of exploring the matter. It is often of advantage in the case of prospective purchasers of an interest in land. A prospective purchaser may contemplate the development of a piece of land but, before commencing negotiations, he may want to find out what the planning position is or is likely to be. On the whole, it is desirable and makes for good planning and good land administration if he has that opportunity of applying for planning permission to see what befalls. I think that the first part of this Clause would constitute a very undesirable departure in principle.
    I feel rather less objection to the second part of it; I doubt whether I have any objection at all. The Clause, for me, however, is vitiated by the first part.
    Mr. Ross: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), I have considerable sympathy with the second part of the Clause. I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) did not take the opportunity in Committee of putting down two new Clauses, one to deal with the first part and one to deal with the second part, and then probably we should have been able to sort out this problem.
    I do not see how the Government can accept the first part of the Clause. If they fail to accept the first part, that rules out the second part as well. The hon. Member pleaded with us and told us that he was himself a caravanner. No doubt that was to soften us up and
    1662
    to demonstrate that he would do nothing against the interests of caravanners or anyone else. The trouble is that I have been in this House for a long time, and so has he, and I have always looked upon him as the authentic voice of the landlord and property owner. I think that he will agree with me that sometimes in that respect my judgment is not far wrong.
    Planning authority permission surely is on the rightness or wrongness of something in relation to considerations from the planning point of view. The hon. Member asks the planning authority to go into the relationship between tenant and owner as to what is in a lease and what is not. Moreover, subsection (1, b) states:
    "In the case of any agricultural land which is held by the person making the application on a lease or tenancy and in respect of which the local planning authority are satisfied that its use for any purpose other than an agricultural purpose would be contrary to the implied terms of the lease or tenancy"
    It states "implied terms". Why should we ask the local planning authority not only to read what is stated in a lease or agreement relating to a tenancy but also to read all sorts of implications into it? The hon. Member's words were, "Not just what it says but implied conditions". That is a matter for a court of law. That is not a matter for the planning authority. I think that the hon. Member was asking too much of us in expecting that we would hand this kind of thing over to local planning authorities when, obviously it is a matter entirely for the courts.
    It may well be that, irrespective of what is said in the lease, the owner has said to the tenant, "You can carry on and I shall not object." According to the wording of the new Clause, that would not carry any weight with the local planning authority which, under this Clause, has to examine the actual agreement of the tenancy or lease and would not be concerned with any oral agreement between the tenant and the owner. I think that in every way examaination of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this Clause is such as to lead the House to the judgment that we cannot accept it.
    Sir James Duncan: I should not have spoken but for the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

    1663
    This new Clause is just as likely to benefit the tenant as the landlord because if planning permission were granted for a caravan site, I gather that the rent receivable would be higher than the rent for agricultural use. This Clause is, therefore, just as much in the interest of a tenant who has a farm, and who may lose part of his farm as a caravan site, as it is in the interest of the landlord. The tenant may lose a very valuable part of the farm and it may be reduced to an uneconomic size.
    I was not a member of the Standing Committee and I approach the question of planning law with hesitation, but from an agricultural point of view there seems to be a great deal to be said for the new Clause. Agriculture is a long-term business and if we are to have a lease or agreement that a farm is to be let for agricultural purposes it would be a pity if someone were able to break the terms of the lease to set up a caravan site. If it is the wish of the landlord and the tenant that a piece of land should be given up for this purpose, then the lease or agreement can be modified to this end.
    I therefore hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and particularly the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—because this matter will apply very much in Scotland in the future—will accept at any rate the first part of the new Clause, if not now, then at a later stage. I support the new Clause.
    Sir K. Joseph: The proceedings of the Bill have been so friendly that I am not particularly embarrassed by leaning to some extent on the arguments of hon. Members opposite in dealing with the first part of the new Clause. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, this would be a revolutionary procedure in planning law. The planning authorities are bound to consider planning criteria. They are not entitled to look into even the expressed terms of a lease, and if we were to instruct them to look into the implied terms of a lease, I think that we should be carrying the requirements not only much too far legally, but quite impracticably too far.
    Both the landlord and the tenant have their own protection in the lease itself. The mere fact that planning permission
    1664
    has been given, either to the landlord or to the tenant, cannot override the terms of the lease, or the tenancy, and the landlord or tenant who is disgruntled by the behaviour of the other party has his remedy in the lease. I must ask my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. ThorntonKemsley) to accept that that is so. Planning powers in no way intrude between the landlord and the tenant.
    I turn to the other parts of the new Clause. If my hon. Friend had not declared himself a caravanner, I might have thought that he was frightened of caravans, because he is trying to erect a series of extra barriers against caravan sites. He did not speak about that part of his new Clause which would apply Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, to caravans. The House will remember that this is the Section which entitles my right hon. Friend, in any sort of development which he thinks might be regarded as a bad neighbour, to lay down that in such a case there shall be public advertisement of the proposed development.
    My right hon. Friend has already listed some of the types of development under the General Development Order. They include such things as public conveniences, sewage disposal works, slaughterhouses, knackers' yards, cinemas and dance halls. I have not given a complete list, but these are the kind of developments in which neighbours are bound to be particularly interested because of the nature of the development.
    But it is one thing for my right hon. Friend to include or exclude a particular type of development under the General Development Order, which he can vary by Order, and quite another thing to choose one type of development, namely caravans, and apply statutory sanction to it. That is an inflexible way of behaving, even if caravans deserved to be treated in that way. Moreover, I suggest to my hon. Friend, who is a keen caravanner, that caravans are not as inherently undesirable as neighbours as are such things as slaughterhouses and knackers' yards which, though essential to our civilisation, are naturally likely to arouse a certain apprehension in their immediate neighbourhood. The fact is that although we hear of bad caravan sites, the vast number of

    1665
    caravans are disposed in suitable places and in very small numbers. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to pick out caravans alone and to apply to them the public notice procedure of Section 36 of the 1959 Act.
    My hon. Friend completes his new Clause by requiring that notices under Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which requires that they shall be given to all those with an interest in the land, should also be given to adjoining owners. Here, too, he is treating caravans in a unique way. This requirement of notice to adjoining owners is not applied to any other sort of development, and I do not think that my hon. Friend has made or that, as a caravanner, he could make a case that caravans need to be treated in this exceptional way.
    4.45 p.m.
    It is the duty of a local planning authority, with the sanction of local elections behind it, to take account of the local interests before granting permission. I point out to my hon. Friend, quite apart from this aspect, that opening the door to objections from adjoining owners in every planning case involving caravans might swamp the planning machinery. The present state of the law may have led to some bad caravan sites, which are bad neighbours, and that state of the law is what the Bill sets out to cure. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Draconian powers which he wishes to take against caravan sites in this Clause are not justified, and I hope that he will withdraw the Clause.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: In view of the explanation which my hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(AS TO OBJECTIONS TO ISSUE OF SITE LICENCES.)
    (1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where an application is made to a local authority under section three of this Act for the issue of a site licence.

    (2) The local authority shall not issue a site licence unless notice of the application therefor has first been given by the applicant by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area of the local authority.

    1666

    (3) Every such notice shall state that any person who desires to object to the issue of the site licence should send to the clerk to the local authority before such date not being earlier than fourteen days after the publication of the notice as may be specified in the notice two copies of a brief statement in writing of the grounds of his objections.

    (4) The local authority shall consider any such objections before deciding whether or not to issue a site licence and after making their decision shall communicate it to every person from whom they have received such objections.

    (5) Any such person who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may appeal to a magistrate's court.—[Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    As Clause 3 is worded, and as I understand it, if planning permission has been given by the planning authority to use land as a caravan site, the local authority in whose area that site is situated must automatically grant a site licence. My hon. Friends and I think that that action ought not to be automatic. The local authority can be a district council—quite a small authority—and certainly it will be an authority which knows the district and its requirements best.
    We think that when an application is made to that authority for the issue of a site licence, it should not issue such a licence until it has advertised in a local newspaper the intention to grant a licence for the purpose of a caravan site. The Clause states the procedure which has to be followed by anyone who desires to object to the site licence. He has to send the objection to the clerk of the local authority. Any objections will then be considered by the local authority before it decides whether to issue a site licence.
    In other words, we want to see that the local authority reaches its decision on behalf of the local inhabitants, and we require the local authority to advertise the fact that the application has been made. This will not delay it very much —four or five weeks at the most—but it will place the obligation on it to advertise the fact locally so that local inhabitants have an opportunity of objecting to the proposal to establish a site, if they desire to do so.
    This does not mean that if there are objections the licence cannot be issued.

    1667
    It simply means that that will be taken as some evidence by the local authority of the feeling in the neighbourhood and that it will consider that evidence before it issues a site licence, instead of doing it automatically, as I understand it will under the provisions of Clause 3.
    There is one minor point to which I should refer. We propose that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may appeal to the magistrates' court. In Scotland that would be the sheriff court. We think that is desirable to provide an appeal to an independent, outside authority. It is no good providing for an appeal to the local authority which has to issue the licence. We think that would be contrary to the decision and certainly to the spirit of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act passed by this House in 1958. Therefore, we propose that persons aggrieved by the decision of the local authority shall be able to appeal to the magistrates' court. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider these provisions are fair and that the House will decide that this Clause ought to be included in the Bill.
    Mr. C. Hughes: I listened carefully to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in support of this new Clause and I find very little merit in them. It seems to me that, were the new Clause accepted, it would make it possible for frivolous and unsubstantial objections to be made which would delay the processes of the law. We must constantly bear in mind that the successful operation of the provisions of this Bill depends mainly upon the support of local authorities. After all, they are the elected representatives of the people. If they do not carry out their duties to the satisfaction of the electorate, the electors have a remedy as indeed they have in the case of Members of Parliament.
    In addition, it seems to hon. Members on this side of the House that there are adequate safeguards to cover all the points made by the hon. Member, not only in this Bill but in other planning legislation. On reflection, I think that the hon. Member will realise that this new Clause is not really necessary.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am a little shattered by what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) because, in the most gentle and friendly way, he has virtually torn up the principles on which this Bill is based. It is based on two main themes, that there should be single planning decisions about the location of caravans and a single procedure for appeal when an individual is aggrieved by a planning decision. Very quietly my hon. Friend is proposing to remove by this new Clause both those themes. Not only has he put that amount of dynamite under the Bill but also he has blown up the validity of local Government in those matters which I thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House treated as mature and sensible. I must apologise to the House for taking a little time to deal with such a substantial proposal as is here made by my hon. Friend.
    He proposes that the local authority should have discretion to refuse to give a site licence although planning permission in any particular case has been granted. In effect, this would set up the double planning procedure, because an applicant would not only have to jump the hurdle of the planning application successfully but would have to jump the same hurdle for the local authority before getting a site licence.
    During the Committee stage proceedings there was considerable argument submitted to my right hon. Friend that some provision should be put into the Bill requiring the consultation which my right hon. Friend asserted would, in practically every case, take place between the local planning authority and the local authority; that is, the authority considering planning on the one hand and the authority issuing the site licence on the other. My right hon. Friend agreed and in Clause 19 there is provision requiring the local planning authority to consult with the local authority which would have the control of the site licences before planning permission is given for a caravan site. I hope my hon. Friend will agree, therefore, that the local authority which would have responsibility for the granting of the site licence will be brought in before a planning decision is given.

    1669
    The second point is, even if the local authority were to disagree with the proposed granting of planning permission, why should that local authority be put in a different position regarding caravans than, for example, regarding housing? I apologise to the House for repeating an argument which was advanced a number of times during the Committee stage, but here we have a situation exactly analogous to housing, where a local planning authority gives or refuses permission and the local authority controls the size and quality of the housing by way of byelaws. It is the same pattern which we seek to reproduce here. We believe that the local authority should not be given the power to do the job of the planning authority. It will have been consulted by the planning authority anyway, but it should be given power, as is given in the Bill, to control by site licences the conditions under which caravans can be put on any site approved for planning purposes by the local planning authority.
    My hon. Friend goes on to suggest that public notice should be given by advertisement. He rejected any argument that this might delay the procedure —I think somewhat airily—by saying that it might hold up things for a matter of five or six weeks. My hon. Friend cannot be seized of the size of this planning problem and the anxiety of my right hon. Friend that the existing delays, arising from the vast number of planning appeals to be dealt with, should certainly not be made worse and, if possible, should be reduced.
    To open the floodgates and allow local authorities to be subjected to pressures from any person whether directly interested or not, would mean that local authorities would be under unbearable pressure, and secondly, it would make fantastic the delay in decisions on planning proposals. Besides—this is where my hon. Friend rejects the whole argument which I thought everyone had accepted about local government—on every local authority there will be a representative of the area where the public may be interested. It is the job of the local representative to be aware of the reaction of his "constituents" if I may so call them, to what is proposed. The representative might even have to be brave enough to decide in favour of a project
    1670
    which for one reason or another one of his constituents may oppose. I suggest that my hon. Friend's proposal is unworkable because of the delays, and wrong because it is a breach of the independence of local government.
    As if this were not enough, my hon. Friend proposes, thirdly, to introduce the double appeal procedure which has led to all the trouble about enforcing planning decisions up to now. In this new Clause it is suggested that anyone who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may appeal to the magistrates' court. In the Bill we have retained appeal to the magistrates' court against conditions imposed in a site licence by a local authority. But in this new Clause I think my hon. Friend intends to give the applicant the right to appeal to the magistrates' court on a planning matter. It is this duality of appeal procedure which we wished to avoid and, after a great deal of discussion, this was achieved by Clause 28 of the Bill which puts all such appeals on these matters to my right hon. Friend. I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend for dealing with this matter at such length, but I hope I have shown that it goes to the root of the Bill in not one, but three, ways. I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw the Motion.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

    Clause 2.—(EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.)
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to "no".
    This Amendment is linked with the next Amendment on the Notice Paper, namely, in page 2, line 16, leave out from second "the" to end of Clause and insert:
    "Schedule (Cases where a caravan site licence is not required) to this Act and that Schedule shall have effect accordingly."
    Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the new Schedule to deal with cases where a caravan site licence is not required, because the purpose of the first two Amendments is to get the exemptions out of Clause 2 and to set them out more conveniently in a Schedule at the end of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is an Amendment to the new Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and that would be discussed with the new Schedule. Of course, were a Division desired, that would come at a later stage.
    Mr. C. Hughes: I agree that the Schedule should be discussed now, provided that I shall have an opportunity to discuss my Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will have full opportunity to discuss his Amendment to the new Schedule, but if he wishes to divide the House, a Division will take place at the time when we reach the Schedule.
    Mr. Hughes: I am obliged.
    Mr. H. Brooke: On considering the Bill as it emerged from the Committee stage it appeared more convenient to set out the exemptions altogether in a Schedule at the end of the Bill. The reason was that a number of helpful suggestions were made during the Committee stage and the Schedule seeks to embody in proper language those series of suggestions which appeared prima facie to be generally acceptable. My hope that they are acceptable is strengthened by the fact that the new Schedule has been on the Notice Paper for a week or so and the only Amendment down to it is, as I think the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) would agree, not much more than of a drafting character.
    It might be convenient if I indicated those features which have been introduced since the exemptions were embodied in the first instance in Clause 2 of the Bill. The first paragraph of the new Schedule to which I shall invite, the attention of the House is paragraph 2. This is designed to afford a further measure of freedom for the touring caravanner. During the Committee stage everyone was anxious that the travelling caravanner should not be discouraged by this Bill. It is not the individual caravanner who creates the problem of caravan sites with which the Bill is mostly concerned. At the same time I think it is universally recognised that the travelling caravanner should not be free from any sort of control or he might so organise his travelling as to stay for a long time on one spot without being
    1672
    subject to any control. But certainly it is the firm desire of the Government that the Bill should not in any way discourage people who want to spend a caravan holiday travelling from place to place or who may extend their travelling over several nights in order to get to the spot where they intend to spend their holiday.
    Paragraph 2 of the new Schedule grants exemptions for the single caravanner who stops anywhere for one or two nights in the course of travelling. During the Committee stage one hon. Friend of mine quoted the example of a vicar who might like to invite his caravanning friends to spend a night in his yard or garden if they happened to be in the neighbourhood. This Clause will entirely free the vicar from any fear that he would be infringing the law in making such an offer.
    I hope the House will agree that this freedom for the travelling caravanner to use any place he likes without needing to get a licence should apply only to an occasional use, that is to say that it should be limited to not more than twenty-eight days in a year. If one removed any sort of limit it would open the door to commercial advertising of a caravan site. It is not a site which could be used by a whole series of people travelling through, or there might be a caravan on the spot practically every night of the summer. If anything of that kind is contemplated, a licence will be required.
    The next paragraph to which I invite the attention of the House is paragraph 3 which incorporates the exemption which is now in Clause 2 (2, h), but in the new Schedule it includes a further provision to enable the Minister, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, to relax by Order the limit of five acres and the time limit of twenty-eight days in a year in a particular area. That suggestion has been met. It will give a little more flexibility. It is difficult to see that there will be any disadvantage from so providing.
    The next paragraph which is of a novel character compared with the original Bill is paragraph 5. This provides an exemption for club sites, on the lines of a proposal which found universal approval in the Standing Committee. The exemption is based on the issue by the organisation of a certificate for each site. The

    1673
    certificate will be renewable from year to year. That will enable the extent of the exemption to be kept under review and, if any check is needed, it will provide a check on the proper management of sites. The exemption will apply only to sites approved by an exempted organisation for the use of its members, and paragraph 12 of the Schedule makes it clear that only organisations concerned with recreational activities will qualify for exemption.
    Paragraph 6 deals with caravan rallies. This was another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in the Standing Committee. This paragraph will cover a caravan rally arranged by an exempted organisation which lasts for not more than five days. We have gone into the length of the exemption. My hon. Friend suggested seven days in the Amendment he moved in Committee, but the information which we have been able to gather indicates that the type of caravan rally which this paragraph is designed to exempt does not normally last for more than five days. If anything of this sort is to be of a semi-permanent character, clearly a licence should be required.
    I should like, finally, to say a few words about paragraph 10, because I expect that in the House, as in the Standing Committee, everyone will be interested in travelling showmen. This paragraph extends the present exemption given to travelling showmen in Clause 2 (2, g). It extends that exemption to cover the showmen's winter quarters. I will not go further over the case for this. It was fully ventilated in Committee and accepted by the Government. It will be noticed that the exemption in this paragraph will now apply only to showmen who are members of an organisation recognised by the Minister as consisting of bona fide travelling showmen. That idea was mooted in the Standing Committee, and it was acceptable. It will certainly be a safeguard against abuse of these provisions.
    I trust that the House will feel that the Government have made a genuine attempt to pay attention to what was said from both sides of the Standing Committee on the scope of these exemptions. If it is suggested from any quarter that one can now drive a coach and four through the control provisions of the Bill, it will be incorrect, because one
    1674
    cannot. We are dealing here with the fringe of the main body of the caravan problem. We are seeking to give exemption to certain people who we think deserve exemption by reason of the nature of what they are engaged in. We do not want to clutter up the administration of caravan law with a tremendous amount of unnecessary paper and needless control. We are anxious that people should enjoy themselves, provided that they do not infringe the rights and amenities of others. The fact that the new Schedule has stood on the Notice Paper for a week without any substantial Amendment to it being tabled encourages the Government to hope that the House will accept that our attempt to shape the exemptions has been a genuine one.
    Mr. Edward Short: We welcome the Schedule. We think that it meets the anomalies, which arise very largely because the Bill, though based on a Report which dealt purely with residential caravanning, is being applied to all cravanning—touring caravanners, showmen, and so on. A great many anomalies were apparent on Second Reading and in Committee. We feel that in the Schedule the Minister has gone a considerable way to meet those difficulties and the points which were made.
    Paragraph 2 is new. It helps to make life possible again for the touring caravanner. It is rather restricted. The Minister mentioned the vicar. The vicar's hospitality may be very good indeed and one may wish to stay for more than two nights, but this paragraph limits the stay to one van for not more than two nights. Nevertheless, it is a very great step forward and makes life possible once more for the touring caravanner.
    Coming to paragraph 3, we removed in Committee the limitation of rural district councils. As I said in Committee, I felt that five acres was too much. The Minister has at any rate gone some way to meet that by taking power to specify such lower acreage as he may think fit. We shall have to see how it works out. It may well be necessary for caravanning interests some time in the future to ask that some smaller acreage be put in place of the five acres.

    1675
    Paragraph 4 is the exemption which appeared in the Bill originally. It was sub-paragraph (c) of Clause 2 (2), and not sub-paragraph (h), as the Minister said. Paragraph 5 is largely the amendment which I moved in Committee and which the Minister accepted in principle. It limits the number of vans which may be on such a site to five. There is no limitation on the time. This could cover vans which remain on the same site for the whole of the summer—in other words, weekend vans. It could enable a very large number of small unlicensed sites—I mean unlicensed by the local authority—to grow up throughout the country. I hope that it will not. I simply say that it could happen. What the Minister has in mind here is to help the touring caravanner. Obviously no planning permission is required. It is covered by the General Development Order and it would be quite possible for anyone to set up a site of this kind, provided that it was licensed by one of the exempted organisations, and use the site with five caravans stationed on it throughout the whole of the summer. I do not think that was the Minister's intention.
    Paragraph 6 caters for rallies. Five days are adequate and we are grateful that the Minister has put that in. There has been an extension in the case of occupational caravans, and we welcome that. I am rather sorry that in the case of building and engineering sites the caravans must be on the land where the work is taking place or on adjoining land. There may well be cases where the builder can only put caravans on a site a couple of fields away. That will be ruled out, because paragraph 5 provides that it has to be on the site or on adjoining land. However, we shall see how that works out.
    We welcome the inclusion of travelling showmen's winter quarters. This is almost a traditional exemption now. Travelling showmen have had it for many years and have never abused it.
    5.15 p.m.
    Paragraph 11 contains a change which goes some way, but not the whole way, to meet an objection which a number of hon. Members and myself raised on Second Reading and in Committee. The change is that a local authority site
    1676
    will be exempt if the site is in the local authority's own area. Clause 20 defines a local authority for this purpose as including a joint planning authority. The case which I thought might cause difficulty is a joint planning authority in a National Park setting up a site, but the rural district council or the urban district council within the joint planning area not having a say in the matter. This paragraph does not meet the difficulty. It could still take place. The paragraph goes only part of the way towards meeting it. When I raised this in Committee, the Minister said that he thought that I was on a good thing. Apparently he has not solved that problem. Nevertheless, we welcome this slight change.
    I think that there is something wrong with the numbering of the Schedule, because paragraphs 2 to 11 are obviously sub-paragraphs of paragraph 1. No doubt that can be put right. Paragraph 13 is obviously not an exemption. It gives the Minister the power to withdraw all the exemptions, except that applying to local authorities. The exempted organisations should have the power to make representations when the Minister intends to withdraw their exemptions.
    Apart from those minor criticisms and observations, we welcome this relaxation and clearing up of the anomalies which were apparent when the Bill was first published.
    Mr. John M. Temple: I add my appreciation of the new Schedule to that which has just been expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). It is magnificent work on the part of the Parliamentary draftsman concerned. It is so clear that we shall not require a lawyer to explain its provisions to us. That is a triumph.
    I want to mention certain aspects of the Schedule, because I had the privilege of making certain representations in Committee. It was recognised on both sides of the Standing Committee that the man in the street, the touring caravanner who was not a member of an organisation, and the oversea visitor who was not a member of any national organisations, would have no chance of staying for one or two nights in any spot which appealed to him. Therefore, I very much welcome

    1677
    the relaxations in paragraphs 1 and 2, because they will make it possible for the overseas visitor to move around Britain and stay one or two nights in a yard adjacent to an inn, in the vicar's garden, as the Minister said, if the vicar is kind enough to invite him in, or in any other place which may appeal to him. That is a very reasonable relaxation. It should not in any way inconvenience local authorities. It will bring immense flexibility to the life of the touring caravanner, and will be greatly appreciated.
    The exempted organisations will be such organisations as the Caravan Club of Great Britain. They are very responsible organisations. Under paragraphs 4 and 5, they will have power to occupy, supervise and approve sites. The occupied and supervised sites will be sites which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central referred to as being capable of being occupied throughout the summer. Those sites will be under the direst supervision of the exempted organisations. If these exempted organisations do not exercise the control which we expect from them and which we have every reason to expect by reason of their excellent past conduct, their exemption can be withdrawn.
    I have one particular point which I want to put to my right hon. Friend. It concerns the approved locations, what I have referred to as the certificated locations, established by exempted organisations. Under paragraph 5 (3) these organisations are to send particulars to my right hon. Friend of the locations. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend intends in some way to communicate the positions of these locations to the local authorities concerned. It might well be that he might consider adding after "to the Minister" the words "and to the local authorities". Perhaps whoever is to reply will say whether it is the intention of the Minister to inform the local authorities concerned of the certificated locations.
    I had the privilege of speaking in Committee on behalf of the travelling showmen. I should like to read to the House a letter dated 30th May which I received from the general secretary of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. He wrote:
    "We are very pleased to see the Government Amendment on the Order Paper, which
    1678
    gives us everything we can reasonably want. I have emphasised to my Council that such an exemption … places the responsibility squarely upon us to see that it is not abused."
    The general secretary of the Showmen's Guild, which no doubt will claim to be an exempted organisation under the Bill, accepts on behalf of the members of the Guild—and it represents about 95 per cent. of the travelling showmen of Great Britain—the fact that responsibility will lay fairly and squarely on the Showmen's Guild. I think that we can have every confidence that the Showmen's Guild will measure up to its responsibilities. If it does not do so, my right hon. Friend has the immediate sanction of being able to withdraw its exemption. Once again, the long-standing exemption of travelling showmen has been recognised, and rightly, in the Bill.
    Paragraph 13 gives the Minister power to nullify the exemption, but equally it gives an exempted organisation three months' grace. By this power local authorities will feel confident that the exempted organisations will have a healthy restriction put upon them, because their exemption can be removed at any time by application to my right hon. Friend, who will retain the ultimate sanction. The period of three months' grace is to enable exempted organisations to notify their members.
    I wholeheartedly welcome the new Schedule and hope that it will be added to the Bill.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I must apologise for speaking in the debate, since I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill so thoroughly. I have had several representations from my constituents, who are particularly anxious about the position of the mobile caravanner. As I have been a mobile caravanner, I know something of the position. If one goes from Twickenham to North Wales with a caravan, it is obvious that one must stay at least one night on the way. My constituents felt strongly that Clause 2 was far too restrictive and that the requirement that a site would be exempted if it was five acres or more did not meet their case. I am, therefore, delighted to find that their needs have been met to such a large extent in the new Schedule. Obviously the mobile caravanner, whom we want to encourage, must stay from time to time with a friend or with a

    1679
    householder with a small house. Therefore, as I think that the new Schedule meets the needs of the mobile caravanner, the fears of my constituents should be allayed.
    The last point that I want to put to my right hon. Friend concerns the position of a club known as the British Caravanners' Club which, it is hoped, will fall within the list of exempted organisations. This is a highly respected club which has been in my constituency for about 50 years. It is a section of the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can say now what organisations he proposes to list, but I hope that he will look upon this club, which, I understand, is highly thought of, with sympathy and favour and will bring it within the list of exempted organisations. Subject to those two points, I should like to say how much I appreciate the new Schedule.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Like other hon. Members, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing this new Schedule. In Committee, I said that the wording of that part of the Bill stating that a five-acre site would be exempted needed clarification, and that planning officers who would have to operate the Bill were concerned about its ambiguity. I believe that the new Schedule greatly clarifies the points that I made, and I feel that it will be of very great advantage.
    Those of us who were in Committee realise that, while we wished to have adequate control, there was need for giving reasonable freedom to those who wished to tour in caravans. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) can, I think, assure his constituents that, as a result of the discussions in Committee, the person who wishes to do so should have plenty of opportunity and reasonable freedom to do all the touring in a caravan that he wants.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) expressed some anxiety about the possibility of exempted organisations abusing the use of a site by keeping perhaps five caravans on it throughout the year. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of
    1680
    Chester (Mr. Temple), who dealt with that point. I do not think the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central need have any anxiety. If any exempted organisation in any way abuses its privileges, since the certificate will be only on an annual basis, the exemption can be withdrawn if those abuses continue. Just as in the case of the travelling showmen, I am sure that all exempted organisations will go out of their way to recognise their responsibility and to ensure that their members live up to the requirements of their organisation to justify continued exemption.
    Mr. Short: I did not criticise the exempted organisations. There would be no abuse of the law, because, as I understand it, the law permits this. What I said was that surely the Minister intended this for touring caravans. As I understand it, the new Schedule allows a site to have five caravans on it for the whole of the summer without the law being broken. I do not say that there would be abuse on the part of exempted organisations but that, as it stands, the new Schedule would allow it.
    Sir W. Wakefield: I quite appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps I did not mean abuse of the law but of the intention, perhaps, to have this position reserved for the tourer and not to have the sites utilised by the weekend caravanner. That is what I meant when I drew attention to what the hon. Gentleman said.
    I conclude by expressing the hope that the Bill, as amended in this way, will be found to be satisfactory and of very great benefit to all those who operate sites, who dwell on sites at the weekends, or who wish to stay on them for a night or two as they tour the countryside. I hope that the Bill, as amended, will give ever-increasing pleasure to the growing number of people who are using the caravan and who will continue to use it in the years to come.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I wish to join with my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend on producing this Schedule. It gets over a number of objections which I have

    1681
    received from my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe, where we have the pleasure of having many caravan dwellers.
    There is one point which affects the civil engineering industry, and here I declare my interest. The object of paragraph 9 of the proposed new Schedule is constructive as far as industry is concerned and is most helpful. There is, however, one point that I should like to put about hydro-electric schemes. The paragraph says:
    "… a caravan site of land which forms part of, or adjoins, land on which building or engineering operations are being carried out …"
    I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend is sufficiently conversant with hydro-electric sites not to wish the men employed on them to have to live on the top of mountains when they are building dams. It is usual on such sites to find the caravans in the valley where their occupants can enjoy the amenities of the land. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give the assurance that that is the intention of the paragraph.
    Mr. C. Hughes: You were good enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say that I could speak to my Amendment to the Schedule at this stage.
    Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order. If the Amendment were discussed now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps that would limit the discussion.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Amendment is not being moved now. It is being discussed with the new Schedule.
    Mr. Hughes: In referring to the Amendment, the Minister said that it was a drafting one, but it is a little more than that, as I shall hope to prove. Paragraph 9 of the Schedule, to which reference has just been made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), exempts caravans which are used for accommodating persons employed in connection with building and engineering operations. This is a necessary exemption, and we on this side of the House agree with it. It is primarily intended to cover large-scale constructional works undertaken by big firms which move from one area to another and where mobility of labour is
    1682
    an important factor, stand that.
    However, since the Committee stage it has been brought to my attention that there may be a person who is vitally interested in building operations without actually being employed on them. The words used in the paragraph are:
    "… employed in connection with the said operations."
    Let us take, for example, the case of a man who has bought a plot of land and who is building a house on it—he and his wife and family have no alternative accommodation and, therefore, they wish to live on the site that they have bought perhaps for six or nine months whilst the house is going up. It seems to me that a case of that kind is not far removed, in spirit at least, from the exemption in paragraph 1 of the Schedule, that is to say, where it states:
    "A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwelling house within the curtilage of which the land is situated."
    As I read it, paragraph 1 does not cover the case which I have in mind. If it does, I shall be glad to have that assurance from the Minister.
    I am concerned with the use of a caravan in relation to the anticipated enjoyment of a dwelling-house in course of construction and not of a house that is actually built. The Amendment standing in the name of myself and two of my hon. Friends seeks to add the words, "Or engaged" to the paragraph. I think that the Amendment would cover the type of house which I have in mind, because if a person has contracted to build a house, is paying for the house and owns the land on which it is being built, then, presumably, he is engaged in connection with the building operations and would be covered by paragraph 9 if those words were inserted I think that the Amendment is a very reasonable one and well within the spirit of the exemptions included in the Schedule. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it later in the debate.
    There is one other point that I wish to make. It is a general point on paragraphs 10 and 12 dealing with exempted organisations to which the Minister will be granting certificates. Will Parliament and the public be able to know to

    1683
    which organisations precisely the right hon. Gentleman has granted certificates of exemption? It is desirable, particularly under paragraph 12, that some list should be available somewhere. This is certainly something that local authorities will wish to know, and I shall be glad if the Minister will say how he proposes to make the list known to Members of the House, to local authorities and to the public generally.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I will not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. I was one of those who, on Second Reading, were critical of certain aspects of what was then, and still is, Clause 2 of the Bill as it affected people like myself who enjoy mobile caravanning. I wish to say how much I appreciate the work done by my colleagues in the Committee, as I was not, and in particular by my right hon. Friend the Minister in producing so quickly this new Schedule, which seems to me meet all the points that many of us raised on Second Reading and which were subsequently raised by many of my colleagues in Committee. I particularly like paragraphs 2 and 5 of the new Schedule which go the whole way to meet the points which I raised on Second Reading.
    There is one point which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) intended to bring to your notice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps I might ask the question on his behalf. It has to do with paragraph 7, which deals with agriculture and forestry workers. From the wording of the exemption for agricultural workers, it is quite clear that the site licence will
    "… not be required for the use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations …"
    That is perfectly clear concerning agriculture. In that connection "a particular season" is, one imagines, the time of harvest, or a season in which particular work is required on the land, and for that reason accommodation is required for some of the workers. But this is not so clear in the case of forestry, although the same phrase "during a particular season" is used. Forest land may be required for planting—and I hope that here I am making the point
    1684
    which would have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus. Planting might be construed to be a particular season.
    What so often happens is the kind of thing we were faced with in the north of Scotland three or four years ago, when we had the disastrous wind blow at the end of February. Trees were swept down like ninepins before a 90 m.p.h. gale. It took months, indeed years, to get the trees cleared. Contingents of forestry workers were brought in. Many had to live in caravans because there was no other accommodation for them. This sort of situation, certainly in spirit, ought to be covered by the wording of paragraph (8), and I hope that the Minister will have another look at this to make sure that the words "during a particular season" have, in respect of forestry, the meaning that they are intended to have—namely, that caravans placed on the land for the purposes of forestry when some particular work is to be carried on for a period shall not require a site licence.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am grateful for the kind things that have been said about this new Schedule by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the case that a number of people in my Department have been working hard under my instructions to try and get forms of words which would satisfactory meet a number of excellent suggestions made in Committee. I think it is further testimony to the splendedly co-operative way in which we have taken the Bill through all its stages up to now that the Government seem to have had considerable success in meeting and overcoming the legitimate criticisms which were made of Clause 2 as it originally stood.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) was a little anxious about paragraph 11. I must apologise for not having specifically mentioned it in my original speech. If he looks at the definition of a local authority in Clause 25, he will find that it does not include a joint planning board, and therefore a caravan site which was run by a joint planning board in a national park would be subject to licensing by the district council. I think that that was what he desired.

    1685
    A number of questions were raised about paragraph 5 concerning the certified locations, the sites granted a certificate by an approved organisation. I do not remember whether when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central first raised this general point in Committee he suggested that there should be any time limit on it, but I think that a certain element of time limit is secured by the fact that in paragraph 12 it is laid down that before granting a certificate for exemption to any one of these organisations the Minister must be
    "… satisfied that its objects include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities."
    If an organisation then started virtually to certify a number of sites which were not really being used for holiday purposes but for permanent residence, quite frankly I think it would endanger its certificate.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Short: I have not raised this before. I did not suggest that these caravans would be for residential purposes but that they might be left on the site for the whole of the summer and used at weekends by the owners. What the Minister had in mind was to assist touring caravanners. With regard to the other point, the definition of a local authority is in Clause 20. Subsection (8) of that Clause states that the expression
    "local authority '… includes a joint planning board …"
    This surely includes a joint planning board in considering which local authorities can set up caravan sites.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me there. It is true that in Clause 20 the expression "local authority" is defined to include a joint planning board. I accept that, but that definition only defines the words "local authority" for the purposes of Clause 20, and the general definition of "local authority" in the other Clauses is in Clause 25. We are not discussing here the definition of "local authority" under Clause 20. We are discussing the words "local authority" as they will appear in the new Schedule, and these words in the Schedule will be defined by Clause 25. It will be the case, therefore, as I think the hon. Gentleman wishes, that where a general planning board in a National
    1686
    Park runs a caravan site it will still have to obtain a site licence from the district council concerned.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was gratifyingly flattering in his references to the new Schedule. I hope that I have, in the main, met the points which he raised all through. He asked me, I think, whether, under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 5, the particulars should only go to the Minister and not to the planning authorities also. It would be our intention, by administrative action, to make certain that when we received particulars of a certificate issued by an organisation we conveyed that information to the local authority concerned. It is desirable that that should be so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked whether a particular organisation in his constituency was likely to get exemption. I am sure that the House would not wish me to make any forecasts before the Bill is in operation, but I think it is fairly widely known what are the organisations which have exemptions at the present time under Section 269 of the 1936 Act. I am not to be taken as implying that each of those, and only those, will qualify for exemption under this Bill, but it is certainly some guide to the policy which previous Ministers have followed in the past. We had better look at each application on its merits.
    The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), in this connection, asked whether Parliament and the public would be able to know which organisation received certificates. I do not think we need write anything of that kind into the Bill. I would certainly find some means of letting it be known, when the applications were being made, which were being accepted and approved. Again, if changes were made, we could probably find some means of making sure that those people concerned had the necessary information.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked about hydro-electric schemes. I must say that I can see some difficulties about extending the exemption in paragraph 9 of the Schedule to caravans at a distance from the works without making the exemption altogether too

    1687
    wide. This, however, is a new point—I do not think that it was mentioned in Standing Committee. Perhaps the Government could be given time to consider it further.
    I should like to take this opportunity to say that, without doubt, some Amendments will come back to us from another place. Therefore, when I indicate in what I say that the matter will be considered further, it does not mean that I am simply trying to get away with that because the Government will resist any Amendments in another place. That is not so, and if I might bear out what I have just said, I would say that it has not been possible for the Government, by this stage of the Bill, to settle what we should do about caravans on common land—a question that was raised in Committee. That is something that must be looked at before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
    The hon. Member for Anglesey spoke to his Amendment, and to him I must say much the same as I said before. I confess that I had not envisaged just the type of case that he mentioned—a man living in a caravan while he is building a house, or getting a house built for him. I could not go so far as to say that we would accept that Amendment, but I shall certainly examine that matter and see whether there is any way in which we could cover that rather unusual case, which, however, might occur from time to time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C.Thornton-Kemsley) asked about the reference in paragraph 8 to "a particular season" in the case of forestry operations. Those words appear in both paragraphs 7 and 8, because I think that it would be the general will of the House that there should not be a continuous exemption from licensing for what is really a permanent caravan colony. The idea is that when work is going on in an area, whether on a farm or in the forest, and it is not of a permanent character, it should be possible to have the people engaged on the job living in caravans for a time without the necessity of obtaining a licence.
    The apprehensions that my hon. Friend voiced can be allayed. I do not think that he was seeking to argue that
    1688
    there should be exemption from licensing if this was to be a permanent installation. It strikes me, although I shall certainly examine the point, which is a new one, that the words "during a particular season" should provide for the sort of contingency or local disaster that he has in mind.
    I greatly appreciated what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) said. I know that he has great experience of these matters and is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides who have taken a great deal of interest in these exemptions. I want to express my appreciation of the help that the Government have had over this rather difficult and delicate matter—though, fortunately, it arouses no party feelings—and to thank the House again for the reception that has been given to the Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 16, leave out from second "the" to end of Clause and insert:
    "Schedule (Cases where a caravan site licence is not required) to this Act and that Schedule shall have effect accordingly".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause 3.—(ISSUE OF SITE LICENCES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 41 and to insert:
    "in writing and shall specify the land in respect of which the application is made; and the applicant shall, either at the time of making the application or subsequently, give to the local authority such particulars, set out in such form".
    This Amendment defines somewhat more clearly the application for a site licence under Clause 3. The House will see that it is now required that the application should be in writing and should specify the land involved. It is now also set out clearly that the particulars that are submitted in compliance with my right hon. Friend's requirement as to the particulars that must be submitted when seeking a site licence can be submitted simultaneously with the application or at a later date. Some doubt was expressed in Standing Committee whether it was open to the applicant to submit the particulars separately from the application, and this Amendment makes it abundantly plain.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert:
    (3) A local authority may on an application under this section issue a site licence in respect of the land if, and only if, the applicant is, at the time when the site licence is issued, entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order, not being a permission granted in terms such that it will expire within a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application was made.
    (4) If at the date when the applicant duly gives the particulars prescribed under subsection (2) of this section he is entitled to the benefit of such a permission as aforesaid, the local authority shall issue a site licence in respect of the land within two months of that date or, if the applicant and the local authority agree in writing that the local authority shall be afforded a longer period within which to grant a site licence, within the period so agreed.
    (5) If the applicant becomes entitled to the benefit of such a permission as aforesaid at some time after duly giving the particulars prescribed under subsection (2) of this section the local authority shall issue a site licence in respect of the land within six weeks of the date on which he becomes so entitled or, if the applicant and the local authority agree in writing that the local authority shall be afforded a longer period within which to grant a site licence, within the period so agreed.
    (6) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority shall not at any time issue a site licence to a person who to their knowledge has held a site licence which has been revoked in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act less than three years before that time.
    This Amendment involves several changes in Clause 3, which defines the obligation of local authorities to issue site licences. The Amendment seeks to make three changes. The first is consequential on the Amendment just accepted by the House. Subsection (3) in the Amendment sets out that the time that the local authorities have—a limited period—during which to issue site licences, will run not from the application but from the date when all the particulars have been submitted. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be unfair to expect local authorities to deal with the particulars even when they have not been submitted during the limited period of time.
    I feel that the second change will also commend itself to the House. It is that it shall be open to both the applicant for the site licence and the local autho-
    1690
    rity to agree a period longer than the six weeks or the two months, that still remain as the normal periods in the Clause. In the absence of any other agreement, the site licence must be issued within two months if planning permission was already held by the applicant and within six weeks if it had not been held but was received after the application.
    The third alteration means that a loophole that evaded us in Committee has since been spotted and closed. The House will recollect that Clause 8 gives the local authority power in certain circumstances to revoke a site licence, but by the Bill as then drafted it would follow that it would be open to the occupier of the site whose site licence had been revoked to go to the local authority within an hour and, since he would still have planning permission, claim another site licence, and the local authority would have had no power to refuse it.
    The new element in the proposed subsection (6) will empower the local authority not to issue a new site licence for three years after a revocation under Clause 8 has been carried out. I hope that these new subsections which in no way reduce the powers of the local authorities but only extend them and reconcile them with other changes in the Bill will be acceptable to the House.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: In my view, the Government have missed an opportunity in this Amendment. There is a fault here in the machinery of the Bill. The Bill divides the persons applying for site licences into two categories, namely, those who are entitled to the benefit of planning permission and those who are not so entitled. The fault in the Bill, which is perpetuated in the Amendment, is that no account is taken of a separate category altogether, namely, those who are now required by the Bill to apply for permission whereas, under the existing law, no permission is required. The Government deal with the matter by treating these people within the same category as those who are using land in contravention of planning permission, treating them as people not entitled to the benefit of permission. I suggest that this is an important matter. We are

    1691
    introducing here just the kind of anomaly which, as we all know, has for long bedevilled the enforcement provisions of our town and country planning law.
    It is important to recognise that the Bill extends planning control by making it necessary, under this Clause, to apply for planning permission in cases where, until now, no planning permission has been necessary—in cases, for instance,where there has been a use in existence from before 1948, in cases where there has been no material change in the use of land and for that reason planning permission until this point has not been necessary, and in cases where, under the provisions of the 1947 Act, there has been a contravening use but that contravening use has extended for more than four years and, therefore, the whole mechanism of enforcement under the 1947 Act has been ineffective against a user of land.
    We have here an extension of planning control under cover of a licensing system. The people who, for the reasons I have suggested, needed no permission at all and those who escaped the effect of the enforcement provisions of the 1947 Act are brought by the Bill into the web and made to apply for planning permission. This is, therefore, an important extension of planning control under cover of a licensing system.
    I should have thought that the proper way to deal with this was not the way adopted by the Government in the Amendment, but to provide that in cases where under the existing law no planning permission was necessary, either because there was no material change of use or because it was a pre-1947 Act use, the application should be confined to the local authority as a licensing authority and there should be no reference across to the local planning authority. That would have been an incomparably more tidy and more effective way administratively of achieving the purpose the Government have in mind.
    The absurd consequences which may follow from the method adopted by the Government may be illustrated in this way. Let us suppose that we have a case where, under the existing law, there was no material change in the use of land and then, under Clause 3, applica-
    1692
    tion is made to the local authority and referred across to the local planning authority. Let us suppose that the application for permission is turned down but the applicant continues the contravening use nevertheless. In those circumstances, there can be no effective enforcement against him under the law because, on this hypothesis, he can always successfully appeal to the Minister on the ground referred to in Clause 28 (1, c), namely, that no permission was required under Part III of the 1947 Act.
    On the planning side of the matter, therefore, the refusal of planning permission has no practical effect at all because that ground of apppeal to the Minister can always be successfully followed. It is true, of course, that, although the planning enforcement provisions are not effective against an applicant of that kind, he can be effectively dealt with through the circumstance that, if he uses the land without a site licence, he is caught by the Clause 6 penalties; but the fact that that is so bears out, in my submission, the undesirability of this whole system. For heaven's sake, in cases where, until now, there has been no need to apply for permission because the proposed use of the land was not development under the 1947 Act, let that type of case be treated not as a case for planning control to which the enforcement provisions of the 1947 Act can have any application at all but simply as a thing apart, an application for a site licence.
    In my submission, this is an important matter. I agree that there is a point about what is the appropriate mechanism, but, after all, this is the opportunity to put these things right. Perhaps of all the provisions of the Bill this is the provision which most clearly is the consequence of an attempt, which the Bill illustrates, to extend planning control by resort to a licensing system. I deplore the fact that the Government have not adopted the method I have ventured to recommend.
    Mr. Graham Page: I support the warning given by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). We are here making a major alteration in planning law. If not in so many words, we are in fact depriving an owner of an established right. He has acquired a right to carry on a

    1693
    caravan site by reason of the fact that he did so before 1948 or by reason of the fact that four years have elapsed since he started the development and no notice has been served on him. He has acquired a right in the land, but if the Bill goes through as it is now, he has acquired an empty right because, although he will have that assumed planning permission, he will yet, before he can have a site licence, have to apply for, as it were, confirmation of his existing right.
    It is a little worse than that, because if he then applies under Part III of the 1947 Act for permission in order to have the backing to his application for a site licence, he may well be faced with Clause 17 of this Bill, under which directions can be added to that planning permission for running down the site and perhaps terminating it after a few years. It is certainly doubtful whether, in these circumstances, he would be entitled to any compensation for the damage which he would suffer from those directions being applied to his site.
    I am sure that this matter has not been fully thought out in all its implications. It is an alteration in planning law, and it seems to me that it would have been a much simpler matter to leave the position in this way. A man who has an established right will apply for a site licence. He may assert that he had that established right, but the local authority might dispute that right. Then let the local authority test it by serving him with an enforcement notice. It would then be tested under the general Clauses of this Bill by appeal to the Minister. If the owner fails, he will have to put in for his planning permission, and conditions and directions can be attached to it, but if he succeeds in showing that he had an established right, he should be entitled to his site licence. I hope that this matter will receive more consideration at a later stage of the Bill.
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a formidable combination of lawyers, and I will try to meet what they are claiming. It is quite true that there is a deliberate proposal to submit every existing site to planning survey. That is the intention, and it is achieved by a combination of Clauses 11 and 15. The existing sites, as defined in Clause 11, are deemed to
    1694
    have had planning permission given to them six months after they have made application, within two months of the passage of this Bill, which exempts them from the consequences of Clause 1, if, during those six months, they have not either had planning permission or a discontinuance notice or an enforcement order. Surely, nobody would object to this. It brings the caravan sites of the country under the new control, and I cannot see that this provision, coupled with the consequential availability of the site licence in the Clause we are discussing, extends planning control or removes any safeguards from occupiers.
    The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) spoke as if it were automatic to establish whether or not any particular occupier has or had existing use rights. This is a very complex matter of fact and law which is surely, above all, appropriate for the local planning authority rather than the local authority. It is arguments of planning and relevant to planning that the occupier will adduce in order to show that he has existing use rights, and those arguments, it seems to me, would not be appropriate for decision by the local authority, but should go to the local planning authority.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is quite right in saying that the local planning authority can test its judgment by taking out an enforcement notice, and against an enforcement notice the person concerned can appeal and go before my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It may well occur—may it not?—in the case which he is giving as an illustration, that the local planning authority would come to the conclusion that the use proposed was not one requiring permission under the existing law. It would, therefore, determine the matter by saying, "We have no jurisdiction to grant permission". I put that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it seems to me that, when that occurs, there is stalemate. The local authority cannot issue a site licence without prior permission, and yet the local planning authority is saying, "We have no jurisdiction to grant permission, because this is not a use which required permission under the 1947 Act".
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir K. Joseph: But the local planning authority can give permission on planning grounds. Even if it decides that the site did not have existing use rights, it is open to the local planning authority to say, "Nevertheless, we will give you planning permission". So far as I can see, if no existing use rights are claimed, the site can be treated in one of these three ways. It must either be given specific planning permission, whether or not it had a right to that permission under the previous law, or it must be treated by enforcement notice or by discontinuance order.
    Mr. A. J. IrvineI am greatly obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will he deal with this point? On that view of the matter, what can be the relevance of this to the provisions in Clause 28 (1, c), which make it a ground of appeal that no permission is required under Part III of the 1947 Act?
    Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 28 (2), he will see that my right hon. Friend is obliged to consider any appeal as—
    "an application for permission for retention on the land of any buildings or works, or for the continuance of any use of the land."
    He cannot, therefore, just consider the sort of technical point raised in paragraphs (b) to (e) inclusive, without at the same time considering the planning aspects.
    I hope, therefore, that I have established that the Clause we are discussing does not in any way change the general planning position. It does establish what I think is agreed on all sides as the very heart of the Bill—that anyone who has planning permission shall be entitled to a site licence. All that it does it to define precisely the obligations of the local authority as to the time in providing that site licence.
    Amendment agreed to
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    (2) If after a site licence is issued the terms of the said permission are varied by the Minister on an appeal under section sixteen of the Act of 1947, the local authority who issued the licence shall make in the site licence any alteration required to secure that its terms comply with the provisions of the foregoing subsection.
    This is a very limited point The House will see that Clause 4 deals
    1696
    especially with site licences for sites which have limited planning permission. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) said, it is the intention of the Government that these should be comparatively rare and only for special reasons, but where there is a limited time planning permission, the site licence must also, by Clause 4, have a limited time. It is open to my right hon. Friend to vary that limitation of time in planning permission by appeal, and in that case it follows that the site licence would need the limitation of time altering or removing. Since the limitation of time in the site licence is integral with the site licence, and not just a condition which may be altered by the local authority under Clause 7, it is necessary that there should be specific power for the time limit in the site licence to be removed. That is just what this Amendment seeks to do. I hope the House will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to
    Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40 to leave out "or any other feature".
    These words were discussed in Committee and were mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). Replying to that debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he would consider the point, but I notice that he has not put down a Government Amendment. Therefore, I have tabled the Amendment to leave out these words because it was felt that subsection (2), which controls the types of caravans which will be stationed on any land, might well refer to the constructional standards of the caravans.
    Hon. Members will recollect that when the Bill was first introduced, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) contained a reference to constructional standards. That reference was taken out in Committee. I understand it to be my right hon. Friend's intention to have consultations with the organisations concerned to arrive at a British Standard of construction for caravans.
    No reference now exists anywhere in the Bill to constructional standards, but by reason of the words "or any other feature" it might well be that local authorities would seek to gain control

    1697
    over constructional standards by backdoor methods. It might be that a local councillor, or indeed a local council, quite rightly expressing their individuality, might decide on a certain type of ventilation for caravans in their area. I give this by way of example. They might be, right in specifying that all caravans in their area should use that type of ventilation.
    Caravans necessarily are structures which move about the country. They are interchangeable as between one local authority area and another. They might well have a very satisfactory means of ventilation in accordance with the bye-laws of a certain area, but it might not be the same means of ventilation as was approved by the byelaws of a council into whose area it was sought to go. Therefore, they would be excluded from occupying a position in such an area.
    Equally, if these words are retained, a council in its wisdom might specify that all the caravans in its area should be painted a certain colour of green, whereas in a different part of the country the same colour might be offensive or not desirable. I merely quote these as examples of the control which could be applied by councils if these words are not deleted.
    I wish also to draw attention generally to the subsection. The object of the words "or any other feature" and the words preceding them in brackets is, presumably, to define or amplify the word "types". In Committee, my right hon. Friend said that he required this reference to.
    "their size, the state of their repair or any other feature"
    because he wanted to make it impossible for old bus bodies and the like to be put on caravan sites and to remain there.
    If my right hon. Friend does not like my Amendment, he might consider eliminating all the words within the brackets. Paragraph (b) would then read:
    "for controlling the types of caravan …"
    I feel from our discussions in Committee that that is the state of affairs which my right hon. Friend wants to achieve. He wants control by the local authorities of the types of caravan. Therefore, why not leave the paragraph as I have indicated and delete the words "or any other feature", which may well be ambiguous?
    1698
    I paid a considerable tribute to the Parliamentary draftsmen when speaking earlier concerning the Schedule. I cannot repeat that tribute on this occasion, because the subsection merely leads to a great many anomalies and ambiguities. It is for these and other related reasons that I seek to leave out these words so as to bring clarification to this Part of the Bill.
    Mr. Short: I support the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in his Amendment. In the original draft, the Minister's object was commendable. He obviously wished to exclude from caravan sites old bus bodies, the sort of things which disfigure large areas of the coastline in my county.I described them on Second Reading. In many cases, they are structures built round an original four-wheeled horse-drawn caravan which was put there perhaps forty or fifty years ago and has now developed into a bungalow built around the central core. Buses are still being sold and converted into caravans.They are not mobile. They cannot be moved for winter storage and they become permanent structures which deteriorate rapidly.
    I quite understand that the Minister did not wish to give local authorities the power to impose structural standards throughout the country; that was never his intention. He did, however, wish to control this sort of thing. By the original draft of the Bill, the caravan manufacturers were quite rightly led to fear that they might have to build different types of caravans with different colours, and so on, to satisfy different licensing authorities.
    We now have in the Bill the words "or any other feature". I agree with the hon. Member for the City of Chester that the danger still remains. Local authorities, licensing authorities and district councils who issue the licences can still control any other features and so place a quite ridiculous burden on the caravan industry and make touring from one district to another quite impossible. I can well imagine that some local authorities would do this sort of thing.
    As I have said before, I am a caravanner and I take an interest in what people say about the caravanning fraternity. From comments which I have read about the colours of caravans, and so

    1699
    on, I can well imagine that some local authorities would try to impose their own ideas about colour and, as the hon. Member suggested, ventilation, built-in water tanks, window space and the like, but particularly colour. I have always believed that the light-coloured caravan can be made a pleasant feature of the countryside. As I said on Second Reading, one of the pleasantest features of some parts of the country, particularly the North Country, is the whitewashed cottage, and I see no reason why a cream or white van should not be integrated into the countryside in the same way as a whitewashed cottage. However, many local councillors do not agree with this. Through the words "or any other feature", they could place upon the caravan industry a quite unnecessary burden.
    As I have pointed out before, the caravan industry not only satisfies this great, new recreation in which so many people indulge, but it is becoming an important export industry also. If this burden were to be laid upon it, it would add to the difficulties that the industry will experience because of the divided Europe.
    I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. On 5th May, he promised to think about it again, but the anomaly has not been cleared up. The danger still remains and the alarm and uncertainty most certainly remain in the caravan manufacturing industry. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, even if he will not commit himself now, will think about the matter again.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that the question of standards of construction for caravans can be dealt with satisfactorily only on a national basis. Clearly, it would be wrong for local authorities to try to lay down standards of construction or design for caravans by licence conditions. I submit, however, that we should not get what we all want by accepting the Amendment.
    6.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend suggested that all the words within the brackets might be left out. If we did that, we would find that we would be right back in the situation which he desires to avoid. It would not
    1700
    help him in any way. It is necessary that there should be something in the Bill which makes quite clear that a local authority can, by site licence conditions, prevent old vans, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) has spoken of, old caravans as well as old bus bodies and the like, from being put upon caravan sites, and I am advised that if we were to accept this Amendment and leave out the words "or any other feature" that fact would not be established, because it would not be possible "by reference to their size" and "the state of their repair" to be certain that an authority could exclude that kind of creature from a caravan site. It is to make certain that the local authority will have the power to exclude structures of that sort that I must advise the House that we should keep in these words "or any other feature".
    However, what I certainly will do—and I hope the House will approve of this—is undertake to advise local authorities, in the circular which, of course, I shall be sending out to all local authorities in due course when the Bill comes into operation, that it would be quite wrong of them to seek by licence conditions to lay down standards of construction or design for caravans.
    Moreover, there will be no encouragement whatever to them to do that in the model standards. The House will recollect that there is an appeal against site licence conditions to the magistrates and that not only the local authority but also the magistrates will be under a statutory duty, if the Bill becomes law, to have regard to the model standards.
    I hope that what I have said will satisfy my hon. Friend, or, if it does not completely satisfy him, will induce him to be willing not to press his Amendment, because I have considered this as carefully as I can, I have taken advice upon it, and I really must say that I do not think that the purpose all of us have would be furthered if we were to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Temple: I feel at one with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend, although I still do not feel that those sentiments are adequately expressed by this subsection; but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after "licence" to insert:
    "as for the time being in force".
    The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. It is merely to make clear that where the terms or conditions of a site licence are altered the alterations are carried into the copy of the licence which is displayed on the site. The House will remember that we have already accepted a new Clause which provides machinery for enabling the local authority to make the necessary alterations in the original of the licence. It is quite clear that when the terms or conditions are altered the alteration must be carried into the copy of the licence which is displayed on the site.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end to insert:
    (6) Works carried out on any land for the purpose of complying with a condition attached to a site licence shall be deemed not to be improvements for the purposes of section fourteen of the Crofters (Scotland) Act. 1955 (which relates to the payment of compensation for improvements when a crofter renounces his tenancy or is removed from his croft.
    Each year more and more of the tourists whom we welcome to Scotland come by caravan, and, indeed, an important part of the Scottish Tourist Board's plan for the development of tourism in the Highlands concerns the provision of caravan parks. As hon. Members will know, crofters in the crofting counties have played a very considerable part in providing facilities for the tourists. They provide bed and breakfast and lodging, and so on. This now plays quite an important economic part in the life of the seven crofting counties, but an important question, and a difficult one, arises from this.
    Under the crofting Acts, a crofter normally provides all the fixed equipment on the croft or takes it over from his predecessor. The landlord receives rent for the value of the land alone, that is, the value of the land without the buildings. Under Section 14 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, he pays compensation to the outgoing crofter for such improvements as he may have made to the croft. I presume that caravan site installations will be regarded as
    1702
    improvements of the croft and thus rank for compensation.
    While it is right to encourage the development of caravan facilities in this beautiful part of Scotland, and also to support the enterprising crofter, it seems unjust that the cost of caravan installations, which have nothing to do with the agricultural use of the land, should rank for compensation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will take a sympathetic view of this Amendment.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has no intention whatever of accepting this Amendment. The sponsors of it, I notice, all represent constituencies outside the crofting counties, and I notice, too, that they are headed by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). During all my time in the House of Commons I have never ceased to be amazed at the manner in which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns puts forward the case for the landowners. Quite obviously, this is an Amendment which has been thought up by the landowners in Scotland and by nobody else.
    Anybody who has had experience of the Highlands during the last two or three years knows that quite a number of landowners in the north of Scotland are not very anxious for the crofters to follow the advice which has bean given to them both by the Crofters Commission and by the Tourist Board. I have met a number of instances in the Highlands in which considerable obstacles have been put in the way of people trying to provide facilities which the Crofters Commission has said they should provide. The Crofters Commission last year made a special feature of trying to persuade crofters to increase their income to a four-figure level by the provision of chalets and by the provision of sites for caravans and by the provision of caravans.
    What is the position of the average crofter? This year, the Crofters Commission tells us that of the 20,000, approximately, registered crofts some 13,000 or 14,000 are not viable. As we all know, the crofter does not make a living off the croft. In nine cases out of ten he fishes or, as he has in more

    1703
    recent years, works on hydro-electric schemes or at Dounreay or on some other project. The croft does not provide a living, and the crofter must engage in an auxiliary occupation.
    The provision of the facilities suggested adds to the value of the croft in enabling the crofter to make a living from the croft. Why should not the landowner pay the compensation in the usual manner for the improvements that have been made by the crofter to enable him to make the croft viable? I can see no argument against that and I should have thought that Section 14 (4) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act itself prevented any form of abuse, because it states:
    "An improvement shall be valued under this Act at such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant."
    Mr. MacArthur: Whether or not an incoming tenant can be found.
    Mr. Willis: The fact is that it is of no value unless it is of value to an incoming tenant. In other words, it must be of value in making the croft more able to support the crofter, and surely that is what we want to do. Almost the whole of the Crofters Commission's Report is devoted to the problem of enabling the croft to be viable. If the hon. Member has read that Report he will know that that is true. The Commission itself has suggested previously, with the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Tourist Board, that one of the ways to, do this is to allow the crofter to make provision for caravans, and, in fact, to provide them himself.
    Anyone who has visited the area and seen the crofter doing this knows that it helps considerably. I cannot see why improvements made to the croft to enable this to be done should not be compensated for in the same way as are other improvements. They are fixtures which improve the value of the croft and are quite distinct from things like implements. They have improved the value of the croft. The landowner has something which is worth more to him than it was previously.
    If we are frank about it, the only answer is that a considerable number of landowners do not want the Highlands to be cluttered with caravans. The land
    1704
    owners hold up most of the ideas put forward for making the Highlands viable. The very men who ought to have given the lead in obtaining the amenities and services necessary to do this have often been passive opponents. The Amendment is another more in that direction, and that is why it is sponsored by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not listen to the appeal and will reject the Amendment.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has repeated the charge, which was levelled earlier today by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that I am in the habit of speaking in the House for landlords, and for Scottish landlords in particular. I have no criticism to make about that and I am not ashamed of speaking in this place for landlords. This Commons House of Parliament is a place where every interest ought to be represented and represented fairly, and not least the interest of the minority.
    6.45 p.m.
    I ask the House to consider the position of the crofting landlord in the circumstances covered by the Amendment. He has let the croft many years ago, long before the days of tourism, to an agricultural tenant and has taken for it a rent representing the unimproved value of the land. But we have had the Report of the Crofters Commission, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, and we have had the growing realisation of the advantages of the western Highlands, the crofting counties, as places for camping and caravanning.
    I myself enjoy going to these places every year. Last year I went to Arisaig and Morar, and the year before to Lochinver and Achmelvig Bay, and I enjoy visiting places with such lovely names as Melanudrigal and Achiltibuie. At all these places there were crofts Where caravans were welcomed in the summer months.
    It may be that the crofter will want to make some so-called improvements, perhaps to the approach road, or will want to install hard standings and provide a water point. Then the landlord

    1705
    is required by the provisions of the Bill to pay for these so-called improvements on the basis that they are of value to incoming tenants. But very often in derelict crofting communities there are no incoming tenants and it is possible for the landlord to have to take on the liability of the croft and pay compensation.
    There may not be another tenant, but the landlord has to pay such a sum as represents the value of the so-called improvements to an incoming tenant. We say that the landlord who lets the croft for farming purposes ought not to he required by Statute to pay compensation if the land has been let for some other purpose and expenditure has been undertaken to make the croft into a caravan site. That is a matter for the tenant if he wishes to do it.
    It may well make the croft more valuable to the crofter as a viable proposition, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East recognised. Good luck to him. Let him pay the money and take the rent of 2s. 6d. a month or whatever he wishes to charge from the caravanners, and let him sell milk to people who stay on the croft. The charge ought not to fall on the landlord who lets the land as an agricultural proposition. He ought not to he required by Statute to pay compensation in respect of non-agricultural purposes.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am more surprised than I can say that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) should have made this plea. I should have thought that the improvements made under the Bill for the purpose of developing a caravan site on a croft would be small and that the amount of compensation, if it ever arose, would not be very much. I should have thought that there was not much to fear from the compensation that might be payable, but if it were a considerable sum there must have been considerable expenditure of money by the crofter in the first place in making the improvements.
    Surely all of us believe that improvements of this kind are most likely to endure and that tourism will increase and not decrease. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) made his first speech in the House on this very subject of developing
    1706
    tourism in the Highlands. I should have thought that he, of all people, would have envisaged that in the years that he ahead any sum of money spent on the development of amenities like caravan sites would prove to be money well invested.
    The person concerned is the humble crofter, the person who probably has the lowest income of any category of worker, and a person who follows a basically agricultural pursuit which nobody believes gives him a livelihood. During the passage of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, the House recognised that and said that the crofter must be encouraged to augment his income by turning to other things.
    The Crofters Commission has been beseeching the crofters to turn to tourism. They have been asked to supply the needs of tourists visiting the North of Scotland. They have been asked to provide tourists with sleeping accommodation, to grow additional crops to provide food for the tourists, and to provide them with caravan sites.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite can hardly say that they support the Crofters Commission in the pleas it makes to the crofters in the north of Scotland if, at the same time, they say that the landowner who has never spent a penny on the land—he has not been responsible for any of the improvements; he has not built a croft, a shed, the steading, a road or done anything at all—should continue to draw his rent and not pay compensation. The landlord does not drain the land or fence it, yet he draws his rent without having been responsible for any of the improvements.
    Under the conditions of the Bill the crofter is required to spend money on improvements before he can get a licence. Why do hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the poor crofter who is doing something to help attract tourists to the Highlands should not be paid compensation if he ever has occasion to renounce his croft? Suppose that the husband dies. If the widow renounces the croft and the landowner takes it back, as he is obliged to do, and pays compensation for other improvements, why should these improvements, which have been ordered by the local authority to attract tourists, be taken over gratis by the landowner? Why should he be entitled to benefit when

    1707
    he finds another tenant, or perhaps uses the land himself for the same purpose as it was being used before? That seems to me to be so inequitable that I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward such a proposition. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, if he does not agree with what I have said, will at least agree with the attitude that I have adopted and will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give short shrift to his hon. Friend. Not long ago we read in the newspapers that Sir Hugh Fraser of the Scottish Tourist Board addressed Tory Members of Parliament. I wonder whether the Amendment was tabled as a result of that meeting.
    The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said that he would not apologise for speaking for that oppressed minority in Scotland, the landowners. If there is one thing that the landowners of Scotland do not need it is a spokesman from the Government back benches; they have plenty of them on the Front Bench opposite. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have profited from the treatment given to earlier Amendments in his name and would have decided to resign himself to fight for Scottish landowners at some date in the future.
    When one considers that Sir Hugh Fraser is concerned about the future of the Highlands, that the present Government were so concerned about the crofters that they passed the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, establishing the crofters' Commission and that it was proclaimed that that was the last chance for the crofter and his way of life, I should have thought that the only thing that one could possibly do would be to encourage the crofter. This is what the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing. Only two years ago he produced a White Paper on tourism in the Highlands. He spoke of the great new chance for the Highlands and asked crofters to go out of their way to help the tourist industry.
    What were hon. Gentlemen opposite thinking of when they put their names
    1708
    to the Amendment? There is not a single Tory Member from the crofter counties who has the courage to call himself a Tory. They all call themselves National Liberals because the word Tory in Scotland is almost synonymous with landowner, certainly in the Highland areas. Where are the Tory Members? If they believe in the things that they had said about the importance of the crofter, why are they not in their places to oppose the Amendment?
    Let us consider the hon. Gentleman's speech. What it amounts to is that he does not like Section 14 of the 1955 Act. The only question asked has been what will happen if there is no incoming tenant. But that objection applies to the whole of Section 14 of the original Act and to any improvements that have been carried out. Surely hon. Gentlement appreciate that if an improvement is made there is more likely to be an incoming tenant. Indeed, no crofter that I know of will spend money on improving a croft to handle caravans without the prospect of being able to do so being more than just a possibility.
    The crofters are improving the crofts. If the arguments of the hon. Gentleman are valid he has nothing to worry about. Surely he has read the relevant Section which says:
    "When a crofter renounces his tenancy or is removed from his croft"—
    the circumstances of his removal were not discussed by the hon. Gentleman but that does not mean that there will be no incoming tenant if he is forcibly removed—
    "he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvement made on the croft if:

    (a) the improvement is suitable to the croft …"

    It is no use the hon. Gentleman referring to that Statute which clearly talks about compensation if the improvement is suitable to the croft and then using the kind of language which he used in arguing his case, because he talked about "so-called improvements". If they are only so-called improvements he need not worry about them, because compensation can be paid only if the improvement is suitable to the croft.

    1709
    7.0 p.m.
    I sincerely hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not only reject the Amendment but will spurn it. If there is to be any real hope for the Highlands and the crofters they must have ancillary occupations, as the hon. Member knows. I have not always been glad that he is one of those in charge of the Bill, but he is right in his own field now, because he is Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and as such is responsible for agriculture in the Highlands, and for the crofters. He will remember the words on page 58 of his Report, namely:
    "Suitable developments which will contribute to the diversification of rural employment or to the economic use of local resources are encouraged."
    That concerns the very problem of which we are now talking.
    On the question of providing caravans, I hope that the hon. Member will think twice before being again misled by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. We all want to see this problem eased, and it can be eased by the extension of mobile caravans in the north of Scotland. The last thing we want to do is to discourage them, and as the Amendment is intended to discourage them, we should not accept it. What interests me is the reason why the hon. Member wishes to discourage them. I believe it is because many Scottish landowners merely want the land to themselves and do not want to see crofters or anybody else in that part of the world.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I hope that I shall be able to reply to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) without necessarily following the advice of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
    Mr. Ross: Go on—be a devil.
    Mr. Leburn: For the purposes of the record I should not like it to go down that the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that works carried out on any land for the purpose of complying with
    1710
    a condition attached to a site licence shall not rank as an improvement on which compensation is payable to the outgoing crofter under Section 14 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955. I appreciate the point made by both my hon. Friends, but before saying anything else I would make the point that the Government and all those who have spoken welcome the development of tourism in the Highlands. We all want to support that development, and we hope that the crofters will share in the fruits which that development may bring in its train. Crofters have always had an interest in the tourist trade, but until recently it has been mainly restricted to the question of the bed and breakfast business. There is now an expansion of the tourist trade, which is proceeding at a very fast rate. We all welcome it, but it has undoubtedly brought with it a complicated question of the crofters' right to compensation.
    This has been recognised by the Crofters Commission in its latest Annual Report, in which it says that the question of compensation for such improvements is linked with the question of rent. In tourism, this question goes beyond the limited one of caravan sites, which is the subject of the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out, it can also raise the question of permanent chalets, and so on. But even within the confines of the question of caravan sites there can be complications, if water supplies are installed or roadways constructed. It would be a little difficult to decide how much was applicable to the crofter and his domestic needs and how much to the caravan site.
    Another complication which seems likely to arise stems from the fact that as the Amendment is now worded it would apply only to those sites for which a site licence had been granted. But there may be other types of site which are exempted. This lends emphasis to the point that the general subject of compensation is one for wider consideration than can be given to it in the context of the Bill. In other words, if this question is to be considered at all it should be considered in connection with crofting legislation.
    As I have said, in its Annual Report the Crofters Commission made various

    1711
    broad proposals for amending legislation, and these will be considered carefully by the Government in due course. It seems to be more appropriate that the question raised by the Amendment should be considered—and I say this without making any commitment—at a time when we are dealing with crofters. With that explanation I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this is not an appropriate Amendment for the Bill, and will agree to withdraw it.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and for his sympathetic and kindly comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5.—(FAILURE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SITE LICENCE.)
    Amendment made: In page 6, line 3, leave out "specified therefor in" and insert:
    "within which they are required to issue a site licence by".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause 6.—(APPEAL TO MAGISTRATES' COURT AGAINST CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO SITE LICENCE.)
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out "aggrieved" and to insert "affected".
    The courts have indicated from time to time their dislike of the expression "aggrieved" in Acts of Parliament, and in the case of Jones v. Ealing Corporation, which was heard last year, the Lord Chief Justice directed observations to this word. He said:
    "Coming, therefore, to the second question, whether the local planning authority could be said to be aggrieved in the present case, I would like to make two general observations. First, I would like to voice a protest that Parliament continues to allow this expression to come into Act after Act of Parliament."
    He went on to refer to previous criticisms which Lord Hewart had made in 1929 when he was Lord Chief Justice, and he added:
    "Notwithstanding that, the words continued to creep in after that date and continue to do so today. This is another case where Parliament has failed to make clear what was really intended by those words."
    1712
    In the light of observations of that kind, I suggest that it is very desirable that we should consider whether we should make any further use of the expression. Recent cases on this point, in planning law, have dealt with the issue whether or not the local planning authority can be a person aggrieved. I acknowledge that that question is not likely to arise under the Clause. None the less, the criticism from which I have quoted goes wider than that. It is obviously very desirable and important that there should be harmony between the viewpoints of Parliament and the judiciary on a matter of this kind. The word "aggrieved" is ambiguous in its character and content. The word "affected" goes wider, but I suggest that it escapes all the ambiguity.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Not being a lawyer, I hesitate to cross swords with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) on a matter which has arisen in this way, but since he said that the word "aggrieved" had attracted criticism on the ground of ambiguity I would ask him to examine the whole of the subsection, because I think he will find that no ambiguity is possible. He will see the words
    "a site licence has been issued to him …"
    There can be no ambiguity about that. The site licence is issued to a certain individual, and no one but that individual can be referred to by the rest of the subsection.
    A person
    "affected by a condition … subject to which a site licence has been issued to him "
    seems almost meaningless. He will clearly be affected, but he will wish to appeal only if he is aggrieved. I therefore submit that the fact that the words "issued to him" remove all possibility of ambiguity, the proper verb in this circumstance is "aggrieved".
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, it is true that a word so severely criticised is now occurring in another Act of Parliament, and it is with some reluctance that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15.—(EXISTING CARAVAN SITES NOT CONVERED BY PERMISSION GRANTED ON AN APPLICATION: MODIFICATION OF PLANNING CONTROL.)
    Amendments made: In page 10, line 16, leave out from "allow" to "subsection" in line 17 and insert:
    "other than an application in respect of a site which has at the date of the application the benefit of a permission for the use of the land of the kind described in".
    In line 18, leave out from "Act" to end of line 19.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 17.—(CONDITIONS TO SECURE TERMINATION OF USE OF EXISTING SITE.)
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, after "terminating", to insert "in due course".
    This is a small point and our desire is to clear up a possible doubt which may arise.
    The Clause deals with the provisions to cover the running down of sites and with the circumstances of a condition attached that the use of a site as a caravan site shall be "terminated in due course." That is the expression used in subsection (1). Subsection (4) provides that it shall not be a ground of appeal that the condition attached to the licence is unduly onerous in that the condition has the effect of terminating its use. In that subsection, there is no repetition of the words "in due course "
    It is possible that the contrast between the two expressions may be thought to have rather wider consequences than the Government intend. What I think the Government have in mind is that in cases of this kind it shall not be open to an appellant to say that it is unduly burdensome upon him that the condition provides that the use of the site shall be terminated in due course. I think the Government intend that within that limit there can be an appeal. In other words, if the date proposed for the termination of the use is a specific date and is thought to be too near at hand, or not to provide for a sufficiently long interval, I think that the intention is that the choice of date should be appealable and open to argument.
    We have put forward the Amendment because we think that there is just a chance that if the wording is left as it
    1714
    is, the contrast between the words "terminating its use" in subsection (4) and the words "terminated in due course", which appear twice earlier in the Clause, may be thought to carry the sense that it should not be open to argument on appeal that the date mentioned in the direction was a date which did not give sufficient time to the appellant.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend feels that the proposed words are unnecessary because subsection (4) is entirely governed by subsection (3), in which the conditions are limited to those connected with the termination in due course of the caravan site. The word "terminated", therefore, is amply qualified in the way required, but it seems to my right hon. Friend that there can be no harm in repeating the words.
    In advising the House to accept the Amendment, I stress that, under the Clause as drafted and as amended, magistrates will have power to vary a condition on the ground that it would terminate the use of the site at once, or too abruptly. That is already the position and will remain the position if the Amendment is accepted, but since it does no harm, I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 12, line 46, at the end to insert:
    (5) Except as provided by the foregoing provisions of this section no conditions shall be attached to any site licence for an existing site for the purpose of securing that its use as a caravan site will be terminated in due course but nothing in this subsection shall prevent a local planning authority, if of opinion that the use of an existing site as a caravan site should be terminated in due course, from exercising their powers under section twenty-six of the Act of 1947.
    In the earlier Clauses, it has been made clear that an applicant for a site licence requires specific planning permission, even though he may have an established right and even though there may be an existing site being used as a caravan site. In fact, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the whole intention was that every existing site should be subjected to a survey.
    The Clause deals with existing sites and with the case where a local authority desires to run down existing sites and eventually to terminate them as caravan sites. Such sites may have already been

    1715
    substantially developed as caravan sites and considerable money spent on developing them. The power of a local authority by a site licence to run down sites and eventually to terminate them leaves the owner of the site without an appeal to the magistrates. Subsection (4) prevents an appeal on those grounds.
    Therefore, in the earlier subsections there is a restriction on the local authorities' power that they must not put those conditions into the site licence unless there are directions to that effect in the planning permission. Those directions are described in subsection (1) in these words:
    "may issue with the permission a direction".
    It is not clear whether a planning permission issued with directions is the same as a discontinuance order under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but undoubtedly it will have the same eventual effect. The directions will be directions that in due course a site will cease to be a caravan site. Therefore, the owner is deprived of an established right and of something which he has acquired over a time and which is of value, but deprived of it not by a discontinuance order under Section 26 but by directions attached to a planning permission plus conditions in a site licence.
    If it were done clearly by a discontinuance order under Section 26, then Section 27 of the 1947 Act would come into play and the site owner would be entitled to claim compensation, if he had suffered loss by reason of the use being discontinued. But mere directions attached to a planning permission obviously do not come within the words of Section 27 and would not give him the right to claim compensation, even though he had suffered severe loss.
    It is the intention of the Amendment to make sure that in those conditions an owner will be entitled to claim compensation if he has suffered loss. It is only fair that the man who has an established right, and who would in the ordinary way, if he were ordered to discontinue the use under existing planning law, have the right to compensation, should not be deprived of that right by some form of procedure and the use of
    1716
    directions instead of a discontinuance order.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I understand the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I hope that I can still them. He and I and probably the whole House are at one in what we want to do. Clause 17 does not and cannot apply to an existing use which has unlimited planning permission, or which is entitled to unlimited planning permission because of its existing use rights. If a planning authority wishes to close down a site which has an unlimited planning permission, then its proper course is to do so by means of a Section 26 order with the appropriate compensation. It cannot on the sly, as it were, use Clause 17 for the purpose.
    Clause 17 makes it abundantly clear that requiring a further reduction in order to terminate the use of a site may be imposed only in the circumstances which are described in the Clause, that is, where a short-term planning permission has been granted expressly for that purpose. Nothing in Clause 17 in any way affects the power of a local authority at any time to require the use of an existing site to be terminated by means of a Section 26 order.
    The Clause will operate only in a situation where a site needs to be run down, and the owner of the site will have had his opportunity to establish his case for compensation if he has had an unlimited planning permission. In those circumstances of a short-term planning permission, directions such as those described in subsection (1) may be given so as to enable the site to be run down, without hardship to the people on the site.
    I trust that my explanation has been clear. I have examined the Clause as carefully as I can and I am advised and I believe that there can be no dubiety about its meaning. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am advised that it is not necessary to add the subsection in order to secure it.
    Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to my right hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 20.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE SITES FOR CARAVANS.)
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18 after "power", to insert "within their area".
    The Amendment fulfils a pledge which I gave in Committee, that the Bill would not empower local authorities to provide caravan sites outside their areas. I hope that it will be acceptable.
    Mr. Short: We welcome the Amendment. It is fair that local authorities who intend to establish sites should be limited to their own areas. There still remains the problem of the planning board, but I have thought over the earlier explanation which the Minister gave me and I think that it is clear that I was wrong and that he was right and that a planning board establishing a local authority in a district council, or within its area, would require a site licence from the district council. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that it is the case that I was wrong and he was right in that respect.
    Mr. Brooke: That is the case.
    Amendment agreed to.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    7.30 p.m.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
    The House went:—and, having returned;
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act, 1960.

    2. Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act, 1960.

    3. Population (Statistics) Act, 1960.

    4. Indecency with Children Act, 1960.

    5. Radioactive Substances Act, 1960.

    6. International Development Association Act, 1960.

    7. Game Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960.

    1718

    8. Payment of Wages Act, 1960.

    9. Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960.

    10. Dock Workers (Pensions) Act, 1960.

    11. Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960.

    12. Ghana (Consequential Provision) Act, 1960.

    13. Merchant Shipping (Minicoy Lighthouse) Act, 1960.

    14. Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960.

    15. Bromley College and other Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1960

    16. Chipping Sodbury Town Trust Scheme Confirmation Act, 1960.

    17. United Charities of Nathaniel Waterhouse, and other Charities (Halifax) Scheme Confirmation Act, 1960.

    18. Scottish American Investment Company Limited Order Conmation Act, 1960.

    19. Northampton County Council Act, 1960.

    20. Saint Martin's Parish Church Birmingham Act, 1960.

    21. London and Surrey (River Wandle and River Graveney) (Jurisdiction) Act, 1960.

    22. Derbyshire County Council Act, 1960.

    23. Cornwall County Council Act, 1960.

    24. Saint Peter Upper Thames Street Churchyard Act, 1960.

    25. Bala to Trawsfynydd Highways (Liverpool Corporation Contribution) Act, 1960.

    26. Royal Exchange Assurance Act, 1960.

    27. Saint Peter's Church Nottingham (Broad Marsh Burial Ground) Act, 1960.

    28. Royal College of Physicians of London Act, 1960.

    29. Saint Stephen Bristol (Burial Grounds etc.) Act, 1960.

  CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL

    Clause 20.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE SITES FOR CARAVANS.)
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 14, line 17, at the end to insert:
    "for an area which consists of or includes a National Park as defined by subsection (3) of section five of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, or any part of such a National Park ".
    This Clause gives local authorities power to provide caravan sites. Subsection (8), to which I seek to add these words, extends the meaning of the words "local authority" to include a county council and a joint planning board. There was discussion on this point in Committee and, with the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, I moved that subsection (8) should be excluded. I believe that my right hon. Friend is in favour of an Amendment such as I am seeking to make.
    The effect of the Amendment would be that county councils would still be able to exercise these powers but that a limitation would be placed upon the powers of joint planning boards, and joint planning boards would be able to provide and operate caravan sites only in National Parks in the same way as they have powers under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
    I appreciate that hon. Members may think that the addition of these words at present is not necessary because there are no joint planning boards outside the National Parks, but the Local Government Act, 1958, made provision for a wide extension of joint planning boards, and it may be that, as a result of the Local Government Commission, joint planning boards will be introduced to exercise planning powers over the special review areas or the conurbation areas, as they are commonly known.
    It is for that reason, and believing that it will not be in the best interests of all concerned for the power to be exercised by joint planning boards, having planning powers over an area which may comprise five or six county boroughs and a
    1720
    similar number of urban district councils, that I move the Amendment to restrict the definition in the Clause to county councils and to joint planning boards which have power in all or part of a National Park.
    Mr. Short: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). I have always had some doubt about giving joint planning boards this power. I believe that there is a case for it in respect of National Parks, but if other joint planning boards emerged I should be very doubtful about giving them all power to do this. Often there are rivalries between district councils and joint planning boards, and we do not want to do anything which may make them worse. I think that if we limit this power to joint planning boards in National Parks it might meet any fears about the future.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am glad to advise the House to accept the Amendment so clearly described by my hon. Friend.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, in line 17, at the end to insert:
    (9) This section extends to the administrative county of London and the expression "local authority" in this section as so extended includes the council of a metropolitan borough.
    Earlier this afternoon the House excluded London from Part I of the Bill. I now ask that the administrative county of London be included in Clause 20. The administrative county of London has not authority under the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1959, to utilise the power under Clause 20—that of local authorities to provide sites for caravans. I hope that the Amendment is agreeable to the Government and the House. It will be seen that subsection (8) seeks to extend the definition of local authority by including
    "the council of a county and a joint planning board."
    This Amendment seeks at the same time to include the administrative county of London.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Following the new Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) moved earlier and which the House accepted, I think that it would be appropriate to make this Amendment. I

    1721
    imagine that the power would seldom, if ever, be used by London authorities, but it is quite reasonable that we should make the Amendment. I cannot see that it is in any way objectionable.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 22.—(POWER OF ENTRY OF OFFICERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. C. Johnson: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, to leave out "forty-eight" and to insert "twenty-four".
    The Amendment has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and myself in order to give the Minister an opportunity to give the House, in accordance with his promise, his reserved judgment on the arguments put forward in Committee against the Clause as it stands. Briefly, it was then argued that because of the open character of caravan sites, advance notice of inspection appeared not to be essential and in any event two full days' notice was much too long, as that would normally afford the operator an opportunity of tidying up the site and even of remedying any breach which might exist, perhaps temporarily.
    Moreover, as my hon. and learned Friend demonstrated in Committee, the comparable provisions for entry under the Public Health and other Acts invariably provide for only 24 hours' notice. For those reasons, and fortified by the way in which the Minister has met the last two Amendments, I hope that he will accept this Amendment, too.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) is also fortunate. I would not necessarily endorse all he has said on the subject, but I think that the grounds of uniformity here are very strong. It is 24 hours in Section 284 of the Public Health Act, 1936, and Section 103 (4) of the 1947 Act. I think it would be desirable to bring the period of notice in this Bill into line with that.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)
    Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, to leave out "metropolitan borough".
    1722
    This is consequential on the new Clause accepted earlier. It excludes the Metropolitan boroughs from the definition of "local authority" in Clause 25.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND.)
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page
    18, line 30, to leave out paragraph (e).
    This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2 (2) transferring the revised list of exemptions to a Schedule. Paragraph 11 of the Schedule is in the form appropriate to Scotland and so the paragraph of the application Clause is now unnecessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, after "twenty" to insert:
    (i) in subsection (I), the words "within their area" shall be omitted;
    (ii).
    Perhaps with this Amendment we can take the next Amendment, in line 5, after "and", insert "(iii)".
    This Amendment is to enable Scottish local authorities to provide sites outside their own areas. In discussions with the Scottish local authority associations it was made clear that conditions in Scotland are somewhat different from those in England. Many of the smaller Scottish burghs would find that they were hampered by the lack of caravan sites in their own areas. In many cases the boundaries follow the built-up area fairly closely and even though a site could be squeezed within the burgh boundaries it would be unlikely to be good planning. Clearly where sites are needed they should be placed where good planning dictates. Planning control will remain with the local planning authority in the area where the site is located. Licensing control will remain with the licensing authority.
    Mr. Willis: I assume from what the hon. Gentleman has said about this Amendment that the local authorities were consulted after the Bill had been published. That seems quite wrong. Surely consultation should have taken place before the Bill was drafted, in which case there would have been no necessity for this Amendment. I wish to express my strong disapproval I

    1723
    suspected that the Government had just gone into this matter as usual without giving much thought to it, and having done so they found that the local authorities were not satisfied. Therefore, they have had to move this Amendment. I hope at a later stage to be able to say something further on the matter, which I consider most unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Ross: I wish to congratulate the junior Member of the trinity of Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland on having listened to the Scottish local authorities. Has he told the local authorities what he is doing? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is wrong, and that a discussion did take place before the Bill was actually published. Then the local authorities made certain suggestions to the Government and the authorities were led to understand that before anything else was done there would be a further meeting. That further meeting has never taken place. The authorities have not heard anything from the Government.
    I wish to know whether this is one of the matters which was discussed with the Scottish local authorities. In this case it must have been the Convention of Royal Burghs. I cannot see the County Councils Association being concerned. It seems to relate to the small burghs. Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Convention of Royal Burghs? This is the only point with which they were concerned which has been met by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Leburn: The local authorities were consulted on various matters. Certainly the County Councils Association has an interest in this matter. If a caravan site is taken outside the boundary of a burgh, it would be in the landward area of the county. The point arises from the fact that my right hon. Friend has incorporated an Amendment to show that in England the local authorities will not be in a position to provide a site outside their boundaries. That made it necessary to make this Amendment apply to Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 5, after "and", insert "(iii)".—[Mr. Leburn.]

    Clause 28.—(APPEAL TO MINISTER AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 20, line 34, to leave out from "not" to "within" in line 36 and to insert:
    "served on the owner or occupier of the land".
    May we take this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, with the four following Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Speaker: They may be discussed together.
    Sir K. Joseph: This group of Amendments arises from observations by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) during the Committee stage discussions. He said that the present drafting of paragraph (e) in Clause 28 (1) defines due service of the enforcement notice in terms of the observation of the four-year period and makes the service within that period an essential part of due service of the enforcement notice. This was not the intention of the Government, and so we have put down Amendments which together result in changing subsection (1, e) of the Clause to read:
    "that the enforcement notice was not served on the owner or occupier of the land within the relevant period of four years specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Act of 1947."
    The House will observe that we are not now using the phrase "due service". The other Amendments eliminate the word "duly "from later references to service in the enforcement notice. I hope that the House will accept this group of Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 37, leave out "that section" and insert:
    "section twenty-three of the Act of 1947".—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 21, line 31, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall".
    Subsection (6) of Clause 28 makes provision for directions to be given by the Minister if he has to determine an appeal. It provides for that only in a permissive way. It says that.
    "the Minister may give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where

    1725
    appropriate directions for quashing the enforcement notice …"
    if, for example, the right hon. Gentleman has found in favour of the appellant and the enforcement order is to be of no effect. If he does not quash it, certain things may follow from the fact that the notice is still in operation. Therefore, I seek to make this subsection mandatory on the Minister and to substitute the word "may for the word "shall" so that it will read:
    "on the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister shall give directions for giving effect to his determination…"
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend accepts that in this situation he will be bound either to quash or vary the terms of the enforcement notice, and therefore he advises the House to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 42, leave out "duly".
    In page 22, line 8, leave out "duly".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 30.—(SERVICE OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.)
    Amendment made: In page 23, line 14, leave out "duly served" and insert:
    "served in accordance with the provisions of section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947".—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 23, line 15, at end insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of an appellant who has successfully appealed to the Minister on the ground referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of this Act.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Irvine.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: If I understand this matter aright, the point of this Amendment has been met by the last accepted Amendment in the name of the Minister. The Amendment does not arise.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged.

    Clause 31.—(LIABILITY OF OWNER OF LAND FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE OTHER THAN THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A USE OF LAND.)
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 23, line 33, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
    1726
    (2) A person against whom proceedings are brought under this section and who alleges that the failure to take any steps required by the enforcement notice was attributable in whole or in part to the default of another person shall be entitled, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, to have that other person brought before the court in the proceedings.
    This Clause deals with the enforcement of the enforcement notice. It deals with the position after there has been an enforcement notice. Under the 1947 Act the notice will have been served upon the owner and the occupier. The notice may be with regard to the use of the land. In that case subsequent proceedings before the magistrates will be taken under the 1947 Act against the person who is using the land in contravention of the enforcement notice.
    It may also be an enforcement notice dealing with development of the land. In that case the failure to comply with it will be dealt with under this Clause, which deals with requirements of notices other than the discontinuance of a use of land.
    If an enforcement notice is served in accordance with the 1947 Act on the owner and the occupier as is required by that Act, the summons before the magistrates if the notice is not carried out will be a summons to the owner under this Clause, and to the owner alone. He will have no defence whatsoever to that summons, unless he has disposed of the land and can bring the new owner into the proceedings with the allegation that the new owner is responsible for the failure to observe the enforcement notice. Apart from that, he will have no defence.
    If he is still the owner of the land and his lessee is really responsible for the failure to comply with the notice, the owner will still be subject to the penalties under this Clause. It is true that under 'the next Clause he may apply to the magistrates for leave to enter on the land and remedy the position, but under this Clause he is absolutely liable and, as it stands, has no way of defending himself against the allegation that the notice has not been complied with.
    The Amendment is an effort to bring into the Clause a very well-known procedure when enforcement notices result in a summons before magistrates. In innumerable cases under Statute law,

    1727
    Section 290 of the Public Health Act is applied. If one party or the other is served with a summons alleging that an enforcement notice—such as a sanitary notice, a dangerous structure notice under the Public Health Act, or, more recently, a notice under the Clean Air Act—has not been complied with, the party upon whom the notice is served has the right normally under the present law to bring before the court the person whom he alleges is truly responsible for the failure. He has to satisfy the court that he, too, has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the notice. If someone else is entitled to exclusive occupation of the land, it is difficult to know how the owner can comply with the notice, except by a long procedure before magistrates to get leave to enter on the land and comply with the notice.
    The Clause as it stands gives an owner served with a summons the right only to bring in a new owner to whom he has disposed of the land. The Amendment would allow any owner so served with a summons to bring into the proceedings the person whom he alleges is truly responsible.
    When a similar proposition was discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used these words in describing the reason for refusing to the owner any defence to a summons:
    "…it is because we want to establish certainty that we have to pick on one person who shall primarily be responsible for seeing that the law is carried out."
    If it was merely a civil matter, I would not complain. Here it is a criminal matter. We are creating a criminal offence by a person who may not be in any way responsible for the commission of that offence. We are doing it, as was admitted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, as I read his phrase, for mere administrative convenience. He said, "We have to pick on someone, so we will pick on the owner".
    He also said:
    "We have to fix upon somebody so that there shall not be a constant attempt to pass the buck between, perhaps, the original developer and the current developer or between a lessee and a lessee. We thus fixed upon the owner".
    8.15 p.m.
    This is the problem which arises in every case of an enforcement notice
    1728
    under other Statutes. It is for the local authority applying for the summons under the enforcement notice to satisfy itself that it is issuing the summons against the person truly responsible. If the local authority fails to choose the right person, the person whom it has chosen to proceed against has the right to bring in the person truly responsible.
    That is not so under the Clause as it stands at the moment. The person against whom proceedings are taken cannot bring in the person truly responsible. In excusing this Clause my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had done this
    "… so that we can find somebody on whom can be laid the responsibility for abating the unpermitted development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, Tuesday, 17th May, 1960; c. 250 to 252.]
    That is an astonishing declaration of principle. An offence is being created against a person who it is frankly admitted cannot be responsible, but the Administration is to pick on him because it has to pick on somebody and make that person responsible, because it is inconvenient perhaps to find out the real person responsible. It cannot be because they cannot trace the real person involved. It must be possible to trace the owner and the occupier, because it was necessary in the first instance under the 1947 Act to serve the enforcement notice which must give rise to the summons on the owner and the occupier. Therefore, the local authority will know who is involved.
    This is an important matter. It is not mere administration. An important principle of law is involved. I remind the House that we are now on that Part of the Bill which applies generally and not merely to caravans. We are altering the general law applying to enforcement notices under the Planning Acts, and we are applying it in a way which has never been recognised in connection with enforcement notices under any other Statute.
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has made a very fair statement of the two sides of the argument which we had in Committee. He has, perhaps somewhat naturally, minimised two of the strongest elements in my side of the argument. He has minimised, first, the

    1729
    protection given to owners. I freely admit that it would be wrong to impose obligations on owners without making absolutely sure that they have ample protection. My hon. Friend has minimised, secondly, the confusion which can be caused by the use of Section 290 of the Public Health Act. The whole discussion is about the method of ensuring that abatement can be secured of unpermitted development.
    I want at the start of the argument to dispose of one feature of what my hon. Friend said. He put much weight on the fact that, as he said, an enforcement notice is a criminal matter. This is just not so. Being served with an enforcement notice does not make a criminal of anybody, but being in breach of an enforcement notice does. What we are discussing is the service of an enforcement notice and whether it should be on the owner or on some other interested party. It is only the service which we are discussing. If the owner complies with the enforcement notice he is not in breach of it, and if he is not in breach of it there is no criminal offence.
    My hon. Friend spoke as if it was absolutely simple to establish who was responsible for any unpermitted development. He said that it is either the owner or the occupier. In these complicated times there are all sorts of interests which might be involved. They may be developers. They may be occupiers, they may be owners, or they may be neither. There may be tenants, sub-tenants, and contractors of each of those parties. There may be agents of each one of those parties and of each contractor.
    To leave the abatement of an unpermitted development to the pinning of responsibility for the development which would arise from the use of Section 290 would achieve nothing, I suggest, but confusion. It is necessary, if the enforcement of planning law is to be effective, that one person should be unambiguously responsible. Now, of course, I must be able to assure the House that one person—in this case the owner—has adequate protection.
    I refer to two other matters. As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, Clause 32 gives the owner power to carry out works on the property. Section 24 (2) of the 1947 Act gives him power to recover the cost of any work he has to do on the
    1730
    property from whoever is responsible. I make no apology for repeating that the object of this combination of provisions is to secure that there is one person unambiguously identified, the owner, who shall be responsible for abating unpermitted development which is the subject of an enforcement notice. But it is not something on its own. It is grouped with provisions which give the owner power to abate an unpermitted development despite the occupation of other parties and which further enable him to recover the cost of so doing. I hope that I have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. F. V. Corfield: I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this matter again. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has replied with his usual skill and courtesy, I am not satisfied. We hear about "passing the buck", but I think that the position here was quite fairly stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when, in Committee, referring to the safeguards given to the owner, he said:
    "First, he has the right to recover, if he carries out the abatement himself, the cost against the tenant, occupier, lessee or sublessee, or whoever it may be, who has offended if it is not the owner who has offended."
    We have an admission there that it may well not be the owner who has offended. My hon. Friend went on:
    "Secondly, he has the powers to which my hon. Friend referred, under regulations made under Clause 30"/>.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 17th May, 1960; c. 252.]
    Surely, that is where the buck-passing will go on. A local authority is given the opportunity to pass the buck to the owner instead of making a genuine effort to find out who is responsible.
    With great respect to my hon. Friend, I think it is really a side issue to quibble about the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he spoke about this being a criminal matter. As is fairly admitted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the truth is that the owner may be involved in criminal proceedings and be convicted of a criminal offence for which he may not himself be responsible. I confess that I find that thoroughly unsatisfactory in a Bill of this kind.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 13, at the end to insert:
    (5) In this section the expression "owner" in relation to any land, means a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let.
    If the Amendment were not made, the word "owner" for the purposes of the Clause would be defined as in Section 119 of the 1947 Act, because Part II of the Bill is to be read as one with Part III of the 1947 Act. It seems to the Government right that we should insert here a slightly amended definition of the word "owner" in order to exclude the agent who is merely receiving rent as agent for a principal.
    The only respect in which the 1947 Act definition is altered is that the two words "or agent" are excluded after the word "trustee In the context of Clause 31, and with the possibility of criminal liability, it seems right to exclude a person who is doing no more than receive money as agent for a principal because the liability should rest appropriately on the principal and not upon the agent.
    Mr. Graham Page: I call attention to the word "trustee" in this subsection. If a trustee is included in the definition of "owner", he will be one of those who may well suffer under Clause 31, as I explained just now. He will be an owner who may, as trustee, in fact, be quite incapable of seeing that an enforcement notice is complied with, but as owner he may be summoned and convicted.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 33.—(DISCONTINUANCE OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ON GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION.)
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 33, at the end to insert:
    "and if the permission was granted so as to permit the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of any use of land without complying with some condition subject to which a previous permission under the said Part III was granted, the enforcement notice shall cease to have effect so far as it requires steps to be taken for compliance with that condition".
    This is a technical Amendment. It is designed to bring Clause 33 into line
    1732
    with the insertion of subsection (2) in Clause 36 which was done in Committee. The Amendment is necessary in order that the two Clauses should tie in with one another properly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 42, at the beginning to insert: "Subsection (1) of".
    This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that subsection (4) applies to subsection (1) of the Clause and not to the rest.
    Amendment agreed to.

    New Schedule.—(CASES WHERE A CARAVAN SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED.)
    Use within curtilage of a dwelling-house
    1. A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwellinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situated.
    Use by a person travelling with a caravan for one or two nights
    2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by a person travelling with a caravan who brings the caravan onto the land for a period which includes not more than two nights—

    (a) if during that period no other caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation on that land or any adjoining land in the same occupation, and

    (b) if, in the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the caravan is brought on to the land, the number of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land or the said adjoining land for the purposes of human habitation did not exceed twenty-eight.

    Use of holdings of five acres or more in certain circumstances
    3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which comprises, together with any adjoining land which is in the same occupation and has not been built on, not less than five acres—

    (a) if in the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the land is used as a caravan site the number of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land or on the said adjoining land for the purposes of human habitation did not exceed twenty-eight, and

    (b) if in the said period of twelve months not more than three caravans were so stationed at any one time.

    (2) The Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument provide that in any

    1733
    such area as may be specified in the order this paragraph shall have effect subject to the modification—

    (a) that for the reference in the foregoing sub-paragraph to five acres there shall be substituted a reference to such smaller acreage as may be specified in the order, or

    (b) that for the condition specified in head (a) of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted a condition that the use in question falls between such dates in any year as may be specified in the order,

    or subject to modification in both such respects.
    (3) The Minister may make different orders under this paragraph as respects different areas, and an order under this paragraph may be varied by a subsequent order made thereunder.
    (4) An order under this paragraph shall come into force on such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not less than three months after the order is made; and the Minister shall publish notice of the order in a local newspaper circulating in the locality affected by the order and in such other ways as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public to the order.
    Sites occupied and supervised by exempted organisations
    4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which is occupied by an organisation which holds for the time being a certificate of exemption granted under paragraph 12 of this Schedule (hereinafter referred to as an "exempted organization"/>) if the use is for purposes of recreation and is under the supervision of the organisation.
    Sites approved by exempted organisations
    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members.
    (3) The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.
    (4) A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force, being a period not exceeding one year.
    Meetings organised by exempted organisations
    6. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is under the supervision of an
    1734
    exempted organisation and is in pursuance of arrangements made by that organisation for a meeting for its members lasting not more than five days.
    Agricultural and forestry workers
    7. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations on land in the same occupation.
    8. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed on land in the same occupation, being land used for the purposes of forestry (including afforestation).
    Building and engineering sites
    9. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which forms part of, or adjoins, land on which building or engineering operations are being carried out (being operations for the carrying out of which permission under Part III of the Act of 1947 has, if required, been granted) if that use is for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations.
    Travelling showmen
    10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by a travelling showman who is a member of an organisation of travelling showmen which holds for the time being a certificate granted under this paragraph and who is, at the time, travelling for the purposes of his business or who has taken up winter quarters on the land with his equipment for some period falling between the beginning of October in any year and the end of March in the following year.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph the Minister may grant a certificate to any organisation recognised by him as confining its membership to bona fide travelling showmen; and a certificate so granted may he withdrawn by the Minister at any time.
    Sites occupied by licensing authority
    11. A site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land occupied by the local authority in whose area the land is situated.
    Certification of exempted organizations
    12.—(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Schedule the Minister may grant a certificate of exemption to any organisation as to which he is satisfied that its objects include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities.
    (2) A certificate granted under this paragraph may be withdrawn by the Minister at any time.
    Power to withdraw certain exemptions
    13.—(1) The Minister may on the application of a local authority by order provide that, in relation to such land situated in their area as may be specified in the order, this Schedule shall have effect as if paragraphs 2 to 10, or such one or more of those paragraphs as may be so specified, were omitted from this Schedule.
    (2) An order under this paragraph—

    (a) shall come into force on such date as may be specified therein, and

    (b) may, on the application of the local authority on whose application it was made, be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made thereunder:

    Provided that the date specified as aforesaid in any such order shall, except in the case of an order the sole effect of which is to revoke in whole or part a previous order, be a date falling at least three months after the date on which notice of the order is published in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the order relates is situated.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: I should like to say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that his courteous submission has persuaded me that the circumstances attaching to his Motion for Recommital were so exceptional that I was wrong in my decision that I ought not to call it. In the circumstances, I wish to do two things, first, to apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman for my mistake, and secondly, to give him an opportunity to put it right.
    I ought to say that similar considerations do not apply to the Amendment to the hon. Gentleman's Recommital Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) That will not be selected.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ross: May I express to you, Mr. Speaker, my thanks and those of the House? It was gratifying and reassuring to have an appeal for your guidance answered so generously and so effectively, and it may well help to restore a measure of faith in the much-abused point of order.
    Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 27, page 20, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross.—[Mr. Ross.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee.
    [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

    Clause 27.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND.)
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 20, line 10, at the end, to add:
    (5) Expenditure incurred by a district council in Scotland under this Act shall not be taken into account in any calculation as to the limit of one shilling per pound imposed on the district council by section two hundred and twenty-six of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
    During the Committee stage, the Government amended the Bill in respect of Clause 27 with a wisdom and an alacrity from which I do not at all dissociate myself. The Amendment extended to district councils, which represent the lower tier of Scottish local authorities, power to provide caravan sites, and with it the power to acquire land, either voluntarily or by compulsory purchase and to do upon that land what work is required to make adequate the provision of a caravan site.
    What is omitted is the fact that the district councils, which are the ones with which we are concerned at the moment, are by Statute restricted both as to the purposes for which they may levy rates to raise money and also as to the amount of money they may raise. At that time, I drew the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State to this omission, and asked that something should be done. I may say that I had considerable help in drawing up the Amendment. Indeed, I have had so much official help that I begin to wonder whether there may not be a flaw in it. What it does is ensure that the district councils in the scattered country areas of Scotland would be able to act outside the limitation of a shilling in the £ in respect of the provision of caravan sites.
    Mr. Leburn: I hope to show the Committee that with the same wisdom and alacrity I can deal with this proposal of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The Bill already accepts the principle of local authorities generally, and district councils in particular, providing sites, and, as the hon. Member has said, it would be unrealistic to give

    1737>
    power to act if, at the same time we were to deprive these district councils of the wherewithal to get going.
    I should like to say that, by and large, we hope that any local authority which sets up a site, equips and runs it will be able to do so without any loss to the ratepayers. Certainly, in view of the need to encourage tourism, we would not wish district councils to be inhibited by any fear of running into temporary financial difficulties arising out of any statutory rating limitations. Accordingly, the Government are glad to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: Thank you very much.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (on recommittal) considered.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
    8.35 p.m.
    Sir k. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill, as the whole House will agree, has been improved in Committee. This is thanks to the devotion, enthusiasm, experience and skill of hon. Members on both sides. My right hon. Friend is grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed so much both in discussion and in amendment to the Bill.
    The House might like to know the main changes that have occurred since Second Reading. Perhaps the largest is the extension in the list of exemptions from licensing in Part I. This now covers further cases where land is occasionally used for the stationing of caravans. More particularly, there has been an extension to afford a reasonable measure of freedom for the person who is touring with his caravan while on holiday. The Government believe that the exemptions now provided, although the list in the Schedule is lengthy, touch only what might be described as the margin of the real caravan problem and that they will in no way prejudice effective control over the residential and holiday caravan sites, with which the Bill is primarily concerned.
    1738
    A further provision has been introduced in Clause 19 to ensure proper collaboration between local planning authorities and the licensing authorities on the issue of planning permission and licences for caravan sites. We have also added a provision, which will be found in Clause 17, to clarify the circumstances in which an existing caravan site may be run down by means of licence conditions, thus safeguarding the position of sites already operating with planning permission or established use rights.
    There are a number of smaller amendments with which I need not trouble the House, but there are still one or two outstanding matters in connection with the Bill which we have not yet resolved to our satisfaction and which may require further attention when the Bill goes to another place. The first relates to the problem of caravans on common land. Then, there is the question, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) was especially interested, of the application of the new enforcement procedure in Part II of the Bill to notices under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend was anxious that instead of regulations, as envisaged by Clause 39 of the Bill, we should do our best to put the changes in the Bill itself. This we are still trying to do and we hope that it may be possible to do it before the Bill becomes an Act. There are also a number of complexities in the operation of Clauses 9 and 35 which we have not yet finally resolved, so that we may want to look at the drafting of these two Clauses again.
    In commending the Bill to the House with these changes, perhaps I may repeat once more our aims and our hopes. We want to make sure that there are enough caravan sites to meet the public demand in the right places and not merely to stop caravans becoming established in the wrong places, important though that purpose is. The licensing system is the Bill is designed to bring about positive improvements in living conditions on caravan sites. For the site operators who observe proper planning requirements and who are able and willing to maintain and equip their sites to a good standard, as is true in the great majority of cases, the Bill offers a new deal and long-term security.

    1739
    Local planning authorities and local authorities will have effective powers under Parts I and II of the Bill to control both the location of caravan sites and conditions on the sites. There will be less need for authorities in the future to adopt a defensive attitude to caravans, as they 'lave sometimes done in the past. The Government are confident that they will exercise their new powers wisely, recognising the important part that the caravan now plays in the life of the community and the legitimate needs of the many thousands of people who today make their homes and take their holidays in caravans.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. Short: On Second Reading of this Bill my hon. and right hon. Friends and I myself said that we thought that it was a mistake to base a Bill dealing with caravans, both residential caravans and holiday caravans, on the Arton Wilson Report which dealt purely with residential caravans. We feel the Minister should have had further inquiry—or extended the terms of the Arton Wilson inquiry—into the problem of the touring caravan as well. If he had done that, I think this would have been a better Bill to start with.
    It was because of this, and because, I am quite sure, the Minister was in much too big a hurry to get the Bill on the Statute Book, that the original draft had so very many flaws; but the Minister has had the good sense to realise that there were many flaws and many anomalies and to accept a great many Amendments. I can only wish that during the passage of the Rent Bill, as it then was, he had listened to the many excellent suggestions which came from this side of the House, in the way he has done on this Bill.
    In spite of the fact that the Bill is now a great deal better than it was in the original draft, there are still some fears which, I hope, the Minister will bear in mind during the rest of the Bill's passage through Parliament. The first is the point which was raised earlier tonight that the words "or any other feature" still remain in the conditions which the local authority can impose in giving a site licence. I am quite certain that local authorities throughout the country, unless the Minister watches
    1740
    them very carefully, will impose a diversity of conditions which will make it extremely difficult for the caravan manufacturer, on the one hand, and the person who wants to tour from one local authority area to another, on the other hand. So I hope that the Minister, if he cannot alter this, will watch how it works out throughout the country very carefully. I do not remember how far he can go in the model conditions, but I seem to remember that in his model conditions he cannot specify constructional standards. That is one point which wants watching.
    Secondly, I am quite sure that the pre-1948 site operator is not adequately safeguarded. I am not concerned with the man who started a site in recent years. I am concerned with the operator who started a site in the pre-1948 period. It may have been started twenty or thirty years ago when the operator was doing something which was perfectly lawful then. Their rights are permanent and unconditional. They may have been a little vague as to conditions but they were specifically confirmed in the 1947 Act and on these permanent and unconditional rights many operators have incurred considerable capital expenditure which they may not be able to recoup or the present operators may be people who bought sites because of those permanent rights.
    I myself visited what is quite the best site I have ever visited—on Lake Windermere—a fortnight ago. I am sorry that the Minister did not visit the same site. I hope he will. I understand that something like £20,000 has been sunk in that site. This is a very important and substantial point.
    I feel that those operators are certainly entitled to two things. They are entitled first of all to a much more insistent statement by the Minister that it is his policy that the operator on an existing site who is given planning permission less favourable than the rights he has enjoyed under the 1947 Act shall receive compensation. I think that the Minister must be quite specific and clear about that.
    Secondly, I think we are entitled to a clear, definite assurance from the Minister that he has power to overrule planning authorities which do not follow this policy—I think he has go to do so

    1741
    on grounds of sheer commercial injustice—and that he will not have to decide an appeal on planning considerations which 'would undoubtedly be valid if the appeal were over a new site. So I think that the Minister must think about the position of the pre-1948 site operators.
    I regret that there is no security in the Bill for the caravan tenant. I regret also that it does not deal with tents. I think that in many respects they are a much greater danger. I would again refer to paragraph 13 of the new Schedule, that is, the bit of the Schedule which gives the Minister power to withdraw certain exemptions as set out in paragraphs 2 to 10. I hope that the Minister will use his power cautiously and discreetly. I should have thought that a local authority applying for the withdrawal of any exemption should do so only if it is flagrantly abused by the exempt body. I take it that that will be the criterion which the Minister will apply in deciding whether or not to withdraw any of these exemptions.
    I have said from the beginning of our discussions on the Bill that I did not think that local authorities should be exempt from the need to obtain licences for their own sites. I still think that. They should set the standards and should not only comply with the law but be seen to comply with it the same as everybody else. One point which may have escaped the notice of the House is that a local authority is obliged to have regard to the Minister's model standards only on new sites established under the Bill when it becomes law.
    Clause 20 (2) says:
    "…in exercising their powers under this section the local authority shall have regard to any standards which may have been specified by the Minister…"
    That is in exercising their powers under the Clause. There are some local authority sites which fall far below the standards required, and I should have thought that local authorities would have been obliged to pay regard to the Minister's standards on all their sites, the existing ones and the ones established under the Bill.
    On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, I must say that we wish the Bill well in the rest of its passage through Parliament. On the
    1742
    whole, we think it a good Bill now. Part II is very good and Part I is considerably improved. We express the hope that all the interests concerned, local authorities, caravanning interests, manufacturers and site operators and the Minister will do all in their power to make it succeed. We look forward to seeing the model standards which I understand will be available as soon as the Bill has received the Royal Assent. We shall scrutinise them very carefully.
    I regard caravanning as one of the best of the newer recreations that have sprung up since the war. It fulfils one of the greatest needs of this age, to bring people more into contact with the simple age-old life of the countryside and out of the cities and the hurried life for which I am sure the human frame and the human spirit were not intended. The best antidote to that is to get people into contact with the countryside. This is what modern man wants more than anything else to restore his spiritual perspective. I hope that the Bill will reconcile the need to do this with the need to preserve the countryside.
    8.48 p.m.
    Sir Lionel Heald: I ought to ask the indulgence of the House for intervening very briefly at this stage because unfortunately I have not been able to be present at any time during the progress of the Bill so far. That has not been through any fault of mine. I have been in Africa on public duties.
    I intervene because this is a subject with which I have been closely concerned ever since I first entered the House ten years ago. It was one of the first subjects that I ever raised in debate. At that time the Chertsey division was the one division where the problem had become more serious perhaps than it was anywhere else. It had not reached generally anything like the condition that it has been in during recent years and especially in the last year or two.
    As an outsider, as it were, I am delighted to say a word of sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for having undertaken the great burden of dealing with this problem. It is a problem with which many people have felt it almost impossible to deal over the years, and I am sure it required great courage and determination on the part of my right hon. Friend to grasp the nettle. I am

    1743
    sure that everyone will be grateful to him, and to those who have helped him in getting the Bill through the House.
    The Bill will make many people in my constituency—which is still probably the worst affected in the country in relation to the caravan problem—feel that they can act within the law. During the last few years there has been a terrible feeling amongst almost everyone concerned that they were acting in a mean way if they attempted to carry on at all with caravanners, either from the point of view of the local authorities and caravan operators, or the people who lived in the caravans. There is no doubt also that many people have been put into difficulties, and sometimes exploited, by the legal problems and difficulties which this House has been considering during the last three months. From today at any rate they should be able to make a fresh start.
    While I believe that we all ought to feel tremendous satisfaction at what has been achieved in the Bill, I do not think that we should adopt an attitude of complacency, because the machinery that has been provided here is very largely of a negative character. The machinery is not capable of producing results of itself in relation to the provision to ensure, as my hon. Friend so rightly described it, that the right kinds of caravans are in the right places. More than mere operation of the machinery will be needed. One of the things that will be needed most will be good will on the part of all concerned, and a real desire to make the Bill work.
    We have discussed this afternoon the provision for the review of all sites and, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) pointed out, there will be a reconsideration of the position of people who for years have been acting in what they believed to be a perfectly legal way. That should cause no difficulty to anyone who has played the game, but if local authorities try to adopt a rather narrow attitude and to take technical points on these various provisions—for example, the word "feature" might provide them with an opportunity for doing so—it will be very unfortunate. Equally, if the site operators try to find loopholes and means of causing complications, both administra-
    1744
    tively and otherwise, we shall not achieve the results we want to attain.
    We hope that it will not be long before the Bill becomes law, because it is urgently needed, but I believe that it should be accompanied by a general recommendation from this House to all those concerned that they should try to co-operate and make a success of it. I do not believe it will be easy. I know of places where the problem is by no means settled, but if everyone sits round the table and realises the objects that we are trying to attain, that will be a good start.
    My right hon. Friend, the representative of the Opposition, and other hon Members have shown a good example by treating this matter as a purely nonpartisan Measure and something which is designed to benefit all sections of those engaged in the industry and all those who live in caravans.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Hon. Members on both sides will be aware of the part played by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) in this matter, and will be very glad that he has intervened in this Third Reading debate. Much good work has gone into the Bill, and the Minister has proved receptive to points put forward by hon. Members on both sides.
    The character of the caravan makes it easy to escape from planning control: indeed, the caravan has made the General Development Order relatively its playground. If the caravan could have been made answerable to planning enforcement provisions there would have been no need to impose anything in the nature of the licensing system which the Bill provides.
    In appropriate contexts I favour the extension of public control for the public good. Basically, I suppose that is one of the main reasons why I find myself on this side of the House and not the other. But I feel very strongly that those of us who have this basic political sympathy and disposition have a very special interest in being continuously vigilant that Government Departments and local authorities are encouraged to operate fairly towards citizens. To the extent that we are able to satisfy the British people that Government Departments and local authorities behave fairly

    1745
    and squarely in their conduct of affairs we will gain support.
    I wish to give two instances where what I call the extension of planning control under cover of a licensing system may operate unfairly. The first concerns the pre-1948 user. I was especially glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) thought it right to emphasise this point. It is the case of an existing use originating either before 1948 or, because planning permission was not required under the 1947 Act, after 1948. Under the mechanism of the Bill that land user has to have permission or he cannot get a licence. If he is refused permission he will have to discontinue his use of the land. He will receive no compensation unless the refusal of the permission by a local planning authority takes the form of a discontinuance order under Sections 26 and 27 of the 1947 Act. Without that statutory provision, dealing with and requiring the refusal of permission to take that form, it is very unlikely that it will take that form. If this use is discontinued by any other mechanism than by a discontinuance order under the 1947 Act, no compensation will be payable, as I understand the law.
    It is also only right to remember the admittedly less strong case of the person who has taken advantage of the four years' lapse of time since he commenced a contravening use of the land. That case will arouse relatively less sympathy among Members on both sides. But we must be fair here, also. We must recognise that in particular cases an injustice may be perpetrated. Someone may operate a caravan site in contravention of planning law for four years or more. During that period enforcement proceedings may not have been initiated, either because of the indolence of the local authority or because it was in doubt whether the kind of development that was going on was of a kind which required permission under the 1947 Act. Whatever the reason may be, the land user may have gone on for four years without enforcement proceedings being initiated.
    At the end of that period the person concerned is outside the mischief of enforcement. I have heard of cases where such persons have then expended large sums of money upon the improve-
    1746
    ment of the site. That expenditure may be useful and welcome, in the public interest. It may have the effect of improving the land or the sanitary provisions, and so forth.
    Although such a person may have expended money in the public interest he will now be caught under the provisions of the Bill. If he wishes to go on with that use of the land and get a site licence he will have to get planning permission. If he is refused permission the refusal will certainly not take the form of a discontinuance order, because a discontinuance order under the 1947 Act is applicable only in the case of an authorised user. Such a person, therefore, would get no compensation. Those are the circumstances in which it is possible for injustice to be done.
    I wish to repeat the initial point I made, to which I attach importance. If it appears odd to anybody that from this side of the House I should be appearing to put forward points favourable to the site operator—and even to the site operator who has been acting in contravention of planning law for some time—I venture to insist that, none the less, I do so because I take the basic view that, although we want to extend public control in these matters, it is of vital importance to ensure that both Government Departments and local authorities are given every encouragement to behave fairly and squarely towards citizens. Those are flaws, if there is substance in my criticism, arising from the circumstance that an extension of planning control is effected by the superimposition of a licensing system, but they are flaws which there is still time to correct during the passage of this l3ill through Parliament.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. Temple: I add my congratulations to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary upon their very flexible approach to the Bill, and I add my appreciation of the work of the officers of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government whom I have seen on many occasions and who have rendered me immense services in considering the substance of the Bill.
    My right hon. Friend was perfectly right to press on with this legislation.

    1747
    There was undoubtedly a great need for it and had he waited for a committee to report on the problems of the travelling caravanner, we would have had to wait until another Session for the Bill. It was much more reasonable that he should have pressed on as he did and accepted many Amendments during the passage of the Bill.
    There is no doubt that the Bill gives local authorities very great power and control over caravans. That must never be forgotten, but along with that control the Bill gives them very great responsibilities as well. However, I am very sensible of the fact that the problems of the travelling caravanner have been considerably eased during the Bill's passage.
    There is one aspect of the Bill upon which there has been very little comment. It is that the Minister has power to specify model standards. No Amendments to that provision were suggested and so it was practically never discussed. It is immensely important, as these model standards will apply to the layout, services, facilities and equipment of caravan sites. In its third leader on 26th May, The Times said:
    "The Bill does not lay down national minimum standards for sites, so the conditions they attach to licences could (despite the MINISTER'S model) mean much or nothing."
    It is important that those model standards should mean a great deal. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he has every intention that his model standards will command the greatest respect among authorities with the power to administer this legislation.
    At one and the same time, the model standards must be extremely flexible and elastic. They will have to apply equally to the single caravan site and to sites for 100 or 500 caravans. They will have to apply to areas of great scenic charm and to areas of lesser scenic importance.
    An article in the June issue of The Mobile Home said:
    "what will be the position of the individual caravan resident who has had the wit to find himself a quiet spot in the corner of an orchard?"
    I was thinking about that quotation when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was speaking about crofts, because an individual caravan may be
    1748
    sited adjacent to a croft. The model standards must be flexible, because the croft may have no sanitation whatsoever while the model standards for caravan sites may say that all kinds of special sanitation should be provided where a residential caravan is sited. One may have a situation where there is a very much higher standard of sanitation for a caravan which is sited alongside a croft with virtually no facilities whatever. That is why I say that these model standards should be very flexible.
    Clause 4 refers to amenities and the planting of trees and shrubs. Anyone with experience of the countryside can appreciate that the planting of trees and shrubs to effect a screening of a caravan site is a comparatively long-term project. We are encouraging site operators to screen sites properly, but it is unrealistic to think that a site operator will plant trees, say, ten years before the caravans arrive. In drawing up the model standards, my right hon. Friend will have to have regard to the fact that if a site operator shows every Intention of undertaking a screening project, the site must be permitted to be established while the necessary screening is growing up. That is why I hope that a very elastic attitude will be adopted when my right hon. Friend specifies his model standards. I would have preferred the standards to be in the form of regulations, but so long as they are definite and so long as my right hon. Friend is sure that local authorities will have to have regard to them, I am satisfied.
    I said that local authorities would have great responsibilities as well as powers. There is no doubt that everyone in the House hopes that the standard of living of the people of this country will improve. As the standard of living improves, more and more of our people will get longer holidays with pay. As the public demand for caravans increases, so, in turn, will the demand for land increase. It would be disastrous if by reason of the tight control exerted through this Bill we were to drive caravan owners across the English Channel to seek their holidays abroad. I hope that as a result of the Bill more caravanners will take their holidays in the British Isles. That would be a great saving to the Chancellor.

    1749
    I should like to put in a word about agriculture. In my opinion, agriculture has nothing to fear by reason of a land grab by caravanners, because necessarily there are large areas of sub-marginal land, by which I mean farm land below the marginal farming standard, which could easily be developed by caravan site operators into excellent caravan sites. If that land were so developed, it would bring a great deal of employment and prosperity to those areas of the British Isles which are being depopulated at present. I believe that there will be site operators ready and willing to develop these areas of sub-marginal land.
    This Bill, for the first time, gives these developers two things. It gives them the prospect of long-term planning provisions and, further than that, it gives them the prospect of long-term site licences. With these two provisions in their hands, the developers can go forward to developing the sites in these remote areas. The key is the planning permissions. The local authorities and, in the last resort, my right hon. Friend hold the key to the possibility of opening up these sites. If there is a reluctance on the part of the local authorities to grant the necessary planning permissions, my right hon. Friend has the power in his own hands to set the pattern when hearing cases which will come to him regarding planning permission refusals.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that he wanted to make enough sites available. I have fairly and squarely put the responsibility on by right hon. Friend and on the local authorities. Theirs is the responsibility and if they do not accept that responsibility they themselves will be continuing the monopoly value of sites which exists at the present time. They will be responsible for the key money which will be extorted from people by reason of the fact that there are not sufficient caravan sites. I hope that a liberal attitude will be adopted by the local authorities and by my right hon. Friend with regard to the granting of planning permissions. I feel confident that this Bill, having bad such an excellent start in this House and having had the good will of both sides and the blessing of the local authorities and of the caravan industry, will bring further health and happiness to the people of Britain.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) hoped that caravanners would not have to go abroad in order to enjoy the benefits of their caravan holidays. There is no need for them to go abroad. All they have to do is to go to Scotland. Having been introduced to the glories and beauties of that country, they would never dream of going anywhere else. We are ready to welcome them. One is astounded when one sees what is already available in the way of caravan sites and how small towns and burghs throughout Scotland, many of which are not Socialist in any way, already have local authority sites for caravans and welcome the arrival of caravanners in their areas.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been right to praise the Ministers in charge of the Bill, not only for their foresight in introducing it, but also for the way in which they have handled it. Special compliments arc due to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He has done very well. He has completely dominated the Minister, and long may he continue to do so. It was a refreshing surprise to hear the enlightened defence of public-spirited action by local authorities advanced from that quarter of the House. All joking apart, he has done a good job on the Bill.
    In the Bill we are catching up with a problem and appreciating the dangers involved in allowing it to get any further out of hand. Hon. Members will not be surprised if I explain that during Committee and today I have listened to the proceedings with a certain measure of frustrated energy. I welcome Part I of the Bill, as it applies to Scotland—and practically all its provisions do apply to Scotland. We are giving Scottish local authorities new duties and responsibilities, not only to make provision for the well-being of the caravan community and the touring caravanners whom we hope will come to the Highlands and even to the crofts, but also to look after the interests of the general public in respect of dangers to health. For example, in one small burgh it might be possible to have a caravan site containing 250 caravans, which might contain about a thousand people. If the local authority does not exercise in

    1751
    respect of that site all its responsibilities in relation to public health laid upon it by Parliament for the rest of the community, it will be failing in its duty.
    I think that the Government are right to insist that the local authority should be the site licensing authority, with powers to impose conditions and powers of enforcement. I know that the powers of enforcement and the changes made in Part II involved a certain measure of disunity in the party opposite, and during the Committee the Minister showed his wisdom and courage in standing up to that opposition. But where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? I recall how the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary fought in defence of the new enforcement provisions which they regarded as essential for the well-being of the public—not only of the caravanners but of everyone else. But where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? Because Part II, this important part of the Bill, is not applicable to Scotland. This is dreadful.
    I know that you may say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that because it is not applicable to Scotland, therefore it is not included in the Bill and cannot be discussed on Third Reading, but, with all respect, it is included in the Bill; the vital words in Clause 41 (3) are,
    "This part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland".
    Before I give my blessing, or my partial blessing to the Bill, I must draw attention to this weakness and this failing in it. I had hoped that we might be able to discuss this question on Report, but it was not possible.
    The Scottish Office has considerable responsibility to the people of Scotland. So far as I can understand it, the same things which impelled the Minister to introduce this streamlining in relation to enforcement for England apply equally to Scotland. The matter was discussed with the Scottish Office and the Scottish local authorities. Far from the story we heard from the Joint Under-Secretary of State being true, the Scottish local authorities left the Scottish Office in no doubt about where they stood before the publication of the Bill. It may be that consultation was invited too late, but the local authority representatives were unanimous that the existing procedure regarding enforcement was quite
    1752
    inadequate and lent itself to abuse. They also pointed out that existing procedure for appeal to the sheriff was inadequate in that the sheriff was entitled under existing law to decide the case on planning considerations. It was felt undesirable that in such appeals the sheriff should have power to deal with the planning aspects of the case.
    The need for legislation was put to the Department and brushed aside. I ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has had anything to do with this. I do not doubt that he has. The right hon. Gentleman will have a good memory of what happened last time, when he tried to put Scotland in the same kind of planning legislation as England.
    What about the Scottish position? We need this legislation, but we are not getting it. I put the problem to one of the most knowledgeable men on Scottish local authority work, a newcomer to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who has had considerable responsibility in respect of this aspect of planning in Lanarkshire. He told me that during last year the number of applications for permissions regarding caravans increased nearly ten times. We are catching up with the problem in England and Wales, but in Scotland it is growing by leaps and bounds, and we are being denied the enforcement provisions properly to deal with it. I do not think this is good enough.
    I have been supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie with a list of examples which prove the case in relation to enforcement. People are using all the loopholes available to them and staving off the enforcement order. In the meantime they are carrying on profitable businesses. In one case in Lanarkshire it took nearly five years to get a conviction, and the offender was fined £7. Another case took a few years to settle and the decision of the sheriff was to ask the offender to make his peace with the county council, and then the whole thing started all over again. Offenders take advantage of the leniency accorded them, and when the sheriffs make a decision all that happens is that offenders move from one site to another and the whole procedure starts again.

    1753
    This is a matter which is adequately dealt with in one of the Clauses in Part II of the Bill in relation to England, but there is no solution for Scotland. I think that here we have a justified grievance. I wish to know whether it will be met by the Scottish Office. When are we to get legislation? Are we to get legislation? This complete failure properly to appreciate the situation relating to Scotland is something which causes us much concern. We want the touring caravans and other caravans which are used for holiday purposes, but we do not want this to degenerate into another social problem. For whatever reason, the Scottish Office just burkes the issue, although here was an opportunity for us to cope with the problem.
    I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State or the Minister can tell us how they justify the provisions in Clause 34 relating to penalties. We now have a penalty of £100 for offences committed in England and Wales but in Scotland, for the same offence, the fine is £50. This was one of the things discussed with the Scottish local authorities. They were asked by the Department whether they thought it time to review the penalties. They agreed that the penalties should be reviewed. They have been reviewed for England and Wales and a change has been made, but nothing has been done in relation to Scotland. The thing just does not make sense. It is not fair.
    I know that perhaps I have trespassed a little in relation to what I may discuss on Third Reading, but the words are in the Bill, that it shall not apply to Scotland. That gives me ample scope to roam over the Part which does not apply to Scotland in order to decide whether I am able to vote for the Bill at all. I sincerely hope that I have made clear that I regard this Bill with a pleasant eye from the point of view of Part I and with an envious and jaundiced eye regarding Part II. I hope that in future the Secretary of State for Scotland will assert himself.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: My hon. Friend mentioned the £100 fine in England and Wales as compared with the £50 fine in Scotland. The Secretary of State may have reviewed it but realised that we were much poorer brethren and that the Tory Government
    1754
    could not make us any better off than we are.
    Mr. Ross: That may well be, but I have my doubts about it. I am convinced that the people who are the private developers of caravans down here will be the people who will eventually do it in Scotland.
    This is what concerns me. The problem is the same. The solution is the same. However, the law of Scotland is different from the law of England, and these things can be properly dealt with only by giving Scotland its own legislation. We should have had a Bill for Scotland. If we had had it from the start—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is going too far when he suggests a separate Bill. He was in order so long as he related his remarks purely to the one passage:
    "This Part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland."
    He is not allowed to go into details of fresh legislation on Third Reading.
    Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Is it not in order to suggest that we do not want Part I to apply to Scotland? That is what my hon. Friend is doing. He is suggesting that one Part should not apply and that another Part should apply, as a result of which he deduced that we should have had a separate Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So long as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was dealing with the Bill applying to Scotland, he was in order, but when he went, as I heard him, order, but when he went, as I heard him, so far as to suggest that a separate Bill should be introduced to apply to Scotland he went beyond the scope of a Third Reading debate. That is what I understood the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to be saying. He will correct me if I am wrong.
    Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. An hon. Member is entitled to draw the logical conclusion from arguments which are in order. If the arguments relating to Parts I and II are in order, my hon. Friend is entitled to draw the logical deduction from them.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is correct, and for the last several minutes the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has been doing just that. But then the hon. Member went further and suggested, as I heard him, that fresh legislation should be introduced to deal with Scotland. That was outside the scope of a Third Reading debate.
    Miss Herbison: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has been dealing with Part II, in particular Clause 41(3):
    "This part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland."
    He has been trying to put questions to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to learn why it should be stated that it does not apply to Scotland. He has done this so that he will be able to decide whether to vote against the Bill. My hon. Friend has given his reasoning. If he has ultimately to decide to vote against the Bill he has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, come to the logical conclusion, which he must state, that because Part H does not apply to Scotland we should have separate legislation. With due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is the only conclusion which my hon. Friend could reach and there would have been no sense in his argument had he not stated it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I permitted the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to develop his argument in the sense that the hon. Lady has just explained. It was only when he advocated fresh legislation being introduced that I thought that he was going too far.
    Mr. Ross: If you had not interrupted me, Sir, I should have been finished a long time ago. I was on the point of uttering my last five words. I ask you Sir, to reconsider the judgment you just gave, because I remind you and the House that the last time we had town and country planning legislation of this nature the one thing which was in order on Third Reading was to ask for fresh legislation for Scotland. Although it was in the last Session of Parliament, you, Sir, may remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland started the Third Reading debate by saying that the same Bill would be reprinted in Scottish legal terms and proper form and reintroduced.
    1756
    To suggest that we are not entitled to follow the logic of our conclusion and appeal to precedent in the form of past legislation carries it a little too far.
    This sort of thing is always unsatisfactory. Part I applies to Scotland. When reading Part II, one has to move through Clause 28 without finding any mention of Scotland. Then one sees the rigmarole of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). (f) and (g). One has to go through all the previous Clauses, amending this, scoring out that, and adding something else. It is most unsatisfactory. When one comes to the Part which is the real meat, the enforcement Part, one sees the changes in planning legislation which have been forced upon the Government by their experience of what has happened in England and Wales. There is the same problem in Scotland. Can anyone have any cause to complain when we express our anger at discovering that this is not applicable to Scotland? I am sure that the reason is the technical difficulty of weaving Scottish planning legislation in with that of England. That is why I think that I am justified in saying on Third Reading that the only solution in Scotland to this problem, properly met in England and Wales by this Bill, would be to give us separate Scottish legislation, not fresh legislation but legislation of exactly the same character.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in his last remarks, just as I would agree with him if he said that England ought to have home rule. If his arguments were presented elsewhere, we should have a lot more time to ourselves in this Chamber.
    I agree also with what the hon. Gentleman says about the enforcement notice procedure. It has been quite obvious that a reform in the procedure has been necessary for many years. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on piloting the Bill thus far. I congratulate them on the Part I which deals with caravans. I cannot, however, congratulate them on the methods they have found in Part II for the reform of the enforcement procedure. There is very much of good in Part I of the Bill relating to caravans, but the price we have to pay

    1757
    in Part II for that good is, in my view, far too high.
    The enforcement procedure under the present law is not a duplicate procedure but a triplicate procedure. A site operator who wishes to avoid enforcement has the right to go before the magistrate, the Minister and the local authority in several forms of procedure and to delay the ultimate penalty upon himself. That needed reform, but, in my view, my right hon. Friend has adopted the wrong way of reforming it in Clause 28. He has thrown all planning appeals and all appeals from enforcement notices before one tribunal, that tribunal being the inspector appointed by himself.
    Obviously, the inspector is an extremely correct person to deal with matters of administrative discretion. When it is really a planning decision which has to be made, the inspector of the Ministry is the right person to hear the appeal from the enforcement notice, hut appeals in at least four of the cases detailed in Clause 28 have nothing whatever to do with planning. They are appeals purely on fact, and very large sums may be involved. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in his Third Reading speech referred to established rights and rights which had been acquired over four years. Large sums may have been spent on the development of sites.
    Here we are dealing not only with caravans, as in Part I of the Bill, but with any type of development of properties, and very expensive development may have taken place. Perhaps buildings have been erected on the basis that a right was acquired there before 1948, and, under Clause 28, whether or not there was a right established before 1948 is to be settled by a person appointed by the Minister, from whom there is no appeal except on a point of law.
    I want to stress to the House what may happen in practice before a person so appointed. He is normally not a lawyer, so that if a point of law is raised before him he takes a note of it and informs the parties that he will take legal advice on it. In short, it will be decided by my right hon. Friend on the advice of the legal department of the Ministry, which will not have heard the legal arguments, but will merely have before it a note taken by the inspector.
    1758
    A point of law, of course, depends upon the facts, and should the inspector, who is not a legal man, not appreciate the point of law, he will not search out the facts for and against that point of law. I should have thought that it was essential in cases where it is not a planning decision, but a decision on facts and law, that there should be something more than a tribunal appointed under Clause 28, even if it were only that my right hon. Friend should appoint a legal assessor to sit with his inspector, because, under the Clause as it stands at the moment, the inspector's decision is final, except on points of law.
    I feel so strongly that this course is wrong that I cannot give a blessing to the rest of a Bill which contains a Clause like this. I hope that this point will be looked at in the later stages to see whether something cannot be done to provide a better tribunal than that suggested in Clause 28 for those cases which are not based entirely upon planning permission. Part I of the Bill has so much good in it that it is unfortunate that Part II, which is of general application, should have this fault.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on one thing that he said, and that is about the admirable purport of Part I of the Bill, which applies to Scotland. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), however, I am bound to say that I do not like this method of legislating for Scotland. I should have thought that the Scottish Office had learned its lesson on the occasion of the last Town and Country Planning Bill.
    It is quite true, of course, that, technically, it is not so much town and country planning legislation in Part I, but it is true to say that it is an extension of planning legislation. It may not be dealing with the original Act so much, but it is an extension of the principle. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to this debate or not, but surely the hon. Gentleman remembers the last great volume of protest against incorporating Scotland into Bills dealing with planning. In fact, even the Faculty of Advocates protested to the

    1759
    Secretary of State against this procedure, and, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, as a result of the very great many protests about this procedure, the Scottish Office ultimately had to introduce a separate Bill altogether, incorporating the provisions which had originally been passed in a Bill for England and Wales and Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will appreciate that this creates great difficulty for the Chair. I am not without sympathy for the point he desires to make, but I do not see how he can manage to make it within the rules of order on Third Reading. With respect to him, in the case of the kind of legislation and trouble that he is recalling, the objection and protest is made at a much earlier stage in the Bill, and that is a different matter. I have listened to him, but I desire him to remain in order.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will try to remain in order and will accordingly address myself to the Clauses of the Bill.
    We have a Clause of two and a half pages applying Part I to Scotland, and it is exceedingly difficult to follow. This Clause means that anybody dealing with the Bill in Scotland has not only to read through Clauses 1 to 24 but to read Clause 26. He then has to read Clause 25 to get the interpretation of the Part of the Bill which deals with Scotland.
    To understand this part of the Bill, the lawyer in Scotland—the town clerk —has to read Clause 25, entitled "Interpretation of Part I". Therein he reads:
    "'the Minister' means the Minister of Housing and Local Government".
    However, he then has to read
    "Application of Part Ito Scotland"
    and he reads in Clause 27 that
    "the definition of 'the Minister' shall be omitted".
    He then turns back to the beginning of Clause 27 and finds that any reference to the Minister means the Secretary of State. I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that that is not fair to the officials in Scotland, many of them part-time officials in the small burghs, who will have to handle the Bill.
    1760
    Perhaps I may follow that up by asking a question about the model standards. I see from Clause 4 (6):
    "The Minister may from time to time specify for the purposes of this section model standards with respect to the layout…"
    of sites. I take it that the Secretary of State will do this in Scotland. Do I take it that the Secretary of State can specify model standards that are quite different from those specified for England? The Joint Under-Secretary may appear to be amused, but it is an important point because a great many of the conditions in Scotland are quite different from what they are in England. I want, therefore, to ask whether that is so and whether it is the Secretary of State's intention simply to issue the same model standards as the Minister of Housing and Local Government will issue in England or whether he intends to do something different. It may be that we could have an answer to this question too.
    Part II of the Bill does not apply to Scotland. That is a pity. The reasons have already been dealt with and I do not want to get out of order any more than I might have been, but I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government at some time to introduce an equivalent to Part II for Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, the provisions contained within Part II are required by Scotland. Unfortunately our Amendment was not called, otherwise we could have debated this.
    Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member, but this seems to be a matter in which he is disappointing himself in his desire not to go out of order.
    Mr. Willis: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in expressing my feelings about the Bill it is in order to say that I am disappointed that Part II does not apply to Scotland.
    What I am trying to say, briefly, is that whilst I want the provisions of the Bill, it is a bad Bill because, first, it mixes up Scotland with England in Part I and, secondly, it does not include Scotland in Part II. That is why the Bill does not appeal to me as a good Bill, although the objects which it sets out to achieve are admirable.

    1761
    Having said those things, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will take some of them rather seriously. While I deal with these matters in a friendly spirit, nevertheless there is very great feeling about some of the things that we have mentioned.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. Corfield: I very much welcome the general objects of both Parts of the Bill, though I want to make one or two points on how I think it might have been better than it is. In the first place, although I am naturally not quite so attracted to public ownership as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), I agree with him that the good name of local authorities should be absolutely unimpeachable in the way they deal with the rights of private individuals, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully the doubts raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    I can see that there is considerable cause for saying, in the case of the pre-1948 developer, that it may be that any loss of planning permission would have to come through the discontinuance order under Section 26 of the 1947 Act, but the very fact that somebody like the hon. and learned Gentleman can have the doubts which he has expressed is a reflection on the drafting of the Bill. The whole object of legislation, when all is said and done, is to be certain.
    As far as the four-year man is concerned, of course the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in saying that we all have comparatively less sympathy with him, but let us remember that those four-year rights may equally have been acquired, and the property sold to somebody else, in all good faith, in the belief that there was no possibility of planning permission being withdrawn. I would agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member that in that case there would be no question of a discontinuance order under Section 26, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this and bear in mind that the very fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has these doubts is a reflection on the drafting which should be settled. Though we all have great respect for the legal advice which my right hon. Friend receives in his Department, it is not necessarily better than legal advice from the Temple.
    1762
    There are one or two points I would make on the enforcement side. I personally regret that this Part of the Bill did not appear under the title of "Town and Country Planning." It seems to be that if we build a whole new structure on what really is the basis of two Sections of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, it is a pity to call it "Caravan Sites: General Control of Development." However that may be, there are one or two points about which I, for one, certainly have doubt and on which I hope my right hon. Friend will comment.
    The first one arises on Clause 33, which we discussed earlier tonight. I would remind my night hon. Friend that it is not always easy to say to the owner that he must protect himself in his lease. There are a great many leases which have already been entered into and which have a considerable number of years to run. It is not easy suddenly to put in a lease a clause which is necessitated only by this Bill, to safeguard oneself against infringement of planning control. The difficulty is particularly marked where the land is agricultural land. There are leases which go on from year to year with virtually complete security of tenure, and I think that the Bill may be putting a very considerable burden on the owner, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary is showing a good deal of optimism if he thinks it is easy for the owner to pass this on to the tenant.
    The next point that worries me a little arises out of Clause 33, when I recall that the repeals Clause at the end of the Bill repeals the provision in Section 23 of the 1947 Act by which, pending appeal under Section 18 of the 1947 Act for planning permission, the enforcement notice, so to speak, was suspended. In this case, that having been repealed, it appears that if planning permission is subsequently obtained, it is obtained with effect from a date later than the enforcement notice. Subsection (2) would operate to enable the recipient of the notice to be prosecuted in spite of the fact that at the time the prosecution took place planning permission had been given and the enforcement notice had ceased to have effect.
    There is on Clause 35 another small matter, but again one of clarification. I read with interest the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Clause. My

    1763
    hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government agreed entirely with the Committee's views that the development referred to in the second line of subsection (2) was development taking place after the commencement of the Act. I cannot for the life of me see why that should not say so. It is well enough to say that we have used the present tense, but that is used in a great many enactments in which it is followed by the words "before" or "after" the commencement of the Act.
    I hope that this will be made clear, because I think that I am right in saying that subsection (5) of the Clause makes it clear that, as far as enforcement goes, it applies whether it was before or after the Act, but development is to come in only if the development is carried out after the commencement of the Act. I hope that this matter will be made clear in the drafting.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. Richard Collard: I listened diligently to the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Bill, and, except briefly on one occasion, I resisted the temptation to take part, not having any previous precise knowledge of the matters at issue. But I wish now on Third Reading to make three comments on the Bill which perhaps will be regarded as general and non-legal but, I hope, as none the worse for that. Two of the comments are on Part I and one on the Bill in general.
    My first comment on Part I can be dealt with very shortly, because my anxiety on the point has been allayed to a considerable extent by the new Schedule which my right hon. Friend has introduced. Part I gives considerable powers to the local authorities and it gives, quite properly, a degree of protection to site owners and site operators. It shows, again quite properly, some tenderness to the showman and recognises organisations such as the Caravan Club of Great Britain. But I wonder about the private individual, the member of no organisation, the man who simply has a caravan and wishes to tour with it. He simply wants to go on holiday and he goes on holiday in a caravan in order to seek freedom and not to seek regulations.
    1764
    It is to be hoped that Part I will not face him with regulations which otherwise he would be able to avoid. I wonder, even now with the new Schedule, whether he will find that his favourite spots are no longer available or that the owner of a site which he had previously visited cannot accept him because the owner is up to the statutory prescribed number of caravans and will have regretfully to tell him to go away.
    Secondly, the Bill gives to local authorities not only powers of licensing but also of compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of having their own caravan sites.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Proceedings on the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mr. Collard: My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) fluently but unsuccessfully opposed that provision during the Committee stage. I am concerned about the granting of licences and the compulsory purchase of land. Will local authorities have a proper regard for preserving the amenities of picturesque places?
    I mentioned in Committee that I am fortunate enough to represent part of the County of Norfolk, a county which is rich in beautiful villages, and a county which in the summertime is visited by many holidaymakers. We welcome those visitors, but picturesque places like those about which I am thinking are liable to be selected as caravan sites, and there is no doubt that a caravan site must inevitably be unsightly. Much of the Bill will improve the unsightliness of caravan sites but, generally speaking, a caravan site cannot improve a picturesque spot.
    Compulsory purchase in the last resort will prevent local people from resisting the destruction of those amenities which are for the benefit of all, and which, once spoilt, cannot be replaced. It is, therefore, to be hoped that local authorities will be particularly vigilant lest the new powers are used to desecrate even more of the countryside.

    1765
    Finally, it is to be noted that the Bill as a whole strengthens the position of local authorities, and therefore I hope that one is justified in considering for a moment how local authorities exercise their responsibilities at the present time. Criticism of local authorities is not to be taken as condemnation. I hasten to say that they do fine work. Members of local authorities render services which are unpaid and unpublicised but very valuable; but without doubt the great blemish on local government is delay.
    The reasons are, of course, many and understandable. Councillors are part-time workers. Much of the work is done in committee, and it is not always possible to get committees to meet as often as one would like. The regulations with which they have to deal are complex. There a re heavy burdens on local authorities, and these must impose some delay on their deliberations. Councils must have a proper regard for ratepayers' money and the spending of it, and that, too, must impose delay, but it is undeniable that there is widespread, what I would call, oppression by delay.
    I think that it will be within the general experience of hon. Members that most complaints of local difficulty which concern local authorities do not so much concern decisions which are unjust or inequitable, but concern delays in getting any decision at all. It is true that Part I of the Bill lays down certain time-limits for the approving of existing sites, but the provisions in the Bill in general, and in particular the new rules for the licensing of caravan sites, seem to provide endless possibilities for delay if one wishes to use them.
    I can only suggest that a spirit of urgency would help in local authorities. They should not shelve matters, or put them off to their next meeting, simply because this or that detail does not happen to be available, or because the matter seems to be too difficult. In particular, councillors of local authorities should question their officials very closely when those officials counsel delay, and they should demand very good reasons if they counsel delay in matters affecting individuals who are seeking authority or permission from the council.
    With those reservations, and in the hope that in these matters local authorities will set their faces against oppression by delay, I welcome the Bill.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I am delighted to seize the opportunity of welcoming what he said about the part which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has played in the proceedings on the Bill. No Minister could have had a better assistant; indeed, no Minister could have been more generously treated by the Standing Committee and the House. In many respects this has been a model of the way in which we ought to handle a Bill which arouses no party feelings.
    I express my thanks to hon. Members on both sides who served on the Standing Committee and who have taken part in the debates on the Floor of the House. The Government, in respect of their English and Scottish representatives, have done their best to be receptive of ideas from both sides, and have tried to join with everybody in shaping this into a still better Bill.
    I took it a little amiss when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) criticised the Government for having been over-hurried in seeking to get the Bill on to the Statute Book. My view is that we need it on the Statute Book as soon as possible. To go back into history—the sole reason why I asked Sir Arton Wilson to confine his invaluable investigations to residential sites was that if I doubled his work by asking him to study problems of the holiday caravanner and the mobile caravan it was clear that he would not be in a position to present a comprehensive report in time for the Government to bring forward legislation this Session.
    From all I knew about this matter two years ago it seemed as clear as possible that we ought to try to get new legislation on to the Statute Book not later than the summer of 1960, and I now thank the House for the help it has given me in achieving that object. I shall be very glad to convey the appreciation expressed by a number of hon. Members to those people who, in the Departments—not only in my own but behind the scenes—have devoted so much work to helping Ministers and Parliament in the shaping of the Bill.
    An unusually large number of detailed questions have been asked in the course

    1767
    of this Third Reading debate, and I will try to answer those which seem to be most substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is very worried about Clause 28. I would point out that the kind of question which has to be dealt with under subsections (1, c) and (1, d) is exactly the sort of question which already comes before the Minister of appeal against determinations by the local planning authority under Section 17 of the 1947 Act. They are now, and have been for years past, determined by the ordinary appeal procedure, so we are not introducing something which is entirely novel; we are carrying on with something which has been accepted, which was not criticised by the Franks Committee, and which I believe we can make work in the future in relation to Clause 28 as acceptably as it has been made to work hitherto in those analogous cases which I have mentioned.
    I realise that my hon. Friend is concerned lest there should be some slip-up in appearing before an inspector. In Committee he said that if these cases were taken in a court of law, as he wished, evidence would be heard on oath, and so forth. I would remind him that the 1933 Local Government Act already empowers inspectors, whom the Minister appoints to hold inquiries, to take evidence on oath. It empowers them to summon witnesses and to require the production of documents. An inspector would always be prepared to consider an application by either party to an appeal that his power in this respect should be exercised in a particular case, and I am prepared to bring that to the notice of the inspectors in my Department.
    In Clause 28 and Part II it may be that we cannot overcome all the difficulties. As so often happens, one is faced with a choice, and one has to settle for the least imperfect course. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has fully realised that if we tried to get away from Clause 28 as drafted we should get back to the duplicate procedure, which was described by one hon. Member as triplicate procedure but which was really quadruplicate procedure, because in each case there was a right of appeal to another authority. Whatever one does to try to meet my hon. Friend's point—and I have been considering whether it could be met
    1768
    without restoring the duplication—one realises the difficulties into which one would run.
    In his Third Reading speech, my hon. Friend was arguing that there should be a more legal form of procedure where the only question which had to be settled under Clause 28 was one of fact, but he had not sufficiently allowed for the truth that under Clause 28 there will never be a situation where that is the only point at issue. I invite his attention to subsection (2) of that Clause, which puts upon the Minister who has to decide the appeal the responsibility of considering the planning aspect of the whole question, in addition to any specific questions which may arise under the various headings of subsection (1).
    Once one accepts that there are planning questions to be settled by an appeal of this kind, the only way one can do it is to stick to the well-tried system of a hearing before an inspector and a final decision by the Minister. Otherwise, one simply gets back to the situation, which we all want to avoid, where there is duplication, if not quadruplication, of procedures.
    The other major topic was compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred to this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and other hon. Members. Once again I will try to make the position as clear as I possibly can. If the planning authority accepts that the site has existing use rights but nevertheless wants to close it down, the course the planning authority must take is to serve a Section 26 order and pay compensation. There is a perfectly clear pointer to that in Clause 15 (3, b).
    On the other hand, a planning authority may wish to question the existence of rights and want to close down the site. In that case, if the planning authority doubts whether there is a planning permission, or whether there are valid existing use rights, its proper course is to serve an enforcement notice and the pointer to that, too, is in Clause 15 (3, b). An enforcement notice is subject to appeal to the Minister under Clause 28 and the Minister can be relied on to quash an enforcement notice if, as a result of inquiry, he finds that in fact the site has

    1769
    existing use rights. If that is found as a result of the inquiry, then the Minister will give permanent planning permission, which will enable the site to be licensed under Clause 3.
    If a planning authority were ever to give a limited planning permission for a site with existing use rights, which might be the sort of case the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill had in mind, then there would be the ordinary right of appeal to the Minister against the time limit condition. Here, again, it is not intended that local authorities should give limited term planning permission, except in some cases where it is perfectly clear that the land will not be available after a certain term.
    I assure the House that when I have to deal with these matters on appeal, I shall not allow a local authority to whittle away the value of existing use rights by giving a short-term planning permission. The appeal procedure to the Minister will be the safeguard against that.
    To be perfectly clear and frank, I must say that there may be occasions when a site operator who has existing use rights may nevertheless find certain restrictions put upon him by the site licence, not by the planning permission, because in future if he is to be running a caravan site, he must have regard to the site licence, and the site licence in its turn must have regard to the model conditions. If someone with existing use rights has been crowding twice as many caravans on the land as should be there, there is no question of paying him compensation for reducing the figure to what is in accordance with the model standards, but in the other case I give the House a complete assurance that compensation will be payable and there will be no means open to a local authority to escape from its obligation to pay compensation.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the case of a land user who has had a contravening use, but where four years have expired so that he has escaped the mischief of the enforcement provision, and who later expends money an developing the site, and who is required under the new procedure to discontinue, the direction could hardly take the form of a Section 26 discontinuance order, since that would not have
    1770
    been an authorised use and such a user would be deprived of any prospect of compensation?
    Mr. Brooke: I will examine the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. This Bill will have to come back to this House, because undoubtedly certain Amendments need to be made in another place. I have given the House as clear a statement as I can, and, these being complicated matters, I would not like to answer any further and more detailed questions "off the cuff".
    I agree very much with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and supported by several hon. Members, about the necessity of a real desire to make the Bill work. In the circular which I shall send out when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, I shall certainly be prepared to include a recommendation of that character, because there must be no complacency. All that we are doing in this Bill is to create the machinery and the machinery has had a general welcome from the House, but it will require good will on the part of both local authorities and the caravan site operators and caravanners if the Bill is to be a success.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who has been so helpful throughout the passage of the Bill, said that the local authorities must see that there are enough caravan sites. Clearly, we must see that there are enough caravan sites, and there is the power of appeal. I should be misleading the House if I were to suggest that anyone with some caravans could necessarily, after the passing of this Bill, put the caravans on any particular sites that he wants. If caravanners' rights alone were being considered, we might very well have caravan sites right round the coast of this island. There are other people who want to enjoy the coast as well. While I accept that sites must he found for caravans, they may not always be what would be regarded by the caravanners themselves as ideal sites, because one has also to take into account the wishes and desires of the rest of the population. One has to seek a balance.
    As regards the model standards, while I cannot, so far as England and Wales is concerned, guarantee that they will be published before the Bill reaches the

    1771
    Statute Book, they will certainly be available before the Bill comes into operation, which is a month later. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked what would happen in Scotland. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary who tells me that the model standards for Scotland will not necessarily be the same as those for England. Where the circumstances are different the standards for Scotland may also be different.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) spoke of the touring caravanners. I think that we have gone a very long way to meet the case of the touring caravanners in the Schedule. Admittedly, there may sometimes be a man who wants to put up somewhere and who falls foul of the twenty-eight days rule or some other provision, but compared with the Bill as it was when first introduced, I believe that we have made it into a charter for the travelling caravanner.
    As to compulsory purchase, I hope that there will be very little compulsory purchase of caravan sites under the Bill, and quite certainly, when any compulsory purchase orders come to me for confirmation, I would be wishful of considering the amenities of the area as well as everything else, certainly if objection were taken to the form of the compulsory purchase order. If objection is taken a public inquiry must be held, and those most concerned by it will have an opportunity of ventilating their views in public.
    I quite frankly accept that, apart from the case of compulsory purchase, there is a certain inherent clash between the interests of amenity and the interests of those who have caravans, and it will
    1772
    be the business of the planning authorities and the Minister on appeal to seek to resolve those difficulties as best may be.
    I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central hit the nail on the head when he spoke of oppression by delay. One of my hopes is that the Bill will diminish delay. A great deal of the delay has occurred through uncertainty. We are trying to get rid of ambiguities and weaknesses here and to create certainty where it has not existed before. Although I appreciate that for the first few months, under the procedure laid down in relation to existing sites, there may be uncertainty, and local authorities will have much to do in that period, nevertheless after that I hope that everything will move more swiftly than it has hitherto.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South asked me one or two technical questions. I can but repeat the assurances which were given in Committee, for instance on Clause 35, that although subsection (5) speaks of
    "an enforcement notice served before the commencement of this Act".
    the development with which that Clause is concerned is development after the commencement of the Act and not before it.
    I hope that I have covered the majority of the points raised in this short but interesting Third Reading debate and, with a final expression of my gratitude to the House, I should like to say that in my belief we all desire this Bill not only to reach the Statute Book as soon as possible but also to be worked with good will and understanding by all the interests concerned.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  H.M.S. "DISCOVERY" (REFITTING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. David James: This debate appeared in the Whip in the name of Mr. Davey Jones, and, while that may have been much more appropriate, I did not think it fair to the seven hon. Members called Jones that they should be saddled with the views of one hon. Member named Jones, and I for a change.
  The debate arises from the dissatisfaction which I and a number of other hon. Members feel in the Admiralty's decision to take over from the Boy Scouts' Association Captain Scott's old ship, "Discovery", which it should certainly take over as one of the oldest, most historic and interesting naval ships in the land; to spend a great deal of money, as the Admiralty is spending, on refitting her; to return her to her place in the heart of London; and yet almost literally to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar by declining to spend the very small sum necessary to cross her masts with yards so that once again we have a square-rigged ship in the heart of London. They would rather have her, apparently, rigged as a bastard schooner.
  I hasten to add that I hope that I am not guilty of an unparliamentary phrase in calling her a bastard schooner, because that is the term hallowed by many generations of seamen. Looking it up, I am inclined to believe that probably Webster is right in applying the second description to the word bastard, meaning mongrel, low-bred or hybrid. That is exactly what a ship looks like which is neither fish, fowl nor good red herring.
  I should briefly declare my interest in the matter. I am a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, which holds the original plans of the ship, and very naturally we are keen to see her restored to all her former glory. I am one of the few people in the land, the sunny side of 41, who spent a year before the mast in a square-rigged ship, and naturally, like the hearts of many other people, my heart
  1774
  beats faster at the sight of square yards. For two years I was Polar adviser to Ealing Studios during the making of the film "Scott of the Antarctic", and I am concerned that the glorious memory of Captain Scott should be kept green and before the minds of future generations of children. I recollect with a certain feeling almost of bitterness that Ealing Studios were prepared to spend rather more on a tank model of the ship than apparently the Admiralty is prepared to spend on the original in this respect.
  This may seem a small point on which to keep you and other hon. Members out of bed, Mr. Speaker, but is it so small —the rigging of a ship? I assume that she is kept to act as a stimulus to recruiting, with the view that boys will see her and say that they will join the Navy. Otherwise why not strip her altogether and put a greenhouse or a drill shed on the upper deck so that she looks rather like H.M.S. "President" further down the river, and not a ship? This country is littered with small societies of ship-lovers whose proceedings are published and every local seaside paper carries accounts of interesting ships visiting. Sea Breezes, which is the magazine dealing with the working craft of a more interesting nature, has a circulation of well over 20,000 copies. I am engaged in publishing and often publish books on historic craft, and I can vouch for the fact that they meet a ready sale.
  Finally, we can look to the advertising boys for some advice in this matter. One can open hardly any illustrated magazine without seeing a sailing ship being employed to advertise some branded product. I need only mention Cutty Sark Whisky, Senior Service cigarettes, Benson and Hedges and Broomwade air compressors, to give examples of hardheaded manufacturers who like to keep their products before the eye of the consumer by using a square-rigged ship in an illustration. I believe that the Admiralty could take a leaf out of their book.
  It is interesting to see what other countries do in this connection. If one goes to Mariehamn in the Gulf of Bothnia one finds that Finland maintains an old British four-masted barque in perfect order as a memorial, and scores of people visit her every year. At Stockholm there is another British full rigged

  1775
  ship in the heart of the city, also perfectly maintained. The Norwegian Government maintain Nansen's old ship in a special house. Everything she means to Polar exploration in the North with Nansen's drift across the Polar basin is exactly the same as H.M.S. "Discovery" means to the history of Antarctic exploration. Coming down to Gothenburg one finds my old ship, the four-masted barque "Viking", which is kept as a memorial of the great days of sail. In San Francisco there is a British barque "Baraclutha" which is kept as a museum to the days of the square-rigged sailing ships. The director of the "Baraclutha" museum was so moved by the story of Scott and the associations of "Discovery" that he asked me to approach the Admiralty to see whether they could have a belaying pin from "Discovery" round which to build a tableau. The Admiralty were graciously prepared to accede to the request and thousands of San Franciscans and visitors can see the pictures of Scott's ship in all its glory; but when they come to London all they see is a bastard schooner. So this is something which really does matter.
  We above all other countries know how to do these things. We spend £1,050 a year on flood-lighting Big Ben, and I do not believe that anyone would cavil at that expenditure. We—thank heaven—dress the Brigade of Guards properly and spend a lot of money on tattoos, Beating the Retreat, Trooping the Colour and so on. I believe this decision of the Admiralty to be a niggardly one totally out of keeping with our normal custom.
  London is the heart of a great Commonwealth built up on its sea communications and its sailing ships. Therefore, I seriously urge and request—indeed, I implore—the Civil Lord to reconsider this decision which I believe has been made a long way down the line. I could well understand the Admiralty saying they could not afford to keep up a memorial to the ship in any shape or form and save the money by towing her away and breaking her up for firewood. But if we are to do the job at all, with all the associations with Captain Scott's heroic performance and a whole century of naval tradition in the Polar region extending back to
  1776
  "Erebus" and "Terror', I am sure that everyone would agree that we should not "spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar."
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am sure the House would express gratitude that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to the Admiralty has been so courteous as to come and listen to this debate, and we are looking forward to a helpful reply. Hon. Members were impressed not only by the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. James) but with 'the great authority with which he spoke. I rise to support him. I do so first because I am one of those—there are many hundreds and thousands of us in this country—who are particularly susceptible to the magic of ships and the sea. Sard Harker in Masefield's book said that he never saw the sheer of a fine ship without finding that its beauty made him catch his breath. There are very few of us who do not understand what he meant.
  The beauty of a ship consists partly in her hull, but equally in her masts and spars. The "Discovery" belongs to the age in which ships attained their greatest beauty. It is, therefore, a very great shame that she, of all ships and of all types of ships, should be subjected to the indignity of having her yards stripped from her.
  Secondly, I support my hon. Friend's plea as a Londoner. London is not a city which is particularly blessed architecturally. We have none of the magnificent architectural sweep of Paris, for example. We have never had a Roi Soleil, and the rather haphazard charm and beauty of London is perhaps the price we pay for the sturdy individualism of the Englishman. Therefore, we should all the more zealously cultivate and nurse such incidental beauties as we have.
  The "Discovery" is particularly well placed on the Embankment in the heart of London to give delight to hundreds and thousands of our countrymen every day. Every time I drive out to my constituency I go down the Embankment, and I have some of the experience of Sard Harker, but it is tinged with regret and frustration when I see that a fine ship has been so very unworthily presented. If she is to be a recruiting ship in a sense, nothing could be more

  1777
  disastrous than an improperly dressed recruiting sergeant. It is not in accordance wil h the traditions of the Navy that it should present a ship in this guise.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to take most seriously the plea which we make to him tonight. The Civil Lord is very highly regarded in the House. When he sat here on the back benches with us, he was always alert, enterprising and ready with constructive criticism in exactly such matters as this. He is now answerable to the House for a great and glorious Department of State and for what I think is the finest Service of all. I hope that we are not misplacing our confidence in him when we say that he must be sensitive to the merits of this case, and we ask him not to disappoint us but to give us a sympathetic reply.
  10.33 p.m.
  Captain John Litchfield: I add only two further points to the case so ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James). The "Discovery" is one of the notable, and also one of the few visible, links the River has with the open sea. She serves as a reminder to all of us who pass along the Embankment that this River is the gateway to the open seas, that we live in the greatest seaport in this country, and that the River which laps these walls and the Embankment in my own constituency of Chelsea has the most direct and famous associations with the seas.
  The other day I received a suggestion which was not very serious, although it was sent to me very seriously. It was that my old ship the "Vanguard" should be brought up the Thames and permanently berthed alongside the House. I hope that my hon. Friend, and perhaps the Minister of Transport also, will be grateful to me for not having pressed the suggestion upon him. Among other things, it would have involved dredging the River, knocking down all the bridges, and then reconstructing them.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will look kindly on this proposal. It is fitting and right that we should have in the River a symbol of our association with the sea. The "Discovery" fulfils this rôle worthily, but I
  1778
  agree with my hon. Friends that she should be properly dressed.
  That brings me to my second point. We in this House are approving large expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of historic buildings and houses. I think I am right in saying that in the current year, 1960–61, we are spending £550,000 on the repair and maintenance of old buildings. If we include ancient monuments, the figure amounts to no less than £1,224,000 in one year, or about £4,000 a day. That is almost precisely the figure which we are asking my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to agree should be spent, not necessarily on a completely once-for-all basis, but certainly it would not be a frequently recurring item.
  As we are spending so much money on famous old buildings—and I applaud this—we might look at some of our old ships. We do not spend much money in this direction. The country—although not, I think, this House—has spent a lot on the "Victory" and it has been a great thing for the country and the Royal Navy. I hope that in spite of the Admiralty's desire to economise and to see that the money which it gets is spent on naval purposes, my hon. Friend the Civil Lord will get this matter in proper perspective. The proposal is an imaginative one and would be widely approved and I hope that my hon. Friend will jump at this opportunity and welcome it, even though it may not be a strictly essential item of naval expenditure.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I wish to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friends. To those who feel that money spent on restoring the yards of H.M.S. "Discovery" would be wasted, I suggest that they should look at "Cutty Sark" at Greenwich and compare the difference of her full glory today with a picture of the same vessel four or five years ago, when she was a tender to H.M.S. "Worcester" at Greenhithe, and they will see the difference that yards can make to ships.
  The Admiralty has responsibilities, as it owns this ship which is berthed in the heart of London, but I have another aspect to put to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. It is not only a question of the tradition of exploration and adventure behind the ship, but also the wonderful work she has performed in training the

  1779
  youth of this City. She was owned by the Boy Scouts' Association from 1937 to 1955. During that time, a large number of youngsters were trained on board. When the ship was taken over by the Admiralty, because the Boy Scouts' Association could not afford to maintain her, agreement was reached in which the Admiralty allowed sea scouts to come aboard at week-ends for training, and certain facilities were provided, including the use of the upper deck, lecture accommodation, the use of the galley and sleeping accommodation for upwards of thirty youngsters and two officers. I ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord whether he can promise that these facilities will be maintained after the ship's refit and that the accommodation on board—the galleys, and so on—will still be there when she emerges from Chatham dockyard.
  The Thames is extremely difficult of access; we have a high river with walls on either side and it is extremely dim-cult to get access to the river. Therefore, H.M.S. "Discovery", in the position she occupies in the centre of London, is extremely valuable for the training of the youth of London on London's river.
  I speak from personal experience as commissioner of London sea scouts and as one who has run courses in "Discovery" on and off for five or six years. We have always received great assistance from the Royal Naval Reserve and I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us that we will receive equal assistance when the vessel is handed over to the Director of Naval Recruiting.
  10.44 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I welcome this debate. It gives me an opportunity of showing what the Navy has done in the past in connection with the "Discovery" and also what plans we have for the future. No one in my office could help but be moved by the eloquent terms and the reasonable and moving arguments which four of my hon. Friends have put before me this evening. I want to show exactly what we have done, what we are doing to preserve "Discovery", and how we regard this ship in the context of naval recruiting, for which, as my hon. Friend has said, she is going to be used in the future.
  1780
  I think I can omit some of the history, but I should like to underline that "Discovery" was not a White Ensign ship when Captain Scott used her, and, in fact, she was not owned by the Admiralty, as has been recognised in the debate tonight, until 1955. She was presented to the Boy Scouts' Association by the Falkland Islands Government in 1937, and in 1953, after the war, the Boy Scouts, quite understandably, found the cost of running and maintaining "Discovery" was far too much for voluntary funds.
  The Discovery Trust was formed and it was thought at one time that this would solve the difficulty. It was decided not to pursue plans to try to raise the money and take over "Discovery" and the Admiralty finally agreed to take her over in 1955.
  The immediate cost to the Admiralty Vote for repair, refit and associated work in that year was £64,000. I should like to underline the fact that there were no yards in this ship when we took her over. It seems that rather exceptional enterprise was shown, because in the war the yards were dismantled for safety reasons and were floated alongside the ship. It will be recalled that there was a considerable shortage of wood at the time. Although 60 ft. long they did a disappearing act, which, I think, shows commendable enterprise by some person who must have been grossly short of wood. Anyhow, the yards disappeared.
  When we took over the ship we could not give an undertaking that we would restore the ship to her original condition. Incidentally, there was no request that we should do so by the Discovery Trust, in which Peter Scott, the son of the famous explorer, played a very prominent part. We were not, as it were, under an obligation to restore her, but we still had to pay £64,000 to put her back in condition. The present refit and alteration will cost us another £34,000. As a recruiting headquarters we should naturally like her to look worthy of the task, and worthy of the Royal Navy, and worthy of her great historical background, but frankly I think it is not the most economical way of providing a recruiting headquarters in London.
  But we are prepared to pay extra to preserve this ship and her fine tradition. We have continued to preserve Captain

  1781
  Scott's cabin and other parts which have special associations. Captain Scott's relics are exhibited in her.
  My hon. Friend asked whether we would continue to provide facilities for sea scouts. I can give him that assurance. He mentioned a figure of thirty-four. My information is that we always undertook to provide for two officers and twenty sea scouts at weekends and we shall certainly continue to do so, and free berths for eleven boats and facilities for mooring alongside. We recognise that this is important and we shall certainly honour our obligation fully.
  Although about 35,000 people pay a visit each year to the ship, no charges are made, because she is one of Her Majesty's ships now and because we gave an undertaking in 1954. I am not saying we could make a change—when one undertakes a thing like this one cannot make a change in conditions—but I wonder whether my successors will not perhaps feel it unfortunate that there is not to be a charge as the unkeep of this ship rises over the next two or three decades, and it may be that we shall have to reconsider a decision taken in different circumstances.
  The cost of replacing the yards is rather higher than my hon. Friend suggested. Estimates given to me are between £6,000 and £8,000. We have to decide whether we should be justified in spending this extra sum over and above what we have already spent. I give two figures. The sum of £98,000 is for the original reconditioning and the present refit, and, to be fair, that should carry us through the period of about ten years. That £98,000 over a period of ten years means a sum of £10,000 a year.
  I am being asked in the most eloquent and moving terms whether we could spend another £6,000 or £8,000. I have to say, from a strictly naval point of view, that our chief interest is recruiting. We have to be careful at a time when we are most anxious to save money, and the philosophy of Gladstone is not absolutely dead in Government Departments. It is the small savings which in the aggregate make up something worth while. We must not expend £6,000 or £8,000 here, there and everywhere when our object is to get as many modern warships to sea and to uphold the interest of
  1782
  the nation throughout Her Majesty's Navy.
  From a strictly naval point of view, I believe that there are perhaps other ways in which such a sum of money could be spent. My hon. Friends have referred to the way in which London sees the Navy. Of course it does. We had it only this evening. There was the moving ceremony of Beating Retreat by the Royal Marines. We have other opportunities, too, in the Royal Tournament and at the Radio Exhibition, where we already have a first-class display. Some 400,000 visit the exhibition. We should not forget that we also have Trafalgar Square and Nelson's Column to remind Londoners of what the Navy has achieved in the past.
  We have to come back to the hard and fast question, is it right to spend this extra sum of money on this ship? I am not absolutely sure that my information is correct, but my hon. Friend referred to what other nations had done. I think that if he examines the facts he will find that in a great many cases these charges in other nations do not fall upon the public Votes but are contributed by voluntary organisations which have a great enthusiasm for these things. That is my information, but I shall be happy to look at what other nations do.
  The "Cutty Sark" was given as an example. I would point out that H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh played an enormous part in launching the Cutty Sark Fund, and £220,000 was raised in order to rerig the ship and make her the fine example that she is today. So London already has a wonderful example of an original rig ship, not, of course, of the same character but something in this direction.
  In another place the Admiralty carries out the general maintenance of the "Victory". Special items such as rigging are covered by subscriptions to the Trust Fund. Thus, we do general maintenance of the ship, but the cost of special items falls on the Save the Victory Fund.
  I well recognise that "Discovery" played a great part in exploring the Antarctic in its early days. We have just shad the Geophysical Year, with enormous interest in the Antarctic.

  1783
  Captain Scott did much pioneer work in that sphere.
  I hope that the very eloquent and convincing appeals which I have heard tonight may go wider than the House of Commons and arouse interest in the matter so that some funds may be raised from voluntary organisations and from those who love ships, as do my hon. Friends and myself. However, I do not honestly believe that the Admiralty can incur the very considerable extra expense of restoring the "Discovery" to her original condition of masts and yards, a condition which has not existed for over twenty years.
  If those who wish to see the ship restored can succeed in getting, by public appeal or otherwise, the greater part of
  1784
  the funds required for the purpose, then the Admiralty would be willing to find a certain amount, and those concerned would find the Admiralty entirely sympathetic to the cause.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming but at this time when there is so much pressure on Admiralty funds I have to weigh each item of expenditure and, in spite of this eloquent appeal, say that I can only hope that as a result of publicity the thought-provoking speeches which we have heard this evening may go further afield than this House and spur voluntary efforts to raise the money.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Technical Colleges (Regional Status)
  Technical Colleges (Regional Status)
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Public Library Service
  Public Library Service
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Luncheon Vouchers and Canteen Facilities
  Luncheon Vouchers and Canteen Facilities
  Capital Goods (Export Credit Guarantees)
  Capital Goods (Export Credit Guarantees)
  Universities (Grants)
  Universities (Grants)
  Arts Council Grant (Orchestras)
  Arts Council Grant (Orchestras)
  Unemployment, Scotland
  Unemployment, Scotland
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  G.A.T.T. (Article XII)
  G.A.T.T. (Article XII)
  Thoroughbreds (Export)
  Thoroughbreds (Export)
  Milk Products (Import)
  Milk Products (Import)
  New Magazine (Production Cost)
  New Magazine (Production Cost)
  Dunfermline
  Dunfermline
  Imported Potatoes
  Imported Potatoes
KENYA
  Manyani Camp (Newspapers)
  Manyani Camp (Newspapers)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  United National Independence Party
  United National Independence Party
FIJI
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
SOMALILAND
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
NYASALAND
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Colorado Beetles
  Colorado Beetles
  River Boards (Fishing Licences)
  River Boards (Fishing Licences)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Litter Act, 1958 (Prosecutions)
  Litter Act, 1958 (Prosecutions)
  Ice-Cream Vendors (Chimes)
  Ice-Cream Vendors (Chimes)
  Road Junction, Wembley (Traffic Control)
  Road Junction, Wembley (Traffic Control)
  Crimes of Violence, Metropolitan Police District
  Crimes of Violence, Metropolitan Police District
  Approved Schools and Remand Homes
  Approved Schools and Remand Homes
  Cruelty to Children (Convictions)
  Cruelty to Children (Convictions)
  Sunday Football
  Sunday Football
  A.40 Road (Speed Limit)
  A.40 Road (Speed Limit)
EMPLOYMENT
  Durham County
  Durham County
  Chief Inspector of Factories (Salary)
  Chief Inspector of Factories (Salary)
ROADS
  London-Yorkshire Motor Road
  London-Yorkshire Motor Road
  Watford By-pass
  Watford By-pass
  Parks (Speed Limit)
  Parks (Speed Limit)
UNITED STATES
  Mrs. Hazel Wolf
  Mrs. Hazel Wolf
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Dartmoor Commoners' Association (Letter)
  Dartmoor Commoners' Association (Letter)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Aircraft Accident, United States (Squadron Leader Walker)
  Aircraft Accident, United States (Squadron Leader Walker)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Nursing Services (Standing Advisory Committee)
  Nursing Services (Standing Advisory Committee)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Air Navigation Order
  Air Navigation Order
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Parish Councils
  Parish Councils
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Coal and Fuel Oil
  Coal and Fuel Oil
  Fuel Oil
  Fuel Oil
  Coal (Consumption)
  Coal (Consumption)
SCOTLAND
  Grants to Students (Report)
  Grants to Students (Report)

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

ETHIOPIA AND THE NEW SOMALI REPUBLIC
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to secure the continuation of the rights and privileges accorded to the inhabitants of British Somaliland in the Haud under the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954 when the Protectorate becomes independent on June 26.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, during the recent Somaliland Protectorate Constitutional Conference, my right honourable friend, the Colonial Secretary, stated to the Somaliland delegation that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1897, which, inter alia, provided the legal basis for trans-frontier grazing rights, should be regarded as remaining in force as between Ethiopia and the successor State, following the termination of the Protectorate; but that the main provisions of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954, which accorded the Protectorate certain facilities and powers concerning the exercise of these grazing rights, would lapse. My right honourable friend reminded the Somaliland delegation of the importance of this grazing to their economy and he suggested that it would be desirable to enter into very early discussions with the Ethiopian Government on this and other matters of common interest to both countries. The Somaliland delegation, after considering the whole matter most carefully, informed my right honourable friend that they wished to begin discussions with the Ethiopian authorities at an early
292
date. My right honourable friend welcomed this.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, having regard to the fact that the 1954 Agreement was directly connected with the 1897 Treaty, and that most of it provided for rights and privileges to be given to the tribes and their authorities, police and so on, and that only a small part of it referred to the presence of British liaison officers, can he say why this Agreement is believed to have lapsed at all? Can he give us some explanation of that? Secondly, if it is held to have lapsed, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Representative in Addis Ababa will be given instructions to give the fullest possible support to the Somali representatives in negotiating a new Agreement—because I am sure he will have in mind what great distress and anxiety the original Agreement caused among the tribes.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as regards the first question, the point really is this. The 1954 Agreement depends upon the British presence in British Somaliland, and it is for that reason that Article III—which is the Article to which the noble Lord referred—should not be operative without the British presence. However, the Treaty of 1897 to which the noble Lord referred, does remain valid as an international Treaty. The 1954 Agreement is simply a piece of mechanics which implements the legal rights that exist under the 1897 Agreement. But the machinery depends upon the British presence, and the British presence will no longer be there.
As regards the second question, this, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, is a matter for the Somalis and the Ethiopians, and it is not a matter in which Her Majesty's Government can properly interfere. We have given the advice which I mentioned in my original Answer, and that advice was that they should discuss these problems with the Ethiopians; and so far as we understand they have done so.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer, but surely it would be right for our diplomatic representative to help these Somali representatives—who are, after all, still British-protected persons—in these very

293
difficult negotiations which they are undertaking with the Ethiopian Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think the question of right or wrong comes into this. What I think the noble Lord has asked me about is the situation which will arise when British Somaliland has achieved, at her own request, independence. It is then surely for the sovereign State of Somaliland to work out these details with her neighbour, Ethiopia. In so far as we have been able, we have counselled them to discuss this matter with the Ethiopian authorities, and we understand that they have done so.

THE NEW SOMALI REPUBLIC AND THE COMMONWEALTH
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when British Somaliland becomes independent and in due course is united with Somalia, the new State will be eligible for membership of the Commonwealth.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, admission of any country to membership of the Commonwealth would be a matter for all the existing member countries.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether we may have an assurance that should the new independent Somali Republic seek to become a member of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty's Government would certainly not discourage them.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think I can do any more than give the noble Lord the information which I have already given, which is that it is a matter for all the existing member countries to consider.

SIDE WINDOWS IN MOTOR VANS
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider amending section 7 of the Finance Act, 1956, to permit the installation of side windows in vans to improve visibility in the interests of road safety without thereby rendering the vans liable to purchase tax.]
THE EARL OF PERTH: No, my Lords: such an Amendment would nullify the intention of the section, which was designed to stop loss of revenue from the conversion of vans into taxable vehicles, such as estate cars.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

AIR SURVEY OF THE SOVIET UNION
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 their view it is legal for this country to facilitate or participate in a military survey from the air of the Soviet Union.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, as regards the over-flying of the territory of a foreign State by military or other State aircraft, Her Majesty's Government adhere to the principles of the Chicago Convention.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, us I am an ignorant person, would the noble Viscount kindly tell me what those provisions are?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: When I was a student, I was told that the Common Law rule was ab inferis usque ad caelum, which presupposes, I think, a Ptolemaic astronomy and a geocentric universe. The application of those principles has not always proved easy, and so by the Chicago Convention a step forward was made by recognising that the earth is

295
approximately a sphere; and the lateral sides of the earth's face and its bottom, if it has one, were fixed with reference to the centre of the earth.
As regards the Chicago Convention it recognises that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory, including its territorial waters. But "air space", as such, is not defined in the Convention. The Convention further lays down that no State aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorisation by special agreement or otherwise and in accordance with the terms thereon. State aircraft are defined as air-craft used in military, customs and police services.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what I think is a very reassuring reply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I really must rise to thank the noble Viscount.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement on Cyprus shortly after half-past three o'clock.

SHEERNESS HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
2.12 p.m.
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers appropriate to a public Port Authority to a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1948. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so because the point it raises is one which might not be brought before the Committee by Petition, being a point of a more general character, and also because, being of a more general character, it is one which
296
your Lordships might desire to have well examined.
Broadly speaking, the question it raises is what is the best form of port authority. Very briefly, there are at present three main forms of such authority. There are the public trusts, described by the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931 as
"the best kind of authority to own docks and harbours",
whose powers are balanced by obligations, such as to apply their revenue to improving the port, and whose membership is widely representative of the interests concerned in the port—merchants, shipowners, local authorities and the like. Then there are the former railway docks, now belonging to the British Transport Commission. That ownership has not in the past been without question, but certainly their charges are subject to very strict control, and that is obviously more a public form of ownership than would be ownership by a private company. Then there are a number of port authorities which are in fact private companies. I doubt, though, if they offer much guide to the particular case of Sheerness. Most of them are very small, and there are generally either old historical reasons, such as the ownership of property, as in the case, say, of Granton on the Firth of Forth, or a close tie with a single local industry, like Par Harbour in Cornwall.
There is a modern case of a limited company having powers of a port authority where it is closely tied to a local industry, and that is the United Steel Companies, Limited, at Workington, where the dock was transferred to that company by Act of Parliament in 1957. In that case, however, as the Act recites, over 90 per cent. of the trade in the port is related to the Workington Iron and Steel Works owned by the companies, and they have in any case the power of appointing trustees of the former harbour board. That is more nearly the case of a private harbour than a general port catering for all shipping. Two oil companies and the Angle Ore and Transport Company have certain rights to acquire land and build piers and make charges in Milford Haven, but here again it is more a matter of a single trade than of a general port such as will be developed at Sheerness. The only outstanding example of a limited company being a

297
major port authority is, I think, the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Here, however, the incorporating Act provides that if application is made to Parliament for an Act to transfer the undertaking to trustees, the company shall not oppose it but shall support it. By the Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Act, 1904, it is provided that the majority of the Canal Company's directors shall be appointed by the Manchester Corporation, so that in practice the undertaking is under municipal control.
Those are the sort of considerations which form the background to my Motion this afternoon. I would only add, though I am sure it is unnecessary to do so, that there is no conflict to my mind between the public interest and the interest of Sheerness itself, whose development as a major port your Lordships have, I am certain, so much at heart. I beg to move.
Moved, That lit be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers appropriate to a public Port Authority to a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1948.—(Viscount Runciman of Doxford.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have been very interested in the speech the noble Viscount has made with regard to this matter. It is not very usual, although of course it is perfectly in order, to move an instruction to the Committee on a point like this. But I am rather moved by his concluding sentences, and I am sure the whole House will not want to interfere in any way with the development of Sheerness as a port. Therefore, the instruction to the Committee seems to me to be unnecessary. I suppose that in a matter of this kind the Committee which is appointed to deal with the Bill will in any case, or should in every case they deal with, take into account what is in the public interest. Otherwise it is not a matter that ought to be brought before Parliament at all, and it seems to me, therefore, superfluous to put this particular instruction. What I am most anxious to know is what is the origin of this proposed Motion. Who submits it? Is it on behalf of objectors to the Bill or to any provision in the Bill? Is it
298
by any chance a river conservancy board, or is it the Port of London Authority? I did not gather from the speech made in moving the Motion exactly where it emanates from.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: If I can reassure the noble Viscount, I am not, and never have been, a member of any port authority. I made this Motion entirely on my own personal responsibility.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understood previously—and this is why I asked the question—that another noble Lord might have been the one who was going to move it and that there was a particular interest. However, I can well imagine that there may be some opposition, say from some neighbouring river conservancy board or from the Port of London Authority. But what I feel that the House should bear in mind, as a matter which really should be considered in the public interest by the Committee, without any such instruction as this, is what is the duty of Parliament and the Government to the inhabitants of Sheerness?
What is the position there? In 1805 the Government of the country began to build a dock, which afterwards became such a notable naval dock, and it has continued ever since then. That is a period of about 155 years. The whole township of Sheerness has depended Upon the Government work in that yard, and it has now been brought to an end. The fact that the dockyard has now been closed, and that the remaining work that had to be disposed of has gradually been got rid of, after the decision of the Government to close, has already brought depression to the town of Sheerness in the island. The average percentage of unemployment in the country at large is just over 1 per cent.—barely 1½ per cent., anyway. But in Sheerness, as a result of Government action, it is 9 per cent. Moreover, many of the men who are still employed now have to go, at greater expense to themselves, all the way from Sheerness to Chatham for their daily work.
It was a Government decision to close the yard and to sell the property to a development company, from which there is some prospect of being able to provide employment for this very important urban community in this island, so

299
affecting, of course, the livelihood of all the inhabitants in Sheerness. And if the Government approved of the Admiralty action in disposing of this property, so that there would be something done by private enterprise, to whom they sold their nationally owned dockyard, in order to assist the local population, then it seems to me reasonable that nothing should be done in the consideration of this Bill which would give to the company which has taken over the development in this island, for the purpose of helping the local people any lesser privilege in the development of the harbour in any respect than was already the privilege of the Admiralty during all their years of occupation.
I am not able to say exactly what those privileges were. From what I have ascertained by inquiry I am quite certain that no Government Department would lay down in points 1, 2 and 3 or paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) exactly what conditions should be attached to the sale of a property in all these circumstances. But I am quite sure that there is a great moral responsibility upon the Government of the day, since it was by their action, however necessary it was from a general policy point of view, that the dockyard was disposed of, to secure the proper standard of life and constant employment of the people of that place.
What is likely to arise in evidence before the Private Bill Committee, I do not know. But it seems to me that if there is opposition it is likely to be from interested companies, or from parties like the Port of London Authority or a river conservancy board, or some similar body who may fear some competition from the development of this port as a civil port. If that is so—if they fear any competition—it seems to me that when the Board of Admiralty advertised at large this dockyard, factory and premises for sale, then it was perfectly within the competence of the authorities I have referred to to have made a bid or to take over the yard. As they did not do so, it seems to me fairly clear that they are not ever themselves likely to develop the port as it should be developed.
I know something about the anchorage—naturally so, because for nearly nine years I was at the Admiralty. It is a most
300
valuable and wonderful deep-water anchorage. From a commercial point of view, if the actual dockside were advanced to a certain extent into the deep water, great ships could lie there in comfort for any length of time. It is an extraordinarily good mooring and working place for large ships. In my time some of the finest and largest ships of Her Majesty's Navy have anchored with complete safety and calm, and in perfect depth for their purpose, in the wonderful anchorage at Sheerness. I am most anxious that your Lordships ought to consider first, before anything else, what are the real interests of the people of the island who have been faced with a trade depression and increase in unemployment as a result of the Government's action in disposing of the yard and that, whatever is done in this Private Bill before it passes through its final stages in Parliament, one thought should be in our minds—namely, our moral responsibility as Parliament to see that the people of that island are able to get such facilities as will give them full employment and a decent standard of life.
The only other point I wish to make is this. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, referred rather briefly to other port enterprises. I am quite sure that he did in war time what I myself did—sigh more than once over that wonderful harbour at Falmouth which is in private company ownership. I remember flying back from Bordeaux when I had been over to negotiate with Admiral Darlan in June, 1940. One could not bring any great charge of lack of public interest in regard to the behaviour and efficiency of, and the accommodation provided by, the private dock company at Falmouth. Looking down from the air I have never seen such a collection as we had there in the third week of June, 1940. There are, of course, many other yards, docksides and ports in the country which are still under private interest. I am not one who wants at large to support private enterprise in these matters, and I am perfectly willing that in every possible case where it can be done in the interests of the whole community, such a place should pass into either local public or national public ownership. In this particular case, however, we have a Bill before Parliament, and no other public authority—not

301
one—has proposed to help this community. Where a Private Bill is introduced as a result of the Government's decision to sell to a private development company, it seems to me that we ought to do all we possibly can to give the company every possible facility.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to make one brief point. I am one of those who has a very strong predilection towards letting a Select Committee get on with their job, in their own way and in their own time. Their task is to scrutinise every relevant consideration. They have learned counsel to assist them, and no lack of time in which to do it. It is not as if this Bill is leaving this House never to return. Admittedly, there is no Report stage; but there is a Third Reading, when the House has an opportunity of either giving or withholding consent. I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford that he has made his point in a short, but extremely interesting, speech and by moving this Motion. But I do not think that the wording of the instruction can, frankly, add much to the deliberations of the Committee, and I venture to hope that having made his point, as he has, he may see his way to withdraw it.
2.26 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene briefly, particularly in view of what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said. He, of course, made a powerful contribution on this matter, and I was glad that he did, although in another respect—and he will appreciate that I intend no disrespect to him—I was not so glad that he did; because I hope that I do not have to assure him, or any of your Lordships, that it is precisely the kind of factor that he related that we have had in mind in adopting an attitude to this Bill, and indeed in trying to make these arrangements with the development company. It was precisely those factors which the noble Viscount detailed.
So far as the instruction is concerned, I do not think I need say much about it—though perhaps I might say that it was established as long ago as 1908 that, on the whole, it was preferable for a
302
harbour authority to be a public trust of some kind. There are, however, as has been mentioned, quite a number of exceptions to that rule which are sufficient to prove that they can work perfectly well. I should have thought that the Committee would in any case have taken that point into account, and I think that, on the whole, we all want this thing to happen, for the reasons that have been mentioned and which I need not repeat again. Therefore, I think it is for the Committee to see that the way in which this is done is the best possible way.
2.29 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I think your Lordships are accustomed to expect a few words on a Motion of this kind from the Member of the House who holds my office. First of all, I should like to say that if this were one of those instructions which are mandatory by nature—that is, if it were an instruction which would compel the Select Committee to do something, such as to leave out a clause in the Bill, or to do the reverse, then in my judgment there would be considerable objections to passing the Motion. But I should like to make it clear, as is indeed apparent, that the proposed instruction to the Committee is not of a mandatory nature. All that it instructs the Committee to do is to consider a question—namely, "whether or not it is in the public interest" and so on. They are instructed to consider that question.
I have looked up precedents which govern this matter and they all point in the direction that the Chairman of Committees usually advises the House (and I so do this afternoon) that it would be wise to accept this Motion, because, as I have said, it does no more than ask the Committee to consider the point. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I read a few lines from one of the Petitions against the Bill. I hope to show that in reality it will make just about no difference whether or not this Motion is passed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then why move it?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am not moving a Motion;

303
I am only advising the House. The Motion says that:
"The Committee … should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers …"
May I read three lines from paragraph 14 of one of the three Petitions against the Bill? The words are these:
"Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the grant of these powers to the company would not be in the public interest as is alleged in the Preamble to the Bill."
I noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and he is, of course, quite right in saying that, generally speaking, Select Committees do, as in duty bound, consider all the relevant points in a Bill. But there are opposed Bills (and this is one) where the Petitions are directed only to certain clauses in the Bills; and in that event in this House the Select Committee do not consider the other clauses. That, however, does not apply to this case, as I apprehend, because, as I have already said, the point at issue is going to be raised in any event by at least one of the Petitioners. That being so, I feel that I am justified in saying, as I already have, that in my judgment there is really not going to be any difference in the result whether this Motion is passed or is not passed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if we accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, the effect upon local opinion surely would be that we were, in this House, specially directing the Committee—in a way, projecting the point made in the opposing Petition. I think it is quite unreasonable for the House to do so; and if public interest has to be considered because of the Petition, there is no need at all for the Motion to be moved in this House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, on that I can only repeat
304
that the Motion directs the Committee to:
"satisfy themselves whether or not"—
and, as I have said, I am not moving this Motion but dealing with it as I believe the holder of my office should. The words "whether or not it is in the public interest" do not indicate the opinion of your Lordships' House this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: By Lords, then why move it?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, as I have said, the precedents point to the advice being given by the Chairman of Committees that this is a Motion, not being a mandatory instruction, which might well be passed. But if it is your Lordships' wish not to pass it, then, as I have said twice already, I do not think it will make any difference.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just said and the fact that the point to which I wished to draw attention has been amply covered by what has been said this afternoon, I shall be very happy, if your Lordships so desire and will give me leave, to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (Privilege) made. Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS BILL
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put again into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Betting office licences and betting agency permits]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved after subsection (2) to insert:
("( ) A betting office licence shall be granted only to the person who is in actual control of the premises.")
The noble Lord said: The point which is at issue here has already been adumbrated to some extent in the discussion which took place on the question of whether licences should be granted to corporate bodies; but this is a more particular phase of the argument. It relates to the betting office licence itself. The proposal which is made in this Amendment is that the licence should be granted to the person who is in actual control of the premises. As the Bill stands, the licence might be granted to a limited company whose office might be far away from the betting office. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the licensee shall be a person who is on the spot and has actual responsibility for seeing that the betting office is run properly.
The establishment of betting offices is a new development which the Bill intends to hedge about with certain safeguards; and it would appear that it is essential that the licence should be vested in the person who has actual control of the premises in which the betting office is situated. This has been the policy of the law for a long time with regard to public houses. The licence is granted to the person who is actually responsible for conducting the public house. That has been held to be a useful safeguard and it may well be that that particular safeguard should be adopted in regard to these betting office premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
EARL BATHURST: Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with the sentiment of this Amendment, which has been expressed by the noble Lord opposite, but consider that the Bill as it already stands is in accord with it. The Amendment, we feel, should not be made, first, because it is unnecessary; and, secondly, because it is not clear what exactly is meant by the noble Lord's phrase "in actual control of the premises". The intention behind the Amendment, I am sure, is that where a bookmaker owns several betting offices, the person to whom the licences should be granted should be the managers of those individual offices. The arrangement of the Bill is that the licences should be taken out by the bookmaker himself in respect of his various premises. My noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack referred to this question at considerable length in his reply on Amendment 4, and he explained the reasons why the Bill will, in practice, place responsibility for the conduct of betting offices squarely on the shoulders of the employer, where we feel the responsibility should belong. I hope that in view of what my noble and learned friend said, the noble Lord opposite may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I confess that I am left in a state of doubt by the explanation which the noble Earl has given. He started off by saying, as I understood him, that my Amendment was unnecessary because it had already been provided for in the Bill, but he has not, in fact, explained how it is provided for in the Bill. The latter part of his observations led to an opposite conclusion: that a betting office licence could, in fact, be given, let us say, to a limited company in respect of scores of hundreds of betting offices situated all over the country. Therefore, the element of direct control and responsibility would not be there at all. If the noble Earl can satisfy me that the Bill, in fact, does provide for what I desire, I shall be only too happy to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I think I can assure the noble Lord on that, because, with the Committee's permission, I

307
would re-read what my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack said with regard to Amendment No. 4 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 88), col. 144]:
"… we consider that the best way of ensuring that betting offices are well conducted is to place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the employer and not merely on his staff."
One of the effects of the noble Lord's Amendment might be that a bookmaker could take on his staff a manager, or someone of that sort, on betting premises, and if a contravention to the law should be made it would be merely that manager who would lose his licence or be fined according to the penalties laid down in the Bill, and it could be that the bookmaker would get away scot-free. Under the Bill as it stands, the bookmaker and his staff, and somebody else for that matter, would be subject to the penalties the Bill lays down. I think I can assure the noble Lord opposite that that is so as the Bill is now written.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: In view of that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Conduct of licensed betting offices]:
2.45 p.m.
LORD SPENS LORD SPENS moved, to add to the clause:
"(5) If, save in a licensed betting office or in such manner as may be prescribed on premises giving access to such an office, any advertisement is published—

(a) indicating that any particular premises are a licensed betting office; or

(b) indicating where any such office may be found: or

(c) drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices

then, in the case of an advertisement in connection with the office or offices of a particular licensee, that licensee, and in every case any person who published the advertisement, or cause or permitted to be published, shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this subsection to prove—

(i) that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the advertisement was, and that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that it was not, such an advertisement as aforesaid; or

308

(ii) if he is charged by reason only of being a licensee that the advertisement was published without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the publishing of any such advertisement in connection with his office or offices."

The noble Lord said: This is the first of three Amendments dealing with the important and very difficult question of whether or not the new betting offices should be allowed to be advertised as the person in control of them thinks fit. This question caused a great difference of opinion on the two Royal Commissions and throughout all the stages of the Bill in another place. As the Bill stands at the present moment, there is, in the appropriate Schedule, provision which regulates what notices and advertisements may be put up in the betting offices themselves and in premises giving access to the betting offices. But apart from that, there is no limitation on, or prohibition of, any sort of advertisement by those in control of the betting offices. The result has been that a very large body of opinion is fearful lest betting offices get into the control of organisations or individuals who would be in a position to carry out a high-pressure advertisement campaign.
As I understand it, the main object of this Part of the Bill is really rather a narrow one—namely, to give facilities to those who are now indulging in illegal street betting: facilities under which they can bet legally in the new betting offices. The betting offices will come into being, will advertise themselves, and will be seen by those living and working and passing to and fro in their neighbourhood; and there is very little doubt that their institution, at any rate, during the first period when the public are full of curiosity and interest, will attract to them persons who probably have not been indulging in street betting. Therefore, it is likely that, whatever else happens, there will be a certain increase in betting arising from the mere coming into existence of these new betting offices.
But that is quite a different thing from what might happen if a really intensive advertising campaign were entered into by bookmakers or organisations in control of one or more of these betting offices. And everyone can imagine what the results of the high-pressure betting campaign might be in increasing very considerably the total amount of betting.

309
I do not believe that that is the object of the Bill or what any except a very few individuals may want. I do not think that the majority of the people in this country think that, in curing this trouble over street betting, we have been dealing with a Bill which will substantially increase the amount of betting at these new betting offices.
The question is not an easy one to deal with. I think that everyone hesitates at an absolute prohibition of all advertisement and the creation of new offences if that can be avoided. The Committee will see (if I am in order in referring to future Amendments), that an attempt has been made, in an Amendment which is going to be considered by the Committee, to try to find some exception.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am sure it will be convenient if the Committee agree, and if you approve, my Lord Chairman, that we should discuss points that are raised on all these Amendments.
LORD SPENS: I think that that would be convenient, and it would save a number of speeches which can much more concisely be included in regard to one Amendment. We who put forward this Amendment—and I am, quite frankly, speaking on behalf of the Council of Church es—have considered what possible exceptions there can be. We came to the conclusion that it was difficult to draft them without opening the door to the very evil of which we are seriously afraid.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Lord mind my intervening? I was proposing to deal with the second and third Amendments on advertising, but I am perfectly prepared to take my stand, if he will allow me to do so, behind him, and to support his Amendment, dropping the other two entirely. That might simplify matters.
LORD SPENS: That does simplify matters, and I will not continue to refer to the other two, except to repeat that it is extremely difficult, so far as we have found, to make reasonable exceptions, however much we should like to do so. The result was, therefore, that the question really lay between making any advertising an absolute offence, without giving any defence to the bookmaker or
310
to the controller of the betting shop, even if he knew nothing about the advertisement being inserted by other people; or, as we decided, that it should be an offence to advertise these betting offices so as to avoid this great evil, but that at the same time there ought to be a defence made available to a bookmaker or other person controlling a betting office if he had no knowledge at all of the advertisement being inserted or circulated. It is a very short point: whether your Lordships consider that there should be no prohibition at all of advertisements, or whether an attempt should be made to prevent these betting shops (which are, as I suggest, being created to cure one evil) from becoming the source of a greater evil. I beg to move.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In putting this Amendment, may I say that, as always, it may be convenient for the Committee to discuss several Amendments at one time, save that technically, of course, only one can be before the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the subsection.—(Lord Spens.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not wish to delay the House, but I should be grateful if your Lordships would allow me, before I refer to the Amendment, to say something by way of a personal, or partly personal, explanation. I particularly regret that no Bishops were present to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. Some of your Lordships observed the fact, and felt surprise—very naturally, since this is a Bill about which many Bishops, and I myself, have spoken frequently at the earlier stages, and one which raises obviously serious questions of social morality. For that reason I regret the absence of any Bishops on that occasion. I regret it also, if I may just say this to your Lordships, because recently we have taken rather special care to try to secure that on Bills or Motions raising questions of general wellbeing or public morality a Bishop or Bishops should be here in order to take part in the debate.
I wish to explain that it is never easy to secure the presence of Bishops unless we know a considerable time in advance when a Bill or a Motion is to come before the House. The Bishops are

311
widely scattered all over England, and all of them, near or far, have almost all their days—morning, afternoon and evening—very heavily booked a long way ahead; and to cancel any engagement, let alone a day's engagement, may cause disappointment and frustration, not only to the Bishop but to many other people; and it may also throw absolutely into chaos the discharge of his own duties. As I have said, we have tried very hard recently—and not without some success. We did try on this occasion of the Second Reading: we approached a number of Bishops who could competently speak on this Bill. But we tried in vain. I was myself heavily engaged in Canterbury, and had not even been told that it was on on that particular day. At least I can say this: that if we failed, I have paid the penalty for it, because I have read through the whole of Tuesday's discussions and am now here in order to make this simple personal explanation. I do genuinely mean that we regret it whenever we ever thus appear to fail in our duty.
May I now be allowed to say a brief word more?—it is not irrelevant to this Amendment, and sums up all that I want to say about the whole Bill. If the Church gives general support to this Bill, as it does, it is not because—and I have to stress this—the Church in any way whatsoever supports or encourages betting or gambling. That may seem an obvious thing to say, but I have to go on saying it to a great number of people. On the contrary, the Church regards both betting and gambling with grave suspicion; if not in themselves, then because they can do great injury to the quality of social and community life, and also do great injury to many individuals. But the Church agrees that, since neither can be abolished, it is the duty of the Government to control these activities, and to do so effectively. That is the avowed purpose of the Government in this Bill, and we support wholeheartedly their general desire to provide, by means of this Bill, a better system of control, free from some of the recognised abuses of the law as it is, and not itself such as to give further encouragement to such practices.
There is, however, a difference of emphasis between the Church and the Government, which I might put like this.
312
The Church says, "The less betting and gambling there is, the better; and we wish to see it diminished". The Government, very naturally, say something more like this, "The more betting and gambling there is, so much the worse. We do not wish to see it increased". It will be seen that there is a difference of emphasis there; and when the Government have to legislate, then a real difficulty is presented in translating their own real desires into terms of legislation which will not be such as to increase the volume of betting, or to allow additional incentives to it, or to encourage further exploitation of the betting industry. We are desirous of helping the Government in that purpose, and for that precise reason I desire to support wholeheartedly the Amendment of my noble friend—and I am particularly glad to hear the noble Lord opposite say that he is ready to make way in order that this Amendment may pass with the general agreement of those who feel as I do.
On the details of the betting business or the mechanics of this trade, I am quite incompetent to speak from any personal experience. I was happy to read that on Tuesday a number of noble Lords avowed that they had never laid a bet in their lives; and, I am happy to say, neither have I. But this Amendment requires no technical knowledge of any kind. Licensed betting offices are a new invention. They may be an improvement on the old system, or they may not: and no one can tell until they have been tried. But I would urge—and it has been urged by others—that they must be tried on their own merits, and on nothing else; and that means without advertisement. Advertisement has two purposes: either to inform or to attract, or both. As to information, there is no kind of need to tell people where the betting offices are, any more than there is a need to tell them where any other shop offering trade facilities is—and much less justification than for telling the public what it is often difficult to discover; and that is, where the post office is. In fact, if anybody wanted to know where a betting office is, he would discover it without the slightest difficulty by personal information.
The other and more general use of advertising is the desire to attract, and even entice, customers; and, as has been

313
said, the larger and wealthier betting offices would be able to advertise more extensively and more attractively, to the harm of the smaller betting enterprises. However, there is another effect of advertising which I hope we shall never allow ourselves to forget: the way in which it pre-conditions the minds and appetites of people who see the advertisements without their knowing that it is doing this to them. There is an age limit below which one cannot go into a betting house, but if young people grow up from childhood aware, consciously or subconsciously, of the attractive advertisements for betting offices and for their wares, they will then more readily accept this social evil as part of the natural apparatus of life and will be the more predisposed and pre-conditioned to adopt the habit for themselves, without knowing its possible risks. I think that there is no getting away from the fact that that must be the result of indiscriminate advertisement of betting offices and of the wares they offer. It is precisely to avoid extending the enticement or attraction, as the Government wish to do, that I trust they will accept this Amendment readily. Certainly those for whom I can speak support it very strongly. I see no counter-argument. The Amendment is in line with the Government's intention; it strengthens the general purpose of the whole Bill, and I hope that it will command general consent.
LORD SILKIN: I feel that I ought first to explain why I am not moving the Amendments that have been put down on the Marshalled List. They are, in fact, the Amendments which were put down in another place. We thought that the simplest way of raising the question of advertising was to reinstate these Amendments, which were not fully discussed in another place owing to an undertaking that was given that the whole question would be considered. When we saw the noble Lord's Amendment, my noble friends and I came to the conclusion that it was a better Amendment, which more clearly raised the issue, than our own, and we gladly withdraw ours and should like to have the discussion on the basis of the noble Lord's Amendment.
I hope that the most reverend Primate will not mind the fact that some of us who feel strongly on this matter commented
314
on there being no Bishop on the Bishops' Benches on Second Reading and, except for the most reverend Primate himself, on the first day of the Committee stage. We welcome interventions from the Bishops' Benches, especially on moral and social problems, on which the right reverend Prelates have a peculiar and most valuable contribution to make, as we heard yesterday on the question of the registration of clubs from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, and as we have found on many other occasions. But, of course, all noble Lords fully understand the difficulties under which they labour, and we gladly accept the most reverend Primate's explanation. We will discharge him with a caution on this occasion, without a stain on his character.
On the Amendment itself, there may be some hesitation about not allowing bookmakers to state where they are. It may be thought that it is not sufficient for a bookmaker to have on the door of his premises or on the window his name and occupation; that customers will not be able to find their way to him and that there ought to be other means of giving them that information. I should have thought that there was something in it but for the fact that bookmakers are to be allowed to have runners, and if you want to know where the book maker is you have only to ask the milkman or the baker or, as I have said before, the postman, and one of them will be able to tell you. So, having regard to the employment of agents, I can see no need whatever why it should be necessary at all for bookmakers to advertise. The bookmaker will not be unique in this respect. I am in exactly the same position and so, for aught I know, is the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. People who want to come to us have to find out where we are. They have various means—the telephone book, and so on. And we do not have runners to direct clients to our premises. So it is no real hardship to the bookmaker.
There is one point on the Amendment itself. The term "advertising" is not defined. I realise the difficulty of defining it, but I should certainly like it to exclude such things as advertising on television and on screens in cinemas, and other forms of advertising, as well as in

315
the Press. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply can tell us if the term "advertising" is sufficient to cover all the different types of advertising, or whether something more is needed by way of definition. Subject to that point, which I put forward with a view to strengthening the Amendment, those noble Lords who have put their names down to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 wholeheartedly give their support to this Amendment.
3.7 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: I approach this subject from an angle slightly different from that of the most reverend Primate, because I have betted on and off throughout my life, with results that have been continually disastrous, with one or two rare exceptions. I would say to your Lordships that, grievous as it may be to us, betting and gambling is indigenous in this country. It is in the blood of the British people. It always has been, and to a far greater extent than in any other nation in the world. You will never stop betting. I want to submit that in the circumstances I think that they should not be encouraged in any way to bet further. If we take France, for example, we find that the facilities for betting are, on the face of it, much greater than they are in this country. But it is not the French people who lose their money on the racecourses and in casinos; to a very large extent it is the British people who go over there in order to do it—and succeed.
I face with some apprehension the possibility that this country may be subjected to an avalanche of advertisements encouraging people to indulge in a vice (if you care to call it a vice) to which they are only too addicted without any encouragement at all. If we add bookmakers' advertisements to pool advertisements and, as the noble Lord said, put them on the television screen and on the cinemas, this country as a result of this Bill may be subject to a torrent of advertisement encouraging people to bet even more than they do. Therefore, reluctantly, because it is alien to my natural disposition to take a severe view of any subject, I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount that even I face with some apprehension the prospect of a torrent of advertisements encouraging
316
people to bet, and I hope that he will bear this in mind.
LORD MANCROFT: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will allow me to support him on this point. While asking the noble and learned Viscount to give thorough consideration to these sentiments, I should like to express some fear about the draftsmanship of the Amendment. I tried to draft a clause much on the same lines as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Spens, and I had to give it up as I found in my draft nothing that was foolproof. The fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Spens, has drafted a clause, and several noble Lords opposite have had a long and complicated shot at hitting this target, worries me a little, because it may turn out like this—and I have taken the opportunity of voicing these fears before: that we find produced on the Statute Book something through which an ingenious man will drive a coach-and-four in about ten minutes. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept at least the spirit of the Amendments, with which I entirely agree; but I hope, too, that he can assure us that when the draftsman gets his more skilled pen to work he will be able to produce something that is workable and foolproof and will not be circumvented and broken five minutes after it has passed into law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I first of all add a word to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the words that fell from the most reverend Primate? I should like to add my full acceptance of what he said about the absence of himself and his brethren, and also to say how greatly we in this House have benefited from the assistance given by the Episcopal Benches on a great many subjects of social reform that we have discussed in the last few months. We are very glad indeed to see the most reverend Primate here this afternoon.
I cannot remember a more unanimous collection of voices than the speeches on this Amendment. I thought that the speech of my noble friend Lord Boothby would reach its conclusion in a slightly different way. I thought from his first premise that the people of this country were so keen on betting that he would

317
argue that it was therefore unnecessary to advertise the betting shops. That argument was implicit, if not explicit, in his speech. The only reason why I shall detain your Lordships is out of respect to the varied opinions that have been given on this matter from most responsible quarters. As my noble and learned friend Lord Spens said, it is difficult to find a matter on which there has been such a diversity of opinion. For example, there have been two Royal Commissions, and they took different views on this subject. The first one took a more severe view; and the second one I feel bound to deal with because of the respect in which I hold their conclusions.
The principle on which I approach this Bill is, indeed, a quotation from the Second Royal Commission, to which I referred on Second Reading. They said:
"… to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but to impose such restrictions as ale desirable and practical to discourage or prevent excess"
I think the second part of that is important in the problem before us, because the betting shops, as has been said by almost every speaker, are a new manifestation in their legal form and, therefore, we have to consider the dangers of excess in the new manifestation of a legal betting shop. If I may say a word or two as to the history, I would point out that the same difference of view was expressed in another place. On the Report stage Lord Spens' Amendment was moved from the Government side of the House, but it was strongly attacked and the Government undertook to examine the matter further.
Perhaps I might now say something about the arguments of the Royal Commission. I think the nub of the argument appears in paragraphs 440 and 441. The Royal Commission took the view that, while it may be right in exceptional circumstances to regulate the advertisement of legal business activities, restriction should not be imposed unless it can be shown that there are strong social grounds for such action. I agree with that. The Royal Commission felt that there was considerable force in the view (which applies equally to advertisements of other goods or services, for example, of alcoholic liquor) that the purpose of
318
the betting advertisements is not to increase the total volume of betting but to draw the attention of those who wish to bet to the facilities provided and to persuade them to bet with the advertiser rather than with one of his competitors. The majority of betting advertisements fall into this category; they consist of advertisements issued by bookmakers confined to a statement of the facilities offered by the bookmaker, perhaps accompanied by an assurance of his honesty and efficiency. That is the view—and I hope I put it fairly—of the Royal Commission. I think we ought to have that in front of us when we are considering the problem. The Royal Commission did, in paragraph 442, see objection in the type of advertisement in which the advertiser attempts to encourage persons to bet by holding up the prospect of large winnings, but they doubted whether its statutory prohibition was enforceable.
There is one other practical matter to which I should draw attention. Apart from the argument of principle, there is the practical argument that bookmakers who receive bets by telephone and by post have no means, other than by advertisement, of letting the betting public who wish to place bets by these methods know of the existence of these facilities. I believe—and I think my noble and learned friend would agree—that his Amendment does not strike at that; it leaves that possible. That is one of the reasons why I think it is preferable to the other Amendments that have been put forward. The limited object of my noble and learned friend's Amendment is to forbid the advertisement of the facilities of licensed betting offices, and he says that these offices will cater mainly for persons who live or work in their neighbourhood. Their existence will be known to such persons without the need for advertisement, and therefore advertisement is not necessary for licensed betting offices. Nor, since the existence of betting offices will be well known, is it likely that many owners of licensed betting offices will wish to advertise them, if it is permitted to do so. Therefore, on these two points, in that my noble and learned friend's Amendment leaves the telephone and post betting permissible but deals with the licensed betting offices, I think there is no practical objection to it.

319
The arguments that my noble and learned friend has advanced to-day are, as he said, those of the Churches Council on Gambling and the Churches Committee for Action and Evidence on the Report of the Royal Commission. The arguments are:
"If licensed betting offices are established, those who wish to see them may find them by inquiry, as is the case with any other place of business. If advertising is allowed, we consider that licensees may well use the comfort, roominess, convenience and so on, of their offices, as advertising points. This might well lead to the representation of the betting office as a desirable place of resort, quite apart from its essential purpose."
They say that this would be socially undesirable. They go on to say that although they
"… do not draw any moral distinction between the activities of small and large bookmakers, unlimited advertising by those with large capital resources, in respect of chains of offices, might well lead to that increase in betting that the Government states that it desires to avoid."
These are the two arguments. They have been strongly canvassed throughout the progress of this Bill, and I have considered them very carefully with my right honourable friend. We think that this controversy should be brought to a conclusion by the acceptance of my noble and learned friend's Amendment, for the reason that I have stated.
I have mentioned the fact that we think there ought to be permission to make the necessary advertisement, in the sense of a min announcing where he carries on his business, and, in the case of those who receive bets by telephone, what is his telephone number. We think that it should be right for him to advertise the number of the telephone and the address of the office, so that clients who wish to open credit accounts can telephone or write to him at that address. My noble friend Lord Mancroft warned me about the need for the careful drafting of this Amendment. I should like to assure him that we have considered the drafting very carefully. I cannot, after my consideration, see any carriage-road through it. If my noble friend sees one opening up, even if it is only a bridle path, I hope that he will tell me about it before the Report stage.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to the form of the Amendment? Para-
320
graph (a) forbids an advertisement which specifies that particular premises are a betting office. Paragraph (b) forbids, for example, a notice in a main street pointing the way to a betting office in a side turning. Paragraph (c) forbids an advertisement which, without mentioning any particular premises, invites the public to come to betting offices or refers to the facilities provided there. It is, however, drafted in such a way—I am sure my noble and learned friend agrees—that there is no restriction on the advertisement of facilities for telephoning or postal betting at premises which are also a licensed betting office. Your Lordships will see the point of that. That kind of advertisement has always existed, and therefore one is not extending the encouragement in that way; and I think that is right.
The saving at the beginning of the Amendment is to enable regulations to be made prescribing what may be exhibited on the outside of premises containing a licensed betting office. It is intended that there shall be a simple notice giving the name of the proprietor, and a statement of the hours when the office is open for business. Without the saving which my noble and learned friend has put in, this would be an infringement of the prohibition. I am sorry to have taken so long to announce an acquiescence, but I thought it was only fair to the Royal Commission, and to others who have taken a different view, that when the Government are departing from it—though, I am glad to say, accepting the unanimous view of the speeches in this House—that I should deal, I hope with care, with the arguments which were not accepted. I therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
3.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: Before we pass from this Amendment, I should like to say that I think the Government have come to a most illogical decision, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for whose logic I have great respect, should be supporting this Amendment. If you desire the end, you should desire the means. I have no interest in betting shops, and I am sorry, in a way, that they have been set up. I am not a betting man. But having gone to the trouble of producing a Bill which sets up licensed betting offices, what is the good

321
of moving an Amendment which says that the man who is going to set up the licensed betting office, who is going to pay a considerable amount of money every year for the purpose, who is going to establish an office and who is going to build up a trade, cannot tell people where he is carrying on his office which the Bill is licensing?
LORD BOOTHBY: May I answer the noble Lord in a single sentence? I am not by nature an austere character, but I think there are limits to the encouragement of indulgence. That is all.
LORD OGMORE: I suppose I am entitled to a point of view, and my point of view is that it is all part of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, quite rightly referred to the other day (and, as I say, I am sorry that he has taken this point of view to-day) as the hypocrisy in British life. If we will the act, we must will the means. You set up this thing for good or for bad—personally, I think, probably for bad. But the Government set it up, and you cannot deny the man who is carrying on the business the privilege, or the necessity, of being able to tell people where he carries on business, and what he is doing there.
Exactly the same thing has taken place with regard to public-houses. It is not the brewers who suffer from all the restrictions on publicans—they can sell as much beer as they like. They advertise beer on the television. One of the reasons why these clubs about which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was speaking yesterday have been set up is because of the unfair restrictions on the publican. I am afraid that the same sort of thing is going to happen here. The publican in this country suffers from what Bernard Shaw used to call "middle-class morality"—which might be described by a harsher term. We are going to do exactly the same thing with these unfortunate people who are going to take out licences. They are going to suffer from our sense of morality because we do give them the sort of facilities they ought to have.
I want to explain again that I am not a betting man. I do not particularly like this organisation, but I think that when we pass Bills in this country we should be logical about it, and we should carry to the logical extreme what we are intend-
322
ing to do. I do not think the Government are doing so. The fact that the Amendment is put down and accepted at this later stage shows that the Government itself rejected this idea originally, and have now taken it up only because of the pressure of the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Spens, and other people who supported him.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have seen betting shops in operation. It is perfectly easy to see them if you cross the Irish Sea by St. George's Channel. You will find them in the Republic of Ireland. Every little town has its betting shop, which may be in the main street or may not. I once went into one to see what it was like. I must say that it did not seem a den of iniquity. There was an elderly, almost completely deaf lady behind the counter with a very blunt pencil, who was taking down people's bets. There was no air of sybaritic luxury about the office whatsoever. It seemed a little business run in quite a respectable way. That is the sort of person we are going to impinge upon in this country, just as our morality throughout the ages has, to my mind, affected the ordinary licensed victualler whilst we let the brewer go scot-free. To a large extent our public-houses have suffered through the years because of that attitude. That is all I have to say. It is a highly unpopular attitude. I can see, because everybody else in the House agrees with the Government and the Opposition; but I think I ought to say it, without any personal interest in the subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord has mentioned the Government, perhaps I may deal with the point. I should just like to say this. For once I find myself in fundamental disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on three points. I disagree with his major premise; that when you will the end you must will the means. In this House there are three political Parties represented. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that we all have the same ends. I should never attribute to noble Lords either in the official Opposition or in the Liberal Party any less good ends and aims than I hope I have myself. What we do disagree upon profoundly—and the health of our political life depends on our disagreeing—is as to the means by

323
which we reach those ends; and to say that because you will the ends you will the means by which you reach them is philosophically, logically, politically and in every other way a profound fallacy.
The second point of disagreement which I have with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is over his suggestion of hypocrisy. I have twice stated my approach to the Bill; it happens to be that of the Royal Commission, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable one; to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but to impose such restrictions as are desirable and practicable to discourage or prevent excess. It is obviously a very difficult point (because so many people I respect have taken a different view) to say whether this advertising will lead to excess. It is perfectly reasonable for a Government to consider—in fact it would be authoritarian for a Government to do otherwise than consider—the different views which are advanced. That is what we have done. I think every Party would reproach the Government if it did not give full consideration to the different views which are advanced.
The third point on which I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is in his sneer at "middleclass morality". I happen to believe that middle-class morality is one of the most priceless possessions of a civilised people. What is sneered at as middle-class morality is, in my view, trying to hold to principles of good conduct which reasonable ordinary people agree upon; and I should like to make that quite clear. I have, as I have told the Committee, a very broad back of criticism, and most of your Lordships have at some time or another exercised the right to put some criticism on that back. But on those three points I do not care how the criticism is advanced, I shall stand by my view, and I shall contend that the course which I have recommended to your Lordships is right.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his exposition. I may say that I was not sneering at middle-class morality—I hope that I have some of it myself. I was saying that this is an example of the so-called middle-class morality which
324
Bernard Shaw flayed in Pygmalion. May I ask the noble and learned Viscount, if it was so important that this element should be in the Bill, why it was not in the Bill until this late stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained that. Your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, of what I have already said. Here was a point on which a Royal Commission 27 years ago took one view, the view that is propounded by the Amendment of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. We had then another Royal Commission, whose views I tried to put quite fairly (and I hope I succeeded) before the House to-day, who took the view that advertisements were proper. Those two views were argued with great vigour in another place, and, as I told your Lordships, when the same Amendment as my noble and learned friend has put down here was moved in another place there was a very wide divergence. I have been a Minister of the Crown, except when an ungrateful country did not want me, only for a period of eighteen years. Many Members of this House have been Ministers for much longer than I have; but, when you find such a divergence of opinion as that, for a Minister not to say that he is prepared to look at it and take another chance before coming to a final conclusion is certainly different from the usual view of Ministers and different from my recollection of the admirable work as a Minister which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, displayed and which I have seen myself when he was in that position. I am sure he would have given consideration to the diversity of views. That is the reason. Again the noble Lord can say what he likes—he will never say anything not acceptable to me personally; he knows that—but I am not in the least ashamed of having taken time to consider a difficult point.
3.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I merely want to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question. Before asking it, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he does not have to cross the St. George's Channel to know what goes on in betting shops. You find them in London, and that is why I am very much opposed to them and am very much in favour of this Amendment—

325
because it will prevent people from being attracted to them. Those who want to go to them will find out where they are. Therefore the Government is accepting a very practical Amendment to achieve what I think most of us are in favour of that is, limiting betting so far as we can, without prohibiting it.
My question is this: is the noble and learned Viscount satisfied that there is no need in the Amendment to give a definition of the word "advertise"? It seems to me that we are relying entirely on the words "any advertisement". Doe that leave any loophole? Is he satisfied that it prohibits handbills, town criers or sandwich boards? The noble and learned Viscount said that they were framing this with the greatest care so as not to leave any loophole, and on this side of the House, and I am sure on that side, we are anxious that there should be no loophole and that these betting offices should not be advertised in any way. Is it not necessary to say what we mean by advertisement, so that after the Bill reaches the Statute Book some very clever person—they are very clever people who will look at this—does not find some way of advertising his premises? Is the noble Viscount satisfied?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am, because I think that the result which the noble Lord has in mind will be achieved more readily and more efficiently by leaving the word "advertisement" for the court to construe than by trying to give a definition by which, as we lawyers always say, "If we try to include the one, we exclude the other". I should think that this is the better way. But I am willing to look at the point again and to discuss it with my noble and learned friend Lord Spens. That is my view at the moment. I have not spoken to my noble and learned friend about it. I do not know what he thinks.
LORD SPENS: I should not like to take credit for something for which I am not responsible. The Amendment put down by my honourable friend the Member for Angus on the Report stage in another place was exactly in these words. I understood that he had the most expert assistance in the drafting of it. Naturally, I considered most carefully the Amendment before I put it down in my own name; but whereas in the old days I
326
used to be paid large sums to draft Amendments to Bills, those are long years ago and I should not for a moment presume to call myself a Parliamentary draftsman. If the Committee accept the Amendment, it will be on the understanding that my noble and learned friend will, if necessary, reconsider it and make any verbal alterations, if any are thought necessary, at a later stage in the Bill. Subject to that, may I thank noble Lords for the support that they have given to this Amendment and, above all, my noble and learned friend and the Government for having at last come down on the right side of the fence.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I say one word, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore? It is possible to embarrass us by raising issues which cannot be debated here except at great length. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, talked about "middle-class morality" and about "hypocrisy". I think it was mentioned as involved in the situation. If there are two subjects more than any others to which the Church devotes itself, they are the fundamental question of morality and how to avoid hypocrisy. Hypocrisy was one charge which our Lord threw at the Pharisees. Any Church leader knows that he is always exposed to the same accusation, and I can assure the noble Lord that those of us who are active in the churches are constantly concerned about what is morality and what the true morality is, and are deeply concerned to avoid every suspicion of hypocrisy.
When the noble Lord says "middle-class morality", I should like to say that no church that I know of would agree on the definition of what is "middle-class morality". We all differ on such a definition; and if we got it we should be most critical of it when we had it, because there is no morality among any class of society which is not severely open to criticism. Because, in a sense, I am concerned in this Bill, I thought it my duty say that if we deal with this, doing the best we can in a most difficult task, which I concede the Government are doing, then we shall come to an agreement. But if great questions of hypocrisy and morality are raised we shall have to ask leave to talk at great length on it.
LORD REA: The acoustics in this Chamber are not perfect and I think the inverted commas which my noble friend put round "middle-class morality" were not understood aright. They were words used by Mr. George Bernard Shaw, and were quoted by my noble friend not necessarily as his own opinion.
LORD BOOTHBY: Perhaps I might add, for the benefit of the most reverend Primate, that this time I was on his side.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

CYPRUS
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity, before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, of making a short statement on the Cyprus negotiations similar to that being made in another place by my right honourable friend. Your Lordships will have seen Press reports according to which Archbishop Makarios considers that the remaining issues could be quickly settled. I am sure that this is right, and I hope, therefore, that the Archbishop will soon see his way to resume discussions with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. By the Archbishop's wish, there have been no formal meetings between the leaders of the delegations for some little time. I feel confident that the points which are still causing difficulty can in practice be resolved by discussion.
The Archbishop has, in his public statement, made known the points of difference. Your Lordships will not expect me to say now what we shall say to the Cypriot leaders if, as I hope, confidential negotiations are very shortly resumed. I can say that I do not think that there is much between us on the delimitation of the boundaries of the sovereign base areas. We have done our utmost to meet Cypriot wishes on Cypriot participation in the administration of those areas, within the framework of British sovereignty. It is common ground that the areas to be retained have to serve a military purpose; military
328
considerations must therefore be given full weight, as regards both the boundaries and the administration.
On the long-term view of the Base Areas, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which we might want to relinquish them. This is a hypothetical situation to which many factors might apply. At present we are seeking a settlement, in which the retention of Base Areas under British sovereignty is one of the principal elements. But we recognise that the Cypriots have an interest in this matter and we shall be glad to discuss it with them.
The other main outstanding question is financial aid. On this, our offer of £10 million over five years is I think generous. We have approached these negotiations throughout in a spirit of accommodation and good will. We are sure that if the outstanding questions are tackled together in that same spirit, an agreement can very soon be reached, and for our part, we are very anxious to see such agreement.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving us this statement. I feel sure that he is fully aware that we have been concerned, I think in all parts of the House, about the protracted period which has elapsed in regard to these discussions. The House at large is anxious for a good and peaceable settlement to be arrived at, and I think that it has been pretty considerate and has not tended to intervene in any way in these negotiations. But it is getting a little difficult now, unless some better progress can be made than the Archbishop seems to me to be willing to make in his public statement. I hope that the noble Earl has something upon which to go when he says that he thinks that these discussions can now be again opened for negotiation, and something obtained.
The other point about the situation that probably has occurred to many Members of your Lordships' House is that it is important to get a settlement in view of the disturbed situation in Turkey. It would be quite wrong to go into that in detail at this moment, but we greatly hope that some pressure will be brought by the Government to get negotiations opened in time. The reference to the

329
military consideration in the statement to which we have just listened makes one feel that something is being said on the other side as to requirements that the Cypriots want to lay down which might prejudice the security of our military arrangements. We should always be concerned that any arrangements we make give proper security. I hope we shall have no quibbling about small details.
LORD REA: My Lords, I believe the whole House will endorse what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. We are glad to have a statement at what seems to some of us rather long last; and a the same time we would offer our best wishes that the negotiations will go as the noble Earl would wish. There was one sentence in the statement which, if I heard it aright, and without quibbling about details, struck me as somewhat surprising:
"The Government realise that the Cypriots have an interest in this matter."
That, of course, is some advance from a few years ago when the Government indicated that the Cypriots had no interest in the matter, and I hope that that principle will not be forgotten in future.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, might I, for quite different reasons, thank the noble Earl the Minister very much for his statement? My interest in Cyprus is not at all political. My sole interest is in the fact that in Cyprus the leading political figure happens to be the head of a Church with which we are in very friendly relations. That does not mean that I approve of anything and everything he does, but it is a fact that I, on my part, wish to keep and preserve to the utmost of my power friendly relations with the Cypriot Church and its Archbishop. Because of my dilemma I am extremely grateful for the fact that there has been a statement which perhaps leads us to hope that a fresh phase may ensue.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we are very grateful for, and recognise, the forbearance of the House over these last months. I know well how concerned your Lordships have been over the Cyprus negotiations, and
330
it has certainly been a help not to be pressed on difficult questions at a time like this. On the point made by the noble Viscount about the military considerations, I may say that he can rest assured that, as I have said in the statement, in any negotiations, while military considerations, in the circumstances, in relation to base arrangements, must be the predominant issue, we are not going to be difficult on details. I believe that the record of what we have said and done so far is proof of that.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I would say that clearly after, if not before, the London Agreement, when the future—that is, independence—was charted, it was made quite clear that the Cypriots have an interest and a stake in this and that there was no new principle involved in this connection arising from the London and Zurich Agreements. I was very grateful for the words of the most reverend Primate. I know only too well, as many of your Lordships do, the interest he has had and the help he has been in this question, which, as he has pointed out, concerns another Church whose Archbishop is the leading figure in the negotiations.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while recognising the patience and forbearance of Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations over Cyprus, may I ask if they will take into consideration the question of whether there is any need of a base in Cyprus in the evolving circumstances, and whether it would not be sufficient to have merely a staging post; and whether in fact, a base would be tenable in the face of Cypriot opposition? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the effect, if any, of the recent events in Turkey on the situation in Cyprus?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, of course we have taken into consideration the question of the need for a base there, not only for ourselves but for our friends in relation to our Alliances and so on; and it is quite clear to us that, in the present circumstances and situation, that is both necessary and right. I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the Turkish situation except to say that we have already heard that in relation to this question it means no change.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
3.55 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 6:
Increase of penalties for street betting
6.—(1) Any person who commits an offence under subsection (1) of section one of the Street Betting Act. 1906, after the appointed day shall, instead of being liable to the penalty provided by paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the said subsection (1), be liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding one hundred pounds or, in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction for such an offence committed after that day, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to both.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (1) to leave out "or any subsequent". The noble and learned Viscount said: I believe it would be convenient if I put before your Lordships very quickly the present position as to the penalties for street betting, the position in the Bill as it stands and the effect of the Amendment. Under the Act of 1906 the penalties are these: in the case of a first offence, a fine not exceeding £10; in the case of a second offence, a fine not exceeding £20; in the case of a third or subsequent offence, or in any case where it is proved that the person while committing the offence had any betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years, on a conviction on indictment a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment not exceeding six months; or on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £30 or imprisonment not exceeding three months.
The Bill as it stands substitutes as the maximum penalties: in the case of a first offence, a fine not exceeding £100; in the case of a second or subsequent offence, imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £200 or both. There is no provision for the offence to be dealt with on indictment. During the Committee stage in the House of Commons, and again during the Report stage, Amendments were moved to omit the possibility of awarding a sentence of imprisonment, while raising still further the maximum limit on a fine for a second or subsequent offence. Those who supported the Amendment argued that the men who took bets in the street were mostly book-
332
makers' agents rather than principal bookmakers and were thus men in a small way of business. It would be unfair (the argument went on) that "small" men acting merely as agents for others should be liable to be imprisoned.
The practice at present when street agents (or "runners") are convicted under the Street Betting Act and fined is for their fines to be paid by their principals. Hence, the argument went, the raising of the maximum fine which could be awarded would be more effective as a means of suppressing street betting. The argument on the other side which appealed to Her Majesty's Government and appeals to me is that, in fixing maximum sentences, it was necessary to think, not of the typical or average case, but of the worst type of case that it was possible to foresee. It had to be remembered that the principal bookmaker himself might be charged and convicted as an accessory. Although, if he was a wealthy man, he might be wilting to risk having to pay several hundred pounds by way of a fine, he would not be likely to take the risk of a sentence of imprisonment. Thus it was necessary to retain the penalty of imprisonment as an ultimate sanction to deal with the worst case of a principal bookmaker who is a persistent offender.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary undertook to look at the matter again and the Amendments that we suggest have the effect of retaining the ultimate sanction of imprisonment for three months, but reserving it for a third or subsequent offence, so that it cannot be awarded for a second offence. The Committee will remember that, under the Act of 1906, it can be awarded for a third offence. In fact, under the Act of 1906 six months' imprisonment could be given after a trial on indictment instead of the three months which we maintain. We believe that it is necessary to maintain imprisonment as a deterrent; that it will deter in the case of a third or subsequent offence—it will deter the persistent offender, including, as I say, the principal bookmaker who is convicted as an accessary and who persists in his illegal activity. I hope that the Committee will think that the relaxation from a second to a third offence is as far as we can go to meet the other point of view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("or any subsequent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that this, as it were, spreading the penalty into three stages instead of two is to some extent an acknowledgment of the commitment which his right honourable friend entered into in another place. But, quite frankly, when I read that this was one of the three matters on which the other place would welcome your Lordships' advice, I thought that that meant that they would like our advice with regard to the reduction of penalties to be inflicted on street bookmakers. In fact, this Amendment, although it spreads the penalties into three instead of two stages, makes no reduction at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It means that the bookmaker who is convicted as an accessary cannot be sent to prison for a second offence; he has to commit three offences.
LORD STONHAM: I quite agree with that; but the noble and learned Viscount will agree that the minimum maximum penalty (if I may use that expression) is £100; the maximum penalty is still £200 or three months' imprisonment, or both. That compares with the penalties which are at present in existence of £10. £20 or £30. with an alternative of imprisonment.
I should like to make it quite clear that in this matter I am speaking entirely for myself, and I do not know whether my noble friends, or your Lordships in any other part of the House, will agree with me. I should also make it clear, as has been said by almost everyone who has spoken in every section of the deliberations of this Bill, that I am not a betting man. My personal view is that that is no kind of a recommendation for the acceptance of one's advice on a betting Bill. I should, therefore, make it quite clear that I am not opposed to betting. Provided that one pays the rent and looks after one's wife and children, I think one may then be able to do what one likes with the rest of one's income.
I well remember that the last bet I had was in the Grand National, quite
334
some years ago. I remember the horse—its name was "Gyppo"; I backed it because it was a grey (I can see greys, and I cannot see the others), and because it could jump. I had the vain hope that the others might all fall down and that this one might win; and at odds of £1,000 to £25, it was quite attractive. My honourable friend, as he then was, Stanley Evans, put the bet on because I did not know a bookmaker. He subsequently told me that it was better not to put on a "pony" but a "monkey", because then it would have got over the jumps; and it was only later that I learned that a "monkey" was £500, and I was glad I had not accepted his advice.
I am not exactly an expert; I am not completely disinterested. But I have seen street bookmakers, and I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount would think even less of me than he does if I failed to speak what I think is the truth. The truth, as I see it, is this. We have very large numbers of street bookmakers who are fulfilling what the general public regard as a service. Regardless of whether it is a moral service or otherwise, the general public like it. The Government, in this Bill, have decided to get rid of it. Again, I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong. But if in deciding to get rid of it the Government propose to lay down excessive penalties—perhaps not excessive; but large, prohibitive penalties—then an obligation rests on us to ensure that those street bookmakers have reasonable facilities for translating themselves into some other kind of bookmaker which is approved of by this Bill.
I am very much concerned by the fact that this Bill does not provide those facilities, or not in the measure which is required. I have heard my noble friend Lord Silkin talk about the need for getting planning permission for betting offices. What is going to happen? It is a very simple process. The street bookmaker will look round for a place in the vicinity where he works in which he can set up a betting office, in order to comply with the law. In many of the poorer quarters of London that will be a very simple and comparatively poor establishment. If that is acceptable to the terms of the Bill, then I have no objection to

335
any penalties whatsoever, however severe they are. But if, when this Bill becomes law, it means that it is going to be excessively difficult, if not impossible, for these men to continue to ply their trade, which would then be a legitimate trade in accordance with the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act, then I think we are doing ourselves, and them, a considerable injustice. I would say that these large penalties would then be seen to be an expression of the Government's fear of failure. They would, in fact, be a perpetuation of injustice.
It is all very well to say, "They are only bookmakers. Who cares?" But I do not think the noble and learned Viscount would take that view at all. Therefore, I want to put it to him quite plainly. I am in this case talking of something of which I know, and I should like some assurance from him that, within the terms of the Bill or of the instructions which are likely to be issued (or, if not instructions, the guidance which is likely to be issued) to the appropriate authorities, they will not be extremely hard-and-fast with regard to granting planning permission for particular types of premises to become betting offices where persons can establish that they are already in business as street bookmakers. If street bookmakers can go from the street into a place and conduct their business in accordance with this Bill, then I imagine that no one would suggest that we should be wrong to impose severe penalties on them if they did not make that change. But if it is going to be extremely difficult, and almost impossible, for them to carry out the instructions of this Bill, then I would say that it would be a gross injustice and would really be a means of covering up our own failure if we then provided very severe penalties.
The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, compared with the present practice means merely that, instead of a man being fined a maximum of £10, he can be fined a maximum of £100 or £200. But in practice, if it should prove that bookmakers cannot reasonably convert their place of business into licensed premises, for reasons of technical objections about planning or otherwise, then the public will not support the Act of Parliament; they will support the bookmaker. Equally, the police will not sup-
336
port the Act of Parliament; they will support the bookmaker. They will find this section of the Act just as unworkable as existing legislation, and we shall be confronted with exactly the position which we have now: that the police do not enforce the 1906 Act; that they arrange for people to be arrested for the convenience of bookmakers and to satisfy the records in their own areas; and that they take the appropriate consideration for such a service. In fact, we shall have a continuation of the old, evil practices of which we are all aware.
I think that this all arises out of the decision of the Government not to license street bookmakers, which I think was a wrong decision. That decision having been made, it is no use discussing it any longer; but I ask the noble and learned Viscount to say now whether, in asking us to agree to these very severe penalties, he is satisfied that, when this Act becomes law, there will be proper opportunity for legitimate street bookmakers who are honestly carrying on their business to transfer themselves from the street to an office in the near vicinity of the place where they are at present carrying on their business, and that they will thus be able to comply with the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act. If he is satisfied of that, then I can see no objection to severe penalties: if he is not satisfied of that and cannot give the assurances for which I have asked, then I think it would be utterly wrong and utterly unjust to demand these penalties.
LORD CONFSFORD: I express no view at all on the interesting question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as to whether street bookmaking should or should not be allowed. I think that is an interesting question, but it is not relevant on this Amendment. I rise simply to express some astonishment at the proposition of law or fact which he has now advanced: that one can have a vested interest in an illegal activity entitling one, when new legislation conies in, to demand facilities.
LORD STONHAM: That is a fact.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think my noble friend Lord Stonham is assuming that everybody who is liable to penalties in respect of betting in the streets is a principal and not an agent.

337
If all the agents who are engaged on this activity—and they are extremely numerous—are going ipso facto to become eligible to obtain licences as bookmakers, it will be quite astounding: but, in fact, the vast majority of them are employees who are collecting bets on behalf of bookmakers, and it is to be assumed that the bookmakers will continue to find employment for them in other capacities after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the major point of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that he disagrees with our solution, he would not wish me to follow him, nor would he think me discourteous in abstaining from doing so. But I appreciate the particular point that he has in mind: that is, that we are wanting to free betting from being carried on in the illegal way which brings the law into disrepute. That is our objective; and it will be necessary to see that the new channel is functioning if we hope to get rid of the evil (whether we are right or wrong in thinking that it is a bad method of doing it) of illegal street betting.
Now I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of subsection (2) of the clause we are amending. That says:
"The day appointed for the purposes of this section shall not be earlier than six months after the day appointed for the coming into force of section four of this Act."
That is the clause which provides for betting office licences and betting agency permits—and it is a matter for my right honourable friend to appoint when that comes into operation. But, whenever that may be—and, of course, one wishes first of all to give people a reasonable chance to get the offices—then the scheme of the Bill is that there should be a delay before these additional penalties are enforced, in order to give that a chance of functioning.
I should like to consider carefully what the noble Lord has said about guidance as to the premises. As he will remember, when I was Home Secretary—and it applies a fortiori to-day—I was always most careful to leave the independence of justices unfettered; and he has often heard me, when pressed in another place to issue circulars and to
338
give guidance about offences, steadfastly refuse to do so. This is a different matter, because I appreciate that the basis of his argument is that here the justices are acting as licensing justices in the case of liquor, in a quasi-administrative, as well as quasi-judicial, function. I think it is a point of great importance, and I should like to consider that and discuss it with Mr. Butler. I am grateful to him for raising that point. There are always difficulties when you are dealing with a discretionary matter, but I should like to give it consideration before the next stage.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. He will appreciate as well as I that, while accepting everything he says about the inadvisability and the undesirability of giving guidance to or of exerting pressure on licensing justices, it is the case that words that he may utter in this connection carry great weight, and, indeed, may be considered and put forward when these matters are discussed before licensing justices. The kind of thing I have in mind is this: in, shall we say, the poorer districts, the more densely populated quarters of London (and other big cities, so far as I am aware), there are more street bookmakers than in other areas with the same population or even a more dense population. By reason of that: fact, there are likely to be more applications in such areas, and they are likely to be for approval of less palatial premises. Therefore, unless that fact is taken into consideration and there is some reasonable hope of equality of treatment, there is likely to be injustice: and, if there is injustice, it would be hateful to all of us that the victims of such injustice should then be the subject of heavy penalties. That is the only point of my opposition (as you may call it), or question. If the noble and learned Viscount has that point in mind and will give it due weight, then I am satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I certainly shall do that. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the type of premises must vary according to the locality; and not only the needs of the locality, but what the people in that locality would expect, and what would be possible according to the premises available. I am in entire sympathy with

339
him there. I think that to set up absurdly high standards would be to defeat the object of the Bill. I hope that what I have said is helpful.
LORD STONHAM: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. That entirely meets my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I bee to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35 after ("day") insert ("to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or, in the case of a third or any subsequent conviction for such an offence so committed").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Betting with young persons
7.—(1) If any person—
(b) employs a young person in the effecting of any betting transaction or in a licensed betting office; or
(c) receives or negotiates any bet through a young person, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection by reason of—
(i) the employment of a young person in the effecting of betting transactions by post; or
4.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "young" and after "person" insert "who is under the age of twenty-one years". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble Leader and my noble friends, I beg to move Amendment No. 19. I hope that it will be convenient to your Lordships to take with it Nos. 20 and 21, which concern the same point. A little while ago the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, brought in question the logic of the Government's decision on an earlier Amendment, but this is a totally illogical Bill. In one discussion, we find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence, and in the next discussion on the same side. I am afraid that this Bill is going to bring a considerable extension of betting, and I am proposing these Amendments in order to limit that so far as possible, having originally
340
accepted the need to make legal something which at present is illegal—that is, cash betting. In these three Amendments, my noble friends and I seek to ensure that no one under twenty-one shall take part in the business of betting. It is already laid down in the Schedule that no one under the age of twenty-one can take part in the business of betting as a principal. I hope that the Committee will agree that no one under the age of twenty-one shall be engaged in betting as an employee.
It may be argued: what harm is there in a young girl who comes from a commercial training college at the age of sixteen or seventeen, being engaged in a bookmaker's office any more than in a stockbroker's office or any other office? What harm is there in a young lad of eighteen making tea in a bookmaker's office, cutting the cake, calling the runners off the tape and doing all the other little jobs which have to be undertaken? I do not accept that. It is unquestionable that if a young person is engaged in a betting office in any capacity, he will inevitably be drawn into the exciting net where there is talk of gambling, speculation on what is likely to happen and perhaps regrets for what did not happen after the event. I think that under twenty-one is much too young for people to be constantly engaged, every day of their working lives, in the hothouse atmosphere of gambling.
It is laid down in the Schedule that no one under the age of twenty-one can have a bookmaker's licence. That is for a very good reason. We do not want them to get into the bookmaking business too young. If that is accepted for a principal, what possible justification can there be for permitting the employment of young people in a subordinate capacity in bookmakers' offices? If it is wrong for people under twenty-one to become bookmakers, why should it be right for people under twenty-one to become bookmakers' assistants? Just imagine what goes on in a betting office. At 2.20 the runners come through for the 2.20 race, and it is announced. At 2.21 they are off and on the tape. At 2.22, if it is a five-furlong sprint, the results are up. It is all very well to say that all this atmosphere is confined to the punters. It is also communicated to the people

341
engaged in the business. If you think that your mission in life is to work in a betting office in that kind of atmosphere, well anti good; but surely we have a responsibility to see that people should not have to make that decision too young. I think that the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate the thought behind these Amendments and I hope that both he and your Lordships will accept the view that these alterations should be made to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("young") and after ("person") insert ("who is under the age of twenty-one years").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL BATHURST: I think that it would be to your Lordships' convenience if I answered the noble Lord on Amendments No. 19, 20 and 44. The noble Lord mentioned No. 21 but I am sure that he will appreciate that that deals with postal betting and that it would be more convenient if I speak about that later.
LORD STONHAM: I agree with the noble Earl that it is a different point, and I apologise for my mistake.
EARL BATHURST: Clause 7 makes it an offence for a person to have a betting transaction with a young person, to employ a young person in the effecting of any betting transaction or in a licensed betting office, or to receive or negotiate any bet through a young person. Under the Schedule, it is one of the rules for a licensed betting office that a young person shall not be admitted or be allowed to remain on the premises. The age limit in the Bill for all these purposes is eighteen, and the Amendments propose to substitute twenty-one as respects the offence of having a betting transaction with a young person—that is the offence I have just mentioned. On the other hand, the noble Lord's Amendment would allow a young person to place a bet at the age of eighteen. The appropriate age limit for these provisions is largely a matter of opinion. The noble Lord has an opinion, and he has expressed it. The age limit recommended in the Royal Commission's Report is the age of eighteen for a young person. In paragraph 256 they recommended that a registered bookmaker should not be allowed to employ any person under the age of eighteen; and although the prohibition on employment in the Bill does not go so far as to forbid
342
employment in every capacity, as the Royal Commission suggested, the age of eighteen follows their suggestion.
LORD STONHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, I tried to make it clear that my Amendment had not the object of preventing a young person of eighteen from having a bet. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that the person with whom he bets shall not be under twenty-one.
EARL BATHURST: I appreciate that, and, in fact, I think I made it clear in my opening preamble. In sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 263 the Royal Commission recommended that it should be an offence for any person under eighteen to enter a licensed betting office and for a bookmaker to bet with any person apparently under eighteen years of age. The Bill follows this recommendation exactly. It is already an offence under Section 15 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, for a bookmaker to employ a person under the age of eighteen on the course or to have a betting transaction with a person under that age. There is also a precedent for the adoption of the age of eighteen in the Licensing Act, 1953. That Act provides that a young person under that age may not be employed in any bar or licensed premises, and that intoxicating liquor may not be served to a person under that age for consumption on the premises. There are thus precedents for the adoption of the age of eighteen.
The question whether the higher age should be substituted is largely one of judgment, but it is doubtful whether it would be practicable to insist on the higher age limit which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would like to see. Many people between the age of eighteen and twenty-one have reached degrees of maturity, and, regrettable though it may be that such persons may wish to indulge in betting, it does not seem feasible to attempt by law to deny them facilities for doing so. We heard yesterday, in what I am sure all your Lordships will consider was a great debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a number of noble Lords say how young people were maturing earlier in these days.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Earl will allow me, I said they were more

343
mature outside but far younger inside than we were, and needed our protection far more.
EARL BATHURST: They may be maturing more outside and less inside. We did hear harsh criticisms on young people, but I know there are Members of your Lordships' House and members of the public who under the age of twenty-one were entrusted with the lives of men in their platoons. They have had to deal with every sort of problem in the solution of which, supposing they had had the wisdom which they accumulate in time, perhaps, in your Lordships' House, they might have been seriously affected. One can think of young people up and down the country in the Services to-day, and in civil life as well, driving cranes or motor lorries and so forth, all of which involves a great deal of responsibility. I think that is a considerable reason for putting forward a plea to the noble Lord. It would be difficult, for the reasons I have just put forward, to consider a person under twenty-one as suitable to carry on such responsibilities as I have described, and yet at the same time deny him the right of working, should he so wish, for a bookmaker.
If this is recognised, it is difficult to justify excluding punters of this age group from licensed betting offices. The adoption of different age limits for different provisions of Clause 7 would give rise to strange anomalies if the noble Lord's proposal were carried out. It would be an offence under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) for a young person over eighteen but under twenty-one to be used to take a bet from the punter to a bookmaker, yet the same young person could on his own behalf place a bet with a bookmaker. That is just one of the anomalies which the noble Lord's Amendment would create. The Government respect the sincerity of the noble Lord for his views and his desire to protect young people from too early indulgence in the betting habit, but this series of Amendments is not one which we can advise your Lordships to accept.
LORD SHEPHERD: Like many noble Lords who have taken part on the Committee stage and on Second Reading of the Bill, I can also claim not to be a betting man. I have had one bet and,
344
unlike my noble friend Lord Stonham, I was successful; I won some money on "Quare Times" in the Grand National. I rise to support my noble friend on this Amendment. In his reply, the noble Earl laid great stress upon the maturity of our young people to-day. He made play—and with some truth—of the fact that we have in time of war placed men of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen in command of troops. But when those men were placed in that position they had had training; they were trained to carry out an operation; and they had mature officers behind them. With due respect to the bookmakers, surely the noble Earl is not going to suggest that a bookmaker is in the same degree as the commanding officer of a battalion or a company. Bookmakers may be, in their business, honourable gentlemen, but there are some of us who feel that it is a business which is—not necessarily shady, but at any rate one where there is considerable temptation.
I share with my noble friend Lord Stonham a feeling that young men or women under the age of twenty-one ought not to be employed in this type of business. We know that under the Bill nobody under the age of twenty-one can be a principal. According to the Bill, a youth over eighteen may be employed. But what is the position of the agent? As I understand it, a youth over the age of eighteen can be an agent. Am I right? I understand that an agent, the tout who negotiates business on behalf of his principal, need only be over the age of eighteen. As your Lordships know, in business it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between a principal and an agent.
LORD STONHAM: It is harder in bookmaking.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is probably the case. But in business he is a principal because it is his finance, his capital, which is at stake; but his agent will negotiate and conclude the business. In this, I might be prepared to go some way with the Government in saying that the clerks and the typists in an office could be under or above the age of eighteen, but I would submit most strongly that a tout should not be employed below the age of twenty-one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that there is a difference of view

345
here. We have considered this point very carefully, and I am sure my right honourable friend will consider the arguments advanced. But we feel that eighteen is the proper age, and I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have raised a new point as far as the age of an agent is concerned. Would the noble and learned Viscount give an undertaking that he will look into this matter to see whether, if they cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, they could agree to bringing in a higher age limit for the employment of agents?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot give any commitments at all, but I will willingly bring that point specially to the notice of my right honourable friend, and we will consider it. But as the noble Lord will understand, I cannot give him any commitment on the matter.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and to my noble friend for putting that point so well. I appreciate there is no undertaking, but on the noble and learned Viscount's assurance to look at it again I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAMhad given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to omit proviso (i). The noble Lord said: Having listened to the very eloquent argument of the noble Earl on the previous Amendment, despite the fact that this is on a somewhat different point, and having regard to the fact that the Government will not agree that people who assist bookmakers in offices should be at least twenty-one years of age, it seems to me that they will not agree that people who assist in betting by post, making up the envelopes and typing the bets, should be at least twenty-one years of age. Therefore I see no useful purpose in taking up your Lordships' time in moving this Amendment separately, so I will not move it.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
346
".Every holder of a bookmaker's permit or licence or of a betting agency permit shall deliver to the authority issuing such permit or licence once in every year on a date to be prescribed a statement showing the total turnover of the business conducted under such permit or licence."
The noble Lord said: If I may, I will discuss this Amendment and the following Amendment together, as they are closely related. It is provided in Clause 10 that information shall be published of a statistical character with regard to the grant, renewal or cancellation and expiry of bookmakers' permits. It is obvious that bookmaking is an extensive business in which large sums of money change hands in the course of a year, and it is something of considerable social importance. That is one of the underlying bases of this very Bill. But there is no provision by which any exact ascertainment can be got of one of the most important statistics relating to this business, and that is the amount of the annual turnover—the total amount of money which is staked during the course of a year. Therefore, the purpose of the first Amendment is to provide that the holders of bookmakers' permits or licences, or betting agency permits, shall deliver to the licensing authority every year a return stating what the turnover of the business conducted under the permit is.
Similarly, the proposed Amendment to Clause 10 provides that this information shall be included in the annual statement which is laid before each House of Parliament. I hope it will be agreed that this information is useful and has considerable social importance. It has importance in another respect, because if, following the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee, some measure is introduced at some time for the purpose of levying taxation upon betting, it will be important to know what sums of money would possibly be involved in that. For those reasons, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause — (Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF BATHURST: It might be convenient if I intervene in the debate upon this Amendment to tell the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the problem which he has put before us and would like to consider

347
the purport of it. I should like to mention paragraph 189 in the Report of the Royal Commission, which says that
"as much information as is practicable should be made available to the public about the extent of gambling, and, wherever possible, the conduct of the various forms of gambling."
The noble Lord mentioned Clause 10 under which a report is to be put before the two Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord's Amendment is open to detailed difficulties of interpretation, as I am sure that fie and his noble friend will appreciate. In particular, it is not clear what precise meaning can be given to the word "turnover". Many bookmakers lay off bets on a particular horse or other contestant which has been backed heavily, by placing "hedging" bets with other bookmakers. Such a bet would be part of the turnover of the second bookmaker, but does not represent any new betting business from the general public. An accumulator bet involves a combination of predictions on a number of events. If the prediction on the first event is correct, then the winnings are transferred to the second event, and so on. It is not clear whether the word "turnover" includes merely the original stake or the winnings, if any, on the successive stages of the accumulator. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, this accumulator betting is becoming very popular all over the country.
These criticisms could no doubt be removed by more careful definition. For example, bets between one holder of a bookmaker's permit and another could be excluded. That would probably look after the "laying-off" which I have just mentioned, and in the case of an accumulator it could be stated that it is the original stake only which is counted. But the main question is whether it is practicable for this information to be obtained. The Royal Commission evidently did not think it would be so: otherwise they would have added it to the recommendations which they made. My right honourable friend understands that bookmakers, generally speaking, do not compile this information at present, and there has been insufficient time since this Amendment was put down for an assessment to be made of the amount of work involved to bookmakers and the Home Office and Scottish Home Depart-
348
ment in obtaining the information which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks. It is a question of balancing the expense of obtaining the information, which is not available at present, against the benefit to be obtained from the information if it were to be given. If the noble Lord will allow my right honourable friend and my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack to consider this Amendment, we should be grateful if he would withdraw it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I appreciate that there are some technical difficulties in this matter, and if a provision of this kind was to be inserted it would need to be redrafted. I hope, however, that some provision covering the point will be found possible. I appreciate that bookmakers probably do not keep statistics of this kind at the present moment. However, they are being presented in this Bill with a legalisation of business which has been carried on hitherto in an illegal fashion; for which they have been paying the fines imposed upon their runners. They are therefore going to make a clear saving in carrying on their business, and it is not unreasonable that in a matter of such social importance as this is they should be required to comply with certain conditions. On the undertaking which the noble Earl has given, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
".After paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of the Pool Betting Act. 1954, there shall be added the following paragraph—
'(ee) No prize in respect of any bet in any competition shall exceed the sum of £50,000.'"
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would say that pool betting in this country is, to my mind, the most fantastic thing that was ever put before an intelligent public. I have in my possession at the present time a sheet from Littlewood's which points out that the first prize one week was £50,000. You can take it that the prizes altogether were roughly £100,000. The price of the sheet is five shillings. The chance of a

349
man getting one of these prizes is one in 200,000. How is it possible for a man to bet when the chances against him are 200,000 to 1? Men do bet, and hundreds and thousands of people bet in this way. The reason is that they say to themselves, "Mr. So-and-So won £50,000 last week and I had an equal chance with him. It could just as well have come to me as to him. Therefore the chances are fifty-fifty". Another thing that appeals to people is this sudden change overnight from poverty to affluence. The chance may be almost infinitesimal but the chance is there. As to limiting the prize, this, of course, has been done in the Irish Sweep; they have limited the maximum prize there. This is just a modest step to limit the prize to £50,000. Some noble Lords may hold that it is too much for a maximum, and others may hold that no maximum should be imposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Uvedale of North End.)
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I should like to oppose this Amendment, because, unlike so many noble Lords who say they do not bet, I confess to betting—not successfully, but I do bet. One of the most agreeable forms of betting in the winter is trying to prognosticate the impossible results of the Football Leagues. I am therefore a confessed member of what they call the Happy Circle. But I fully appreciate the words of Robert Louis Stevenson when he said:
"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive."
Frankly, I have never experienced the arrival part of it, but I still travel hopefully every week-end in the winter, living to win one of these prizes.
Noble Lords will realise that the complications of football pools automatically make you try to get one of these permutations, and no sooner have you started on permutations than the sum invested becomes very big. Consequently syndicates are being formed all over the country who together make very big investments which are spread over many people. In fact, the other day I was asked by one of the great firms to present a cheque for £200,000 to a collection of airmen, and in the end they got only about £8,000 each because there
350
were so many in it. It shows the sort of thing that is going on; it does not mean necessarily that all this money goes to one person. I see no great objection, at any rate from a personal point of view, in changing from poverty to affluence, which was one of the objections raised relative to the paying of this great sum. I think it is rather an interference in a business which is, after all, run pretty satisfactorily throughout the country. It is not for your Lordships here to lay down how a great bookmaker's business should be run. It is just as logical for us to pass an Amendment to this Bill that all bookmakers should pay on the first four in every race rather than the first three. It would seem a gross interference in the way a bookmaker's or betting establishment is run. There is no demand for this at all, and I consider it would be an interference which is not justified in any way at all.
LORD FOLEY: I feel rather strongly about the Amendment. It seems to me that the whole Bill is presented by the Government to bring the question of betting up to date and in line with the need of modern requirements. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment is out of touch with the Bill as a whole. I do not see why pools should be limited. I do not believe that the public want them to be limited. A certain amount of the glamour of the pools would be lost by a limitation of this nature. I do not suggest that betting is necessarily a good thing. I do not do the pools myself, but to the average man in the street the excitement of possibly winning a large sum of money is glamorous. Possibly pool betting would decrease, and therefore the Government would lose a certain amount of revenue, if a limitation were imposed.
I am under the impression that people who win large sums on the pools do not necessarily squander them. Committees of experts are arranged by the big pool companies whose advice and opinion can be given to winners of large sums of money, I understand that most people who win these sums invest the money wisely and do not fritter it away. Bookmakers give enormous odds for the first three horses in a race, and we might as well ask bookmakers to limit the amount of money which they pay out.

351
For all these reasons and because limitation would be unpopular, this is not a good Amendment and I am strongly opposed to it.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a word in favour of the Amendment, particularly because I felt that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was incompatible with the whole object of the Bill, which is to place certain restraints on this form of activity. He was, in effect, arguing that it should be left completely free for people to do what they like in regard to the running of betting businesses. The whole philosophy of the Bill is that within limits it is the sort of business which should be checked and controlled in the interests of the public as a whole. I should have thought that the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Uvedale of North End, was well within the scope of that sort of outlook. Fifty thousand pounds is a very large prize. As my noble friend pointed out, in the case of the Irish Sweep it was found, after a good deal of experience, reasonable to limit the prize. My noble friend has made a good proposition for a limitation of this kind, which is within the general policy of the Bill.
5.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I approach this matter from a slightly different angle from those hitherto adopted. The position is that the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which reported in 1951, devoted a chapter to football pool betting, and in paragraph 321 recommended a number of detailed controls and restrictions upon the conduct of such competitions. These recommendations, with exceptions and variations, were carried into effect by the Pool Betting Act, 1954, which was the result of a Bill introduced into the House of Commons by a Private Member. Although the Royal Commission had reported in favour of the principle which the Amendment exemplifies, that was not one of the matters that was put into effect by the Act of 1954. The position was that not only the mover of the Bill, but the House of Commons, addressed their minds to this matter and decided not to insert this limitation. Whichever view is right, it is clear that it is a highly controversial matter as to whether
352
there should be a limit. I should have thought that it is by no means certain that the people who take part in football pools, notwithstanding what the Royal Commission said, are mainly or even largely averse to the possibility of the payment of large prizes. Everyone has agreed on the psychological diagnosis of this matter, including Lord Uvedale of North End, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Foley. It is the perpetual "Cinderella" story in human nature that a person loves to imagine that he may be the one to whom the fairy godmother appears. I shall not pursue that analogy. I merely say that it is one of the psychological stimulants which produces this popularity. It would be interesting to pursue it and see whether it really affected the appearance of the fairy godmother that she would be able to provide only the dress and not a coach. We will not, however, pursue that enchanting line of speculation any further.
The Government feel that this Bill is not a proper vehicle for the making of a major Amendment to the Pool Betting Act on so important and controversial a topic. The purposes of the Bill are to provide for the establishment of licensed betting offices and to enact a new code for gaming. It is not concerned with the control of football pool betting, which was dealt with by the Act of 1954. It is true that I may be met with the debating answer that the House of Commons decided to insert into the Bill two new clauses, Clauses 13 and 14, which make minor Amendments to the 1954 Act. They are, however, very minor Amendments dealing with a point of almost infinitesimal narrowness. The proposal in the House of Commons to add two other clauses amending the 1954 Act was resisted by the Government, on the ground that they dealt with more important matters that were outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not want to enter into the controversy between my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley on the merits of the matter, but I think that if the Pool Betting Act, 1954, is regarded as unsatisfactory, the proper method of dealing with it would be by the introduction of fresh legislation about pools expressly for the purpose. I remember that in the House of Commons (my

353
noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will remember it, too) the first time the subject of football pools came up was on a Private Member's Motion on a Friday. As everyone who has been in the House of Commons knows, the difficulty on a Friday is usually to keep a quorum. On that day, every seat was occupied: people were crowding the gangways, and the interest was immense. Whoever is right, this is a subject of enormous popular interest. If we were seriously to regulate—and this Amendment would seriously regulate—it should be done by legislation directed to pools and not by a side wind in a different Bill.
That is not so hopeless as the argument about waiting for further legislation usually appears, because the 1954 Act was the result of a Private Member's Bill. It was introduced, if my memory is right, by Mr. Mulley. Therefore, if there was a feeling that there should be a change, it could be done by a Private Member's Bill; and there would be a lot to be said for it. It is, however, a matter of such popular importance and interest that at ought to be done by legislation directed to the point and, as I say, not by a side wind in a different Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is interesting of the noble and learned Viscount to dangle before our eyes the carrot of hoping to achieve an amendment by means of a Private Member's Bill. Of course, hope springs eternal in the breasts of those who introduce Private Members' Bill; but their hopes are often frustrated, especially if the Government do not extend a blessing to the measure which is introduced. The principal point which has been raised in opposition to this Amendment is that it is a matter of acute controversy. It is perfectly true that divergent views have been expressed in this House this afternoon, but I have no evidence that it would be a matter of acute controversy in the country generally. Nobody is proposing in this Amendment to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, of the opportunity of filling in his football pool coupon. There is nothing of that kind in it. It can be said that one of the results of this Amendment would be to increase the number of prizes which would be available, and to increase the chances of winning a prize of a substantial
354
amount, instead of having the money concentrated in a prize of perhaps £250,000. So I am not at all sure that there would be any adverse criticism on the part of the general public; indeed, there might be a lot of support for it.
I want to remind the noble and learned Viscount of the principle which underlies this Bill—that although betting is something which cannot be stopped and which must be tolerated, at the same time it is not desired to increase the temptations to betting. I ask him to look at the sides of London buses which have plastered upon them the amount of the maximum winnings in a football pool. It is quite obvious that in the minds of those who pay far those advertisements—they probably understand their own business very well—they contribute to the attraction to a number of people, who never calculate what the real odds are, to fill up more and more football coupons.
LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement. I found him sympathetic to every view that has been expressed—which is only the right thing. But after showing sympathy with every word put forward he has finally to make up his own mind on this issue. I can only hope that he will make up his mind in the direction of this Amendment, which I now beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Gaming machines]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MANCROFT: May I say a word or two on the Motion that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill? This is the clause which is connected principally with gaming machines—that is, with such things as the fruit machine, colloquially known as the "One-armed bandit". There have been one or two rather disturbing articles in the newspapers of late, principally in the Sunday Pictorial of May 8, and in the People a week or two earlier, suggesting that a rather unsavoury racket is liable to break out upon the introduction legally of fruit machines into clubs and other places. If I understand it correctly—I have checked some of these facts and

355
it appears that there is some substance in this complaint—there are going to be rather unsavoury gentlemen buying enormous numbers of fruit machines from abroad who will plant them into all the little clubs which, it is expected, will take them and operate them as soon as this Bill becomes law.
I understand that the racketeering will be run on Transatlantic lines, in this way. While the clause lays down that the profits from the machines should be used for purposes other than private gain—that is, for the benefit of the club—in practice the owners of the machines will be able to demand a rent for their hire. It is suggested that certain strong-arm methods which have been used by undesirable characters in other places will be used to extort rents from innocent hirers of these machines—and very considerable rents at that. I understand that this has been a fairly typical practice in America, where it has given much trouble to the authorities. I think it would be most undesirable if it arose in this country. I must apologise to my noble and learned friend for having given him shamefully short notice that I was going to raise this point. There is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and therefore I can do no more than ask him if he will look into this matter between now and the next stage, to see whether these reports are well or ill-founded; and, if they are well-founded, to see whether some precautions cannot be inserted into the Bill to prevent what is normally a pretty harmless and innocent amusement developing into a most undesirable racket.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly give an undertaking to keep a careful watch not only on the operation of Clause 17 after the Bill has passed into law, but on the foundation of the fears of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I am aware that some concern has been expressed about this clause; but as my noble friend says, its purpose is to legalise the practice whereby fruit machines are installed in such places as golf clubs and the profits are devoted to the funds of the club. But after the warning that we have had, we shall take steps to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the trepidation which my
356
noble friends express. I do not think I can say any more at the moment, except that I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised the point.
LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for dominoes and cribbage on licensed premises, etc.
".—(1) Section eighteen of this Act shall not apply to the playing of dominoes or cribbage—

(a) on premises in respect of which there is for the time being in force a justices' on-licence granted under the Licensing Act, 1953, or a hotel certificate or public house certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act. 1959; or

(b) on premises in any district specified in Part I of the Ninth Schedule to the said Act of 1953 or in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the said Act of 1959 which are being used for the sale on behalf of the Secretary of State of intoxicating or, as the case may be, excisable liquor for consumption on those premises.

(2) The licensing justices for any licensing district within the meaning of the said Act of 1953, or the licensing court for any licensing area within the meaning of the said Act of 1959. may at any time, if in the case of any particular premises such as aforesaid situated within that district or area they think fit to do by order impose such requirements or restrictions with respect to the playing of the said games on any part of those premises to which the public have access as they consider necessary to secure that the games are not played on that part of the premises in such circumstances as to constitute an inducement to persons to resort thereto primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming at those games and that any such gamine on that part of the premises does not take place for high stakes.
(3) The justices or court aforesaid may at any time by a further order vary or revoke any previous order made under this section.
(4) An order under this section with respect to any premises shall come into force upon notice thereof being given—

(a) in the case of premises such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to the person who is for a time being the holder of the licence or certificate aforesaid in respect of those premises;

(b) in the case of premises such as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, to the Secretary of State,

357
and the justices or court shall send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; and, subject to any further order varying or revoking it, the order shall continue in force so long as the premises continue to be premises such as are mentioned in the said subsection (1).
(5) Section one hundred and sixty-six of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of that Act to the Isles of Scilly) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the functions of the licensing justices under Part VII of that Act included a reference to the functions of those justices under this section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: With your Lordships' consent, and with the approval of the Lord Chairman, perhaps we might consider Amendments Nos. 25 and 32, although of course No. 25 will be the one that will be strictly before the Committee. These are the Amendments which introduce the saving for dominoes and cribbage. I do not suppose that there is any great feeling on this point, and therefore I will explain only two aspects of the matter. One is the method that it is suggested should be used, which is unusual in gaming provisions, of naming the two games. The reason for that was that we have, in our consultations, consulted the Magistrates' Association on the alternatives. One was to name, and the other was to leave it to the different benches of magistrates. The Magistrates' Association felt that that would be undesirable and would lead to great difficulties and differences between, it may be, neighbouring, benches. So we have taken the rather unusual step of naming the two games.
With regard to dominoes I do not think that even in a House of saints, as your Lordships have proclaimed yourselves to be, there are any of your Lordships who will indignantly deny ever having played dominoes, so I do not think I need say any more on that. I confess that I am not an expert in cribbage, but I am told that it is fairly widely played for money in public houses; and although it is a card game it is one which appears to be easily distinguishable from other card games by its rules and by the manner of scoring on a special board, so that I do not think there will be much difficulty about identification.
The other matter that I wanted your Lordships to have in mind is that one of our reasons for not using this method
358
of naming games is that it is sometimes possible to invent games similar to those that are named. There is a long history, over centuries, of that being done. I do not think it is important here, but it might happen that in a particular distict or public-house they may have got into the habit of playing dominoes or cribbage for high stakes; and if it got about that it was encouraged in that house it would not only be a bad thing in itself but bad for the purposes of the house, as a public-house and a place where people could meet, drink and talk. We have therefore put in subsection (2) which gets round the difficulty by enabling the justices to impose requirements or restrictions upon the playing of these games if the gaming gets out of hand. That could happen where the game was played for high stakes or became such a popular attraction as to supplant the original purpose of the house. Subsection (2) has been put in so that in those circumstances the magistrates could attach conditions.
That leaves entirely unaffected the gaming which can take place in a separate room to which the public have no access. In these circumstances I do not think I need go into any further detail. I shall be pleased to answer any points on this rather lengthy Amendment which any noble Lords may wish to put. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I have no feeling whatever about this Amendment. If somebody wants to play dominoes or cribbage in a public-house I see no particular reason why we should prevent him from doing it. In another place there was some discussion as to whether dominoes (which I must confess I have not played in my time) was a game of skill or a game of chance. But are dominoes a game at all? I always thought that dominoes were the implements with which the game was played and that each particular piece of wood, bone or other material, was a domino. I imagine that one can use these implements, or "dominoes" as I prefer to call them, in a variety of ways. Does not this new clause rather assume that there is only one game of dominoes

359
played, and that underlying the Amendment is the assumption that it is partly a game of skill and that people will play it according to the rules with which the noble and learned Viscount or I were brought up?
There is no reason why people should do so, however. They can invent their own rules and make it a pure game of chance—and even if that were so I should not myself feel very strongly about it. But I doubt whether that was the intention. I believe that underlying it was doubt of the extent to which it was a game of skill, and therefore I presume that the Government have thought it right to allow people to play this game in public-houses. I should be very glad if the Government would have another look at this clause. It may be merely a matter of drafting. If they wish to do so, it might be necessary to provide a safeguard to ensure that the game does not deteriorate into a game of pure chance. As for cribbage, I must say that I know nothing at all about the game. The noble and learned Viscount says it is a game in which cards are used. I take it from him. I was not aware of it.
LORD CONESFORD: I am worried about this clause from a rather different point of view. It seems to me that a clause of this length, solemnly setting out provisions about dominoes and cribbage, gives an indication of where we are getting to in this type of legislalation. I shall certainly not oppose the Amendment that my noble friend has moved. The addition of this new clause is a great improvement on the prohibition contained in Clause 18, but it is also a sign of how far Clause 18 is wrong.
Are the British public so incapable of behaving like adults that they have to be told what games they are to be allowed to play in public-houses? To me the idea is in itself slightly offensive. I believe the Amendment arises—and my noble and learned friend will tell me later if I am wrong—from the drafting of Clause 18 as it stands, containing the general prohibition of gaming. I will read the beginning of that clause:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, if any person takes part in gaming in any street or in other public place to which … the public have access, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty Pounds."
360
If we then look at the Definition Clause (Clause 27), we find that
"'gaming' means the playing of a game of chance for winnings in money or money's worth."
and that:
"'game of chance' includes a game of chance and skill combined and a pretended game of chance or of chance and skill combined, but does not include any athletic game or sport."
I am not sure if darts escapes as being a game or sport—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Pure skill.
LORD CONESFORD: I agree. I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend that dominoes and cribbage shall be excluded, as they are excluded by his new Amendment. But why those games alone? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think "dominoes" describes both the game and the pieces with which it is played; and I believe that those who play dominoes quite frequently challenge somebody else to a game of dominoes and ask what variety they are to play. If the noble Lord has never played the game before I would take him on in the variety known as "Fives"; and if he has never played it before he will find that there is a certain amount of skill in it. Equally, I should be prepared, if he has never played the game before—or even if he has—to take him on at backgammon.
Why on earth should one not play backgammon in a public-house if one wishes? Is it really to be said that the great British public must be restrained from doing so? I find it offensive to the nation that it should be thought necessary to pass this type of legislation. I agree with my noble and learned friend that it may be very convenient to the magistrates, if they have to enforce Clause 18, to have the actual games mentioned that are excepted beyond all doubt from the mischief of that clause. But I cannot believe that these are the only two games which the British public ought to be allowed to play in a public-house if they so wish.
I do not know what is the basic philosophy on which that view is based. I think there may be a great deal in the further provisions of the clause, which my noble and learned friend justified, to ensure that the game should

361
not be made, by excessive stakes or anything, the main attraction of the house so as to destroy the traditional pleasures of the public-house. That safeguard could operate even if many other games were permitted. I was sorely tempted, when I saw this clause, to add the words, "or backgammon or any other game", in order that the Government could really see what some of us thought on this subject and could state quite clearly what is the philosophy behind the restriction. I do not wish to weary the Committee. I agree that this new Amendment is an improvement on Clause 18 standing alone. Clause 18, standing alone, would obviously produce ridiculous results, if it hit the innocent pleasure of dominoes in a public-house. But I say that the exceptions are altogether too narrow and that the whole conception of this part of the Bill is insulting to the British public.
LORD STONHAM: I find myself enjoying the somewhat rare luxury of agreeing in almost every particular with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. But I think that even he will agree that much of what he said, although, I think, completely indisputable, is a little beyond the terms of this Amendment. I, too, welcome the Government's Amendment and wish that it went further. I think that the basic philosophy of this clause is based on the single word, "Don't"— "Don't do this", and "Don't do that". I wish it had gone very much further.
On this question raised by my noble friend about domino and dominoes, I always understood that a domino was a mask, and the word "dominoes" originated from the holes in the mask. I suppose that a domino is a single dot and dominoes are those with more than one dot—though I am not quite sure that that is right. My only purpose in intervening is to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question. Does subsection (1) (a) of the proposed new clause permit the playing of dominoes or cribbage on railway trains? We all know, particularly those of us who at one time played football or cricket and went on long railway journeys with the team, that those were the sort of simple amusements—playing cards—which whiled away the time. It may not have been cribbage that was played. It used to be pontoon and solo whist and games of
362
that kind. I suppose we played—I think we did—for penny and halfpenny points.
I want to know, because people, I am quite sure, will continue to play cards on railway trains whether or not this new clause makes that legal. And if it does not, would the noble and learned Viscount consider just looking at this particular point between now and the Report stage to ensure that something which is generally accepted as being quite harmless (unless you are going down to Epsom on a race train), or is usually quite harmless, is covered, and make the playing of these games, or, indeed, the playing of card games, on railway trains legal? Could he say whether this question is covered, and, if it is not, would he look at it again to see whether it can be covered at the next stage of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the last point, I should like to look into that question because I have not considered the effect of the various railway legislation on that point. I will certainly look into it, with pleasure, and I will let the noble Lord know. On the general point, the philosophy behind the clause is an extremely rare philosophy: it is the humble realisation of the limitations of human ingenuity possessed by Her Majesty's Ministers in this House or, at any rate, by the noble Earl and myself. And the limitation of which I have been very conscious is how to get any definition of the intermediate category.
Obviously, games of pure skill come in; then there are games of chance, which I do not think many people would like to see played generally in public-houses. This is my own view. I should not like to see the ordinary village pub devoted to poker in a big way, or even vingt-et-un in a big way, although there would be a harmless game of vingt-et-un occasionally. If one had definite poker schools and vingt-et-un schools settling down in the ordinary English public-house, it would not remain the public-house which one has known and loved in this country. There is the intermediate class between those categories which is so difficult to define. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford may disagree with me about vingt-et-un; I do not think he would disagree about poker: I think he would take the same instinctive view. But how do we define the class which is a game of chance, or

363
mixed skill and chance, but is harmless? How does one get the category? That is the problem that absolutely defeated us, and that is why the Amendment has been made in this way.
I think I have inferentially dealt with one aspect of the supreme doubts of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford. Again, it is equally difficult to define it. As I say, there is a class of games that one would just feel was out of keeping and therefore wrong. I do not think I can help him any further than that; and I am grateful to know that, at any rate on this Amendment, he feels that I am not sinning in the way mentioned and am moving a little way towards him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Local Authorities not to subsidise premises for gaming
21. It is hereby declared that nothing contained in section one hundred and thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1948, or in any local or private act shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise any premises solely or partly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the playing of games for money therein.
5.39 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved to leave out "solely or partly" and to insert, "wholly or mainly". The noble Earl said: It might be convenient to your Lordships, with the Lord Chairman's permission, to take this and the next Amendment together. The object of this clause, which was added to the Bill in another place, is to prevent the establishment of a casino by a local authority. We had considerable discussion about that matter on Second Reading, and this Amendment is the one to which I referred at that time. As commonly understood, the term "casino" applies to a method of organised gaming adopted in some of the holiday resorts upon the Continent. The characteristics of these are; first, that the public are admitted; and, secondly, that the management meet the cost of the facilities provided, and commercial profit is made either by their operating a bank which has an unfair advantage over the players, or by their taking a "cut" on the stakes. The successful casino must obviously encourage large stakes to be laid, in order
364
that they can take their "cut" out of those stakes. An establishment conducted on these lines would be contrary to Part II of the Bill in two respects. The conduct of gaming in premises to which the public have access is contrary to Clause 18; and either of the methods I have just described, by which the management can take money out of the gaming, is contrary to Clause 16, subsection (1). Theoretically, it would be possible under the Bill to organise casino-type games among members of a club, but the likelihood of a profit being made by the making of a fixed charge for each session of gaming by virtue of Clause 16, subsection (7), seems so small that the commercial exploitation of gaming within the terms of the Bill can be discounted.
There remains the possibility that a local authority, in a holiday resort or elsewhere, might think it worth while to subsidise a casino to attract people to the locality. One of the obstacles to such an arrangement would be that the public could not be admitted it would be necessary to form a club which anyone who wished to take part in the gaming would have to attend. The only general power under which a local authority might perhaps be able to incur expenditure out of the rates for such a purpose is Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948. Under this, a local authority may arrange for the doing of, do, or contribute towards the expenses of the doing of, anything necessary or expedient for, inter alia, "the provision of an entertainment of any nature". Two questions arise on this: first, whether the provision of facilities for gaming would be included under the provision of an entertainment" which I have just mentioned; and, secondly, if so, whether the power is applicable to the provision of an entertainment which is not available to the public generally. As I have said, a club would have to be formed. The answers to these questions are not certain.
In another place they were concerned that this possibility should not be allowed to remain open, and on the Report stage the Government accepted an Amendment moved by a member of the Opposition Front Bench that Clause 21 should be added to the Bill. It was agreed that the words in the clause go

365
too far in preventing the provision by local authorities of facilities for legitimate activities, and the clause was added on the understanding that it would need to be amended, as I mentioned on Second Reading. Since then, the Home Office have consulted the local authority associations, and have obtained particulars of the ways in which local authorities legitimately provide facilities for gaming.
The clause declares that nothing contained in Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, or in any local or private Act shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise any premises solely or partly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the playing of games for money therein. The reference in line 31 of this Bill should, of course, be to gaming—the phrase "playing of games for money" covers games of pure skill, as well as those covered by the definition of "gaming" in the Bill—and we have been hearing a little of that from my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack and from my noble friend Lord Conesford. This point is taken care of in the opening words of the second Amendment. Apart from this, the clause goes too far in so far as it applies to premises partly maintained for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for gaming. If the word "partly" were kept in the clause, one result would be to prohibit such facilities as the provision of a card room in a municipally-owned golf club house; or the letting of a room in a town hall or municipal assembly room to a bridge club or to a church for the holding of a whist drive. In local authority premises where this kind of gaming occurs, however, the gaming is only one of a number of activities which are carried on. The clause can thus be made not to apply in these circumstances by the substitution of "mainly" for "partly". This is what the first Amendment does. The clause as so amended would still, however, cover the hypothetical local authority casino since, even though meals or other refreshments might be served at such a place, the gaming would be the main activity there and thus would be caught by the clause.
The clause as amended by the first Amendment would still cover one activity of local authorities which is a
366
legitimate one. At many seaside resorts, the local authority maintains premises—for example, on the pier—which are used for the minor form of gaming covered by Part III of the Bill under the title of "Amusements with prizes". Such premises are maintained wholly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for gaming, and would therefore be covered by the clause even with the change proposed in the first Amendment. The second Amendment exempts such premises from its operation, and allows such premises as piers and other legitimate premises run by a local authority to continue, I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 29, leave out ("solely or partly") and insert ("wholly or mainly").—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD SILKIN: I must say that the explanation of these two Amendments is completely above my head. I will not say that I have not understood a word of it, but I have understood very little; and in order to appreciate it, one will have to read it in Hansard and study it. But I presume that the idea is to make it more difficult for local authorities to run casinos.
EARL BATHURST: No. If the noble Lord will allow me, the clause as it exists forbids a local authority to run a casino of the type that I have mentioned. I regret that it must be so complicated, but I am sure that the noble Lord opposite appreciates that so many legal terms are necessary to stop infringement. The point of the Amendment is that, because local authorities are forbidden to run the type of casino that I have mentioned, they are also forbidden to run such activities as a card room in a golf club, and to use the pier for gaming machines, under Part III, which I also mentioned. The purpose of these two rather technical Amendments is to put those particular provisions right.
LORD SILKIN: I was rather wondering whether, in view of that, it would not be a good thing if we could discuss these Amendments together with my Amendment to Clause 21.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that we did consider this point, but I can assure the noble Lord that the making of our Amendments does not

367
in any way prejudice his plea for a casino. The Amendments that my noble friend has just dealt with make three relaxations. One would have to make much greater relaxations before it would be possible to have a casino, so they do not prejudice the noble Lord's position.
LORD STONHAM: That rather confirms a point that I was going to put: that is, that the use of the words "wholly or mainly" would not merely permit the use of a room in a town hall as a bridge room, but would surely permit the use of a casino in a building such as, for example, the Tower building at Blackpool, where they have a zoo, a theatre, an innumerable number of bars, a ballroom and all sorts of attractions like that. If they decided to convert one part of one floor into a casino, then the purpose of that building would be neither wholly nor mainly that of a casino, but it would be possible to carry on a fully-fledged casino there. In the same way, Brighton now has before it—in fact, it has been approved—a scheme costing something like £5 million for the provision of facilities of all sorts, including a restaurant and cinema. They could put a casino there which might occupy one-tenth or one-fifth of the entire project. I should have thought that, all things being equal, that would be permissible under these two Amendments but, as the noble and learned Viscount said, would not prejudice the possibility of the acceptance of the Amendment which my noble friend hopes to move later.
LORD MANCROFT: I am getting very confused over this matter. On Second Reading I supported the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that there would be little harm in allowing a municipality, or its agents, to run a legitimate and proper casino, well-ordered. I had in mind the sort of casino we see at Cannes or Deauville. I imagine that is what the noble Lord is driving at in this modestly worded Amendment No. 28. Can the noble and learned Viscount tell me this at the moment? Will it or will it not be legal, when the Bill becomes an Act, for a municipality to run a casino in the ordinary sense of the word as we understand it? And will the Act be so worded that it will be worthwhile, or not worthwhile, for a municipality to try its hand? I
368
see that the mayor and corporation of Eastbourne have announced that they are prepared to give a casino a trial if this Bill becomes law. But will it be worth while trying it, or will it be so wrapped round with provisos and safeguards as to make the game not worth the candle?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend Lord Mancroft is asking me to give an economic opinion about the possibility of making money out of casinos, I am afraid that is beyond my experience, ministerial and otherwise. The noble Lord will find that I tried to deal with this matter on Second Reading and that my noble friend Lord Bathurst dealt with it also. Putting the position broadly, under our gaming scheme if you have a banker or a roulette with a zero or take a "cut" from the stakes, it is out. The ordinary methods by which money is made out of casinos by the bankers' chances being better than other people's or by the much simpler one of taking a share of the takings, are not available under the Bill.
There is a possibility that local authorities may think that, even though they cannot pay for a casino out of gaming, it is still worth their while to pay for it out of the rates because they would get so many more people coming to their town if they could gamble there. That was the possibility that was opened and that was why Clause 21 was put in. But it was realised that Clause 21 had gone too widely and therefore my noble friend Lord Bathurst has moved these Amendments. I will willingly examine whether the "wholly or mainly" is subject to the doubts which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had. I did not think so, but I am always prepared to look again at a definition, and the noble Lord conjured up some circumstances at which I should like to look again. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the relaxations mainly provide for things that are necessary for the running by an ordinary seaside municipality of a card game or a competition for prizes. They do not affect or prejudice the thesis which he will make on the next Amendment—namely, that they should be allowed to have casinos.
LORD COLWYN: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in what he

369
said? I cannot understand why we cannot get a real decision about these casinos. If you go into the Palm Beach Casino at Cannes or the Sporting Club at Monte Carlo, you will find many Members of your Lordships' House and of another place. I cannot see why we cannot come to some arrangement in this country to have some form of controlled gambling, which is a good thing for the State.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out line 31 and insert ("purpose of taking part in gaming:
Provided that this section shall not apply where the gaming is by way only of amusements with prizes and the premises are premises in respect of which a permit for the provision thereon of such amusements has been granted, and is for the time being in force, under the Third Schedule to this Act,")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that a local authority may, subject to such regulations for the management and control of such premises as may be prescribed, maintain or subsidise such premises if after a poll of persons on the register of local government electors in such local authority the majority of such electors express their approval at such poll of the local authority maintaining or subsidising such premises."
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment, I am afraid that I part company with some of my noble friends with whom I have been associated on other parts of the Bill. I regard this as an important Amendment and one which, if it is not fundamental to the Bill, at any rate represents an important issue for a number of local authorities throughout the country. I have been assured by the noble and learned Viscount that this is a proper Amendment, in spite of the fact that Clause 21 contains a declaration that Section 132 of the Local Government Act cannot be deemed to authorise the running of a casino. My purpose in this Amendment is to authorise local authorities to run casinos, if they so desire and if the majority of the electorate in a poll so decide.
I am not going to argue at length in this thin House the material advantages that would accrue to a great many areas if they were able to run casinos. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is quite right. I have seen a number of noble Lords at the casino in Monte Carlo, and quite recently in Nice; and it may be that if they were able to go to a casino at Eastbourne, it might keep them from going abroad. A number of local authorities would like to run casinos for the purpose of attracting people to their areas. It is perfectly legitimate that they should. It is not as if we were objecting to gaming in this Bill. We permit betting shops, lotteries, gambling by means of machines and gaming in all sorts of ways. It seems to me that having gaming in an establishment run by a local authority, which provides some kind of guarantee that it will be run properly and fairly, is much less objectionable than the betting shops, the runners and all the rest of it.
As I say, there are two safeguards in the Amendment. One is that the majority of the electors on the local government register have to agree: by that I do not mean merely a majority of those who vote, but an absolute majority of all those on the register. Those of your Lordships who have had some experience of local polls will know that this would require some getting. The normal local poll is perhaps 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of the total electors, and there would have to be exceedingly strong feeling to get a majority of the electors in support of any particular scheme. But if you got that, and if the local authority wanted to run it, what possible objection could there be? After all, we pride ourselves on our system of local government and claim that we give local authorities the maximum amount of freedom to manage their own affairs. What objection can there be if the majority of the electors want to run a casino in their area?
In case it may be alleged that they might become institutions for gambling, the second safeguard in this Amendment is that the Home Secretary can prescribe regulations which would ensure that they would not be run improperly. I imagine that he could prescribe regulations as to the times during which play could take place, as to maximum stakes, as to

371
supply of alcohol, and any other safeguards that he thought desirable. One has to admit that the ordinary pavilion (or whatever these places of assembly are called) in the seaside towns are exceedingly dreary affairs. Occasionally there is a concert in the evening, or some other function; but mostly they are white elephants. Nobody would dream of spending much time in one of these institutions. This would, at any rate, give an opportunity of getting them used by a greater number of people, and for their greater enjoyment. People who go to these casinos abroad do not go to gamble: they go for the conviviality, for the lights, for the atmosphere, for the opportunity of meeting other people and that sort of thing.
After all, in a British seaside town there is precious little to do in the evening. You can walk up and down the promenade, if you feel so disposed and the weather is favourable, or you can go to a cinema, and sometimes to a concert. But what is there really to do? On the rare occasions when I have spent a holiday at a seaside resort I have found myself more and more having to spend my time in the hotel reading a book—which in itself is quite a novelty these days, when one gets so little time to read. The purpose of going to these casinos is, as I have said, to get a change and a little lightness and brightness. It is not to win money, because nobody who goes to these places really imagines he is going to win any money. Certainly on the kind of stakes that I imagine the Home Secretary might prescribe there would not be any great winnings or losses.
I hope that, in spite of the fact that the Government introduced Clause 21 on the Report stage in another place, they will preserve an open mind on this subject. As I said at the outset of my speech, I am sorry that this is being considered in such a thin Committee, and if the noble and learned Viscount would be prepared to give me some hope that the Government would be willing to consider the matter, it might be worth putting the Amendment down again on the Report stage with a view to getting a better attendance and, presumably, a better discussion. This is something which a great many seaside authorities have expressed their desire to do, if it
372
is possible. I do not want to mention particular resorts, but I have seen the names of something like a dozen seaside resorts that would like to do it. And it is not confined to seaside resorts, because there are inland resorts, where conditions are even drearier in the evening, where something of this kind would be welcome. I move this Amendment in the hope that it may get some sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have explained twice the history of this matter. The Government accepted this clause—as I have said, it came from the Front Opposition Bench, but this is not a Party matter—and it was obviously the sense of another place that it was desirable to have a prohibition against casinos. That in itself is an important fact. The general principle that I enunciated on Second Reading with regard to the gaming part of the Bill is that it is the aim of the Bill to free private gaming for pleasure from restriction but at the same time to make unlawful any practice by which large profits might be made from the commercial exploitation of gaming. I feel that there would still be a great body of opinion in this country which would be against what they would consider to be a form of commercial exploitation, even though it were done by a seaside corporation.
LORD SILKIN: Even though the majority of the people on the register supported it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to come to that point, but I will deal with it right away. There are a large number of people in this country who would say that so fundamental a change in the British way of life as to institute Continental casinos is not a matter for local option, but one to be decided by Parliament. The noble Lord has given the picture. But, on the other hand, if you take the ordinary games that could be played in a Continental casino, you have roulette or baccarat—those are the ones that are caught by the unfair advantage rule—and then you have a game like chemin de fer, in which the players have equal chances but the management take a cut in the stake. I

373
think the noble Lord's interruption has reduced it to the real point. The question is whether Parliament wishes to have places for the playing of such games maintained in this country on the decision of a poll of local government electors. I do not think that this is an issue which ought to be settled by means of a local referendum. This is an issue which should be determined by Parliament, and whatever may be the views of a few people, the Government cannot think that the establishment of casinos in this country, whether they are established by private persons or local authorities, would be acceptable to the majority of public opinion. For that reason they are strongly opposed to anything being included in the Bill which could have this result.
I always like to help Lord Silkin to have another chance on Report stage, and I agree with him that it is unfortunate that we are discussing the Committee stage in the last hour or two before a break, because had we had a debate in which more noble Lords had taken part and which had received greater publicity, he might have been able to rally public opinion, or produce to rue evidence of public opinion before the Report stage. But I am bound to tell him that at the moment, on the view of public opinion which is the best that we can form, what I have expressed is our own estimate of public opinion; and therefore we are against the inclusion in the Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think it would be right to make it clear that not all Members on this side of the House agree with my noble friend's proposal. I hope it will not go out into the minds of the general public from what my noble friend has said, and what the noble Lord on the other side has said, that if you go into the well-known casinos on the Continent you are bound to find a lot of Members either of this House or the other place. That, I think, is far from being correct.
LORD SILKIN: I did not say a lot of Members. I have been to both Monte Carlo and Nice. I do not go very often to these places, but I have always seen some Members there.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think it was the noble Lord on the other
374
side who suggested that they were numerous. Even so, I think it is improbable that you will find them there always. My noble friend said that there were some material advantages to be had out of this. I confess that I cannot see what they are, and I do not know what moral advantages would be had out of it. My noble friend said that seaside resorts and other resorts were dreary places, and that casinos were places of conviviality. My experience of casinos is extremely limited, but I shall never forget one morning going into the casino at Monte Carlo and seeing seated at the table a number of habituées of the place concentrated upon this in the most deadly seriousness, having notebooks in which they were running systems out of which they hoped to win. There was nothing convivial about that sight at all; it was the most dreary and depressing one which I have ever seen in any supposed place of entertainment. I agree that there are probably other times of the day when the place may have a more cheerful aspect. But that is certainly something which ought to be borne in mind.
It is a different thing for people who are going to the Continent to have a holiday. I dare say they go into the casino in the evening and stake some money occasionally, and do not care whether they win or lose. Anyhow, they do not go to the Continent for that purpose alone. There are many other purposes which induce them to go there. It is quite a mistake to suggest that any Continental traffic is going to be prevented from going there because some seaside resorts in this country have a casino. The whole thing, I say, with all respect, is a fallacy.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Lottery tickets
". After paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section one of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956 there shall be added the following paragraph—
'(bb) No commission in either money or money's worth shall be paid to vendors or distributors of tickets.'"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the two following Amendments are designed to correct some deficiencies and imperfections in the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956. The first Amendment which I am now moving is to prevent the payment of commission to vendors or distributors of tickets. Under the Act as it now stands there is a provision by which a certain amount of the money received may be used for the purpose of expenses. The idea which underlay that was that a certain amount of money was needed in order to pay for the printing of the tickets, and things of that nature. I do not believe that it was ever intended, when the Act was passed, that commission should be paid for selling tickets, but I am told that it is quite frequently done. The underlying principle of the Act was that it was for the benefit of small or private associations to enable them to raise money for good purposes; and the assumption was that the members were public-spirited people who were doing it for that purpose and were not going to make any money out of it themselves. But practice has shown that that is not the way in which the Act operates, and therefore I would ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment to prevent the payment of commission upon the sale of tickets. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. He will remember that the purposes of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, which was the result of a Bill introduced in another place by a private Member, made lawful a lottery which is promoted on behalf of a society registered by the local authority, being a society established and conducted wholly or mainly for one of the following purposes:

"(a) charitable purposes;

(b) participation in or support of athletic sports or games or cultural activities;

(c) purposes not described in the foregoing paragraphs, and not being purposes of private gain or purposes of any commercial undertaking. …"

The Small Lotteries and Gaming Act was a small Act, but it was of immense importance socially, politically and
376
athletically. It was asked for in another place by a wide range of people, including many members of the Labour Party, who thought that, with the limitations, it would be useful to have, just as it would be useful to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal Party.
The Act laid down that no remuneration was to be paid to the promoter; no ticket may cost more than one shilling, and the total value of the tickets sold may not exceed £750; not more than 10 per cent. of the proceeds may be devoted to expenses, and not more than one half to prizes; no prize may exceed £100 in value. So that one is dealing with gaming in a small way. There is the additional requirement that the promoter of the lottery must send to the local authority which has registered the society a return of the lottery giving various particulars, which include the whole proceeds of the lottery and the sums provided out of those proceeds on account of expenses and prizes respectively. Those returns must be made to the local authority at their office and must be made available for inspection by the public.
I am quite aware of, and I have read, the Report recently made to the Churches' Council on Gambling by its General Secretary on an investigation into the working of this Act. The investigation was made by a scrutiny of the returns made to a sample of local authorities. I assume that it was that report which inspired the noble Lord to put down this Amendment. On the question of the remuneration of those who sell tickets, I am told that it is not infrequent in the case of lotteries conducted under the Act for remuneration to be paid to the ticket sellers in the form of a commission of so much on every book of tickets sold. Your Lordships appreciate from what I have said that, although commission may be paid, the Act imposes a degree of restraint in so far as the commission will be included in the expenses of conducting the lottery, which must not exceed 10 per cent. of the proceeds.
Where my information is different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is this—and I think it is an important point. I am told it was a deliberate decision of Parliament in 1956 that it should be possible to pay commission to ticket sellers; that they

377
considered the recommendation of the Royal Commission and that they implemented the first part but not the second. The question of the payment of commission to ticket sellers was discussed during the passage of the Bill but the decision was not to include any prohibition, and the limit of the total of expenses, which began at 5 per cent., was raised first to 7½ per cent. and then to 10 per cent., to cover the commission to the ticket sellers. That is only four years ago. I do think again that this is the sort of matter that we could leave to a special amendment of the Small Lotteries Act by another Private Member's Bill. It is outside the two main purposes of this Bill, and we are really dealing with something that has no element of commercial gambling so far as I know, except this one point: that the people who sell the tickets can get a commission on them. I do not think that we ought to deal with it in the context of this Bill. We can leave it for a Private Member, should he so desire it, and I would ask the noble Lord, having drawn attention to this—and I am sure that local authorities and those responsible will bear in mind what he has had to say—not to press it at this stage of this Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not intend to press this Amendment I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I am reluctant to lose an opportunity of carrying through an Amendment, because, as I said on an earlier occasion, it was all very well to say that a Private Member's Bill can be introduced to deal with these matters, but this is a Bill which is expressly designed, as its Long Title says, "to make amendments in the law with respect to gaming"—this is a species of gaming—and to facilitate consolidation, which implies that the Government is going to introduce a Bill which will consolidate the whole law with regard to gaming, including the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. If that happens it may be even more difficult to secure Amendments. However, I will withdraw this Amendment because it may be that Parliament intended that commission should be paid. I very much doubt whether that was the real intention, because the promoter himself is expressly debarred from getting any remuneration at all, and
378
that can easily be evaded by putting up some man of straw to be the nominal promoter and then getting somebody else to do the work and be paid the commission.
I want to point out to the noble and learned Viscount that, although there are limitations in this Act, the total amount may be £750; 10 per cent. of that is £75, and the expenses of printing may on a lottery of that magnitude, be quite a small fraction of £75; so that the margin which may be left for the purpose of paying commission might be quite appreciable. I am not going to press the Amendment, but I hope he will invite the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary to keep an eye upon this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Form of lottery return
". At the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section three of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, there shall be added the words 'itemising the expenses and the prizes'."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is for the purpose of making certain that the returns which are made to the local authorities by the promoters of small lotteries shall contain adequate particulars. The noble and learned Viscount read out a few moments ago what the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act says upon this subject, and it appears that the law is sufficiently complied with by putting in a return which shows merely a global sum for the receipts, for the expenses and for the prizes. That being so, it is quite impossible for the local authority or anybody who inspects a return to form any idea as to whether or not the expenditure has been properly incurred. It is surely essential that the purpose for which the making of returns was inserted in the Act should be made effective by ensuring that the returns which are filed with the local authorities contain particulars which are capable of being verified and capable of being checked. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
6.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. I am afraid that the noble and learned Viscount will probably advance the same arguments in this particular matter as he did in regard to the remuneration of the sellers of the tickets, and it may well be that that is a strong argument. But, as the one who introduced this Act into your Lordships' House, I must confess that I read the Report of the Churches' Committee on this problem with a good deal of disquiet. I feel that the provisions in the original Act were not tightly enough drawn. Not only did the Churches' Committee investigate this matter, but one of the responsible daily papers a year or two ago conducted an investigation—albeit not a complete one, as my memory goes—into the problem, and that result, too, was rather disquieting.
I think it is fairly clear that the provisions of the Act as they stand are not sufficiently tightly drawn to control this matter. There probably is not evidence that it has become a major public scandal or anything of that kind, but there are here possibilities of a good deal of rather unsavoury conduct. There is a type of person about in the world at present who is much alive to the possibilities of exploiting opportunities of this kind. I feel that the Home Office are in a much better position to investigate what is going on. If the noble and learned Viscount, as I expect he will, resists the Amendment on the grounds that it should be dealt with like the last one, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has said in asking him to bring the matter clearly to the attention of the Home Secretary, so that this business can be effectively looked at.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that. I will not repeat my general arguments, but for the benefit of both noble Lords, I should like just to say that the first relevant provision is that there must be a society registered by the local authority and established for the three purposes which I mention. Clearly, that is one point which one might look into, to see that none of the societies is marginal. I should not like to hint that one can say anything more than that, because it would be a poor thing to say of people unless one had
380
evidence. But I can look at it, because I gather that the suggestion has been made by the Council of Churches that some are marginal. I do not think they go beyond that. On the question of expenses, as I said, there is a limit of 10 per cent., and if more than 10 per cent. is devoted to expenses, that is, I think I am right in saying, an offence under the Act which the noble Lord introduced. Therefore the sanction is there, and the local authority—
LORD CHORLEY: The noble and learned Viscount will probably agree with me that it is not easy to make sure that this limit is not being, exceeded on the basis of the returns which are made. That is what I rather gather.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point that I am not clear about. Perhaps it is my own stupidity at this stage of the Bill. You cannot have more than £75. Whether you itemise or not your expenses, including the commission on the tickets, they must not exceed 10 per cent. and the maximum you can collect is £750 under the Act. Thus the maximum of expenses that you can have is £75. Whether itemised or not, if they are more than £75 that is an offence under the Act. The second point is that in order to collect £750 you would need to have printed 15,000 tickets at one shilling each, if my arithmetic is right. I know that even when I last stood for Parliament, which is nearly nine years ago, one paid a terrifyingly high price for the printing of one's Election literature—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would agree with me there. So you are dealing with the difference between your printing expenditure and any other expenditure, and £75. You cannot give more commission than that, and you cannot get your expenses over £75.
The third point is—I merely state these as possibilities—that local authorities have not been quick off the mark when they have found that there have been breaches. I will see that the Home Office takes this point into consideration. But, in view of the smallness of the subject matter and the great excellence of a number of the purposes for which these small lotteries are carried out, I think that we might leave it with that assurance on my part.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like just to say this. The noble and learned Viscount has said that in this matter there is little at stake and that the maximum size of any lottery is only £750. He suggested that practically all the expenses will disappear in the printing. That is exactly one of the things which requires to be ascertained, and it will not be ascertained unless a provision of this kind is inserted into the Bill. In addition, let me point out that it is not necessarily a case of one lottery in a year; it may conceivably be one lottery every week. In some cases, at any rate, this is practised as a system which is conducted time after time; and when you begin to look at it from that point of view, the thing takes on a very different picture.
This Amendment is unlike the previous Amendment, in respect of which the noble and learned Viscount was entitled to say that provision with regard to preventing commission was deliberately left out when the Act passed through Parliament. But this Amendment is one dealing merely with the machinery of the administration of this Act, and is for the purpose of trying to ensure that the returns are of a nature which can be checked. If Parliament decided that the returns were to be made by the promoters of small lotteries and be deposited with the local authorities, and be open to public inspection, Parliament presumably intended to achieve something by it. But the machinery for achieving that is nugatory if no details are given; and it is quite impossible to verify the theory which, from my information, is not true in the case of the larger ones—printing lottery tickets at a cheap rate is a considerable business in this country—that most of the expenditure is merely the expenditure of printing. That is something that we ought to know about, and I beg the noble and learned Viscount to look at it from that point of view.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.40 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause:
Nil returns
".At the end of section three of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956 the following subsection shall be added—
'(4) Any society which is registered under this Act which does not hold a lottery during the course of any calendar year shall send to the local authority a return stating this fact not later than the 31st day of March of the following year.'"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is intended to cure a defect in the administrative machinery of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. Societies which are registered under this Act are required to pay a fee and to renew their registrations every year; and they are also required to lodge returns with regard to every lottery held. I am told that there are numerous cases in which societies renew their registration year after year but file no return. It certainly seems rather strange that they should do that if they are not holding any lotteries. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to require registered societies to file a return even if they have not held one, stating the negative fact that they have not done so. This, again, is a provision which surely ought to be inserted in the Act, if the provisions with regard to filing returns are intended to work and to have any real meaning. I think that must be clear and that societies which maintain their registration ought to make perfectly clear the fact of whether or not they have held a lottery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On this point, the societies presumably having paid their registration fee, there are two possibilities: the first that they have held lotteries, the second, that they have not. If they have, and have not put in a return to the local authority, then they have committed an offence under the Act and can be prosecuted. If they have not held any lotteries, then the only effect of this Amendment would be that they would have to put in a "nil" return. I do not repeat my argument for not amending this small but useful measure at the present time, because my argument is that it ought to be looked at in its own context. But I certainly do not think there is any likelihood of scandal being raised by the absence of this Amendment, because if the society have held lotteries there is an obligation under the Act that they should make a return.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct but is there an obligation upon anybody to inquire into the circumstances, to try to discover whether or not a lottery has been held? On the previous Amendment the noble and learned Viscount suggested that local authorities were under some obligation to inspect the returns when they are made. I do not know of anything in the Act which requires them to do so, and I am told that in a good many cases returns are simply filed, and that nobody looks at them or pays any attention to them. Consequently, no doubt it is also the case that nobody bothers at all if a lottery society register year after year and never put in a return. Who does bother to find out whether or not they have committeed a breach of the law? That is the weakness of the situation. It is evident that I have not succeeded in carrying this Amendment, but I hope that the right honourable gentleman, the Home Secretary, will look into this question, for what is the use of having on the Statute Book a law to which nobody pays any attention? I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Playing of games on certain premises]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, at end insert ("or a requirement or restriction for the time being in force under section (Saving for dominoes and cribbage on licensed premises etc. of this Act is contravened.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Short title, extent and commencement
30.—
(3) This Act shall come into force on the appointed day.
6.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"and shall come to an end at the expiration of five years after the appointed day".
384
The noble Lord said: As I believe this is the last Amendment at the Committee stage which we shall be moving from this side, I should like, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, to convey our thanks to the noble and learned Viscount for the very patient, careful and courteous consideration he has given to all the arguments we have put forward, and to thank also his noble friend Lord Bathurst. We are very grateful that on those occasions when it appeared there was some point of substance in our arguments, the noble and learned Viscount agreed to look at them again.
This Bill that we are considering and on which, apart from the Schedules, our discussions have almost come to an end at this stage, is an experiment. There is no dispute about that. We think it is a bold and, in some ways a brave experiment; but it is a conglomeration of views and opinions and the best advice that the Government can get in an uncharted field. Some of us who believe that on some things in this Bill we know better than the Government, believe they have been wrong. For example, there has been a strong cleavage of opinion, both here and in another place, as to whether or not street bookmakers should be licensed. The Government have come down on the other side of the fence on that matter and have decided that we shall not license street betting but shall concentrate instead on betting offices.
Perhaps arising from that, it has become necessary to say that all the bookmakers' agents—the various people, roundsmen of all kinds, runners in factories and all kinds of people—shall legally become agents and servants of bookmakers, and carry on a cash betting business on their behalf. I believe that most of your Lordships have had doubts and misgivings on points of that kind; and I could, of course, instance a great many more. In fact, the whole Bill has given rise to a sharp cleavage of opinion, not so much between those who would at all costs prohibit and stop betting and those who think there should be reasonable freedom to bet, but about the right way in which to grant that reasonable freedom. I do not think anyone at all would doubt that premise.
For these reasons my noble friends and I have felt that there should be a term to the Bill. My noble friend

385
Lord Silkin raised this point on Second Reading and suggested that the Bill should end in five years. I then expressed the opinion that two years would be long enough; and if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor should suggest that five years would be too long a period before a reconsideration, then my noble friend would probably very readily accept the shorter term. But the Amendment we have down now suggests that the Bill should come to an end at the expiration of five years after the appointed day. That would mean that, four years hence, the Government of the day—perhaps of the Party opposite or, I hope, of my Party—would have an obligation on them to decide whether the Bill had in all respects succeeded or whether it required amendment in some respects; and they would have the duty either to continue the Act exactly as it is or to bring in an amending Bill.
The noble and learned Viscount may well argue that all Governments are constantly reviewing legislation. That is perfectly true. But it is a very different matter to have an Act on the Statute Book and, if there is something wrong about it, for the pressure of public opinion to be brought to bear on the Government to induce them to bring in an amending Bill. Private Members may try to redress wrongs in that way but it is a matter of some considerable difficulty. It is quite a different thing to have written into an Act that five years after the appointed day the Act shall come to an end, because that puts on the Government of the day an absolute obligation to make up their mind about it, to examine all aspects, and, in the light of experience, to find out whether or not some parts of the Act need alteration. We think, therefore (and this cannot be disputed), that, since in so many respects this is an experiment—in so many important parts of the Bill we are setting out on an uncharted sea without any past experience to guide us: we have only our estimate of the various facts and the evidence that has been put before us—there is a strong case for writing into the Bill now a term of years to ensure that it is reconsidered in the way I have suggested.
Amendment moved—
386
Page 24, line 27, at end insert ("and shall come to an end at the expiration of live years after the appointed day")—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, first of all, thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his kind remarks about my noble friend and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I are old, friendly opponents in this field of human endeavour, and his sagacity in helping the House is well known. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, speaking from this side of the House, how much we appreciate the contribution he has made to this House during the time he has been here. That has never been more apparent than on this Bill.
Although he has developed a serious argument and made an undeniable point in basing it on the experimental nature of these new provisions, I do not think he had very great hopes of its acceptance. I shall not keep the Committee for a moment, but I am not putting the Amendment in the category of a number of Amendments he may remember when I was in charge of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill, which was the first de-nationalisation measure of the 1951 Government. Mr. Leslie Hale put down an Amendment of this kind in another place which I think was to delay it for two years. That was done on the basis that there were usually ten by-elections every year and the Government would undoubtedly lose all ten by-elections, so that in two years their majority would be destroyed.
But I should like, in deference to the argument, to say that it would be a serious matter to include a provision of this kind, because the result of making the Amendment would be that those concerned to provide facilities for betting and gaming, such as the proprietors of amusement parks, would be left in a state of uncertainty as to whether it would continue in force beyond the five-year period. It is the Government's intention, and their expectation, that the Bill will succeed in its purposes. The most controversial part of it is the establishment of licensed betting offices, but the decision of the Government to bring forward legislation to make these lawful was not a shot in the dark. It was based upon ample experience in the Republic of Ireland and, more recently, in Northern Ireland, which has

387
shown that licensed betting offices can provide a satisfactory alternative channel to street betting; and the Government see no reason why the same should not be so in Great Britain. Therefore we feel that it would be a mistake to write into a Bill anything which suggested that Parliament, in passing it, has doubts about whether it will work. It would be unfortunate and discouraging if those who had to operate the Bill should be required to do so under the shadow of the knowledge that there was no certainty that it would continue in force for more than a period of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as a good advocate, has discounted what I am now going to say: that the Government will, of course, keep the provisions under review. But as he has discounted it, I should like to assure him that this is a field where the review cannot remain merely a matter of words; it is a field in which the Home Office must get the fullest information from the police and from local authorities as to the working of this matter, and I can assure him that that will be done. I am afraid that I cannot advise your Lordships to agree to the Amendment but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the most felicitous terms in which he moved it.
LORD SILKIN: With my eye on the clock, I want to say that I am sure the noble and learned Viscount knows how much I appreciate his approach to the Committee stages on various Bills—I will not say more. I see the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I always do, I hope. Nevertheless, the kind of review which all legislation necessarily gets from a Government is not really good enough, in my view, in this case. I can see that it might not be desirable to bring this Bill to an end at the expiration of a certain period because of leases on premises and commitments in that connection, and so on: some people may require to take leases for periods longer than five years. But I should like to see some more definite and specific obligation inserted in the Bill, which would put the Government under the duty of looking at how the thing is working.
It may be that the right way would be to require a report from the Home Office on the working of the Bill, either
388
an annual report or a report at the end of a certain time. If the noble and learned Viscount would be prepared to consider that, or something along those lines, to be written into the Bill—something short of putting an end to the operations of the Bill—I myself should be disposed to accept that in lieu of the Amendment; and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to giving some kind of consideration to that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to do that. I did promise the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in respect of one of his Amendments, that we would consider how information in a certain field should be gained, and I should like to look into the general possibility of reports. Frankly I have not applied my mind to it. I will do that, and I will write to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
First Schedule [Bookmakers' Permits, Betting Agency Permits and Betting Office Licences]:
7.1 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to associate myself with my noble and learned friend in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the kind remarks that he has made. It has been a great honour and a great privilege to be assisting my noble and learned friend in this Committee stage—and a very great experience, too. I only apologise to noble Lords in all parts of the House if I have not been able to make myself quite clear; and I am most grateful for the assistance of my noble and learned friend. But noble Lords will appreciate that I must stick pretty closely to the words—otherwise, a coach-and-horses, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, suggested, may start appearing.
I could speak on Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 inclusive, as they all deal with the same subject. We concede in these Amendments that the licensing authority should not be a respondent to an appeal against a refusal to grant or renew a bookmaker's permit or an agency permit, but shall be a respondent to an appeal against the refusal of a licence for a betting office. I could go through that at considerable length, but I assure your Lordships that it has the approval

389
of the licensing magistrates. I beg leave to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 49, leave out ("to the authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 50, at end insert ("and, if the appeal relates to a betting office licence, to the authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 26, leave out ("the appropriate authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 27, after ("authority") insert ("or, if the appeal relates to a betting office licence, the appropriate authority")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("a") and insert ("in the case of an appeal under paragraph 22 of this Schedule with respect to a betting office licence, the")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This, is likewise a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 31, leave out from ("allowed") to the end of line and insert ("the appeal").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Rules for Licensed Betting Offices]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after paragraph 1 to insert:
"2. No licensed premises shall be open for business after half-past six in the afternoon."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is self-evident: that is, to ensure that premises licensed under this Act shall not remain open for indefinite periods in the evening. My only doubt about the Amendment is that I think it is too generous and that it would have been better, perhaps, to have chosen an earlier hour. After all, most shops, places of business and other premises are closed for business transactions before this time of day. It is agreed by everybody, I think, that premises used for betting should not remain open indefinitely, and the hour which is suggested in this Amendment, but which I should have liked to make even earlier, is 6.30. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 48, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD WOLVERTON: if I may detain your Lordships for a few moments, I hope the House will not accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch. In the Second Schedule the Minister has taken power to close these premises on
"Good Friday, Christmas Day and every Sunday, and at such other times, if any, as may be prescribed"
by the Minister. There is such a thing as what is called evening racing, which is very popular with a large number of people in the summer months, at any rate from Monday to Friday. As we are providing facilities in these betting offices for people to bet by cash, it would be a considerable inconvenience to many people if they could not put bets on evening races in the summer months. As this Bill is part of an experiment, I think it would be much better to leave it to the Minister's descretion, for him to see what time it is necessary to close these betting offices, when they come into operation. My own view is that it should be a later hour, at any rate in the summer months; otherwise, I think it will cause considerable hardship to the betting public.
EARL BATHURST: In another place there were several ideas as to what time the betting shops should close, and there were different ideas (some along the lines which my noble friend has put

391
forward) varying from 6.30 up to 10 o'clock. For that reason there is no time specifically written into the Bill. The Churches' Council on Gambling in a letter to my right honourable friend, have drawn attention to this reservation, and have represented that, at least to begin with, the 6.30 closing provision should be made to cover the whole of the country. That was partly because there are already illegal offices in Scotland which operate much later for the reasons which my noble friend has mentioned. Six-thirty was also the time that the Royal Commission recommended in their Report. It is difficult to prophesy what the consequences would be if these illegal offices were required to close at 6.30.
However, in view of the apparently widespread desire for a uniform closing hour, bearing in mind the Royal Commission Report, and after consultation with the Scottish Chief Constables, my right honourable friend is prepared to give an undertaking that he will make regulations prescribing 6.30 as the closing hour. These regulations will be reviewed and, if need be, amended in the light of experience. The experience of the police in enforcing the Street Betting Act when the Bill is through will be very relevant in this connection. Similarly, if evening horse-racing becomes extensive, it may be necessary to review the position somewhat along the lines which my noble friend has suggested. In the event, we do not wish to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the statement which he has made, and I am of course quite happy with the pledge that regulations will fix the hour of 6.30. I do not deny that, in the light of experience, some other views may prevail, though I sincerely hope that they will not, because there is the welfare of the people employed to be considered, as well as many other matters. I am obliged to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor for their courtesy and for the way in which they have dealt with the Amendments, although I have not generally been very successful. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third to Fifth Schedules agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Repeals.]
EARL BATHURST: This is a technical and drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

SIXTH SCHEDULE
Page 43, line 46, at end insert—

"30 & 31 Vict. c. 134.

The Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867.

Section twenty-three."

—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
7.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Occupiers' Liability (Scotland),

Highlands and Islands Shipping Services,

Population (Statistics),

Indecency with Children,

Radioactive Substances,

International Development Association,

Game Laws (Amendment),

Payment of Wages,

Civil Aviation (Licensing),

Dock Workers (Pensions),

Commonwealth Teachers,

Ghana (Consequential Provision),

Merchant Shipping (Minicoy Lighthouse),

Abandonment of Animals,

Bromley College and other Charities Scheme Confirmation,

Chipping Sodbury Town Trust Scheme Confirmation,

United Charities of Nathaniel Waterhouse, and other Charities (Halifax) Scheme Confirmation,

Scottish American Investment Company Limited Order Confirmation,

Northampton County Council,

Saint Martin's Parish Church Birmingham,

London and Surrey (River Wandle and River Graveney) (Jurisdiction),

Derbyshire County Council,

Cornwall County Council,

Saint Peter Upper Thames Street Churchyard,

394

Bala to Trawsfynydd Highways (Liverpool Corporation Contribution),

Royal Exchange Assurance,

Saint Peter's Church Nottingham (Broad Marsh Burial Ground),

Royal College of Physicians of London,

Saint Stephen Bristol (Burial Grounds etc.).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to inform your Lordships that there will be a formal Sitting of the House tomorrow at 11 o'clock.
  UNIFORMITY IN ROAD SIGNS
  UNIFORMITY IN ROAD SIGNS