Sitting of 5 June 1961

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

  RIVER RAVENSBOURNE, &C. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD) PREVENTION BILL
  GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Bills read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Blue Streak
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Aviation what is the present monthly cost of the Blue Streak programme of development.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): About £350,000 a month.
    Mr. Strachey: But would not the Minister of Aviation agree that this is no reduction on the monthly total over the long period, and that even this figure probably does not take into account all the costs which might fairly be included in this programme?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is not meant to show a reduction. The idea is to get some useful work done. This work has been going on so that if a general European scheme comes forward it will be in a good position to go forward.
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now set a date for the abandonment, if favourable replies have not been received by then to his request for co-operation from allied countries, of the Blue Streak development programme.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister agree that, while it may be desirable to achieve this co-operation if it is possible, it is time that he told the German and other allied Governments concerned that we cannot go on indefinitely with this large monthly and annual expenditure without arriving at some conclusion, and that a date ought to be set when these negotiations must be brought to an end one way or another?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point about trying to reach a conclusion, but as I am expecting the decision of the Federal German Government following upon their technical evaluation of the project very soon now, I should prefer to await it before taking any further decision.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Aviation what reply he has received from the West German Government to his proposal that West Germany should co-operate in the development of Blue Streak as a satellite launcher.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No reply has yet been received.
    Mr. Wyatt: Has the Minister told the German and other European countries that if they do not co-operate with us we are quite able and willing to do this project by ourselves and shall continue to produce it and that if they do not join in they will be missing a very great opportunity? Will he not be put off by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), for whom I have the very greatest admiration, but whose rather gloomy approach today befits neither him nor the position in which he is sitting today?
    Mr. Rankin: Oh.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We all have a great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), but I can assure him that I am by no means put off by him.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the Minister realise that most of us, at any rate, on these benches do think that this is one thing or the other—either we get European co-operation in this venture, or it is one which should not be pursued?

    TSR2 Aircraft
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in the development of the TSR2 aircraft.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what has already been said on this subject, and I doubt whether periodic statements on projects of this kind serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman realises that since we first heard of this aircraft in December, 1958, a great deal has been said about this machine, which has pursued a very ragged course, since the development order was submitted last October? Can he tell us when we may expect to see the prototype? Secondly, can he say how much the aircraft will cost now as compared with the estimated cost when it was first projected?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Why not?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Russians do not inform us about the progress of their tactical bombers, and I do not see why we should announce ours.
    Mr. Mason: On the second point raised by my hon. Friend, could not the Minister inform the House what was the estimated cost three years ago, and to what extent it has varied recently?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No. The Question does not refer to the cost. If the hon. Gentleman likes to put a Question down about the finances he can do so, but I do not give any guarantee as to the kind of answer he will receive.
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister agree that the Russians do not enjoy a Parliamentary form of Government, and that there is something to be said for the British Parliament being kept informed about this very costly development, which it is very difficult to bring under Parliamentary control?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I accept that there is some distinction to be drawn between the two systems, but at the same time I ask the House to ponder well before pressing for information about the exact progress made with regard to important weapons. This, I think, is wrong.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was originally put down to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and transferred to the right hon. Gentleman because it was assumed that he had all the knowledge about the costs and progress of the aircraft? Can he tell us how the original estimated cost compares with the figure which is now expected for the completion of this aircraft?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No. This Question asks about progress which is being made upon it. As I said, I do not wish to make a statement on it.

    B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Employees (Union Membership)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Aviation what general directions he has given to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation with regard to membership by their employees of appropriate trade unions.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): None, Sir.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that damages were rewarded to an employee of B.O.A.C. who was recently sacked with the co-operation of the trade unions and the Board of B.O.A.C., could I ask for an assurance that in future there will be at B.O.A.C. a strong Board which will not allow itself to be involved in political controversies? Is my hon. Friend aware that I do not think the Board of B.O.A.C. had any guts?
    Mr. Rippon: These are, of course, matters for the day-to-day management of the Board.
    Dame Irene Ward: Rubbish.
    Mr. Rippon: I am aware of the circumstances of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but that would not justify my right hon. Friend in issuing any general directions.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend not interested in freedoms? Is it not a fact that the Conservative Party is attached to individual and collective freedoms?
    Mr. Rippon: I shall be very happy to discuss freedoms with my hon. Friend

    621
    at any time she likes with particular reference to this case.
    Mr. Strachey: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that a very important freedom is freedom of association in trade unions, which is involved in this?

    Executive and Business Aircraft (Airfields)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Aviation which airfields will be made available both in the London area and elsewhere for use by executive and business aircraft.
    Mr. Rippon: The Air Pilot lists 159 aerodromes, including 11 within a radius of 25 miles of London, as available for use by business and executive aircraft. The possible use of other aerodromes is being discussed with representatives of business and private fliers.
    Mr. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say how soon he expects to be able to come to a decision on sites such as Croydon and other airfields close to the centre of London?
    Mr. Rippon: The decision about Croydon is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

    Terminal Buildings, Abbotsinch
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation whether he has yet appointed an architect for the terminal buildings at Abbotsinch.
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that Basil Spence and Partners have accepted the appointment.
    Mr. Rankin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but could he tell us just a little about the architects who have been appointed? Would he arrange for the architects to meet the people in authority at Renfrew before their minds have been conditioned by his Department?
    Mr. Rippon: The House will be aware that the head of the firm is Sir Basil Spence, and he is personally taking a principal part in the design of the buildings. They will be starting work at once. I am sure they will bear in mind all relevant considerations.

    Air Transport Licensing Board (Deputy Chairman)
    Mr. McLarenasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement with regard to the deputy chairmanship of the Air Transport Licensing Board.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. Mr. A. H. Wilson, C.B., C.B.E., who only agreed to act temporarily as Deputy Chairman, will relinquish this position at the end of July but remain a member of the Board. I have appointed Mr. J. J. Taylor, O.B.E., as Deputy Chairman from 1st August, when he retires from his present employment. Meanwhile, Mr. Taylor will join the Board as a part-time member. His salary as Deputy Chairman will be £3,500 a year.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Psychiatry
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the Ninth Report of the United Nations World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Mental Health, which deals with the under graduate teaching of psychiatry; and what steps he proposes to take to bring its conclusions to the notice of those responsible for the medical curriculum.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I have no responsibility in this field.
    Mr. Robinson: Well, whether the Minister has direct responsibility or not, would he not appreciate that some action along the very modest lines which this Report recommends is an essential prerequisite to getting the psychiatric manpower which he will need in order to man the mental health services of this country, and could he not do something, at any rate in an informal way, in bringing this Report to the attention of those responsible for medical education?
    Mr. Powell: I recognise the importance of strengthening in the National Health Service the element of psychiatric treatment and the psychiatric professional element, but that does not entitle me as Minister of Health to express an opinion—and I am sure that this is a right principle—upon the medical curriculum.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Marshasked the Minister of Health how many executive councils have protested to him about the increase in prescription charges.
    Mr. Powell: Forty-eight.
    Mr. Marsh: In view of the fact that the Minister now admits that he has had representations from 48 executive councils protesting against the increase in prescription charges, is he not prepared to reconsider his decision to impose these charges, particularly in view of the fact that these people represent persons who have no particular political axe to grind, and have called attention to the hardship and disservice which his measures are doing to the welfare and health of patients?
    Mr. Powell: No. This has been fully considered by the House, which has taken its decision. The executive councils know that I am ready to receive any evidence which they wish to put before me of ways in which the present arrangements are not working satisfactorily.
    Mr. Marsh: As the Minister has received representations from 48 different executive councils, is it unreasonable to ask him how many he has to have before he really reconsiders the whole scheme?
    Mr. Powell: They contain no evidence.
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Health if he has studied the protest made by the Glamorgan Executive Council of the National Health Service against the increased prescription charges; and, in view of the matters contained therein, if he will reconsider his policy in this respect.
    Mr. Powell: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is "Yes", and to the second, "No".
    Mr. Callaghan: How does the Minister expect to get evidence when it largely lies in the absence of old people visiting their doctors or taking up prescriptions? Does he realise that he is condemning himself as a Minister without compassion or mercy by his attitude on these matters?
    Mr. Powell: I am sure that there could not be any appreciable or widespread hardship without its coming to the notice of the doctors or the executive councils.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case, as the Minister admitted, in answering Question No. 12, that he has knowledge of 48 executive councils who have protested, and who are entitled to say this to the Minister? What other evidence does he need, what better opinion can he get, than that of expert people engaged in administering this Service on his behalf and that of the patients?
    Mr. Powell: I can only say that these bodies are well aware of my repeated undertaking to consider evidence of hardship and difficulty which is arising, but they have not so far put before me evidence to that effect.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not the Minister consider the drop of more than 20 per cent. in the number of prescriptions between February and March when the increased charge came in as evidence? What other evidence does he require before he will change his policy?
    Mr. Powell: There is a Question on that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will now reconsider the amount charged for items of prescription in the light of the 20 per cent. decrease shown by the fall from 22,200,000 items in February, 1961 to 17,500,000 items in March, 1961.
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is not this adequate evidence of the failure of the policy with regard to the prescription charge? Has the Minister considered the additional evidence which I submitted to him of dispensing chemists in the Willesden area, where a chemist has been asked several times, when there are three items on the prescription list, which one is important because the mother cannot afford the other two until the end of the week? Has the Minister considered that letter? What further evidence does he require before he changes this appalling policy?
    Mr. Powell: The second part of the supplementary question appears to relate to a different matter. As regards

    625
    the fall between February and March, there are a great number of factors which no doubt played a part in this and which made the figure for March in itself of very little help and guidance. For example, the influenza epidemic came to an end before the end of February, and in this year March was an exceptionally fine month.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The Minister estimated a 2 per cent. fall in prescriptions. He has here a 20 per cent. drop. Does he not appreciate that this compares not only with the 2 per cent. that he estimated, but with the actual increase between February and March of last year? Is not this abundant evidence that people are not getting the prescriptions they need?
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir. One cannot take individual months without regard to the circumstances, and certainly nothing less than the experience round the whole year can disclose any trends which are capable of being interpreted in a useful way.
    Sir H. Linstead: In view of the differing evidence and opinions which have been expressed, and the fact that we have had some months' experience of the new charge, might it not be wise for the Minister to initiate some inquiry to try to find out what the situation is today?
    Mr. Powell: I still think that it is too early for anything of that sort, but I am sure that the professions and the bodies which administer the Service will bring to my attention any evidence which comes their way.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman implying that he has to wait 12 months or longer before he is prepared to take any action? Does he mean that he wants something drastic and outstanding to happen, such as people perhaps dying because they have not received medical attention, before he will take action?
    Mr. Powell: I am sure that that would be brought to my attention, but the estimate to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred was an estimate for 12 months. All I said was that one could not judge how it was working out on a single month.
    Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Medical Students (Intake)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health whether he is reviewing, in the light of the current and future needs of the National Health Service, the conclusions of the Willink Committee on the intake of medical students, and if he will make a statement on future policy in this respect.
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Health how many general medical practitioners are needed in England and Wales to bring the service up to the strength that he estimates is now required.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Health if the recommendation of the Willink Committee that student intake by British medical schools should be reduced by 10 per cent. in 1962 is still in accordance with Government policy.
    Mr. Powell: The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are reviewing the data and calculations which under lie the estimates in the Willink Committee's Report. The student intake is larger now than when the Committee reported.
    Mr. Robinson: I am very glad indeed to know that the Minister is reviewing this, but would he now appreciate that this was one of the most disastrous reports upon the Health Service ever acted upon by his Department, and will he now agree with the view of eminent people that there is a shortage of doctors in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Powell: So far from a reduction of student intake following upon that Report, the intake is higher now than it was four years ago.
    Mr. Boyden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much overcrowding in medical schools is due to the acceptance of some part of the Willink Report? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many schools are overcrowded and what steps he has in mind for the future to diminish this overcrowding?
    Mr. Powell: Not without notice, but I do not think the Report and its conclusions can have contributed to whatever may be the present state of overcrowding.
    Dr. Stross: Would not the Minister agree that if the young registrars who help to staff particularly our provincial hospitals and who come from the Commonwealth were to be withdrawn—who may well not come in great numbers in the future—we should be in very great difficulty indeed?
    Mr. Powell: I quite agree that this is an important factor in the statistical picture.

    Effects of Alcohol (Tablets)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation to prevent the sale of tablets purporting to modify the effects of alcohol.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): No, Sir.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that pills called "Soberettes" are on sale in pubs and sweet shops, which are banned by the Pharmaceutical Society from being sold in chemists' shops, which might give the impression that drunken motorists can cure themselves from alcoholism by taking these pills? Is it not wrong that this sort of pill, which gives no evidence of any content, should be on sale giving a false assurance to people that they might be cured?
    Miss Pitt: I am aware that such tablets are on sale. It is not quite correct to say that the Pharmaceutical Society has banned them. It has issued a notice advising chemists
    "…in view of the possibility of misuse and the consequent danger to the public…"
    they should not stock or sell these preparations, but the evidence available does not suggest that they are medically harmful.

    Mental Health Workers
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Health what is the current shortage of mental health workers; what
    628
    is this figure as a percentage of the total required; and what steps are being taken to remedy the shortage.
    Miss Pitt: The unfilled need for mental health workers, though it cannot be estimated precisely, is certainly very large. The establishment of a National Council for Social Work Training, and the provision of additional training courses, ought to help.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Mental Health Act recently put on the Statute Book will be largely ineffective so far as local authorities are concerned if we do not solve these problems? Can she say what steps are being taken to encourage these people by means of wage increases, improved working conditions and the like?
    Miss Pitt: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Practical steps are being taken. Two-year full-time training courses are being started in September at the London County Council North-West Polytechnic, at the City of Birmingham College of Commerce and the Liverpool College of Commerce. I understand that there has been an excellent response from would-be applicants, and the hon. Gentleman might like to know that a course is being arranged for Scotland too.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Can the hon. Lady give an assurance that legislation to set up a national council for social work training will be introduced early in the next Session of Parliament?
    Miss Pitt: Legislation is to be introduced. For obvious reasons, I cannot give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Lady reply to the last part of the supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton)? Is the Minister taking any initiative in the matter of pay and conditions? Has not it been shown in the case of other public servants that unless pay and conditions are improved, although recruits may be obtained, they cannot be retained?
    Miss Pitt: As the hon. Gentleman should know, that is a matter for the appropriate Whitley Council.
    Mr. Callaghan: But is the Ministry taking any initiative?

  HOSPITALS

    Medical Staffing
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to instruct regional hospital boards and boards of governors to review the medical staffing of their hospitals in accordance with the recommendations of the Platt Committee.
    Mr. Powell: A decision on these recommendations will be reached when discussions with the professional bodies have taken place.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that before he can take action he will need some of this evidence in his hands? Will he ask for it now so that he is prepared to make more consultant posts ready after the discussions have ceased with the profession?
    Mr. Powell: It is essential first to have the profession's view in principle on the recommendations of the Platt Report.

    South-East Metropolitan Region (Locum Tenens)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that hospital out-patient services in Deptford and neighbouring districts are having to be curtailed as a result of the reduction in locum tenens sessions imposed by the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board; and what steps he will take to ensure that an adequate out-patient service is provided.
    Mr. Marshasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the decision of the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to reduce the number of locum tenens available to consultants, senior hospital medical officers and registrars in the Greenwich and Deptford Hospital Group; and if he will ask the Regional Board to reverse their decision so as to avoid a consequent delay in the treatment of patients.
    Miss Pitt: The Board has introduced a scheme to avoid extravagant use of locums. Difficulties have been anticipated over locums for two clinics in Deptford and Greenwich, but steps are being taken to ensure that these difficulties do not arise.
    Sir L. Plummer: What steps are being taken? Is the hon. Lady aware that the venereal disease clinic is having its locum sessions cut from twenty-four to six, when the national incidence of venereal disease is rising? Also the tuberculosis clinic is having its number of locum sessions cut from thirty to twelve. In view of the fact that her right hon. Friend is so tough with patients, is it not about time that he got tough with the Regional Hospital Board to stop these cheeseparing tricks at a time when the out-patients departments' should be properly staffed for 12 months of the year?
    Miss Pitt: The difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentioned are the anticipated difficulties of those departments because the Hospital Management Committee has not allocated its number of locums in the proportion which the Regional Hospital Board envisaged. Nevertheless, the Regional Hospital Board has increased the number of locums from its original proposal of 170 to 225—as I think the hon. Gentleman knows from his correspondence with the Board—and in turn my right hon. Friend has asked the Board to ensure that there should be no reduction in the amount of service available.
    Mr. Marsh: As the total reduction amounts to about 135 sessions in the Hospital Management Committee, can the hon. Lady say how it is possible to reduce medical attention by 135 locum tenen sessions and still have a Hospital Management Committee without causing intense hardship to patients in the Greenwich and Deptford area? Would not she also agree that the allocations which apparently were not to the liking of the Regional Hospital Board were made by the medical committees of this Hospital Management Committee which one would have thought were as capable as the Regional Hospital Board of getting medical staff?
    Miss Pitt: As I say, the Regional Hospital Board has allocated 225

    631
    sessions this year for locum duties compared with an estimated 334 last year, but the purpose behind this proposal, which was initiated by the Regional Hospital Board, was to rationalise the provision of locums to combine at the same time as annual leave is envisaged the number of locums required for the job. Nevertheless, as I have said, my right hon. Friend has made clear to the Board that we expect service to be available. May I make one further point? Service in out-patient clinics usually tends to drop during the holiday period.
    Sir L. Plummer: May I have an assurance that the out-patient clinics or departments for venereal disease and tuberculosis will not be cut this year? Does the hon. Lady not understand that this is most important in crowded areas such as Greenwich and Deptford, particularly when the incidence of both diseases nationally is disturbing?
    Miss Pitt: I understand that, but this is a matter for the Board, working through the appropriate authority, which in this case is the Hospital Management Committee.

    Doctors
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Health in what areas, and in what specialities, there was a shortage of doctors in Great Britain in 1960.
    Mr. Powell: I assume the hon. Member refers to hospital doctors. Vacancies in the grades of registrar and below were slightly under 9 per cent. of posts, varying between 6 per cent. and 17 per cent. in different regions, but some vacancies were filled by locums. In senior grades there were few vacancies apart from those arising in the ordinary course.
    Mr. Boyden: What long-term steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs? In view of the founding of more universities, is the right hon. Gentleman having discussions with the University Grants Committee with a view to founding new medical schools in these universities?
    Mr. Powell: I have referred in Answer to a previous Question to the steps being taken to revise the statistical basis of the estimates of doctor requirements.
    Mr. Boyden: But is the right hon. Gentleman taking any particular steps now? Surely with the new universities it would be possible to start one or two new medical schools almost at once?
    Mr. Powell: Starting new schools is not a matter for me but some estimation of the requirements of the Health Service is, and I have referred to that in a previous Answer.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Regarding the shortage of consultant posts, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement of the number of vacancies is not a fair assessment of the position, since large numbers of regional boards want additional posts established which his own Department does not permit them to establish?
    Mr. Powell: Vacancies are the only statistical figures which I have available to give to the hon. Gentleman. But the number of posts in 1960 for which approval was withheld because there were no applicants available to fill them is comparatively few.

    Visiting
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Health whether he accepts the recommendations of the Platt Report with respect to unrestricted visiting in hospitals.
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that the recommendations are brought to the attention of regional hospital boards and by them to the management authority of the hospitals concerned?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, they have been so conveyed, and the evidence is that the great majority of children's wards do allow visits on every day. But I intend to keep up pressure to ensure that there is a full implementation of these recommendations.

    Almoners
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Health what is the overall shortage of hospital almoners; what is this figure expressed as a percentage of the total required; what steps are being taken to overcome the shortage; and how soon he

    633
    expects the problem to be completely solved.
    Miss Pitt: I understand that about 260 vacancies were recently known to the Institute of Almoners but not all these were in the hospital service. New facilities for training almoners have been provided at six universities in England and Wales in recent years and the numbers employed in the hospital service are slowly increasing.
    Mr. Hamilton: That does not quite answer the question. I asked the hon. Lady what is that figure, expressed as a percentage of the total required? Can she say, further, whether the trend is towards an improving situation? Can she also say how many of these almoners are among the 300,000 Surtax payers relieved in the last Budget?
    Miss Pitt: Figures are not available to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question because neither establishment nor recruitment is controlled separately, Nevertheless, the numbers are improving as I indicated. In general, there is no shortage of applicants. One of the difficulties arises because, as part of the training is practical, qualified almoners have to make time to train others, which limits the rate of progress. But it is improving.

  EGYPT (COMPENSATION TO BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Lord Privy Seal what action he is taking to ensure that, in advance of a satisfactory agreement with the Egyptian Government, the Foreign Compensation Commission is able to pay reasonable compensation to British subjects whose service under the Egyptian Government was arbitrarily terminated.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the case of British officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government in 1951. The Foreign Compensation Commission has no power to make any such payments to these British subjects, since, under the Foreign Compensation Act, 1950, the Commission can only be used to distribute money received by Her Majesty's Government from a foreign Government.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that British subjects dismissed in 1951–52 do receive adequate compensation? In assessing whether the compensation is adequate, will he bear in mind that assistance in compensation which has been received has had to be spent as income rather than being invested as a capital sum to yield income?
  Mr. Heath: As I have explained on a previous occasion, a Commission was set up last summer to examine this matter and to make recommendations to the Egyptian Government. We now understand that the Commission has completed its work and put forward its recommendations to the Egyptian Ministers. We look forward to hearing their views in due course.
  Sir G. Nicholson: I speak from memory, but is not it the case that on 15th May my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred to a Commission which would report on 20th May on this matter? Is he aware that the dismissed officials are in a particular category and that the shabby way in which they have been treated is brought into particular prominence by the fact that it is now proposed that the Egyptian Government shall employ further British teachers of English? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a special category of claimants, and will he give a more satisfactory answer?
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend informed the House that the Commission would submit its report to the Egyptian Ministers on 20th May. We understand that that report has now been submitted and we are waiting for the decision or the Egyptian Ministers.

  NEW GUINEA COUNCIL (INAUGURATION)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal on what grounds the United Kingdom was represented at the inauguration of the New Guinea Council.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): Her Majesty's Government were invited by

  635
  the Australian and Netherlands Governments to send representatives to the inaugural meetings of the new Legislative Councils both in Netherlands New Guinea on 5th April and the Australian territory of Papua and New Guinea on 10th April. We naturally accepted these invitations from a fellow Commonwealth Government and from the Government of a friendly and allied nation.
  Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will very carefully consider the implications of this action? Is not it the case that there is now a dispute between the Indonesian Government and the Government of the Netherlands regarding this area? Is he aware that an increasing number of Dutch politicians and businessmen, and British businessmen, are recognising that it is inevitable that West Irian will become part of Indonesia? Since even America refrained from sending an observer, would not it have been wiser to have abstained from this course of action?
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have always made plain that we recognise the Netherlands as being the sovereign Power in this area. We did not think it inappropriate to send representatives to what were the celebrations of an important step in the constitutional advance of this territory towards self-determination—something which I should have thought would have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

  FAROE ISLANDS (FISHERY LIMITS)
  Mr. Croslandasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Danish Government has made representations to Her Majesty's Government about the extension of fisheries limits round the Faroe Islands.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Mr. Crosland: Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that if such representations are made as has been suggested in the Press for the extension of the Faroese fishing limits, it will be an extremely severe blow to the middle-water section of the fishing fleet, and, coming on top of the extension of the
  636
  Icelandic limits, would be a serious situation for the whole fishing industry?
  Mr. Heath: I fully appreciate that. At the same time, by the terms of the Anglo-Danish Agreement of 1959 about the Faroese fisheries, if no general convention regulating the breadth of the territorial sea and fishing limits has been arrived at by 27th October this year, this Government and the Danish Government have to consider whether any modifications should be made to the Agreement.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Danish Foreign Minister has said that he intends to ask for an extension of the limit to 12 miles? Will he do his utmost to protect the interests particularly of the Scottish fishermen, in view of the fact that Aberdeen, for example, gets 42 per cent. of her catch from the Faroese waters? Secondly, what consultations have taken place and has any agreement been reached on the enforcement of the present fishing limits?
  Mr. Heath: In reply to the last part of the question, I would point out that there are other Questions on the Order Paper to be answered later. Of course, Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to protect the interests of the British fishing industry in any consultations or negotiations which may take place.

  GERMANY (NAVAL VESSELS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal why he has agreed through Western European Union to raising the limits on West German naval vessels from 3,000 to 6,000 tons and to their production of influence mines.
  Mr. Mendelsonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government supported the decision of the Council of Western European Union to lift certain restrictions upon German naval building and arms production; and whether, in particular, Her Majesty's Government approved the decision to allow the Federal Republic to build destroyers and other vessels of 6,000 tons each.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on

  637
  further revisions of the Brussels Treaty protocols agreed upon by the Council of Western European Union to permit West Germany to construct naval vessels of a larger tonnage than hitherto.
  Mr. Heath: A full statement on the recent decision of the Western European Union Council, and on the attitude adopted by Her Majesty's Government, was given in my answer of 31st May to my honourable Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge). The amendments were adopted unanimously by the Council and have the support of Her Majesty's Government. They have been recommended by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said on 31st May, they will enable Germany to contribute more effectively to the collective defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation area.
  Mr. Allaun: Are not these excuses unpleasantly reminiscent of the Government's step-by-step rearmament of Germany in pre-war days? Is not the truth that these bigger destroyers are to accommodate missiles? Is the Minister trying to give the House the old "guff" that the nuclear warheads will be kept separately, since it must be obvious to him that in times of emergency they will be kept on the ships, thereby giving German officers power to start World War III?
  Mr. Heath: These are not excuses. These are the reasons why the steps are being taken. As Germany has been integrated into N.A.T.O. in defence of the West, they are justified.
  Mr. Mendelson: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that these rather radical changes in the Treaty have been carried out, or decided upon, without submission to Parliament? Did not the House and the country understand when the Treaty was originally drawn that the arms limitation of the Federal Republic was one of the cardinal points in the Treaty? Is there not growing concern in the country about turning the Federal Republic, not into one of the members making a contribution to N.A.T.O., but into the dominant Power in Europe?
  Mr. Heath: Provision was made in the revised Brussels Treaty for these
  638
  amendments. That procedure has been followed in this case.
  Sir H. Oakshott: In the build-up of German forces of N.A.T.O. for Western defence, can my right hon. Friend say whether this will have any effect in lightening the burden on the British taxpayer?
  Mr. Heath: It is obviously quite right that all members of the N.A.T.O. alliance should play their full part in contributing towards defence.
  Mr. Mason: In order that the House may have full information, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the total tonnage of the present German Navy and the proposed addition compared with the total tonnage of the British Navy and also the percentage of the German Navy's tonnage compared with that of the N.A.T.O. allies?
  Mr. Heath: I shall certainly see whether that is possible.
  Sir J. Maitland: Is it not a fact that these vessels are primarily designed to work in the Baltic? Since the Baltic is one of the weakest places we have at the moment, should we not be pleased that in that place the position is being strengthened?
  Mr. Heath: Yes and, as I have said, this is one of the requirements of SACEUR.

  SPAIN AND PORTUGAL (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' official visit to Spain and Portugal.
  Mr. Jegerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the visit to Madrid of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. Cooperasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning the recent visit of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Spain and Portugal.
  Mr. Heath: My noble Friend's visit to Lisbon and Madrid was made in

  639
  return for visits to this country by the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Spain last year. In addition to holding discussions with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the two countries, my noble Friend called on the President and Prime Minister of Portugal and on the head of the Spanish State. This was not an occasion for negotiation, but in both capitals my noble Friend's discussions, which were, of course, confidential, covered the international scene and subjects of mutual interest. I cannot give details, but in Lisbon particular attention was paid to the situation in Africa, and in Madrid the discussions covered, among other things, Gibraltar and the position of the British and Foreign Bible Society in Spain.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the very exiguous results of the Foreign Secretary's visit and also the very short time that the Foreign Secretary has spent at the Foreign Office in the last few months, is the Lord Privy Seal satisfied that the Foreign Secretary's visit was necessary at this time, especially as "Butlered up" in advance by the Home Secretary? Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs has just announced that we would be failing in our duty if we remained silent after wanton destruction of human life and the accompanying violation of human rights in Angola? Do not the Government take that view also? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary discussed military—alliance or bilateral—questions with the Spanish Government during his visit?
  Mr. Heath: I am sure my noble Friend's visit was indeed a valuable one. I have indicated some of the subjects he was able to discuss very frankly and freely with the Ministers of the two countries. As the Prime Minister has already made plain, there was no discussion of the military or N.A.T.O. matters to which the hon. Member referred.
  Mr. Jeger: As the Lord Privy Seal has admitted that the question of Gibraltar was discussed, does it mean that Her Majesty's Government are at last recognising the infamous way in which the Spanish Government have been treating the loyal Colony of Gibraltar? Has any settlement been arrived at
  640
  and has any lifting of Spanish restrictions on Gibraltar been reached?
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government always recognised the undesirable nature of the difficulties about Gibraltar and constantly press for the situation to be improved. This subject was reverted to by my noble Friend when he was in Madrid and in one aspect we are continuing to examine the possibilities.
  Mr. Cooper: Notwithstanding the irrational attitude of the Opposition to Spain, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is broad support in the country for a closer association with this deeply religious and strongly anti-Communist country?
  Mr. Heath: It is only by encouraging good relations between countries that we may hope to achieve some of the results we are seeking.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the pilgrimages of the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to unite the free world are now concluded, or are there some other Fascist tyrannies he would like to see invited?
  Mr. Dudley Williams: Returning to the subject of Gibraltar, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his right hon. Friend that, although many of us welcome the growing friendship between Spain and this country, until the question of free entry of Commonwealth subjects into Gibraltar is clarified we shall not feel that we can go so far as we should like to go?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. Good relations between countries are a two-way affair and cannot come only from one side. Spain can greatly help by reviewing this aspect of the situation in Gibraltar.

  CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION (IRAN)
  Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal what communication Her Majesty's Government have received from the Government of Iran concerning the revision of that country's commitments under the Central Treaty Organisation.
  Mr. Godber: None, Sir.
  Mr. Johnson: In view of widespread speculation in recent weeks about future Iranian foreign policy, can the hon. Gentleman say whether any assurances have been sought about Iran's continued membership of the Central Treaty Organisation? Secondly, as under the Treaty this country has an obligation not only to aid Iran in the event of armed attack, but also to assist her in countering subversion, will he give an assurance that this obligation will not cover political activities which would not be regarded as subversive by British standards?
  Mr. Godber: The new Iranian Government have specifically stated their respect, on the basis of their adherence to the U.N. Charter, for all Iran's undertakings and agreements. Their Prime Minister has publicly stated that Iran would not leave CENTO. Her Majesty's Government attach great significance to the part which Iran can play within CENTO.
  Mr. Rankin: In view of the serious state Iran is now in, financially and otherwise, could the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what contribution Iran could make to CENTO?
  Mr. Godber: Iran occupies an important position geographically within CENTO. I think it right that we should continue to welcome it within that organisation.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the disturbed situation in Vietnam, he will join with the Soviet Co-Chairman in inviting the International Commission for Vietnam to submit a special up-to-date report on the extent to which the provisions of the Geneva Agreement regarding the introduction of arms and military personnel from outside have been, and are being, observed.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the admitted intention of the American Government to reinforce their military personnel in South Vietnam and to send additional military supplies is a clear violation of the agreement? What steps do the
  642
  Government propose to take to enable the International Commission for Vietnam to carry out its obligations?
  Mr. Heath: The only announcement by the United States Government of which I am aware is that they intend to increase their assistance given to the South Vietnam Government to increase that Government's military personnel. It is proposed to help them with finance to do that. That is quite permissible under the Geneva Agreement.
  Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is very little point in sending an International Commission into Vietnam unless we get more co-operation from the Soviet Co-Chairman in enabling the International Commission to carry out its existing duties in Laos?
  Mr. Heath: I fully agree with that.

  SPAIN
  Mr. Jegerasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made to or received from the Spanish Government for further incorporating Spain into the Western world.
  Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Members for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and Ash-field (Mr. Warbey) on 1st June.
  Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we all in the House would welcome the incorporation of Spain into the Western world provided that the Fascist rôgime were abolished, that there were a liberalisation of conditions in Spain and that there was an amnesty of all political prisoners?
  Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave examples of the way in which we had been able to help the movement of Spain towards the Western world. If the hon. Member likes to put forward further suggestions, we will gladly consider them.
  Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the whole moral basis of Western unity and Western defence is freedom and the preservation of the rights of minorities? Will he impress on his noble Friend in

  643
  another place that any accession of Spain to a Western democracy would be a negation of all that we believe in?
  Mr. Heath: I do not think the hon. Member means exactly what he said in his last sentence—that the accession of Spain to Western democracy would be a negation of all we believe in. We have constantly made it plain that the question of Spanish membership of N.A.T.O. is not under consideration. As for taking part in the defence of the West, Spain already grants military bases which play a part in that defence.
  Mr. Healey: Since the Lord Privy Seal has asked for suggestions, may I suggest that the best way in which Spain can be brought closer to the Western world would be for the Spanish Government to show some respect for human rights inside Spain?

  LAOS
  Mr. Slaterasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning the progress of the Geneva Conference on Laos.
  Mr. Heath: Since the Conference began on 16th May all delegations present have stated their views on a settlement for Laos and certain proposals have been tabled. All speakers so far have agreed on the need for a unified, independent and neutral Laos but not yet on the means of achieving that neutrality. The Conference has been interrupted by doubts about the efficacy of the ceasefire in Laos. Attempts by the International Control Commission to investigate allegations of numerous infringements of the cease-fire, particularly of Communist attacks against Meo tribesmen incorporated into the Royal Laotian Army, have not so far been successful because of refusal by the Pathet Lao to permit the Commission to function in this way. My noble Friend has been trying to reach agreement with the Soviet Co-Chairman on new instructions to the International Commission which will enable it to carry out its functions but so far without success.
  Mr. Slater: In view of that reply, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to make a further statement to the House and to keep the House informed of further developments?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, I will do so. But I imagine that hon. Members will put down Questions week by week which will give me an opportunity to do so.

  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  Mr. Slaterasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the size of the European Free Trade Association secretariat in Geneva; how many British nationals are employed therein; and what proportion of the annual budget is met by Great Britain.
  Mr. Heath: The present staff of the Secretariat of the European Free Trade Association numbers thirty-nine of whom fifteen are British nationals. The United Kingdom pays 30 per cent. of the annual budget.
  Mr. Slater: Are our financial commitments on a par with those of other members of E.F.T.A.?
  Mr. Heath: The percentage was worked out on the share of intra-O.E.E.C. trade. That formed the basis for the contributions as between the seven members of E.F.T.A.

  BRUSSELS TREATY (REVISIONS)
  Mr. M. Footasked the Lord Privy Seal on how many occasions Western European Union has agreed to alterations in the Brussels Treaty in order to remove the limitations on German rearmament: and what was the latest date on which such an alteration was agreed.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent Her Majesty's Government have consented to modifications of the limits on German rearmament as laid down originally in the Brussels Treaty.
  Mr. Heath: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Written Reply of 31st May to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).
  Mr. Foot: Is it not the case that one of the main purposes of the Brussels Treaty was to impose limitations on any rearmament of Germany? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that on each occasion when such an important change

  645
  is proposed of lifting the limitation he should come to the House and get approval for it?
  Mr. Heath: As I have stated previously, provision was made in the revised Brussels Treaty for the revision of the limitations. The procedure has been followed. That procedure does not require ratification by the House of Commons or Parliament.
  Mr. Foot: Even if it is not a question of ratification, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in questions affecting the rearmament of Germany, particularly those concerned with a Treaty which was deliberately instituted in the first place in order to limit German rearmament, it would be courteous to the House for the Government to seek the approval of the House before they go before Western European Union to advocate the raising of those limitations?
  Mr. Heath: Hon. Members will recall that this matter has been under discussion in Western European Union for a considerable time. While it was going on, I explained to the House and particularly to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the discussions were confidential. I gave the information about the decision as soon as it was reached. It was reached during the Recess and I gave the information to the House directly afterwards. If hon. Members wish to debate this, it is a matter for them and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Swingler: If I remember rightly, in his previous answers the Lord Privy Seal did not state the number of occasions on which the limits had been raised, the dates of them and whether they had been accepted by the Government. May we have definite information of the occasions and the dates since the time the Brussels Treaty was passed on which these limits have been raised and the Government's attitude towards them? Is it now the Government's attitude that these limitations do not matter? Since the House of Commons was persuaded to agree to the whole thing on the basis that there would be these safeguards, may we have an opportunity to discuss whether there should be limits?
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member refers to the answer which I mentioned in my main Answer, he will see that I gave full details of the three previous occasions on which amendments were made, and the date and the nature of the amendments.
  Mr. Swingler: On all occasions?
  Mr. Heath: Yes. On all occasions they were supported by the Government, If the hon. Member refers to that answer, he will find the full information given to him. Answering the last part of his question, I should have thought that the time taken and the opportunity for obviously thorough discussion which has gone on in Western European Union about the proposed amendment illustrate that, far from thinking that these things do not matter, the Government and the other Governments of Western European Union attach immense importance to them.
  Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon and on previous occasions that Western European Union have the authority to revise the Brussels Treaty to enable the Federal German Government to manufacture nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I never mentioned nuclear weapons in this at all. I said that under the terms of Article 2 of Protocol 3 of the revised Brussels Treaty a procedure is laid down for revising the restrictions on the manufacture of armaments except for those relating to atomic, biological or chemical weapons.
  Mr. Shinwell: But they could do it.
  Mr. Heath: I emphasise that it does not include revisions or amendments in respect of atomic, biological or chemical weapons.
  Mr. C. Osborne: There is another slant to this important point. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Soviet Government are very sensitive to the obvious rearmament of Western Germany, remembering what their country suffered at the hands of the Germans in the last war. Before any further serious steps are taken to rearm Germany, will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?
  Mr. Heath: I realise the Soviet Government's attitude to this. There is a Question later on the Order Paper in reply to which I refer to the note which was sent to us recently about this matter by the Soviet Government. I point out that Germany is integrated into the Western Alliance, that as such a member she must be treated as a normal full member, and that this arrangement is the best guarantee for the security of Europe.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the alarmingly unsatisfactory nature of the answers which the Lord Privy Seal has just given, may I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at some convenient date?

  STATUS OF WOMEN COMMISSION
  Miss Vickersasked the Lord Privy Seal in view of the resolution passed by the Status of Women Commission at its meeting in Geneva in March, 1961, that the membership of the commission should be increased, if he will advise the United Kingdom delegate to the Economic and Social Council to support the resolution by voting for the increase.
  Mr. Godber: It is not the practice to reveal in advance the instructions sent to the United Kingdom Mission in New York. However, as my hon. Friend knows, Her Majesty's Government voted in favour of the resolution in the Status of Women Commission, and I have no reason to believe that there will be a change in our attitude when this matter is voted on in the Economic and Social Council.
  Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. When he is thinking this matter over, will he remember to inform the delegates that at present the Status of Women Commission is orientated towards the West and it is rather essential that there should be representatives of other countries, particularly Africa, on the Commission in future?
  Mr. Godber: Yes. We will, of course, take note of that. Her Majesty's Government take great interest in the status of women in all matters.

ZANZIBAR (RIOTS)
Mr. Dugdale (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the riots which have recently taken place in Zanzibar.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I regret that, as hon. Members will know, there has been serious rioting and loss of life in Zanzibar. The disturbances, which began on 1st June during the election poll, are the result of tension between the African and Arab communities, and started with a number of sudden isolated incidents which took place at polling stations in Zanzibar town. The situation quickly deteriorated. Large crowds gathered in open spaces and small gangs in the maze of small streets in Zanzibar town attacked individuals. There has been a number of incidents on each following day.
The British Resident declared a state of emergency on 1st June and has imposed a curfew from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. The police have been reinforced by two General Service units of the Kenya Police, and by the 5th Battalion King's African Rifles, and two companies of the 6th Battalion. I regret to say that, so far, 47 persons have been reported dead, and that, among some 300 injured, 78 have been admitted to hospital. The total number of arrests to date is 575, including gangs attempting to loot.
The security forces have now been deployed throughout the two islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, and the latest report is of quieter conditions. I am in close touch with the British Resident.
Mr. Dugdale: Will the Under-Secretary accept that we on this side would like to express our condolences to the relatives of those who have lost their lives? I have two specific questions to ask him. First, is it not a fact that the security forces were under-manned, since it appears that it was only after the riots broke out that the Resident sent for 200 police from Kenya, thus increasing the security forces that he had with him by no less than 50 per cent.? Does not this show some lack in the intelligence services, since the Resident was not aware of the need for security forces?

649
Secondly, have the riots had any effect on Tanganyika? I sincerely hope that they have not.
Mr. Fraser: As to the first part of the supplementary question, the elections in January took place without any untoward event. The rioting which broke out last week was very sudden and of an unexpected nature. The police did their duty. I think that the situation is now improving. I cannot be much more hopeful than that. I ask the House at this stage to back and support the security forces in the restoration of law and order, which must be our first objective.
Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the past few months the Zanzibar National Party has been pouring out anti-British propaganda from its Cairo office and that one of the stated objects of the party is to obtain the independence of Zanzibar under the protection of the U.A.R., which would be intolerable for the majority race on the island?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am aware of that propaganda.
Mr. Callaghan: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what stage the 47 deaths occurred? Was it a continuing sequence over a number of days, or did they all take place on the first day? What some of us would like to be reassured about is that the security forces were got there as quickly as possible.
Mr. Fraser: As far as I know, the great bulk of the deaths occurred within the first twenty-four hours. My latest situation report, dated nine o'clock this morning, is that the rural areas are now being patrolled and we have spotter aircraft looking into any possible source of rural difficulties.
On the question of the forces being moved as quickly as possible, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the schedule of arrival he will find that the first two units of police from Kenya and the advance guard of the battalions arrived at the shortest possible notice.
Mr. Brockway: The Under-Secretary asked the House to give support to the security forces. I am sure that the whole House will do this. Will he also ask the House to give support to the elected
650
Government in Zanzibar, whose Prime Minister has shown great generosity and imagination in asking the leader of another party to become Chief Minister in order to ease the racial situation in Zanzibar?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. The political leaders of all the parties in Zanzibar are at this moment touring the area asking for support in the preservation of calm and the restoration of order.
Dame Irene Ward: As my hon. Friend said that he was aware of the anti-British propaganda being poured out to Zanzibar, may I ask him what steps were taken to counteract this? Is he aware that far too much anti-British propaganda seems to go unanswered?
Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has been informed that anti-British propaganda has been flowing largely from Cairo Radio and other areas over which we have no control.
Mr. Paget: Do we not find ourselves in a slightly paradoxical position, because we are vigorously and by arms supporting a highly unpopular and anti-British Government against a pro-British and popular alternative?
Mr. Fraser: At this stage, the main concern is the restoration of law and order on the island of Zanzibar. This is my main intention.
Mr. John Hall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House, first, how long it took the reinforcements to reach the island from the time they were first demanded and, secondly, whether the Kenya police are likely to be replaced by further forces from somewhere else in the near future?
Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. I believe that the situation is now being got under control. I will keep the House informed of any further developments.
Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order. Will the Under-Secretary answer the second part of my supplementary question? There have been some disturbing reports about Tanganyika. Is it perfectly certain that there has been no effect on Tanganyika as a result of these riots?
Mr. John Hall: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: So far, one right hon. Gentleman and one hon. Gentleman are

651
both rising simultaneously on what is said to be a point of order. The first one was not. Let us now try to deal with the second.
Mr. Hall: On a point of order. I do not think that the Under-Secrecary can have heard my question, because he did not answer it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some confusion. The right hon. Gentleman was asking for an answer to something. I do not know whether some answer was given or intended to be given to him.
Mr. Fraser: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman, who asked about Tanganyika. It is obviously a matter of grave disquiet to everyone in East Africa that these riots should have broken out, but it would be unrealistic and not true to go beyond that.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), does the Under-Secretary know how long elapsed between reinforcements being requested and the time of their arrival? If he does know, how long was it?
Mr. Fraser: I think that I am right in saying that the first police contingents were there within a matter of hours of being requested, as I said in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry. I will certainly give a schedule to my hon. Friend stating precisely how long it took for the various units—the 5th Battalion K.A.R.s, the two companies from the 6th Battalion K.A.R.s, and the Kenya police—to arrive in Zanzibar.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LICENSING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LICENSING BILL

    New Clause.—(LIQUEUR CHOCOLATES.)
    (1) No provision of the Licensing Act, 1953, the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, or this Act as to the sale, supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor, except subsection (2) below, and no enactment requiring the authority of an excise licence for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor shall have effect in relation to intoxicating liquor in confectionery which—

    (a) does not contain intoxicating liquor in a proportion greater than one fiftieth of a gallon of liquor (computed as proof spirit) per pound of the confectionery; and

    (b) either consists of separate pieces weighing not more than one and a half ounces or is designed to be broken into such pieces for the purposes of consumption.

    (2) Intoxicating liquor in confectionery shall not be sold to a person under sixteen, and if any person knowingly contravenes this sub section he shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds and on a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.40 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause deals with a small but troublesome matter, the sale of liqueur chocolates, and it follows an undertaking which I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark). At present, the sale of liqueur chocolates is governed by the licensing laws, and anyone who wishes to sell liqueur chocolates has to obtain a full justices' licence, with all the procedure and expense involved. This gives rise to three difficulties. First, it entails a confectioner obtaining a justices' licence. Secondly, the law is frequently disregarded. Thirdly, it gives rise to anomalies in the sense that, if chocolates are filled with paste, instead of free spirits, they may escape the protection of the law. For some time, the position has been troublesome, and representations were made to my right hon. Friend and myself during earlier stages of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South moved an Amendment in Committee.

    653
    We have considered various ways of dealing with the matter, and the new Clause provides, I think, the right answer. It seems that two requirements are necessary: first, that there should be some protection for children; and, secondly, that there should be a limit to the alcoholic content of the chocolates. The new Clause provides a limit to the alcoholic content and, to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) to the size of the chocolates. Secondly, it prohibits the sale of liqueur chocolates to persons under the age of 16. Subject to those two requirements, the sale of liqueur chocolates will be freed in future from the licensing laws and they may be sold by a confectioner in the ordinary course of business. This seems to us to be a sensible approach to what has been a long troublesome matter, and I hope that the House will approve.
    Sir Frank Soskice: I do not oppose the Second Reading of this new Clause, although there is one rather curious point of drafting which, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will consider. Subsection (2) provides that
    "Intoxicating liquor in confectionery shall not be sold to a person under sixteen".
    That does not create an absolute offence, because the subsection goes on to say:
    "and if any person knowingly contravenes this subsection"
    and so forth.
    Since the Government have chosen that form of drafting, I should like them to say what is the effect of the first words. Do not they impose a limitation on sales without supplying any correlative sanction? If somebody sells confectionery to a young person under the age of 16 not knowing that he is under 16, presumably no offence is committed and there is no sanction whatever to reinforce the carrying out of the prohibition.
    That is a drafting point, but it is one which should be considered by the Government. I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, the Ministers responsible will do what I think can correctly be described as changing the language so as to produce the result that the whole of the new Clause is effective instead of only part of it. I do not want to take time on a purely drafting point.
    654
    I think that the new Clause itself is sensible and I myself strongly support the prohibition.
    Mr. William Clark: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having accepted the point. He has proved, I think, that throughout the whole of the Committee stage we were extremely reasonable on both sides of the Committee. I am sure that we shall continue to be very reasonable on both sides.
    The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) is a difficult one to settle in these days. It is by no means easy to say whether a person is 16, 15, 14, or 18 years of age.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. George Thomas: It was not my privilege to serve on the Standing Committee, but I have read with very great interest and concern the record of its deliberations. I am glad that the Government have seen the wisdom of listening to my hon. Friends who were concerned about the well-being of children in regard to this particular matter.
    I recall that one of my hon. Friends who sits for one of the Leeds constituencies—I am not sure which—I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon)—raised this matter of alcohol in chocolates.
    Mr. James Griffiths: It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon).
    Mr. Thomas: I apologise to my hon. Friend; she will be thinking that I have eaten one of these sweets.
    It is very important that, as we turn to the Report stage and later—a great deal later, no doubt—the Third Reading, we should give our attention to children. The House has a special responsibility for protecting our youth from those people who, so long as they can make money, do not care how they make it, or who eats the sweets which they sell in their business. The motive is profit. I am glad that, at least, there is something in the new Clause to clip the claws of such unscrupulous persons.
    I hope that the Minister will answer the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport

    655
    (Sir F. Soskice) about knowingly selling. Otherwise, all kinds of anomalies will be created in various communities. In my view, we could leave the word "knowingly" out. If a shopkeeper has any doubt, he ought not to sell. If there is a danger that a person is a child of 15 years 3 months, 15 years 6 months, or 16 years, a shopkeeper with any sense of responsibility will say, "I must not sell them to you". In my view, the obligation should be put on the person selling the chocolates.
    Mr. W. Clark: If the hon. Member were the shopkeeper and a young person came in asking for liqueur chocolates, and the hon. Member, as the shopkeeper, asked, "Are you 16?", and the answer was "Yes", what would be his attitude then?
    Mr. Thomas: That question is very easily answered. I should not have these chocolates. Moreover, if anyone came in and asked for them, I should use my common sense, of which I have the average amount, I hope, and be able to tell whether the person was a young person or not.
    I believe that any good shopkeeper would say that he would much prefer not to sell these chocolates to young people if that would start them on the drinking habit. I say to the Government Front Bench, as I do to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark), that the Clause is a step forward, but it is not adequate as it ought to be. I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to persuade the Minister that the word "knowingly" is superfluous and unnecessary.
    Mr. Roderic Bowen: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has just said. I believe that a shopkeeper selling goods should be responsible for satisfying himself in this respect. He may be in difficulty in some cases, but it is not simply a question of anyone who comes into the shop being served unless the shopkeeper has actual knowledge at the time that the person is under 16 years of age. In my view, the new Clause should be so worded that the shopkeeper must take some steps at least to assure himself on that point in cases
    656
    where it is obvious the question might arise.
    I welcome the provision relating to persons under the age of 16, but it is a little difficult to reconcile it with the Minister's attitude towards the position of persons of 16 years and over in relation to off-licences and clubs. I hope that the Government's genuine regard for the position of people under 16 years in relation to liqueur chocolates will be reflected subsequently in their attitude towards young people in relation to off-licences and clubs.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not like the word "knowingly" in the new Clause. On the other hand, I doubt whether we should rightly go as far as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) suggested. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to find a form of words which will throw some onus on the shopkeeper without making him responsible when he is guilty of a justifiable error. That is possible.
    The reason why I feel that a safeguard should be put in the Bill is that young people might be tempted to eat liqueur chocolates. Since my right hon. Friend has deemed it desirable to insert this provision in the Bill, I hope that he will strengthen it to the degree which has been suggested.
    Mr. Ede: I share the doubts which have been expressed about the wording of subsection (2) of the new Clause, which seems to me to be somewhat unusual and does not come into line with the impositions of the law on licence holders concerning the age of people who they may supply with intoxicating liquor outside the law. However, I congratulate the Government on having the courage to tackle what has long been a very serious evil in many parts of the country.
    In the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has said, I hope that they will be able to make the new Clause easily enforceable and comprehensible in magistrates' rooms when magistrates are trying to determine whether an offence has been committed.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: I hope that the Minister of State will do something about the word "knowingly". The Government are to

    657
    be congratulated on bringing forward this new Clause, particularly since there was quite a lot of evidence to show that, in spite of the smiles on the faces of hon. Members opposite a minute or two ago, there are people who are prepared to sell this kind of chocolate irrespective of who gets it or buys it. The reason why this matter was raised recently was that chocolate was advertised not very far from this building as strong enough to make a child tipsy. In view of this, there was obviously need for the new Clause.
    Any shopkeeper who is prepared to sell these chocolates should have the responsibility of not serving children under a certain age. It may be doubtful whether one can tell whether a boy or girl is 15 or 16 years, but the shopkeeper must be made responsible for finding that out. If there is any danger that these chocolates may be sufficient to give a child a taste for alcohol—that is the point—then there should be no possibility of that child being able to obtain them and, therefore, to acquire a taste for them.
    I hope that the Government will go a little further than they have gone and will delete the word "knowingly".
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: I support the new Clause. Many of us were concerned to know that youngsters could go into a confectioner's shop and buy chocolates containing alcohol. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has said, some shopkeepers have been boasting that there was enough alcohol in them to make a youngster tipsy. We were concerned because many youngsters could get a taste for alcohol through buying chocolates. They were unable to get a taste for it in a public house, but they could get a taste for it by buying chocolates containing alcohol. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North when she says that the responsibility for ascertaining the age of a young person should be on the shopkeeper.
    I can understand my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), being a bachelor, having some difficulty in assessing the age of young ladies. It is not so difficult for people with more experience. If the shopkeeper
    658
    has any doubt in the matter, then there is a good old saying, "When in doubt, don't." As I say, I support the new Clause, but hope that the Minister will go a little further and will make the shopkeeper responsible for ascertaining the age of young people buying these chocolates.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I welcome the introduction of the new Clause. I was surprised when I realised that the Minister proposed to insert it in the Bill, because months ago, when this matter was first raised—I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Mrs. Slater)—there was a good deal of merriment on both sides of the House on the ground that this was a small thing and that it did not matter very much. In a sense, that is true.
    I should like to feel that, as we progress with the Amendments to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great regard for the welfare of young people and has done a great deal in that direction himself, will pay attention to Amendments dealing not with a drop of alcohol in one chocolate, but with the ability of children of quite tender age to go into off-licensed premises and buy as much liquor as they like. I cannot, under the rules of order, deal with that matter now, but I should like to point out to the Minister that he will get himself into a tangle if he swallows this gnat and later refuses to do something much bigger which will help to accomplish what he and all of us in the House would like to see accomplished concerning young people.
    Mr. Vosper: I will examine the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Sockice). We are following the precedents of Sections 128 and 129 of the Licensing Act, 1953, where the word "knowingly" features in sales to young persons both on and off the premises. Although we are departing from the licensing law, it seems reasonable to use these words as a necessary defence for the shopkeeper. I should not like to suggest to the House that I am likely' to remove the word "knowingly", but I will examine what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport has said.
    While we are providing what we believe to be adequate protection for young

    659
    persons, we are providing considerable simplification of the law in the new Clause, which, I hope, will be accepted.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Subsection (1, a) of the new Clause refers to there not being
    "intoxicating liquor in a proportion greater than one fiftieth of a gallon of liquor (computed as proof spirit) per pound of the confectionery".
    I should like to know in what way the Minister arrives at that proportion, because it seems to some of us to be rather excessive. It is difficult, to compute exactly how much liquor would go into 1 lb. of confectionery, but I think that probably a quarter of a pint could be contained in about 1½ lb. As this refers to spirits, it might be rather in excess of what one might notionally expect to be required. We had this in mind when we discussed this matter in Committee, although we had no objection to chocolates flavoured in this way, whatever one's personal taste. We also had it in mind that it should not lead to the danger of forming the liquor habit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) referred. Can the Minister reassure us that this amount of spirit per 1 lb or 1½ lb. of confectionery is not excessive?
    I congratulate the Minister on tackling this question. I take a rather different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and other speakers on this side of the House on the insertion of the word "knowingly". Licensees and shopkeepers have difficulty in assessing the ages of customers in this age group. They are worried about it. I think that we should have regard to that difficulty and be fair to them, in our endeavour to do what we can for young people. The introduction of the word "knowingly" might enable licensing justices, who, under the present system, find it rather difficult to convict licensees and others of having served people under age, to impose sentences.
    The onus would still remain on the licensee or shopkeeper to find out the age of his customer, if he can. Because there is the introduction of the need to prove knowledge, then, on balance, it will relieve many licensing justices from
    660
    the inhibitions which they naturally feel when a person who is deemed to have contravened the law in this and similar respects comes before them.
    Mr. Vosper: I am advised by the Customs and Excise, which always helps in this respect, that the definition in the new Clause should cover the ordinary range of liqueur chocolates consumed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but should not extend beyond that.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(NEW PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH GRANT OF JUSTICES' LICENCES.)
    (1) No justices' licence granted after the coming into force of this section shall require confirmation; and, subject to the provisions of this Act,—

    (a) all powers exercisable by licensing justices may be exercised at any licensing sessions; and

    (b) there shall be an appeal to quarter sessions against any decision of licensing justices granting or refusing to grant a new justices' licence, or an ordinary removal of a justices' licence, and against any decision of licensing justices as to the conditions of a justices' on-licence.

    (2) The following powers of licensing justices shall not be exercisable at transfer sessions, that is to say,—

    (a) the power to renew justices licences, except where the licence was due for renewal at the preceding general annual licensing meeting, and the justices are satisfied that the applicant had reasonable cause for not applying for renewal at that meeting;

    (b) the power to make regulations under section twenty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which enables licensing justices to restrict repeated applications for transfer or special removal);

    (c) the power to make orders under section eighty-six of that Act (which relates to the extinguishment of licences in suspense by reason of war circumstances);

    (d) the power to make orders under this Act fixing the general licensing hours in the licensing district;

    and paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall not apply to powers exercisable by licensing justices otherwise than under or for the purposes of the Licensing Act, 1953, nor affect the operation of any enactment in so far as it expressly authorises licensing justices to act otherwise than at a licensing sessions.
    (3) Compensation authorities for the purposes of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall continue to be constituted and Part II of the First Schedule to that Act shall continue to apply to them as heretofore; but they shall be known

    661
    as "compensation committees" (instead of "confirming and compensation committees").
    (4) Part I of the Schedule (Licensing Procedure and Appeals) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the holding of licensing sessions and to the procedure at and in connection with those sessions, with respect to appeals from licensing justices to quarter sessions, and with respect to the duration of justices' licences, and Part II of that Schedule shall have effect for adapting and correcting the Licensing Act, 1953, in connection with the provisions of this section.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause, together with the new Schedule—(Licensing Procedure and Appeals)—lays down a completely new code of procedure for the licensing justices and a code of appeal from the licensing justices. Under the present law, the licensing justices are responsible for granting an application for a new licence, but it is not valid until it has been confirmed by the confirming authority. The confirming authority in a county is a committee of the quarter sesssions and in a borough is a committee of the borough justices, and the confirming authority has power to confirm or refuse to grant the application or to vary the conditions.
    That system, as, I think, was clearly recognised in Committee, has a number of disadvantages. First, it causes quite unnecessary expense. The majority of applications are unopposed before the confirming authority, but the expense of going through the procedure before the confirming authority has to obtain in every case. Secondly, if the licensing justices refuse an application the applicant has no remedy. On the other hand, the objector has a remedy. Thirdly, on the whole, we like to have a hierarchy of appeal courts—an appeal from a lower court to a higher court—whereas in the case of the confirmation authority it is really an appeal from the expert licensing justices to the confirming authority which is largely of the same status, certainly in a borough, but it will not in all cases have the same experience as the licensing justices.
    The new provisions under this Clause and the Schedule provide for the abolition of the confirming authority and the requirement of confirmation, but it provides,
    662
    in its place, an appeal to quarter sessions. It provides it for both the applicant and the objector who is overridden before the licensing justices. The objector who unsuccessfully opposes the grant of the licence may appeal to quarter sessions and so may the unsuccessful applicant for the licence.
    The House will see that where there is no appeal by the objector the grant of the licensing justices shall be valid and, therefore, further expense on an unnecessary procedural step is obviated. Quarter sessions, on appeal by the objector or the applicant, can either grant the licence or countermand the grant by the licensing justices or impose any conditions which the licensing justices could have imposed.
    A further point, as a result of the representations made in Committee, is met in the new Clause. At present, new licences can be granted only at the general annual licensing sessions, popularly known as brewster sessions and held in March each year. Under the new provisions, new licences can also be granted at transfer sessions which are held much more frequently. They are not less than four nor more than eight in any licensing year. That is the existing law and it is re-enacted by the new Schedule. Licensing justices will also be able to grant a supper-hour certificate at any transfer sessions. That further implements the undertaking that we gave in Committee.
    I do not know that the House will wish me to go in detail through the terms of the new Clause, which are fairly self-explanatory, although, perhaps, I ought to draw attention to subsection (2), which overrides subsection (1). Paragraphs (a) to (d) are all cases where it was felt that the annual licensing meeting was more suitable for the various transactions which are there set out. Paragraph (a) gives a little extra flexibility in that it allows the licensing justices to deal with an application for a renewal of a justices' licence if it was not brought on before the brewster sessions without any fault on the part of the applicant.
    We were unable, for a technical procedural reason, to table this new procedure for the Committee stage, but we indicated fully on a number of occasions the sort of procedure that we had

    663
    in mind and it commanded, I believe, universal approbation. One of the attractive things about the Committee on the Bill was the cross-bench nature of the difference of opinion. I think that this was the only occasion when what we proposed commanded universal assent and the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) even said that he enthusiastically supported us, very much to our surprise.
    Mr. Charles Doughty: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the drafting of this difficult Clause, but one which, I think, will fulfil his object, confirmation undoubtedly not being a popular procedure, for the many reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend, in that it amounts more or less to the same tribunal trying the same question again.
    The new Clause states:
    "No justices' licence granted after the coming into force of this section.…"
    The Bill deals with restaurants and clubs. Does the new Clause include off-licences, which have nothing to do with restaurants and clubs, or is it confined only to restaurants and clubs? My reading of the new Clause leads me to believe that it would include all forms of licences, including off-licences, such as, for example, grocers' shops. I should like confirmation or denial of that fact before I give my wholehearted approval to the Clause.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for incorporating a number of proposals which were put to him in Committee. It is right to remind the Government that they first introduced the Bill without any provision either for an appeal against the grant of a new licence or for the confirmation procedure. They were then subjected to the humiliation of a vote against them by their own supporters and a provision that the confirming procedure should be restored was carried against the Government. I know that they are making the best of a somewhat difficult position, and they have come to a sensible conclusion.
    In Committee, the Minister offered, in effect, that instead of the confirmation
    664
    procedure there should be introduced into the Bill procedure by way of appeal to quarter sessions against the grant of a new licence. I am glad to see that the Schedule and the new Clause incorporate that procedure.
    The Solicitor-General referred to the cross-bench nature of our discussions upstairs. That was, perhaps, a slightly unfortunate way of characterising what took place when we were discussing the Clause, but I think that the right result—
    The Solicitor-General: The phrase I used in discussing what happened on the Clause was "a procedural technical difficulty".
    Sir F. Soskice: It may be a procedural technical difficulty. Whatever it is, it now looks all right, if that is rather more robust language to characterise a sensible result achieved after a considerable degree of travail on the part of Ministers in charge. Subsection (1) is certainly one to which we should give our assent—although, of course, in a free vote for hon. Members on this side; some of my hon. Friends may differ.
    Subsection (2) and the remainder of the new Clause introduce about four pages of Schedule which we had not seen during Committee. It is a bit lopsided. The Schedule is nearly as big as the Bill itself. The Schedule is in small print, whereas the Bill is in large print. This is rather a case of the tail wagging the dog. However, it seems to be quite a reasonable tail so far as I have been able to look at it.
    I would be out of order, no doubt, if I were to discuss the new Schedule in detail. In general terms, however, it seems to implement the provisions in the new Clause, embodying in it the appeal procedure. Speaking for myself, I would have no objection to the new Clause.
    Mr. Speaker: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said what he has said, I might say that I thought the most convenient course to the House would be to discuss the principle of the new Schedule with the new Clause. If there are matters of detail on the Schedule, they can be raised when we get to the Schedule.
    4.15 p.m.
    Sir F. Soskice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After your invitation, perhaps now is the time, if ever, to refer to the new Schedule.
    It seems to me that on the whole the procedure, highly complex and containing a vast number of new provisions, is satisfactory, although it is a big mouthful to digest. It has elaborate provisions concerning notice, and so on. If the Solicitor-General can confirm that all that the new Schedule does is to tidy up existing provisions with regard to notice and with regard to the hearing before the brewster sessions and the other sessions, that it incorporates the necessary additional provisions which are involved in this new appeal procedure and that my researches into the new Schedule have not gone astray, I would be content.
    As I understand it, the second part of the new Schedule merely contains corrective provisions adapting the 1953 Act to the new enactment which we are now considering. If the Solicitor-General would confirm that I am right in that supposition, perhaps I might be taken as having said all that I would offer to the House concerning the principle of the new Schedule.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I wish to ask a few questions of the Solicitor-General. I genuinely seek knowledge and information about these transfer sessions. I am a little worried that licences will now be, or could be, granted up to eight times a year in place of the existing ones. I gathered from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that licences could be granted at the transfer sessions not less than four times and not more than eight times a year. If that is so, I want to know whether adequate provision is being made in the Schedule for the necessary advertising for people who object to the granting of licences to be given full and adequate time to prepare their case, to get people to present their case and to ensure that whoever has the responsibility of issuing a licence has the opportunity of hearing the full view of the community concerned.
    This is an important part of the Bill and I should not like to let it pass without the Minister giving me assurance on a question which, I know, is agitating the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches a great deal. I hope that the
    666
    Minister will explain in detail how this provision will work, whether there is any major difference from the present brewster sessions and whether he has included as a requirement the necessity for adequate notice, advertisement, and so on.
    The Solicitor-General: To deal, first, with the point that was asked of me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), the new Clause applies to all justices' licences: that is to say, it applies to off-licences and on-licences, and included in the on-licences are the new Part I licences, the residential, the restaurant and the mixed licences. It also, therefore, applies to licensed clubs, but not to registered clubs, which are dealt with separately under a different procedure in Part III of the Bill.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) both referred to the new Schedule. The Schedule looks, perhaps, inordinately long compared with the Clause. What happened was that, once we made the change in the procedure for appeal which commended itself to the Committee, it became necessary to make a number of changes in the procedure before the justices. That gave us an opportunity to rewrite and codify the whole of the existing procedure. That dated in every respect, except the compensation procedure, from the last century and a great deal of it was very much out of date.
    To give an illustration from the point put to me specifically by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, the advertisement procedure under the existing procedure was in most cases, if not in all, the nailing or posting of a notice to the church door where it might or might not come to the attention of an objector. As the hon. Member will see from the Schedule, we have replaced that by procedure by way of advertisement in accordance with all the comparable modern enactments.
    I therefore assure the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that much of the new Schedule is re-enactment, but it makes a number of improvements and modernisations in the existing code. There are such things, for example, as specific notice to the

    667
    fire authority, which will be very much in the mind of the House and which we shall be discussing in greater detail under the next new Clause. It provides greatly improved facilities for learning of any application for a new licence or the transfer of a licence.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West is quite right. The transfer sessions must be held at least four times and can be held up to eight times in the year. Therefore, there will be that additional temporal facility for the granting of new licences. It is a matter of great convenience. It by no means follows that plans will be crystallised in relation to the February brewster sessions, but in relation to transfer sessions no less than the brewster sessions there is ample time and greatly improved opportunity to bring to the notice of any potential objector what is proposed.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) wanted to know precisely what was the procedure at transfer sessions, what business would be transacted at the general sessions, and whether objectors to these matters would have a reasonable notice of the proceedings. We are called upon to consider a Schedule of 284 lines only recently put on the Notice Paper which most of us understood would be discussed at a later stage of the Bill.
    Unless we have a further opportunity of discussing the Schedule in detail, I feel that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) accepted with some alacrity the invitation to discuss the Schedule now with this new Clause. We should have an opportunity in discussing the Clause to make reference to the Schedule, of course, but this is a substantial variation of the whole licensing procedure as we know it, and those of us who were not members of the Standing Committee have a right to fuller information when we come to discuss in principle the various matters in the Schedule.
    Mr. Speaker: In emphasising the matter, it was not my intention to exclude discussion of the Schedule when we got to it. I thought that matters like advertisements, for instance, might come under the heading of detail.
    Mr. Hale: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but, even so, we should like some further explanation.
    The Solicitor-General: It was precisely because I thought that details like advertisements would be discussed later that I did not mention any details to the House now, but in case it is convenient I would draw specific attention to paragraph (2, c) of the Schedule which deals with notice. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will see from it the procedures for notice to which we shall come back later.
    On the point put specifically by the hon. Member, under this new provision all powers exercisable by the licensing justices may, subject to what follows in the new Clause, be exercised at any licensing sessions, which would include transfer sessions. The matters that are excepted are the matters to which I referred in subsection (2) which are felt to be more suitable for investigation, discussion and adjudication at the annual brewster sessions. In addition, in line 23 of the new Clause, there are also excepted powers exercisable by the licensing justices other than for the purposes of the Licensing Act, 1953. That excludes, for instance, billiards licences under the Gaming Act.
    Mr. Hale: Does it exclude the granting of new licences at transfer sessions?
    The Solicitor-General: No, those licences are included. If there are eight transfer sessions there can be an application for a new licence at any one of those eight, and if there is an application it must be advertised in accordance with the Schedule. I was going to add that the compensation procedure which is at present discharged by the confirming authority is also saved.
    Mr. Ede: May I ask something about the last statement that the Solicitor-General has made? As a former chairman of a licensing committee, I know the difficulties when the licensing committee of the petty sessional division thinks that a licence has become redundant to get the same view taken by the county licensing committee. What will happen in future when the local licensing justices—the licensing committee—have reviewed the licences for the area and they think that one is not required for the appropriate service of the community, either because the building is defective

    669
    or because of some other reason which may be good and sufficient in their minds? Is their decision now the final one, subject to appeal to the appeal committee of quarter sessions?
    How will it be dealt with? Will this kind of appeal go to the ordinary appeal committee or quarter sessions, or will there be special appeal committee of quarter sessions to deal with licensing matters only, which is what the county licensing committee is now in reality, in so far as it deals with redundant licences and assesses compensation? Who will assess compensation in future? This is one of the matters which give great concern to local licensing justices' committees and which can lead to considerable ill-feeling between the petty sessional committee and the county committee when what the local licensing committee wishes to do is considered.
    The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asks me about the compensation procedure. At present, the procedure is that the licensing justices can decide that there is redundancy in licensed premises. If they decide that, they can recommend compensation out of the compensation fund which has been built up from what has been called "monopoly value".
    4.30 p.m.
    That procedure is quite untouched by the new Clause and by the Bill. It is stated in subsection (3) that the compensation authorities shall continue to be constituted. They have simply changed their name. They are known as compensation committees and not as confirming and compensation committees. But it is still for the compensation committee to determine what compensation is proper in the case of a licensed premises recommended to it by the licensing justices as redundant.
    Mr. Ede: Perhaps I might ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a supplementary question on that. Now that the monopoly value has been abolished under a recent Finance Act, where will the compensating authority now get the money with which to pay compensation?
    The Solicitor-General: I should not like to give a final answer on that matter. It is rather outside the scope of the Bill. But my impression from
    670
    discussions of it on the Finance Bill of two years ago is that it is estimated that the compensation funds are sufficient in any foreseeable future to meet any demands made on them.
    Mr. Hale: The new Clause seems to be more mysterious than ever. I am impressed by some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). The opening words of the Clause state that no licences shall require any confirmation. Subject to correction, that seems to me to mean a very definite alteration of procedure.
    The old procedure, as I remember it—it is many years since I was engaged in these matters—was that we had an annual general licensing session and an adjourned meeting. One of the things that one tried to find out was what members of the bench would be sitting on a certain day, because the bench was always divided into so many teetotallers who would vote against every licence and so many justices who would vote for the licences, with a modest minimum of unpredictables who had only recently been appointed.
    Mr. Ede: I altered all that in the Licensing Act, 1951, which provided that a licensing committee should consist of a minimum and maximum number of magistrates selected by their colleagues from the general body of magistrates of a petty sessional area.
    Mr. Hale: No one admires the reforms that we have had from my right hon. Friend more than I do, or the purpose which was behind them. We have the greatest admiration for all that. However, I think that my right hon. Friend, when he said all that, was rather overestimating the effect of the Act. I have no doubt that he sought to enable Parliament to deal with the previous anomalies of the system.
    On the other hand, it is possible for quite a lot to be done under the existing system very often. It is possible for one to get a copy of the jury list and make inquiries about the jury. In one or two cases I have done that, with some benefit to my clients. I think that a local solicitor could form some idea of the probable chances of an application if he knew what justices were likely to be sitting.

    671
    There are to be nine sittings a year—that is the new figure—at any one of which an application for the grant of a new licence can be made. I think that some measure of protection for the public ought to be provided. It seems to me possible that applications will be made only in the last month or so. We are told that one has to provide a notice to the clerk of the local authority, which will be received by the clerk and will then be conveyed by the clerk to the council the next time it sits. One then has to advertise the application not less than 14 days previously in a local newspaper. At the moment I have been unable to find any definition of what that is, and there are some queer newspapers circulating at the moment. There is also the provision to give 28 days' notice in some place accessible to the public.
    It seems to me that people who take an interest in licensing matters may be in some doubt about what we are doing by altering the procedure so that an application for a new licence can be made at any one of the nine sessions. Perhaps there is some procedure later in the Bill for dealing with this situation, but I do not know whether there is. Under the old procedure that was an important matter. It was far too expensive a matter, even for a brewer, to make a hopeless application for a licence. Even if the brewer was applying in respect of unbuilt premises, he would have employed architects and had all the plans prepared, and would have produced all the evidence, witnesses having to be called who were devastated by the inability to buy a bottle of beer less than 250 yards from where they lived. A great deal of work would have been done in such cases.
    It is true that under that system, once those concerned had done all that, they could pop the application in every year until they got it. They had the papers, the witnesses and the plans and had spent a good deal of money, and it was worth while spending a few guineas on a solicitor's fee in order to have another shot at it. I do not know what possibility of that there will be with nine sessions a year. It may be that there is a provision dealing with this later in the Schedule, but I have not seen it. We have not had much chance of reading
    672
    what is proposed. This is Monday afternoon, and I was working under Royal command in Aberdeen on Friday. I have tried to find out what has happened since, but the mass of Amendments and new Clauses and this almost incomprehensible Schedule make any hon. Member feel concerned about whether he is in a position to carry out, or to give reasonable effect to, representations which he may have received from his constituents.
    What is the procedure? Are we not introducing a procedure with no form? It is true that a provision for appeal is made, but I do not know whether one has a right of appeal against a decision to which one was not a party. I should have thought that for all practical purposes such an appeal would be nugatory, anyway. It seems to me that if one is not there at the first sessions one has lost the right to object. Suppose that one did not know that the application was taking place until one read about it in the local paper and saw that it was granted. One might wish to appeal, but one might be told that the application had conformed with the provisions of the Schedule.
    It might be said that one had a solicitor, but that he did not understand the provisions of the Schedule, and that one took counsel's opinion but counsel did not understand the provisions of the Schedule, and certain advice was given by the brewers. If an individual then came along and complained that he had not read the notice in the advertising column of his local newspaper, a problem would arise.
    I should have thought that if one really was concerned about the evils which afflict humanity, from nuclear bombs to chocolate liqueurs, at least the House, in assessing the relative devastating facts, should seek to provide a measure of certitude so that the average citizen might have some idea when the licensing sessions were to be held.
    There is a curious thing about the Schedule. It provides—it is a fantastic provision—that the general sessions and the transfer sessions shall be held at regular intervals. One cannot fix things at regular intervals if one waits for business to come in. If one fixes regular intervals, it must be done at the start of the year. Therefore, one has to decide

    673
    before the business comes in what business one is likely to have. One will probably decide to have nine sessions at regular intervals—one about every six weeks. Otherwise, it may not be possible to have the sessions at regular intervals. If one has the first sessions and a dozen applications come in, one may have to wait for three months for the next sessions, and in that case it would be difficult to have the sessions at regular intervals.
    So we shall probably have the licensing justices fixing nine sessions each year and saying, "What does it matter if there are no applications at some of them?" This will be the simplest method from the point of view of the solicitor's clerk. At the beginning of the year he would write for the list of sessions, which would comprise one general session and eight transfer sessions. If the Solicitor-General was correct in the information which he gave—I do not doubt that he was—this means that an application can be made at any one of them with the minimum possible warning to the public.
    This is not a question merely of whether one is fond of licensing or not, whether one is roughly in favour of alcohol or not, or whether, like me, one thinks it is good for oneself but not good for other people, or not. This is a question of property rights, tenancy rights, and the amenities of housing estates. There are many people who are not teetotallers, but who have sound reasons for not wanting to have a public house opposite their home. I had a flat in London opposite which there was a public house. What was annoying me was that all my friends called on me "for one" when the "pub" closed, which was an almost intolerable burden on my wife and myself. Such problems are involved in this matter.
    The initiation, at this late stage, of this very elaborate Schedule will present us all with problems as our discussions of the Bill continue. It may well be that in abolishing this elaborate procedure we shall abolish the careful safeguards which have hitherto been provided against the granting of licences without proper representation being available to all those people who have reason to believe that their interests, or those of their children, family or district, might be
    674
    affected by the hurried grant of licences without due consideration.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(RIGHTS OF FIRE AUTHORITIES IN CONNECTION WITH REGISTRATION OF CLUBS.)
    (1) Where the local authority is not the fire authority, the clerk to the justices shall as soon as may be give the fire authority written notice of the making of an application for the issue of a registration certificate for any premises, or for the renewal of a registration certificate in respect either of different, additional or enlarged premises or of premises previously notified to him by the fire authority as being premises in respect of which the authority desire to be given notice under this subsection.
    (2) As regards any matter affecting fire risks a fire authority other than the local authority shall have the like rights—

    (a) in relation to the inspection of premises under section twenty-five of this Act; and

    (b) in relation to the making of objections, on the ground mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty-one of this Act, to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate;

    as the authority would have if they were the local authority.
    (3) In this section "fire authority" means in relation to any premises the authority discharging in the area where the premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient if, with the new Clause, we discuss the Amendments to page 34, line 13, at the end to insert:
    (13) A magistrates' court may refuse an application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate if it appears to them that the premises to be registered do not provide for efficient means of escape in the event of fire.
    and to page 34, line 32, after "police", to insert:
    "by the chief fire officer".
    Mr. Butler: It may also be convenient if we cover the Amendment to page 35, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    (f) that the premises are not provided with efficient means of escape in the event of fire.

    675
    This new Clause seeks to cover the matters, with which those Amendments rightly attempt to deal, in a rather more fundamental way. Its object is to try to deal with the sort of situation which arose with the fire in Bolton, on 1st May, as a result of which 19 persons in club premises lost their lives. We concluded that, as drafted, the Bill was not sufficiently broad to cover the problems of a club, if only because premises can be brought into use before action can be taken to secure adequate means of egress from them. We therefore think that in a licensing Bill we must do as much as we can about fire precautions.
    I shall not go into great detail about the Clause, because it is fairly obvious. In general, however, although we cannot here discuss fire precautions outside the Bill, under the Factories Act, 1959, new fire precautions came into force on 1st December, 1960, and we contemplate taking further steps in any legislation which we introduce in relation to health, welfare and safety in shops, offices, and so on. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in the present Housing Bill, has under consideration the problem of fire precautions in relation to multi-occupied dwellings. Although the provisions are spread about, with the aid of this Bill we shall be able to provide fire precautions regulations rather better than they have been, and I think that we are right to do so. The main fire precautions regulations are included in Section 59 of the Public Health Act, 1936.
    4.45 p.m.
    The new Clause provides that any fire authority which, as the Bill stands, is not given the right of inspection in any matter affecting fire risks, should have the rights of inspection which are provided in Clause 25, that is, the inspection of premises before first registration.
    In the Clause reference is made to the "authority" and Clause 28 (3, b), the Interpretation Clause, provides that a local authority means
    "the Common Council of the City of London, or the council of the county borough, metro-polian borough or county district, according to the situation of the premises in question."
    Clause 25, taken together with portions of Clause 21 and the Interpretation Clause, means that county borough
    676
    councils, for example, would have sufficient powers of inspection and, as they are fire authorities, they would have absolutely full power to deal with the matter. However, we found on examination that those provisions would not cover counties or combined authorities, and we therefore decided to put down the new Clause which deliberately gives to fire authorities the powers which they think that they ought to have. I think that that is satisfactory, and it covers renewal of registration.
    In paragraph 2 (5) of the new Schedule, opportunities are given so that when, instead of applying for registration, a club applies for a justices' licence, there would be power for the authority to intervene and to be informed. The Clause contains full provision for the club to inform the fire authority when there is a likelihood of risk. That, taken together with the powers in Clause 25 and the powers of inspection, covers the danger of fire and enlarges the definition of fire authority as it should be enlarged.
    I wanted myself to move the new Clause because I knew of the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) about the risk of fire. I hope that the new Clause will be regarded as satisfactory.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Clause is confined to clubs? What about restaurants, and so on? Will the Clause have any application in that respect, or are restaurants and hotels, and so on, covered in another way?
    Mr. Butler: Restaurants are covered by the existing law, but clubs are not. Clubs providing liquor—this being a licensing Bill—will now be covered by the Bill.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to understand that from now on, as restaurants and guest houses of all kinds all over the country will be entitled almost as a right to a licence, fire precautions will have to be approved by the appropriate local authority before a licence can be granted?
    Sir F. Soskice: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the new

    677
    Clause, so far as it goes. I am sure that I am speaking for every hon. Member when I say that we were all profoundly shocked to read of the Bolton fire and that we recognise the urgent necessity of trying to make certain that, as far as possible, similar catastrophes are avoided in future.
    I would like to press on the Home Secretary the points which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) have already put. The Clause clearly relates only to clubs which fall within Part III of the Bill. It enables the fire authority concerned to object to the grant of a registration certificate in the case of such a club.
    The Home Secretary referred to the Public Health Act, 1936, of which Sections 59 and 60 contain fairly drastic provisions about providing fire exits and anti-fire precautions in general. Why does the new Clause not apply equally in the case of other licences with which the Bill deals—restaurant licences, residential licences, combined licences and the ordinary licences which are granted in respect of licensed premises?
    To some extent it does, in the sense that licences of those sorts can be refused if the premises are unsuitable, but I suggest that there is no reason why one should not go a great deal further than the new Clause. Bearing in mind the fire risks and the appalling catastrophes which can result, why should there not be similar provisions about the other types of licensed premises? Why should not the law provide that the fire authority must be notified in the case of an application for any licence of that sort, or renewal of any licence of that sort, so that that fire authority can object?
    Equally, I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is certain that the existing provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the Public Health Act, 1936, are sufficiently wide. I have looked at this matter. Section 60, as I read it, applies to inns, hotels, and to restaurants. I would have thought that we should enact a similar obligation under this new Clause to notify the fire authorities in the case of any application for a licence for restaurants and hotels.
    678
    We already have Section 60 of the 1936 Act, which applies to them and which makes it obligatory on the owners and others in control of such premises to provide fire exits. But I should also like to ask, as I have done by implication, having enacted that there must be a notice given to the fire authorities in relation to clubs, why we should not enact that Sections 59 and 60 of the Public Health Act, 1936, should equally apply to clubs, which would then also have to submit to the rather stringent obligations imposed by those Sections about the provision of fire exits, and so on.
    Section 59, as far as I read it, applies to a club required to be registered under the provisions of the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910. I ask whether that Act, by virtue of the changes in the law which we are now proposing, automatically applies to a club required, under Part III of the Bill, to have a registration certificate. I would have thought not.
    The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
    Sir F. Soskice: I see that the Solicitor-General is indicating that he agrees with that conclusion, and that the Act does not apply to these clubs. If it does not apply to the clubs under Part III of the Bill, then I press the Government that it should do. As far as I know, all that is to be contained in legislation, applicable to clubs which will be required to have a registration certificate under Part III of the Bill is what we now find in this new Clause. I press the Government that that is not enough, and that clubs which fall within the provisions of Part III should be under the same obligations as other premises which come under Sections 59 and 60 of the 1936 Act.
    I know that the Government and the House will agree with me that there is no step that we should not take to avoid a possible recurrence of the sort of catastrophe that we have in mind. I can say that without fear of contradiction. I submit that the Government have not gone far enough, that this Clause should be more extensive in that it should apply equally to restaurants, hotels and licensed premises, and that, in any event, we should make sure that Sections 59 and 60 of the 1936 Act will apply in future to clubs which fall within the provisions of Part III of the Bill.
    Mr. Edwin Taylor: It is not my intention to make a long speech, but I feel that the House will expect me to say a few words about this subject, because this tragic club fire happened in my constituency. I was on the spot a few hours afterwards, because I am still a member of the local watch committee. There was strong feeling in the town, for the people knew the limitations of the regulations.
    I want to say here and now that I am very happy about the way in which the problem has been faced up to and dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and I were in touch with my right hon. Friend after the accident and many representations were made. I believe that this new Clause will be quite enough to ensure that a tragedy like this cannot happen again. For my part, I welcome it and say at once how happy I am about it.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: The people concerned after the Bolton fire examined the Bill to see whether Clause 21 (4), which does not actually refer to fire precautions, gave full authority to local fire officers. I take it, however, from what the Home Secretary has said, that Clause 21 (2, b) is adequate and that the words
    "…the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character and condition of the size and nature of the club"
    are grounds for making objection to the club being opened—or, if it is already opened, for making application that the licence should be withdrawn.
    I consulted some of my legal friends on this point and there appears to be a division of opinion. Some said that this was wide enough to include everything, and that a club could not be suitable or convenient if the fire precautions were not adequate. On the other hand, there is doubt, and it seems, from the nature of the Public Health Act, 1936, that there is some ground for this doubt, because I notice that Section 59 of that Act contains the words
    "…ingress and egress and passages or gangways…"
    I was advised that this did not refer to fire precautions, but to exits being adequate so that people should be able to get in and out easily. That seems to
    680
    be borne out by Section 60, which specifically makes reference to
    "…means of escape in case of fire…"
    My concern was whether this Bill as it stood adequately covered everything regarding fire precautions, except in this one matter where the local authority was not the same as the fire authority. I take it, from what the Home Secretary has said, that the legal advice that he has had is that the Bill is quite adequate, so that any fire officer will be enabled both to enter the premises under Clause 25 prior to their being opened as a club, or to go into them after they have been opened—to see that the fire precautions are still being maintained—and that if, on either occasion, he is not satisfied he can then object to the licence. If that is the case, I am quite satisfied with this new Clause.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I rise to follow up the point made by the Home Secretary before he resumed his seat. Everyone was shocked by the disaster at Bolton, and, naturally, we expected the Government to take note of the fact that there were premises of this sort which were not inspected as they should be by fire authorities. But I believe that we could have an equal disaster at a restaurant where drink is sold. One could have it in any other licensed premises, because, wherever drink is sold, fire danger is increased.
    People become less careful under the influence of drink. They take chances which they would not otherwise take in a sensible moment and, therefore, in letting the Bill go through the House, we must take extra careful precautions. I shall be very disturbed until I hear further from the Government that they are quite satisfied that all restaurants, and all places where a licence to sell drink is granted, come under a provision like this proposed new Clause for prior examination by the fire authorities.
    To my mind, it is quite inadequate to have an inspection of premises after they are opened. The transfer sessions will be asked to give new licences to restaurants and the local authority may feel that because a place has been a restaurant for twenty years it will be quite all right as a fire risk if it is subsequently licensed to sell strong drink. I believe that a place may be a reasonable fire risk if no drink is sold, but may become

    681
    quite a dangerous risk if drink is sold. I am not satisfied that we should make this requirement operate merely for clubs.
    A short time ago the Solicitor-General seemed as though he intended to reply. I hope that he will be able to satisfy us on this paint. If he does not, we shall have to pursue the matter at greater length, because it is an issue on which there is great public concern.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I hope that I can clear up this matter to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). He is worried at the thought that we may be unduly limiting the provisions concerning fire risks and he thinks that, in particular, we ought to ensure that a licensed restaurant where intoxicating liquor may be sold should also be inspected, or made liable to inspection, by a fire officer on prior notice. That point is covered by the new Schedule, to which we have referred but which we have not discussed in detail. If hon. Members will refer to that Schedule—(Licensing Procedure and Appeals)—they will see that paragraph 2 (5), which deals with applications for a new licence, provides that
    "The notice required…to be given to the proper local authority shall be given…"
    and goes on to provide:
    "and, in the case of a new licence or a removal shall also be given to the authority discharging in the area where those premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947."
    The fire authority therefore receives notice of an application for a licence, which will include a restaurant licence or any other Part I licence. If hon. Members will then look at Clause 2 (2) they will see that it provides that
    "Licensing justices may refuse an application for the grant or renewal of a restaurant licence…on any of the following grounds, that is to say…that the premises…are not suitable and convenient for the use contemplated",
    so that it would be open to a fire officer, having had notice and having the power to inspect, to come forward and make his objection that the premises are not suitable in view of the fire risks.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: It seems to me that there is another defect in this new Clause, with which the right
    682
    hon. and learned Solicitor-General may be good enough to deal. We are all anxious to do everything possible to reduce the fire risks in clubs and licensed premises. As I understand the new Clause—which the Home Secretary explained and, in explaining referred to Clauses 25 and 28—it does not seem that fire authorities will be given all the rights of inspection which they ought to have if we are to do the maximum possible to reduce fire risks. The Home Secretary seemed to think that the Clause would give a fire authority the right to inspect premises on an application for the renewal of a licence.
    The Solicitor-General: The new Clause deals with the registration of clubs, and not of licensed premises.
    Mr. Fletcher: I quite agree, but I gathered from the Home Secretary that he was under the impression that the new Clause gives a fire authority the right of inspection prior to an application for a renewal of a licence for a registered clubs. If the Solicitor-General will look at Clause 25 he will see that it deals with the right of inspection of local authorities, and this is important, because the new Clause, by reference, incorporates Clause 25. The object of Clause 25 seems to be to give a local authority as well as the police the right of inspection of premises prior to first registration but not subsequently, unless the case falls within subsection (4), which refers to the case of the club which applies for the renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises.
    There is the ordinary case of a straightforward application for the renewal of a registration certificate, under Part III, and I cannot see why a local authority and, a fortiori, a fire authority, should not have the right of inspection prior to any application for the renewal of a certificate. It does not seem sufficient merely to give local authorities, including fire authorities, the rights of objection which they are given under subsection (1) of the new Clause unless they are also given every opportunity of inspection, so that they can examine the premises and satisfy themselves whether or not they should object to the application.
    I raised this point in Committee, but the Minister of State did not seem fully

    683
    to appreciate the importance of the Amendment that we then moved, because in that context we were dealing with the rights of local authorities to inspect in order to see whether the premises were structurally sound, and on planning grounds, and so on. We were not dealing with fire risks; we were dealing with the general grounds on which local authorities should have the right of inspection. At the end of column 1086 of our proceedings in Committee the Minister referred to what was then Clause 22 (4) and has now been renumbered Clause 25. The point I made then, which I now make with greater emphasis because of the fire risks involved, is that the right of inspection should not be limited to an application for first registration, or for first registration of enlarged or changed premises, but should be applicable in the case of any application for renewal.
    I cannot see any objection to that. This is an extension of a Clause desired by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and if the Government intend to do everything possible to reduce the risks of fire, as I am sure is the case, I suggest that they should extend this right of inspection, given by the new Clause to fire authorities, to every application for renewal.
    The Solicitor-General: May I say that I think—in fact, I am pretty certain—that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is quite right in his reading of the Clause? The reason the Committee came to the conclusion that we should limit the right of inspection was, of course, on broad policy grounds. Ordinary clubs resent very much the right of inspection which does not extend to other private premises.
    However, having said that—and I know that the House will appreciate the force of the feeling on that point—it can be argued, as the hon. Gentleman has argued, that fire is perhaps a special case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied if I say that my right hon. Friend will very carefully consider what he has said before the proceedings in another place.
    Mr. Ede: I wish to support the point of view put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
    684
    Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), but I am a bit concerned at the way in which the thing works. The local fire authority is given no veto. What will happen will be that the local fire authority and not the local fire officer, except where he is the servant of the local fire authority, will be notified that in certain premises it is proposed to establish a club. Under this new Clause the authority will then have a right to inspect the premises. It will then consider the report of its appropriate officer and will have to decide whether it will appear at the application for the registration of the club.
    After having inspected the premises and looked at the plan, the local fire authority will, if it does not think that the premises are suitable from its point of view, tender evidence to the justices asking, presumably, either that the justices should reject the application or that they should insert in the grant of the application certain requirements for the alteration of the premises. That, I take it, is the procedure.
    Of course, the justices, having heard the evidence tendered by the local fire authority and any evidence that may be given in rebuttal by the promoters of the club, will judicially reach a decision on the matter, and the ultimate result will depend upon that decision of the justices. All that this Clause gives to the local fire authority is the right to inspect and then to tender evidence in the light of its inspection.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends have asked that this right should be extended to premises other than registered clubs. I merely want to say as one who for over sixty years has been a member of clubs affiliated to the Club and Institute Union that I think the resentment of the clubs would be a great deal less is everybody else were subject to the same sort of inspection—and liable to have evidence tendered against them—as this new Clause, apparently, gives to the local fire authority in the case of clubs only. I hope that the Clause will be accepted and I certainly hope that its scope will be extended in the way asked for by my right hon. and hon. Friends
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As the Solicitor-that the most important change made by General knows, in Committee we learned

    685
    the Bill is that it creates thousands of new licences all over the country—new licences which are given as of right subject to certain provisions. At the moment, under Clause 1, licensing magistrates are limited in their powers. The Clause says quite clearly:
    "Except on one or more of the grounds specified in this Act, licensing justices shall not refuse an application…".
    The conditions are laid down. Subsection (2, a) states:
    "is granted for premises structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening…"
    In other words, it applies to premises which are suitable for providing meals.
    Will the new provisions enable licensing justices to say, "Whilst we are satisfied that the premises conform in this way, they are not structurally adapted in such a way as to make them secure from the hazard of fire"? I ask the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary to consider this point again. There will be all sorts of buildings with new licences, big and small, and in many streets there will be a proliferation of them, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). They will be frequented by young people.
    Let us learn from this latest tragedy at Bolton. As an old miner, I know that, usually, it is necessary for a tragedy to occur before we take the necessary steps. Now that we have had this tragedy I think that it is the duty of the House to make sure that the provisions are such that the licensing magistrates can say, "This guest house or restaurant is not suitable for a licence because, among other things, it has not suitable arrangements to meet the hazard of fire".
    I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us that such premises are brought within the provisions and are brought within them in such a way that the licensing bench can say, "We will not grant you a licence for your restaurant or guest house until we are satisfied that your fire precautions are adequate".
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am not sure whether we are to hear another speech from the Government Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are."] I am delighted to hear that we are to have another speech. I thought, perhaps, that
    686
    the right hon. and learned Gentleman had exhausted his right to speak. I would not complain if he sought to speak for a third or even a fourth time.
    I look at the matter in a rather simple, straightforward way. I understand that what we are doing here is to tighten up the law with regard to clubs. The matter has been brought to our notice by the tragedy in Bolton. Such a tragedy should make us well aware of the risks which there are in some club premises. We are going to take precautions here. The only question that arises is whether the provisions apply to restaurants, boarding houses and like establishments.
    I watched the faces of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when the matter was raised and I thought that I caught a glimpse of dubiety on their part as to whether restaurants and establishments of that kind came under the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, there was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing to the box under the Gallery. As I understand it, they are now satisfied that under Clause 2 (2, b), and under the new Schedule, restaurants and other similar establishments will be covered. Although that Clause can be read as covering fire in their context, up to now we have taken it largely to refer to a case where the buildings were structurally fitted for the sale of drink and the supplying of meals. The fact that egress might be difficult or that there may be only one doorway did not occur to anyone on the Committee when we were debating this Clause.
    Now, we have had our attention called to it, and it is a matter of the utmost importance. I know that fires can arise through carelessness anywhere, but we have been reminded this afternoon that where people are slightly convivial in clubs and restaurants, their sense of control tends to decline as the evening advances. They throw down lighted matches or leave cigarettes on the edges of plates, and these can eventually start a fire. All that kind of thing does happen.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey): How does my right hon. Friend know all this if he is a teetotaller?
    Mr. Hall: I do eat, and I go to restaurants, and, frequently, in restaurants, if one wants them, there are intoxicating liquors. I am not quite so young

    687
    and innocent as perhaps my hon. Friend—and it is very kind of him—suggests I may be. These are matters that we should take into account and I should like to feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to say that actual words indicative of what we have in mind will be inserted in the Bill. I am sure that the House itself would be very much happier if the Government would do that and carry on the good work they are already doing in this new Clause.
    Mr. Holt rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) has already spoken once.
    The Solicitor-General: I think I can clarify this matter. We are concerned here, in the way in which the debate has gone, with three sorts of premises: first, clubs; second, licensed premises; and, third, restaurants. In addition to that, we are concerned with each of them in three matters: first, in respect of each, is there provision for notice to the fire authority; secondly, is there a discretion on the part of the justices to refuse a licence in the case of fire risk: and, thirdly, is there a right of inspection?
    May I take first the clubs? I think that the House is satisfied that where clubs are concerned there is the requirement of notice, a right of inspection, and the justices therefore have the right to refuse registration if, in the case of a fire risk—
    Mr. Holt rose—
    The Solicitor-General: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my exposition. There is also one point outstanding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), namely, that the right to inspect relates only to the first registration and not to renewal. As I have indicated, my right hon. Friend will certainly—although this does raise some questions of policy—consider that in the light of this debate.
    Secondly, licensed premises. So far as notices are concerned, licensed premises, including ordinary on-licences and restaurants, are covered by the provisions in the new Schedule, to which both my
    688
    right hon. Friend and I drew attention. In regard to the right to refuse a licence if the premises are not suitable or are a fire risk, in the case of an ordinary on-licence—a public house—it is a discretionary power. Quite clearly, the justices will refuse, and indeed they are bound to refuse, if the premises are not fit and proper for that use under the 1953 Act. The same answer applies to the right to inspect, because although there is no statutory right to inspect "pubs", if an application is refused, it is unthinkable that the licensing justices would give a licence.
    That brings me to the restaurants. To take first the point about notice to the fire authority, that is covered by the Schedule. The right to refuse in the case of a fire risk is, in my view, covered by the words to which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) drew attention, as I have done before—the words in Clause 2 (2, b)
    "are not suitable and convenient for the use contemplated by that paragraph,"
    but I will undertake with my right hon. Friend and the draftsmen to consider these words again.
    That leaves only the right to inspect. The restaurant licences are not, like the public house licences, discretionary licences, and therefore I will again consider that point with my right hon. Friend, before the Bill is considered in another place, to see whether, in the case of restaurant licences, it may not be desirable to write in a right to inspect the premises on the part of the fire authority.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(PREMISES ADJOINING SPECIAL ROADS.)
    No intoxicating liquor shall be sold or supplied in any premises abutting on or adjoining a special road.—[Mr. Farr.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss the new Clause with the Amendment in the name of the

    689
    right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), in Clause 1, page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    (13) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Act or in any enactment no licence of a description referred to in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section shall be granted to premises abutting on or adjoining any special road or motorway;
    and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    (13) The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation shall have power to specify by order roads which in his opinion are specially adapted for fast moving traffic or are likely to be used to a large extent for fast moving traffic and notwithstanding anything in this Act contained no licence of a description referred to in subsections (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section shall be granted in relation to any premises situate within such a distance of any such road as the Minister may in such order prescribe.
    Mr. Farr: The main purpose of this new Clause is connected with the supply of alcohol on motorways. During our discussion a few months ago in Committee, an Amendment was put down by some hon. Gentlemen opposite relating to the supply of liquor on trunk roads, as defined in the Trunk Roads Act, 1936. We included in our discussion of that Amendment the provision and supply of liquor on motorways, and, in particular, on M.1, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was good enough to say in one of his replies that the case for the abolition, control or elimination of the supply of alcohol on motorways was far stronger than was the case for control or elimination of liquor, as proposed in the original Amendment.
    There are quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that alcohol should not be supplied on motorways at all. There are also quite a number of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, probably even more, who think that if we are to have alcohol supplied on motorways, motorways must be subjected to a speed limit. One of the best illustrations that I can give is by means of the following example.
    Today, if one goes to a public house or hotel on a road in this country other than a motorway, one can have a very good meal, and, before it, during it and after it one can have a drink or two. One can emerge from that hotel at 10
    690
    or 10.30 p.m. and get into an enormous stream of traffic wending its way, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, through our hopelessly choked and narrow roads, at an average speed, if one is lucky, of perhaps 40 m.p.h. The roads will be congested. They will generally be narrow and inconvenient, and one will find it impossible to get along much faster, even if one wanted to.
    5.30 p.m.
    When one emerges from having a very good dinner in a restaurant on a motorway with a drink before, a drink during and a drink after dinner, one comes out to a highway which is not narrow or poky or inconvenient but a massive highway on which vehicles speed at an average of up to 100 miles per hour, and where the very slightest mis-judgment can mean sudden disaster.
    Travelling at 40 miles an hour along a poky road one can have an accident which may be very serious, but for the car driver and any other occupant of his car an accident will be especially serious if it occurs when the car is travelling along the M.1 at 80 or 90 miles an hour, a speed which can be attained at any time of the day or night. The effects on the driver and his passengers in an accident at that speed will probably be fatal, but, as has been shown by statistics about M.1 travel so far, he is very likely to cause fatal effects to other people who are in no way concerned with his affairs. It has been proved by statistics that in an accident in those circumstances it is far more likely that innocent people will be involved, far more likely than that they would be on an ordinary road such as A.5, as it was.
    In Committee the Solicitor-General had, I felt, a certain amount of sympathy for the case which was put forward for eliminating liquor on M.1, an argument put forward by hon. Members on both sides. Indeed, he was good enough to indicate that he had, but he also went on to say that in his opinion such a matter was far better dealt with by—to use his own words—"the road safety Bill which the Government propose to introduce this Session." I personally have seen no such road safety Bill. I have heard of a Road Traffic Bill originating in another place, a copy of which I have here, and which, I

    691
    understand may or may not reach us this Session. In the Road Traffic Bill I can find no reference at all to the elimination of alcohol from our motorways.
    One criticism which I met when I went around to ask one or two hon. Members to sign this new Clause was that they felt that even if a person, a driver or passenger, could not get a drink on the motorway, it was easy for him to go off the motorway to get a drink whenever he wanted to, and that the new Clause, even if it were made into legislation, would not affect the matter very much—that if a man really wanted a drink he could get it easily enough off the motorway. Of course he can, but we think that by making a law like the new Clause we shall make it less likely that drunken drivers, or even a driver who has had only one drink, will be at large on the motorways. Even if the new Clause saves only one life, it is well worth while.
    To sum up, I would emphasise to my right hon. Friend what has been emphasised to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport before now, that motorway travel is an entirely new concept of travel. We are not living in 1860 when it was necessary to go by stage coach and to have posting houses every ten or fifteen miles for a change of horses or so that people could have a drink. Today we can go from one end to the other of the M.1 in just about an hour. I would ask my right hon. Friend to move with the times and make an effort and say that road safety really means a ban on alcohol on our motorways.
    Sir F. Soskice: I greatly hope that the House will support the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in the new Clause which he has moved. It is, if I may say so, almost an impertinence to repeat his arguments because he put them so well, so that it is really supererogatory to go over the same ground, but if I may trespass in that direction just a little, surely the Minister does accept that motoring today is something absolutely different from motoring only ten years ago let alone twenty years ago. We now have these light, fast cars with their very powerful acceleration which would have astonished a motorist driving in
    692
    1930 or 1920, and surely we must all be agreed that we should accept the maximum degree of precaution to try to avoid loss of life which, we know, is far too frequent in present-day conditions.
    It is, perhaps, rather useful just to recapitulate what took place on this matter at earlier discussions. An Amendment was put down and supported by many hon. and right hon. Members of the Committee, an Amendment saying in effect that no licences should be granted in respect of premises abutting on trunk roads. The Solicitor-General replied that that was a definition of roadways which was far too wide.
    Well, so be it. The hon. Member for Harborough now has chosen a definition which is more restricted. He has tried to meet that point. I would respectfully point out that I also have sought to encompass the same thing in an Amendment suggesting that it should be left to the Minister to designate
    "roads which in his opinion are specially adapted for fast moving traffic".
    The definition as the hon. Member has put it may be better than mine, or mine may be better than the hon. Member's. I do not know. At any rate, I am supporting the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Therefore, so far as definition goes, there surely cannot really be a problem. One can select words—the hon. Member's may be the right words—which will limit the roads to the ones we are talking about, the roads which are in fact used by fast moving traffic. So that cannot be a difficulty.
    Ministers who answered in Committee said that there was the road safety Bill. The hon. Member has already dealt with that and I need not repeat what he said.
    The argument was used, as the hon. Member has said, that in any event the person who wanted to have a drink and who could not find a licensed restaurant abutting on one of these roads would go off the road till he found one. The answer to that seems to me absolutely simple and obvious. The alcoholic, the sort of person who must have a drink, will drive fifty miles to get a drink—if he must have it; but what we who support what the hon. Member has said have in mind is not the alcoholic, not the kind of person who must have a

    693
    drink at any cost. He is past praying for—
    Mr. G. Thomas: No.
    Sir F. Soskice: —or past using any other language about—
    Mr. Thomas: Not past praying for.
    Sir F. Soskice: His victims are, perhaps, past praying for. At any rate, I am not concerned with that sort of person. He will go through fire and water to get his drink. We cannot stop him. He is a subject of the criminal law and should be severely punished.
    The sort of person I am concerned with, and, I believe, the sort of person other hon. Members are concerned with in supporting this Amendment, is the ordinary, reasonable person driving out with his family, perhaps going to the seaside. It is essential that his reactions to any situation which he has to confront, in ordinary, everyday motoring, must be as acute as they possibly can be. I am not suggesting that one drink of beer greatly deadens his reactions. Obviously, it does not. That would be a ridiculous exaggeration. But it does slightly slow them down. It may make all the difference between taking the right decision in a moment in which an immediate and accurate decision has to be taken, and taking the decision either too late or taking the wrong decision. It may make all the difference between a catastrophe and the avoidance of a catastrophe if, perhaps because of one or two glasses of beer on a hot day, the driver's reactions have been ever so slightly dulled.
    A large number of ordinary respectable people who drive private cars or drive public vehicles may have a drink if they go to a restaurant immediately abutting one of these roads built for fast-moving traffic and drink is available. It never occurs to them that it will matter very much. They may have more than one drink. But, if drink were not available, they would not bother. It is unrealistic to think that people like that will go searching side-streets until they find a public house or a licensed restaurant. People's minds do not work like that. If they find a licensed restaurant, they may have a drink, or possibly two drinks, and those drinks may make all the difference in the world.
    694
    If the premises are not licensed they will not bother to look for somewhere else to get a drink.
    I believe that if we take steps to prevent people like that from having drinks when out driving in the ordinary way we may save many lives. Far too many lives are lost on the roads, and we ought to do everything we can to prevent this loss of life. I believe that this is one of the simple measures we could adopt to stop it.
    I put it to the Minister that all the answers that we were given when we previously discussed this matter have been completely disposed of. There is no difficulty about definition of the road. That must be a matter of simple language. The idea that people will anyway go and get drinks does not apply to the great majority of ordinary drivers. If they have one or two drinks, after they have been driving for a long time, and their attention is perhaps distracted by the members of their families talking to them, those one or two drinks may make all the difference between safety and disaster. We can take away a substantial source of danger by enacting, as the hon. Member for Harborough would do in the new Clause, that there shall be no licensed restaurants and no residential licensed premises abutting on these particular roads.
    If the Minister asks what "abutting on" means, if he looks at the Amendment that I have suggested in Clause 1, page 4, line 27, he will see that by that Amendment the Minister is enabled to prescribe the distance from the main road within which a licence shall not be given. It is a matter of easy definition, and if there is ambiguity about the word "abutting", it can be resolved by the Minister prescribing the necessary distance.
    I ask the Minister not to repeat the arguments which he used in Committee upstairs, which have already been more than amply answered by the hon. Member from Harborough. I hope that the Minister will consider the new Clause and not—I do not mean the term offensively—try to fob off the House by saying that it will be dealt with in another Bill which we have not seen. We are concerned with this Bill, and we are under an obligation to see that in this

    695
    Bill we take some steps to do something to limit the appalling carnage that goes on daily on our roads.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The House has a real opportunity to do something in what are the very early days of motorways. The motorways are only just beginning in a big way, and what we decide tonight will have a great influence on the future.
    After this matter was discussed in Committee upstairs. I tabled a Question to the Minister of Transport. It appears that the Minister, who is the only person who can give a licence on a road like the M.1, has already given a concession, including a licence, in two cases. I do not think that it is too late to reverse that decision, and the Minister of Transport indicated that he was willing to be influenced by the opinion of the Committee. There were many issues which divided us in Committee upstairs, but there were few issues which broke down the general line of division more than this one. There was broad agreement on both sides of the Committee upstairs that this was a sensible step.
    5.45 p.m.
    Motorways are different from other roads in that they are fast throughways. They are well constructed for fast traffic, and it follows from that that there is need for greater concentration on the part of the driver. High speeds are safe, provided the concentration is there. There must be speed of reaction, and everybody knows that after a few drinks the speed of reaction tends to slow down, and that is a source of danger.
    Furthermore, I cannot see the need to stop for a drink on these motorways. As has been mentioned, the M.1 is comparatively short. It is about 67 miles long, and can be covered in about an hour in a fairly fast car. It is not necessary to stop to fill up with petrol, and I do not think that it is necessary to stop for other reasons. If people need a drink, they can have one after arriving at their destinations. In the early days of the motorways it would be beneficial to road safety if we adopted the new Clause and prohibited the granting of licences to premises abutting on the motorways, because I believe that that would reduce the temptation to drivers. Anyone who has been on the
    696
    M.I knows that it is comparatively difficult to get off it, and few people would bother to get off it to have a drink and then return. I, therefore, strongly support the new Clause, and hope that my right hon. Friend will view it sympathetically.
    Mr. G. H. Oliver: When the Bill was in Committee upstairs the Minister was in some difficulty because the hon. Members who supported this proposal were not all teetotallers. This is not a question of drink, or an attempt to restrict drinking because of drink. We took the line that we did because we thought that with a road on which speed was of great importance it would be a mistake to establish licensed restaurants or licensed residential premises abutting that road. Motorways are in their infancy, and we should now do something to set the pattern of others which will be built and developed.
    I may be wrong, but I think that in Committee upstairs the Minister was saved from defeat on this question only by saying what he did in respect of the road safety Bill. He said that the Bill under discussion was not the appropriate Bill to contain provisions such as this, and that a Bill was being prepared which would be more appropriate to deal with a road safety measure.
    We have taken some trouble to ascertain whether such a Bill is in existence, or whether any provision is being made in respect of this issue in the Road Traffic Bill. So far I have not been able to trace anything relevant to the point made by the Minister. If we misunderstood him, perhaps he will tell us precisely what he meant, and what the position is today.
    In putting forward this new Clause, those of us who take a drink—I had better put it that way—realise that speed is a factor. Here we come back again to the M.1. The point raised in the Standing Committee was that a driver's judgment could be impaired by a small amount of alcohol. We make this proposal because we feel that nothing should be done to encourage the slaughter and the tragedies which occur on our roads today.
    I am sure that a great majority of people would be in favour of this Clause. They would welcome an indication that at last Parliament was prepared to do

    697
    something to signalise its desire that nothing enacted by the legislature should encourage people to take drink on a motorway. The general point has been extensively covered and now we are talking more particularly about the ordinary man, not the man who will get a drink when he wants it in any case. We are discussing the ordinary citizen.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to oppose this Clause, or at any rate to advise the House to receive it in its present form with great caution. Hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion have referred to motorways as something new. That is not so. The world has been familiar with motorways for at least 30 years. If in this country we have come to this form of road building late, that is our own fault. There is nothing new about it. The Germans have had their autobahnen since before the war, and the rest houses on the autobahnen cater for people travelling on the motorways and serve drinks to them.
    The proposed new Clause refers to "premises abutting or adjoining a special road." With respect, that phrasing cannot be right. A motorist cannot get off the motorway to any building except a rest house. Nothing else can be reached from the road. A motorist can only stop on the hard shoulder of the road or at the special premises provided for rest and refreshment. The M.1 has been referred to as a short road, but we hope that we shall have many more motorways. We have planned for about 800 miles of special roads and we hope that we shall see them completed within a reasonable time. This Bill must have some application to many motorways other than the M.1. Already some are under construction and have been seen by hon. Members, including the road from Birmingham in the direction of Bristol which is well on the way to completion.
    In my opinion, we should regard the provision in this Clause with great caution. It has been presumed that the person served with drink must be the driver of a vehicle. Already there is growing a form of transport which is new to this country, the specially designed long-distance bus. Another new Clause on the Notice Paper which is not likely to be selected refers to the
    698
    serving of drinks with meals on such long-distance buses. These vehicles are something like aircraft. They have a hostess and refreshment and toilet facilities. But for those long-distance vehicles without such facilities there should be somewhere where they can turn off the road and where their passengers can be provided with meals, as happens on the Continental roads. It is only the drivers about whom care must be taken and in all circumstances we should make sure that drink is not available to them in any quantity.
    I agree that even small quantities of alcohol consumed by a driver may create danger. I am against drunken driving or driving under the influence of liquor. At the same time, to try to ban liquor from any premises which happen to adjoin a special road seems to me to be going much too far, and an inconvenience to other than drivers, and to assume that special roads will always be short is to assume too much.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill. I may be wrong, but I think that had he taken part in the discussions in that Committee he would not have made the speech which he has just delivered. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) came closer to the mood of the Committee than did the hon. Member for Truro. They speak, in my opinion, for the majority of the House, and I hope that the Minister of State will agree to accept the Clause.
    This was not a party matter when it was discussed in the Standing Committee. Hon. Members on both sides regarded it in the light of existing circumstances and the situation in the future, so far as we could visualise it, when there would be a proliferation of motorways and cars would be travelling at greater speeds than now. It was felt that in a Bill of this kind we should, if possible, take steps to mitigate the risk which undoubtedly arises when some people take drink. It is not a question of whether a man is entitled to a drink. As the Minister of Transport has told us so often, his motto is, "If you drink, don't drive; if you drive, don't drink". That is a very sound policy.

    699
    There is a general feeling that if one eats with a drink, in some way it lessens the effect of the alcohol consumed. People vary in their tolerance to alcohol. Some can drink more than others without showing any effect. But the Medical Research Council Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Drew, has proved beyond doubt that even small quantities of alcohol affect one's judgment. If a person does eat, the effect may be delayed, but it is still there, and that is something to be remembered. A person may have a drink and feel all right when he gets back to his car. He has had a meal and feels, in accordance with the accepted view on the subject, that because he has eaten something, the drink has not done him any harm. It is later, when a split-second decision has to be taken, that he finds his judgment is lacking. We are dealing with something which may often affect the lives of innocent people. If a man is foolish enough to let his control go because he cannot wait to have a drink and he damages only himself, most of us would say, "Serve him right", but more often than not he may kill innocent young children who have a right to life.
    6.0 p.m.
    In resisting the Amendment in Committee, the Minister of State said in particular that there was a Road Traffic Bill coming along. He said that was a Measure which could more properly deal with a matter of this kind than this Bill. There was something in that argument, although on Second Reading some of us said that we should have had the Road Traffic Bill before the Licensing Bill because the Licensing Bill will increase facilities for drinking. When people drink it deadens their sense. That is what drinking is supposed to do, to make one feel more confident and happy. To a certain extent it reduces one's reactions to the hard facts of life.
    Many of us believed that these two Bills should have been introduced in the reverse order. Although the Road Traffic Bill which the right hon. Gentleman promised has been introduced, we are not likely to see it enacted this Session. I understand that probably another year will pass before that Bill is made law. As that was the main argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in opposing the Amendment in Committee, this Bill seems
    700
    to be the right place to make this provision because the other leg of his argument has fallen by the way.
    The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said that motorways have been with us for about thirty years. They have been on the Continent but not in this country for that time. Although motorways and trunk roads have been with us for some time, this Bill is new. It introduces a number of new types of licence. The number of licences and places where one can get intoxicating liquor will be increased.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Member misunderstood my remarks about thirty years. I meant that motorways have been on the Continent for thirty years. Drink has been sold in the rest houses on those motorways. So far as I know, there has been no complaint about that.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that it was very difficult to define a motorway. He said that an Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and other hon. Friends was drawn too widely. A trunk road more often than not runs through a built-up area and public houses and restaurants are already on such a road. I think this new Clause meets the situation as many of us visualise it in the light of that discussion. It would obviously be possible to define what kind of motorway, speed way, or special road we have in mind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use the argument he used in that direction again this afternoon.
    He may say, as I think he has said before, that it is possible for an individual to drink before he gets on to a motorway and the effect of not being able to get a drink while on the motorway would be largely nullified. That, of course, is true and we cannot avoid it. If a man or a woman wishes to drink before going on a motorway, this is a free country and they are entitled to do so. What we can do—as has been pointed out in the Committee and this afternoon with great cogency and effect—is to lessen the temptation for people to stop at restaurants on a speedway of this kind and to drink, knowing the effect which such drink will have.

    701
    Having listened to the debate, knowing that this matter cuts clean across party and that in Committee there was a large consensus of view in favour of something of this kind, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept either this new Clause, the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport, or the one in my name.
    Mr. Vosper: The Clause we are discussing deals solely with special roads or, as they are commonly known, motorways. We should be quite clear about the present position. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has complete control over these roads. So far he has granted two concessions on the M.1, in each of which cases he made it possible for the person holding a concession to apply for a licence limited to the serving of drinks with meals, but not the serving of drinks apart from meals. In one case no application has been made and in the other it was refused by the licensing justices. It has been and remains the policy of my right hon. Friend that concessions should be granted and he would place no obstacle in the way of a person who holds a concession applying for a "table" licence for a restaurant.
    We are discussing a very different proposal from the one which was made in Committee. In Committee we were discussing a wider question related to trunk roads. I made it clear that while it was possible to define trunk roads, the difference between trunk roads and classified roads was small. That Amendment excluded the parts of trunk roads which passed through towns and urban areas and, therefore, it was not a very effective Amendment. On trunk roads, as well as on classified roads, public houses, apart from restaurants, are already in location.
    I also pointed out that a Road Traffic Bill was about to come before the House. I want to make this quite clear. I knew perfectly well what would be in that Bill. I did not suggest that in that Bill there would be a provision limiting the establishment of restaurants on motorways. It is, however, the policy of the Minister of Transport to tackle the question of drink and the driver by means of the Bill which is at present before another place rather than to try to
    702
    control the premises, as suggested in the original Amendment. I say that particularly to the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver).
    The Amendment proposed by this new Clause is much more simple. Although the drafting is not clear, the definition of a special road is quite understood and easy to implement in the sense that there are no licensed premises on motorways at present. It is only right that I should point out that the new Clause suffers from certain defects which were also apparent in the original proposal.
    It is now proposed to impose this restriction on what are alleged to be the safest high speed roads in the country, motorways being safer than classified and trunk roads. Secondly, we are concerned—and I am not certain that it is clear to all hon. Members—only with licences which will enable drinks to be served with meals. In Part I of the Bill we are concerned with licences for the sale of drink with meals, as opposed to what in Committee was described as "perpendicular drinking." It is the lesser of two evils, if I may put it that way.
    Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro said, we should prevent the passengers in the vehicles from obtaining refreshment if we accepted the new Clause. Fourthly, nothing in any Amendment on these lines can prevent drivers from consuming alcohol before they go on to the motorway. Last night I drove down M.1, and I saw motorists in their dozens stopping at the northern end, presumably to have a drink, before they embarked on M.1. Whether they would have gone straight on and taken a meal on the M.1 if there had been a restaurant there is something which I cannot say. But this proposal suffers from the weakness that nothing in it would prevent a person from having a drink before he embarked on this journey.
    In logic, therefore, not everything is in favour of the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, but it is clear and simple. In his Amendment the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) seeks to impose a rather complicated definition. I have discussed that with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and he tells

    703
    me that it would be impossible to accept a definition on those terms. A definition of a high-speed motorway as a road which exists day in and day out throughout the year does not exist, as far as he understands it, and therefore he could not operate a proposal on those lines. Under such a proposal, varying parts of a trunk road would be subject to different forms of restriction.
    If the House wishes to impose some restriction in the sense of these three proposals, it should be along the lines of that proposed in the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. As I have said, the wording is far from perfect, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has heard all the debate so far and will listen to any subsequent contribution, is at the moment disposed to introduce some provision along the lines of that new Clause, although not in these words.
    Mr. Charles Royle: In his closing sentence the right hon. Gentleman did not make quite clear what he had in mind. Are the Government prepared to accept the new Clause or is he challenging the House to take a Division in order to help the Government make up their mind? If I may say so with respect, every argument which he has used in opposition to the proposal in the new Clause has been anticipated by its supporters and adequately answered. He should make it clear to us whether he is prepared to take action along the lines of the new Clause. I will give way in order that he may do so.
    Mr. Vosper: I said that subject to what is said in the debate my right hon. Friend proposes to accept some provision on the lines of the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr).
    Mr. Royle: In that event, I wish to add no more. That is very fair, indeed. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I feel strongly on this issue. Like the right hon. Member, I travelled down M.1 yesterday. I had occasion to pull up at one of the rest houses for patrol. Very many people indeed are using the rest houses, and I dread to think what the situation would be if many of the people in the rest
    704
    houses were indulging in intoxicating liquor. It would be very dangerous. I make my plea, together with those made by other hon. Members, that the Government should accept the principle of the new Clause and introduce the appropriate words. If we have that assurance I am very happy.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. W. Clark: If what is said subsequently in the debate will determine whether my right hon. Friend introduces in another place an Amendment roughly in the terms of the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I will intervene to explain why I support the new Clause.
    We have two types of road in this country—the social road, which is the old type, and the non-social road. The M.1 is a utility road to enable people to go from A to B. It has a magnificent setting and it is an ideal place for a road-house, but I shudder to think what M.1 would be like if we had road-houses throughout its length. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport envisages increasing the network of motorways throughout the country, and I take the view that he should not have the responsibility always of saying that there shall be no drinking on the motorways. Parliament should put into an Act of Parliament a provision that drink should not be allowed on the motorways. We still have the social roads, in my connotation, where people can drink and eat.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) produced the red herring of the autobahn. The difference between the M.1 and the autobahn, I understand, is that pedestrians have been excluded from the M.1 since it was opened and that is not the case on the autobahn. In view of the fact that pedestrians are not allowed on the M.1, the only possible customers of licensed premises there would be the drivers.
    That is the first reason that I supported the new Clause. I will explain my second reason. We should bear in mind that there are to be between 600 and 800 miles of motorways throughout the country in the next 10 to 30 years. We should also bear in mind that long-distance coach travel is extremely convenient. The coaches are so fitted that passengers can eat and can drink tea and coffee and

    705
    soft drinks, but not hard drinks. We should remember that travelling by coach is in some cases 40 per cent. cheaper than travelling by rail, and it is clear that more and more husbands will take their families on holiday by coach.
    I regret that the new Clause "Public service vehicle licences" has not been selected, but I must refer to it in giving the second reason why I support my hon. Friend's new Clause. If we exclude licensed premises from motorways, if we accept that there will be an increase in the number of motorways and if we accept that more and more people will travel by coach on them, then in order that these people should not be deprived of drink, facilities should be provided for licensed drinking on long-distance coaches. This may not be a sufficiently logical reason for those who do not drink. I admit that I am not one of them. But if we exclude licensed premises from the M.1, it is essential, in my opinion, that we provide facilities for licensed drinking on long-distance coaches. I hope that, having listened to the debate, my right hon. Friend will introduce an Amendment in another place to meet the spirit of my hon. Friend's new Clause.
    Mr. Bowen: I strongly support the new Clause of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I interpret the Minister's words as a clear statement that he accepts the principle of the new Clause and undertakes to implement it and that he is exercised merely with the mechanics of the matter and in finding more appropriate words to meet the clear objective which the hon. Member for Harborough has in mind. On that basis the Minister's statement was of great satisfaction to me.
    The Minister of State described the new motorways as our safest roads. Is the new Clause likely to contribute to the safety of our new roads? I do not think that anyone in the House could contend that it would do other than contribute to their safety. It is possible to argue about how far any restrictions could be circumvented, but I do not think that anyone will doubt that the new Clause would be a real contribution towards safety on the roads.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the new Road Traffic Bill. Anything concerning drink and the driver contained
    706
    in a Road Traffic Bill is almost certain to be confined to the question of unfitness: to drive by reason of drink. I do no: believe that we are dealing so much with that aspect, because that will have to be provided for in other legislation. We are concerned with the person who, although he has had some drink, certainly cannot be regarded as being unfit to drive. We are concerned with someone who has not had sufficient drink to render him unfit in the normal sense, but has certainly had sufficient drink to affect his reaction on a motorway. We cannot be satisfied with the argument that there will be stronger provisions dealing with drink and driving in the new Road Traffic Bill.
    If the Minister does what he has said he intends to do, we shall set a very valuable pattern for the new type of road. If such a pattern is to be set, now is the time to do it. I do not say this in any offensive sense, but as these new roads develop a number of vested interests will come into existence and in five or ten years' time it will be very difficult to take the type of action which we now envisage. I hope that the Minister will implement what he has said in such a way as to carry out the principle behind the new Clause.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). This is perhaps not surprising, because for many years he and I have had to consider transport matters and special roads.
    I say this with the utmost respect, but I do not think that most hon. Members have twigged the real point here. The new Clause applies only to Part I, that is restaurants. It does not deal with public houses. It does not deal with alcohol on or near the new roads. It is concerned merely with whether someone can have a drink with a meal.
    Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend's interpretation is incorrect. The intention is, as I think is clearly stated, to ban the supply or sale of alcohol
    "in any premises abutting on or adjoining a special road."
    Mr. Rees-Davies: That is not what I said. The undoubted purpose of my hon. Friend is one thing, but in the way in which it is done it comes under

    707
    Part I and applies only to restaurants which are on the road. This was confirmed by my right hon. Friend. He nods his head in agreement. It is important that hon. Members should understand this.
    I entirely dissent from the view that we are now entering a new era. Some people may think so, but if this was to be done it should have been done in 1930 when the special roads of this country and of Europe were being created. Many of us have had the pleasure of driving on German, Italian and American roads. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will have evidence from America, France, Italy and other European countries to indicate whether there has been any appreciable danger on their special roads arising from alcohol. In most cases their roads have been in existence for twenty years or more. I do not believe that there will be any evidence to this effect.
    In any event, we in the United Kingdom are required to legislate in respect of 800 or 1,000 miles of these new roads, as there will be in the future. The new Clause deals only with special roads. There will be no public houses upon them. However, provision will have to be made for certain rest establishments—restaurants and possibly sleeping accommodation, such as motels. The provision to be made in this country will probably be nothing like as great as that made in other countries.
    There will be town planning control, which will prevent restaurants, hotels, etc. being built except in accordance with certain conditions. I am delighted that the Minister of Transport is present now. I hope that he will agree with me. He will have the assistance of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He will have to consider to what extent rest centres—motels, restaurants, or other accommodation—are necessary. They will be provided for no doubt after discussions have taken place. It is interesting to remember that these centres must be provided for when the road is built. When a designer starts to design a new road and lays out his plans, he must incorporate into them provision for hotels, motels, restaurants, etc.
    708
    We know that a very large number of people will use the new roads, but not more than 10 per cent. of the road users will be drivers. Of the 10 per cent. who are drivers, about half are professional drivers. They may be lorry drivers, and hon. Members are familiar with their position. I have been closely associated with long distance lorry drivers, whom I represent in my conference. The 1,200 or 1,500 long-distance lorry drivers with whom I am concerned do not need to be told that they must not have a drink when they are driving. They would not dream of doing so on a long journey.
    Then there are coach and bus operators. There is another new Clause relating to them. They do not need to be told that they must not drink when driving. Then there are the drivers for the tycoons, the businessmen who are fortunate enough to have chauffeurs. They do not need to be told that they must not drink when in charge of a motor vehicle. Then there are passengers—passengers in coaches, buses, lorries, etc. We do not have to stop the passengers from drinking alcohol.
    As the drinks with which we are dealing are only those to be served at rest houses—that is to say, at places where meals are being served—we are concerned with a very much smaller problem than that which has been presented to the House. The problem is whether a small number of people can have drinks with their meals at places provided on special roads.
    At present there is a large number of existing licences up and down the country. We shall certainly not build roads to try to avoid existing licences. They will continue. They are in the main publicans' licences. The Bill creates a new class of licence under Part I, namely the restaurant licence. This is where I come back to the point that it is in respect of that licence and that licence alone that this suggested provision arises.
    6.30 p.m.
    I am against the new Clause. My right hon. Friend, as has been his wont throughout the Committee stage, has, like everyone at the Home Office, preserved an open and fair mind upon this and a great many other issues. I think he is right, if I may say so, in saying he

    709
    will be influenced by the view of the Committee and the House. Now that we have left the Committee stage, the views of the Committee, I suggest, are of smaller importance. What matters now are the views of the House here, and the mere fact that some of us may upstairs have had views of one sort or another is not of any use here in the House save in so far as the views we expressed in Committee may be an indication of experience of the problem. I say no more about that; I am undecided.
    I am not at all happy about what is now suggested, for this paramount reason. If the countries which have had 30 years' experience of these roads have not suggested that it would be a good idea to go "dry" on them completely—and so far as I know they have not done so—then my hon. Friends must prove their case. They must establish that what they propose is worthwhile. Four-fifths of the people who will be on these roads will not be drivers at all, and two-thirds of the remaining one-fifth will be professional drivers who will not be likely to be influenced by drink.
    One, therefore, comes down to this point. One hon. Member said that, if we saved but one or two lives, we should have done something. I do not share that view. If that be the correct view, we can all pack up and say that nobody in the future must ever have a single drink when driving a motorcar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am quite sure that the shade of the former Member for Ealing, North, whose spirit still hangs over this assembly and speaks to us sometimes through the mouth of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and one or two others, would be delighted to shackle the rest of us in that way, prohibiting anyone from having any drink at all when going on the road. Surely, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, whose logic is often better than his reasoning, if I may say so, will agree with me in this: it is a little illogical to suggest that we should impose these restrictions on the safest roads we have, the roads which are or will be designed for the greatest safety, while upon the most unsafe roads, roads upon which I should almost need a drink in order to drive at all, no restriction at all is placed.
    Are we not apt to allow our consideration of these matters to be a little tinged
    710
    with emotion which, while it can be a good thing, is apt to lead us astray when we think about drink and safety? I venture to suggest that this is a smallish problem. It could be overcome in this way. The Minister of Transport has to take to himself very substantial powers, if he has not already got them—I think he has—to ensure that he decides how many restaurant, rest houses and so forth are required on special roads. I should have thought that we could trust him to permit a small number of licences where they are absolutely necessary in respect of hotels, motels, and a few special restaurants on these roads where their siting is suitable, the number being very limited, as indeed it will be. If that were done, no damage would be likely to result.
    If the view of the House were to the contrary, that the sale of alcoholic liquor ought to be stopped altogether, I myself should vote against it. I should be delighted if the House expressed a completely free view on this issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if it came to a Division, would be prepared to sit tight and have the pleasure of seeing the House express its independent view on a matter which has cut across not only party lines but more widely than that, if I may say so. Some of my own colleagues who have supported many of my own Amendments, and whose proposals I in my turn have supported, are not with me on this matter. It has cut straight through the middle, and it shows what a clear dividing line there can be on certain issues.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the words
    "abutting on or adjoining a special road"?
    I assume that that would apply to premises which one could not reach from the road. Is that so?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: It is quite clear that the phraseology "abutting on and adjoining" is not correct and, indeed, is not appropriate to the building of a special road anyway. My right hon. Friend said that he accepted the spirit of what was proposed, but not this particular Amendment. I should not want to take any point which went to the Amendment rather than to the spirit of it.
    Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies)

    711
    and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) have raised some very important questions this afternoon. Having regard to the 80 per cent. increase in convictions for road drunkenness since 1955, I should not have expected the hon. Member to regard as an unimportant issue the taking of drink by drivers. Apparently we cannot prevent people drinking before they drive. While we satisfy ourselves, and the Minister of Transport, apparently satisfies himself, by appealing to the common sense and good citizenship of good drivers in asking them to desist from drinking before driving, we are able to deal with this matter of special roads at this stage.
    No one who has ever seen a road accident caused as a result of a selfish man insisting on having his drink before driving his car will ever regard this as an unimportant question, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet would have us regard it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has his priorities all mixed up. With the liberty of the driver goes the liberty of other citizens also. I should expect any man with decent instincts, in a country crowded as ours is with a growing number of motor cars on the roads, would in any case think twice before drinking and going on to the ordinary conventional roads to which we are accustomed. We have seen enough disasters on those roads to make people who usually enjoy a drink with their meals resolve that they will never drink and drive. We are dealing now with something so new in the life of these islands that the Minister of Transport himself, who is not "T.T.", as I think he told us on one occasion, has expressed concern about it.
    I remember reading with particular interest the words of the Minister of Transport after the M.1 was opened. He was appalled at the standard of driving then. People were not used to the fast driving and were not showing proper care in moving from lane to lane. I do not underestimate the effect of one drink on a driver using one of these fast roads. Any man who, knowing he is about to drive along a special road, takes one drink is a bad citizen. He is a danger. We should control him if we can.
    The Minister of State gave us an appalling illustration. He told us that last night he saw a lot of cars crowded
    712
    about a public house at the beginning of one of the motorways. We are all accustomed to seeing cars around every village public house outside our big cities. It is a common feature nowadays. People go out from Cardiff and the other cities, and it has become a national habit to visit the public houses in the small communities outside. I always hope to be home so that I am not menaced by people who have taken too much drink or that those who want to indulge in that luxury have had the common sense to take someone who is a soft drinker with them. Surely, in an age when so many homes are being blasted by the misery of sudden death to one of the family, it is not too much to ask people to regard this as a matter of honour and social concern.
    I realise that the Minister cannot impose a restriction—it just would not be accepted; I accept that—that people travelling on fast roads should not take drink before so doing. But it would be diabolical if we ran away from our responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Truro would have us do. To invite people who stop for a meal on the M.1 to have a drink is asking for trouble.
    The Home Office has shown a realistic attitude in this matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and his hon. Friends who tabled the new Clause and to the Minister of State and the Home Secretary for the spirit in which they have dealt with this question.
    I know that the House has grown accustomed to the fact that I am not without bias on this question, any more than the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is without bias. We are biased in different ways, but we both have a bias which springs from our convictions. I have my convictions, he has his, but people outside this House who would not respond to my convictions nor to his are appalled at the way in which we are slithering on with regard to deaths on the road. When we have a chance only to put the brake on and to save one or two lives, I believe that we would be failing in our responsibility to the nation if we did not take it. We have had a good lead from the hon. Member for Harborough. If a Division is forced, I hope that hon. Members will crowd into the Lobbies to ensure

    713
    that the new motorways shall at least not encourage people in the foolishness of drinking and driving.
    Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): I am sorry to have to oppose the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), whose sincerity and conviction are matched only by the charm with which he presents his case to the House. It seems to me, however, that the new Clause is wrong because it sets out to legislate to eradicate irresponsible or anti-social behaviour on the part of a very small minority at the expense of the majority. It has been said that many people who travel on the roads with which we are concerned are passengers and would like to have a drink with their meals. There is no reason why those passengers should not have a drink if they want one.
    What has been forgotten is that the modern motor car, in the hands of the irresponsible motorist, whether he has had a drink or is completely sober, is the real menace. We have only to think of the powerful motor cars which are being made today and the acceleration with which they can get away from traffic lights. Probably some cars are travelling at almost 30 m.p.h. before they have gone from the green light to the other side of the crossing. A car in the hands of an irresponsible person is a danger in the middle of a city or village, or anywhere else. There are safe roads and there are unsafe roads.
    The motorway has been designed specially for the powerful car. Are we saying that we should make it a rule that, while people may have a drink with a meal and probably without a meal on some of the unsafe roads, they should not be able to do so when they stop for a meal on the really safe roads? We are trying to encourage traffic on these roads. Tourists from abroad are in the habit of being able to stop, whether on the autobahn or any other road, and to have a drink with their meal. This applies particularly to passengers. Are we to say to them when they come to this country, "We want you on the safe roads, because you have high speed motor cars", or are we going to drive them on to other roads which are not so safe?
    Mr. Julian Snow: Why not?
    Mr. Goodhew: If a man has a drink with his meal, surely he will be much more dangerous on a winding narrow lane than on the M.1.
    Mr. Snow: The purpose of my intervention was to ascertain why we have to amend our laws in order to encourage more people to visit our country.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Goodhew: There are tourists from our own country who travel abroad and want their passengers to have a drink with their meal. We are saying to people, "If you want to drink with your meal you must go on to the lesser roads which were not built for the fast cars of today and which have much worse accident records than the M/".
    Mr. John Hobson: That applies not only to the minor roads. The alternative to the M.1 is the A.5 on which anyone can get a drink at any stage of the journey.
    Mr. Goodhew: That is one of the things which is so illogical about trying to pass a new Clause of this sort. If, as I hope, we are thinking in terms of having a whole network of motorways, it seems to me that it is quite absurd to make them a class apart, roads designed especially for modern traffic and for modern fast vehicles, and to drive people off of them.
    We have heard a great deal of talk about the M.1, particularly since it is our first motorway. A person travelling to Birmingham can stop at any one of a number of good hostelries in St. Albans and have a meal and a drink with it. If we drive him to do that, we will please the landlords of St. Albans, but we are not making a contribution to road safety. It would be wrong for the house to imagine that by passing this new Clause it is contributing to road safety. It will only result in more people going on to the smaller and older roads which were not designed for fast traffic. If we as a House wish to deal with irresponsible behaviour on the part of people, we must make sure that they are punished when they are irresponsible. But for goodness sake do not let us punish the vast majority of people who behave in a responsible manner.
    Mr. Farr: In view of the assurances which have been given by my right

    715
    hon. Friend, in the name of my hon. Friends and myself I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order. The Minister of State gave a certain assurance about what his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intended to do. He also said that he would listen to the speeches that were made in the debate. I hope, therefore, that we shall have an opportunity of contributing to the debate so that the Home Secretary may be informed of what right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House feel on this important matter.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order. However, there were noises which appeared to be the noise "No", and that is sufficient for this purpose at the moment.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: In response to the Home Secretary's invitation, I should like to say a word or two. I am one of those who support the new Clause without in any sense being a teetotaller. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright that he accepts the principle of this proposal, I contemplate going to celebrate in a modest way, because this is a very important proposal.
    I should like to try to deal briefly with the most cogent arguments which have been advanced. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) asked why passengers on long-distance coaches should not have a drink. The answer to that is that we cannot distinguish between the driver and the passenger. I do not believe that every professional driver—chauffeurs, and so on—drinks. This seems to me a grotesque suggestion. But if facilities for drinking are provided, we must assume that drivers as well as passengers will drink. If we really work this point out, the hon. Gentleman's argument goes the other way. If the driver who has the lives of many people at stake drinks and makes a slight miscalculation, it will have, because it is a long-distance coach full of people, very grave consequences. I would have thought the fact that there are these long-distance coaches is an argument in favour of the Amendment and not against it.
    Mr. G. Wilson: I would have thought that the professional driver would take up the same position as the professional air pilot who does not drink at all.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: He may and he may not. Those who did not would be running very grave risks concerning the people they are carrying.
    Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the long-distance drivers of coaches and other long-distance drivers drive on great stretches of road in the south and other parts of England where there are not likely to be motorways, with the same problems, and where they can drink at almost any time, without any record of irresponsible driving?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I will come to that argument, which I regard as an important argument, that it is illogical to distinguish between one road and another. The Minister of State and other hon. Members asked, "Why apply this to the safest roads, when you are not applying it to others?" One could say that the safest roads are the only roads without licensed premises at the moment, but I do not make a great deal of that. People say that in foreign countries on the autobahnen and so forth, they can have drink. I was in Germany a few months ago when there was talk about the rapid increase of accidents on the autobahnen which was causing a great deal of concern. I do not say that there is a relation between the two, but there may be. One cannot argue that because other countries have possibly made a mistake about this we should make the same one. The fast roads are designed not only to be the safest roads but to attract the maximum amount of fast traffic. As the years go by we shall get more and more fast traffic—much faster than it is now—pouring down these roads. These are the safest roads only in the sense that they will attract more fast traffic, with the danger that the slightest error on these roads will be more catastrophic as the decades and years go by. I do not think that the argument about the fast road is a very good one. There will be more roads with fast traffic when we get the network of 800 or 1,000 miles of fast traffic roads.
    As to the argument about applying this to some roads and not to others,

    717
    there are many roads where one can get a drink. No one can find a logical solution to this problem. The only logical way would be to allow everyone to drink everywhere or to stop everyone from drinking everywhere. We cannot achieve that because vested interest will have been built up which it will be very difficult to destroy.
    At the moment we can do something which is not wholly logical but which will be of great use—we can stop drinking on these extremely fast roads. If I could stop it on the A.5 or the M.1 I would do so, but I cannot. I do not, because of that, want to be driven away from doing something which could be a very great contribution and, I am sure as the years go by, an even greater contribution to the preservation of life on these roads where more fast traffic will be concentrated.
    Mr. John Hall: Will this not have the opposite effect to the one which the right hon. Gentleman intends? Will not it have the same effect as restricted licensing hours and persuade many people to take more drink before they get on to the road than they might otherwise do? It may persuade them to take a hip flask with them or go off the road in search of a drink. When there are restrictions on drinking, people tend to drink much more in the time available to them.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: This is not a good argument in this case. It is a good argument against total prohibition. If we wore to stop drinking in this country it would impose great inconvenience, namely, the capacity to get from one place to another under pleasant conditions and very fast. I do not believe that people will wander off these roads, losing a lot of time, in order to get a drink or that they will stop to tank up themselves as well as their motor cars. I want to get as few people taking drink on these roads as I possibly can.
    One point of great importance which has nothing to do with the merits of this matter is procedure. I want the right hon. Gentleman to put these words in the Bill because the mere assurance that maybe the Government will try to put them in in another place is not enough. If the Government do not succeed in putting them in in another place, we shall never get hold of this problem again in this House, because there will not be a
    718
    Lords' Amendment to debate. The only possible way in which we can assure that this matter comes back to us is to have these words in the Bill so that even if they are not perfect, a new version can be put in in another place. We want to be assured that this matter will come before us again and the only way of securing that is to put these words in the Bill at the moment.
    I hope that the hon. Member who believes so strongly in this Clause and who has argued so ably for it, will not press to have it withdrawn. It would not be wise. This matter might then not come before us again. We do not know what another place will do about this, and we must ensure that some Amendment is made so that this matter will come back to us for debate. I urge the hon. Member, whom I congratulate very much on his speech, not to fall for this trick, unintentional though it may be, of trying to get this Clause withdrawn.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I hope that the House will be able to come to a decision on this matter. I have listened to the whole of the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said the Government would listen to the debate, and I have been struck by the general sense of the House that something on the lines of this new Clause is desirable. I am, of course, aware of quite a body of opinion, which is not in favour of banning drink in the proximity of a motorway, but on the whole, my opinion is that there is sufficient sense of opinion in this House today to make it justifiable for the Government to include in the Bill, as finally passed into an Act, something on the lines of this Clause.
    I will discuss the question of procedure in a few minutes. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was most reasonable in his speech; he clearly disagreed with this new Clause, but at the same time he referred to the sense of the House. I am not going necessarily by the sense of the Standing Committee, but by the sense of my discussions with hon. Members over the past few weeks, that this would be one of the major subjects for debate in the Bill.
    The new Clause, as drafted, is for a variety of reasons unsatisfactory. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was

    719
    right—he did not say it offensively in referring to the Government's having adopted a trick. There was no intention of a trick. The later Amendments, in page 4, line 27, to be moved by his own right hon. Friends are must more difficult than this one. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was kind enough to say that he would back this Clause instead of his Amendment.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Clause has considerable demerits and I am informed by the draftsmen that the Clause would not stand up in a Statute. It has, for example, no penalty attached to it and, therefore, my advisers do not think that it would make good sense in the Bill. The words "sold or supplied" need further definition, because we are not quite sure what they mean. The words "adjoining or abutting", referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) and other hon. Members, are not satisfactory in their definition. Therefore, for these three reasons alone, it would be impossible to accept the Clause as it stands. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Smethwick, in his anxiety, does not make us accept a Clause which is quite unsatisfactory, because, for the reasons I have given, the Government could not accept a Clause on these lines.
    The only device, therefore, which we are left to adopt in relation to the new Clause is to accept, not a trick, but the perfectly honourable statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Government would look at the matter and try to attempt to meet the situation in another place by a constructive Amendment which is satisfactory. That is usual on these occasions. In the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, which, after listening to the further part of the debate, I honestly consider better than putting a wrongly drafted Clause into the Bill. If that is agreeable, we might agree to do that. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is permitted to withdraw the Amendment or whether we have a vote on the matter, I hope that we can come to a decision.
    I must make two other general observations. I am sympathetic with the
    720
    practical arguments raised by certain hon. Members in the course of the debate in opposing the new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) pointed out that a person can stop in the estimable place which he represents in Parliament, attend a first-class hostelry and fortify himself for the nearby road. That is perfectly obvious. One of the reasons for accepting something on these lines is that there are indefinite opportunities of obtaining drink already. If a person is determined to obtain drink and then proceed on the M.1, nobody in this free country can stop him.
    What the Government attach importance to—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport came in just now to show his general understanding and support for the mood of the House and had a conversation with me on this subject—is that we are at the beginning of a series of motorways like M.1. The most important argument used in this debate was used in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and others, that now is the time to start dealing with this problem. The Clause would not stop people bona fide obtaining the drinks they want wherever they want.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: It would discourage them.
    Mr. Butler: It would discourage them stopping in the midst of a road which is designed for transit and not for drinking.
    The object of the motorways is to obtain swift and sure transit. Whether they are the safest roads in the world, the right hon. Member for Smethwick was perfectly right in saying that they are the fastest. I cannot see that it is any great trouble for the future of British democracy if a driver has to obtain his drink at some other place than on the edge of a fast motor road, intended to get him quickly to another place.
    On the whole, although there is obvious controversy, and for sheer logic the critics of the Clause have it—I do not deny that—I think that the view of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet should prevail that as there is a general sense in this House, we should respect it and come to a decision now.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am glad that the Home Secretary has intervened and said what he has just said. I think we all agree that we should now bring this debate to a conclusion. I hope, however, that in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said and the way in which he has enlarged the assurances previously given by the Secretary of State, my hon. Friends will now allow the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) to withdraw the new Clause.
    As I understand it, the Home Secretary has given us an assurance that when the Bill goes to another place, the Government will introduce a new Clause on the lines either of the Clause that we have been discussing or on the lines of the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). We all appreciate that we cannot achieve perfect logic in this respect. The Home Secretary is to be commended in having accepted the sense of the Committee and the sense of the House, and, I believe, the sense of the country on this subject, that there is deep and genuine feeling that these motorways should be treated as something different from ordinary roads on which drink is allowed and that they should be treated as motorways designed for the primary purpose of enabling people to get from one place to another in the quickest possible time. My experience is that motorists tend to treat motorways as such and exercise a special degree of skill and responsibility when using them. I hope that if we in Parliament lay down as a principle, whether it is logical or not, that it is not desired by Parliament that licensed premises should be sanctioned on motorways, we shall be making a real contribution to avoiding carnage on the roads.
    It is important to make this observation following the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). It is not yet quite clear to me whether the new Clause which will be introduced in another place will, as I would hope, prohibit the sale or supply of liquor in any premises, not merely the kind of licensed premises with which Part I of the Bill deals, but licensed public houses—"pubs" as we know them. That would be the ideal. Whatever may be the technical procedure under the scope of the Bill, however, I hope that it will be an absolute prohibition.
    722
    To deal with the argument of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, even if the prohibition is merely in respect of restaurants, it seems to me that if Parliament makes that provision in Part I of the Bill, it would then be unthinkable that any licensing bench would grant a licence for a public house to be opened on a motorway. Therefore, in either event, we should achieve the result at which we are all aiming.
    Mr. Farr: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(LIMITED SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES.)
    (1) If on application made to the licensing justices at the annual licensing meeting or at any transfer sessions with respect to licensed premises in any area notwithstanding that dancing is not provided for the public in those premises the justices are satisfied that the whole or any part of the premises is structurally adapted and bona fide used or intended to be used for the purpose of providing for persons resorting thereto music by one or more live performers and substantial refreshment to which the sale of intoxicating liquor is ancillary and that the location of the premises is suitable and convenient for that purpose the justices may grant a certificate, to be called a limited special hours certificate, for the premises or if they are satisfied that part only of the premises is adapted or used or intended to be used as aforesaid for that part.
    (2) During the time that a limited special hours certificate is in force for the premises or part thereof the permitted hours in those premises or that part of the premises on any week day including Saturday shall be the general licensing hours provided and determined in accordance with section five of this Act extended to one o'clock in the following morning.
    (3) At any time while a limited special hours certificate for any premises or part of premises is in force the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated may apply to the licensing justices for the revocation of the certificate on the ground that while the certificate has been in force—

    (a) the premises have not or that part has not been used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, or

    (b) a person has been convicted of having on those premises or that part contravened section one hundred of the Licensing Act, 1953, or

    (c) that the premises give rise to annoyance to neighbouring residents on the ground of noise, or

    (d) that there has occurred in the premises or that part disorderly or indecent conduct;

    and if the justices are satisfied that the ground of the application is made out they may revoke the certificate.—[Lord Balniel.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Lord Balniel: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the new Clause—(Special exemption certificates).
    (1) If on application made with respect to licensed premises in the area, the justices are satisfied that—

    (a) the whole or any part of the premises is structurally adapted and bona fide used or intended to be used for the supply of substantial table meals to which the sale of intoxicating liquor is ancillary, and

    (b) by reason of the location of the premises or other special circumstances there is a demand for table meals outside the permitted hours,

    they may grant a certificate to be called a special exemption certificate to permit the sale of intoxicating liquor as an ancillary to a table meal outside the permitted hours.
    (2) The justices may attach to the certificate such limitations and conditions as they think fit, and may authorise the sale of intoxicating liquor with table meals at times specified in the certificate or at any time.
    and the Amendment in Clause 7, page 14, leave out lines 33 to 44 and insert:
    (b) prohibit or restrict the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of intoxicating liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal.
    Lord Balniel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I need not detain the House for more than a brief moment in moving the new Clause, because although its wording is relatively complicated, for which I apologise, the purpose is simple. Hon. Members will know that under the existing law, special hours certificates are available only in the West End of London. By Clause 8, we are proposing to extend the principle of special hours certificates to all parts of the country. Special hours certificates are available only for premises which provide, not only refreshment, but also facilities for dancing and music.
    The move to extend special hours certificates outside London to all parts of the country has received the general support of the House, but the effect of this Amendment to the Bill is a limited one. It is not often appreciated that the provision of dancing facilities in a restaurant is an expensive undertaking for a restaurant proprietor. The probability is that the number of restaurants
    724
    which will take advantage of this new freedom will be limited. The clientele which is affected by the special hours certificate extension to the rest of the country will be limited to a fairly well-to-do clientele and also to persons, mainly of the younger age groups, who are interested in dancing late at night and not to those of rather more mature age.
    It seems to me that there is a fairly limited but none the less definite demand from persons who are not interested in dancing but who wish to take their dinner fairly late at night that their dinner should be accompanied by an orchestra or musicians one or two in number. I am sure that any hon. Member, every time he goes to the Continent on holiday, takes dinner frequently late at night and stays up drinking until, say, midnight or 1 o'clock to the accompaniment of music.
    Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon) indicated dissent.
    Lord Balniel: It seems to me rather sad that this extension in the Bill is limited only to those who can afford to go to rather expensive restaurants which provide not only music but also dancing facilities. I would ask my right hon. Friend what conceivable logic there is in saying that he is prepared to see special hours certificates granted to restaurants which provide music and dancing but not to those which provide only music. It seems to me totally illogical and I hope that he is sympathetic to the Clause. The Clause is complicated in its drafting because it includes a number of safeguards to ensure that should a special hours certificate be abused the chief constable of the county will have adequate opportunity of securing revocation.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has moved the Motion so well and attractively that I shall emulate him by being exceedingly brief. I adopt everything that he has said, but I would add two or three other comments. When I was in America and I was looking at the question of tourism in Britain I asked what attitude we were adopting and I was told that the instructions were to "beam" tourism throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Wales.

    725
    Those who come over to this country may like to enjoy refreshment in the evening either in places where there is music only, or dancing with what some of us would call "non-music," that is to say, cacophony. In my travels throughout the country I have always thought it wrong that the Metropolis should be treated as the only place where one is entitled to have any pleasure and that it was thought that there was something wrong in people being able to enjoy themselves in our other cities or outlying centres.
    7.15 p.m.
    I have always strongly subscribed to the view that special hours certificates should be applicable throughout the country. I put that first point not only on the ground of international tourism but on behalf of our own people who want to go to attractive spots and who may be prepared to spend money in the type of limited establishments for which the certificates are provided. People ought not to be required to prance around to enable an establishment to qualify for a certificate when in their later years they would prefer to sit and enjoy music or live performers whilst they are dining.
    This proposal has the support of all associations concerned in these interests. It is a proposal in which, happily, there is no particular vested interest and, if I may say so to those who oppose all alcoholic moves in the right direction, it is one which would involve only a small amount of additional alcohol. Increased consumption of alcohol does not lie behind this proposal. It is intended merely to make life easier and to see that libations are not removed altogether while people are pursuing other pleasures.
    Sir Neill Cooper-Key: The object of the new Clause is to enable justices to authorise individual hotels and restaurants to serve alcoholic drinks with meals outside permitted hours. This has the full support of the two national associations which have the greatest experience of serving meals—the British Hotels and Restaurants Association and the Caterers' Association of Great Britain. They are unanimously of the opinion that these establishments should be able to serve alcoholic drinks at any time with meals.
    I think that public opinion supports this. This is not a case of increasing
    726
    danger in the path of youth. On the contrary, the practice of taking a glass of wine with one's food is one of the more amiable elegances of life and should be more widely supported. The British Travel and Holidays Association reports that one of the chief criticisms it receives from foreign visitors is of their experience of being refused drinks in restaurants where at the same time other people who are dining are being served. The reason for that, of course, is that the other people are staying overnight and this discrimination is merely against those who are not staying the night. This is difficult to explain to foreigners who perhaps do not speak English very well. It is the subject of a good deal of dissatisfaction and it is the object of criticism in our licensing laws.
    The Bill makes a concession to the principle that extra facilities are needed for the supply of drinks with meals by enabling them to be served up to 3 p.m. every day, including Sunday, without any requirement that meals must be habitually provided up to that time, but no similar provision applies in the evening. One has a situation where a traveller is delayed and finds himself sitting down to a meal at 2.30 p.m. He can obtain a glass of wine with his meal but if he asks for a brandy in his coffee at 3.15 he is refused it. It would be much more in keeping with the progressive character of the Bill if it could be provided that alcoholic drinks could be served at any time, either as a general proposition or by authority of the justices in certain restaurants. My hon. Friends and I think that this could be provided for in the form of special exemption certificates. Certainly the travelling public, both English and foreign, would welcome a change in the law which would enable existing facilities to be made available to non residents as well as residents in hotels.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As usual, the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) moved the new Clause with a great sense of responsibility and restraint and I am rather inclined to take the view which he takes on this matter. It has occurred to me that in one sense there may be no need for the new Clause and that the provisions in the Bill are now sufficiently wide to cover the kind of things the noble Lord has in mind.

    727
    Doubtless I am wrong, however, because otherwise he would not have moved the Clause, but we shall hear what the Minister thinks of the matter.
    I am slightly prejudiced in favour of the Clause because I know that the kind of thing with which it deals is bound to occur anyway and there is one aspect of the noble Lord's proposal which appeals to me. If we are to have licences of this kind I am overjoyed to feel that the magistrates will decide. One of the blots on the Bill is that 400 years of practice will be taken away under many of its provisions and in respect of the special new types of licences magistrates will become largely rubber stamps. That is a retrograde step and we should pause a long time before we take it. The proposed new Clause will keep alive some of the powers now resting in magistrates. It will give them something to do which they will not be able to do if the proposals in the Bill remain unaltered. For that reason—which is not a very good one, I am afraid—I am half inclined to hope that the Minister will accept, at any rate in part, the proposal made by the noble Lord.
    Mr. John Eden: I support the new Clause moved by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) because I think that there is an absurd anomaly which I am sure my right hon. Friend does not intend should continue. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will be inclined to take early steps to ensure that the anomaly is removed and to enable drink to be served with meals if music only is provided and not music and dancing.
    I want also briefly to support the new Clause and Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key). My hon. Friend has mentioned the case of travellers who arrive at a restaurant at unconventional hours and wish to have a meal out of the, as it were, specified hours. This is a real hardship. Many of us do not always get to our destination at the hour we originally planned, largely as a result of being caught in traffic jams and so on. Surprising as it may seem under the new management, there is often delay on the railways, such as I experienced on my line to Bournemouth the other day. For these reasons.
    728
    one sometimes arrives at nearer 3 p.m. than the more orthodox mealtime. It is reasonable that if one can get a meal served at that time one should also be able to have a drink with it. In fact, it is almost necessary that one should. Having been subjected to the frustrations of delay through traffic jams and other causes, one ought to have some kind of refreshment and a restorative of that kind.
    I am thinking not only of the traveller by road and rail but the traveller by air. My constituency is now becoming, I am glad to say, an important air terminal. Hum Airport is becoming of increasing national and international significance. Travellers arrive at this airport, as at all other airports, at all times of the day. Some who have come from a distance will have experienced a change in time; while they may have left at what was a perfectly orthodox hour in terms of the supplying of a meal, they may arrive, owing to the change in time, after the permitted hours have ended in this country. But they are still very much in need of a meal, and some of them, particularly visitors from overseas, generally like to take some alcoholic refreshment—a glass of wine or a glass of beer—with their meal. It is an eminently reasonable request that something like this should be permitted.
    In fact, I go much further than my hon. Friend did. I would request that all meals should be freed from restrictions of any kind, and that one should be able to get a drink with one's meal at any time. Drinking at a bar is a different question altogether. That drinking is an end in itself. The serving of drinks with meals is quite distinct from that. With meals the food is the main interest, and in such circumstances drink is an ancillary interest, although an important one to a whole range of people.
    I urge my right hon. Friend, particularly in view of some of the special provisions already made under the Bill, which I generally welcome, to take account of the special aspect of meals. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give still further consideration to this point and go some way towards freeing meals from this restriction and enabling alcoholic drinks to be served with them.
    Mr. G. Roberts: As one who is generally opposed to the provisions of

    729
    the Bill, I am very glad indeed to be able to accept, if not to welcome, the idea contained in the new Clause proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). There does not seem to be any reason why premises which are licensed for music only should not have this facility. Already premises which are licensed for music and dancing—and, by implication, those which are licensed for dancing only, since much of modern dancing does not seem to be accompanied by anything which may properly be described as music—are already so licensed.
    One particularly welcomes the point made in the eighth line of the proposed new Clause, that it all depends upon the discretion of the magistrate. The Clause says that the justices "may" grant such a concession. In that sense, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) in supporting the proposed new Clause should the Minister see his way clear to accept it.
    We have much greater reservations about the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key). When the Standing Committee considered the Bill it was confronted with the fact that Part I provided for the granting as of right of a whole host of new licences to restaurants. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee expressed concern about the extent and the probable effect of this novel facility. Those parts of the Bill went through Committee, but only after a great deal of criticism and some changes. I do not think that the Committee would have accepted Part I as it now stands if it had felt that any serious attempt might be made to grant to restaurants facilities over and above those granted to public houses. I suggest that it would be just as well to try out Part I and see how the provisions in respect of the new licensed restaurants and new licensed residential premises, as well as the new combined premises, work before entertaining a proposal for extending their facilities in the sense of the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings.
    Having said that, I feel that the concession for which the noble Lord the Member for Hertford has so engagingly asked, and which efforts have been made
    730
    to make more attractive to us by the pointed mention of Wales in connection with music, is acceptable to us, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.
    Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I must confess to two personal interests—what might appear to be mutually antagonistic interests. First, I cannot stand any kind of noise when I am eating. One of the things I suffer from when I go abroad is the man playing a concertina or violin, which puts me off what I am having to eat. The second interest is that I happen to be the director of a brewery company.
    The cynic may say, "Having announced those two interests, which were one you back, you will be in favour of the Clause." I am in favour of the Clause because of the principle which the Bill is meant to carry out, which is liberalisation and the giving of personal choice and freedom to a considerably greater extent than in the past to people to choose when they eat and what they drink with what they eat. I am therefore in favour of this very mild Clause which has been proposed by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel).
    It seems only fair to give an opportunity to everyone, as well as to those who haunt the West End of London, to dine rather later than other people do, and I see no reason why those opportunities should be restricted to the Metropolis, or even to large cities. There are many places where people may want to dine late and to have drinks with their dinner and, if they are so minded and are like my noble Friend, to have someone playing a violin while they eat. It seems only right that that opportunity should be given to the general public all over the country, and I support the new Clause.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: I am sorry that my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) was not able to air this proposal at an earlier stage in our proceedings, because I admit at once that it is interesting and attractive and a fairly considerable departure from the existing law. As he said, the requirements of the special hours certificates are very rigorous. He asked me why it was necessary to dance as well as listen to the music. I cannot

    731
    answer that, but possibly the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) can, because he introduced that provision. It is a fact that the requirements are strict and rigorous and it is for that reason that only fifty-one establishments have been able to obtain these certificates at this date. These provisions are now being extended, under the same strict requirements, to the rest of the country.
    The question posed by my noble Friend's new Clause is whether there is a need for something in addition to the requirements provided for the special hours certificate, bearing in mind that the permitted hours are to be extended to 10.30 p.m., or 11 p.m. where the justices so permit. The question the House has to decide is whether there is a need for something between that and the special hours certificate which will go on to two o'clock in the morning.
    If these provisions commend themselves to hon. Members one can expect that there will be a fairly wide use of them and that there will be many establishments which will seek to take advantage of them. That may not be a bad thing, and one should not think in terms of the fifty-one establishments which have been freed under the special hours certificates under the existing legislation.
    The principle commends itself to the Government if sufficient safeguards could be introduced, but those additional safeguards are necessary.
    First, I doubt whether the music should be limited to the single live performer. That is a very easy requirement to fulfil to enable anyone to get a licence to extend to one o'clock in the morning. The provision about music should be slightly more onerous than merely having one live performer.
    Secondly, there should be some provision equivalent to that in the special hours certificate whereby when the music ends the drinking ends. A similar provision applies in regard to music and dancing licences, in that when the music and dancing end, the drinking ends. That provision should be included in the new Clause. Thirdly, there should be some provision for residents to object to the provision of facilities of this sort if they are to be carried on until one o'clock in the morning. Fourthly, probably unintentionally, my noble Friend
    732
    makes no reference to clubs. Special hours certificates are available to clubs and restaurants, and it would be difficult to discriminate in this proposal between the two types of premises. The House must accept that if the Government support the new Clause, its provisions would be extended to clubs. Lastly, a special hours certificate provides that people cannot go to a special hours certificate restaurant or club simply for the purpose of indulging in late-night drinking, and if the majority of the people on the premises are in that category, the establishment may lose its certificate. There would have to be some safeguard so that this was not a ready facility for a late-night "pub crawl".
    Those are the reservations which should be borne in mind if the principle of the Amendment is acceptable to the House. The Government are very anxious to know the mood of the House on this question. To follow the approach of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the last new Clause, one should accept the principle of this. My noble Friend's new Clause already has the support of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall)—which is probably more important than my support—and I will give it favourable consideration, with the reservations which I have already mentioned.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key) raised a slightly different point following an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), giving the justices power to free restaurants from permitted hours. In Committee that received the support of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and I said that the Government would consider it. That we have done and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings knows, we have found ourselves unable to accept it.
    We like the spirit of the Amendment in the sense that it seems a modest approach that, where need can be proved, a licensed restaurant can be freed from permitted hours, but we found it impossible to find any way of giving the licensing justices any standard, any sense of direction, whereby they could in a special case free a restaurant from permitted hours. I think that it was the exceptional case which my hon. Friend had in mind.

    733
    Between the Committee stage and now the Government have considered whether they could go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) would evidently like us to go, which is that all restaurants should be freed from permitted hours completely. There is support for that proposal, but I have concluded that at this stage of the Bill it would be too radical a proposal to introduce, unless the mood of the House showed that hon. Members were in favour of it. A more modest proposal is put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, but it is not workable in terms of the existing licensing law.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West was anxious about airports. I wonder whether he has looked at the licensing (Airports) Act, 1956, which gives power in certain cases to free airports where there is international traffic from permitted hours restrictions.
    Mr. Eden: I know that Act, although I did not refer to it. My right hon. Friend will recognise that someone may have arrived at an airport as a passenger having completed his journey. Such a person is generally put straight into a coach and leaves the airport at once. It is when he gets to the town to which he is trying to go, not the airport, that he sets about finding a meal for himself, so that the 1956 Act does not apply.
    Mr. Vosper: The Government will look with favour, especially in view of the reaction of the House, on the new Clause moved by my noble Friend, provided that it is possible to make it workable by inserting further restrictions. I will examine my noble Friend's new Clause further in the light of what is said in the debate. I am afraid that the modest proposal of the second new Clause is not a workable solution in terms of the present licensing law. As at present advised, I do not feel able to go the whole way at this stage and to free all restaurants from permitted hours.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: The right hon Gentleman has said that at this stage he could not accept an Amendment to free eating places from these restrictions. Does he mean that if the debate continues and strong views are expressed, if such an Amendment is moved in another place the Government will reconsider their attitude?
    Mr. Vosper: The new Clause gives licensing justices discretion to free a restaurant from permitted hours. We have concluded that that is not a practical possibility. To free all restaurants from permitted hours completely, which is the practical alternative, would be too big a departure to undertake at this stage of the Bill, even if public opinion were in favour of it.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State said that perhaps I could explain something which he himself was not able to explain. It is true that I was responsible for the scheme, and I got into great trouble with my temperance friends because I introduced it, but I am reinforced tonight by the fact that the president of the United Kingdom Alliance supports this new Clause, as I do, because it is a logical extension of what I did in very difficult circumstances. I am glad to know that my temperance friends are becoming more liberal in their outlook.
    I was troubled by the fact that there existed a number of night clubs in the Metropolitan Police district which were constantly in conflict with the police. In addition, there was also a form of loose organisation—loose in more ways than one—known as night clubs. It was desired that the difficulties they created in the administration of the licensing law in London should be dealt with and, with the co-operation of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)—whom I regret is not in his place at the moment so that he could share with me the satisfaction of knowing that at least we have become respectable—I managed to work out a scheme which, as far as I know, has worked satisfactorily in dealing with both the problems which I have mentioned.
    First of all, we insisted that anybody who wanted to get one of these certificates—which, I admit, included dancing as well as music—should also get a certificate that the buildings were acceptable to the appropriate committee of the London County Council which dealt with the licensing of such buildings, because we were informed that, on occasion, the alleged dancing in the night clubs was confined to a very small area and that the exits—the official exits—were very unsatisfactory from the point of view of fire, which we discussed

    735
    earlier today. It was, however, admitted that there were a number of other exits from the premises which could be used in the event of the sudden appearance of police to allow large numbers of people to disappear with extreme rapidity.
    It was suggested to us at the time that there was no demand in the country for this form of entertainment in the late evening and early morning, except in the "C" Division of the Metropolitan Police Force. That is why a very small number of certificates have been issued. We were dealing with a specific problem. I believe that we dealt with it satisfactorily. At any rate, one has not recently seen the kind of complaints frequently then made as to the way in which the police obtained evidence and the way in which these places were conducted.
    If it is now desired that these facilities should be extended to other parts of the country, and that dancing should be no necessary requirement, I cannot see why, especially now that we have the approval of the United Kingdom Alliance for this way of dealing with the matter, we should not extend it on the general lines indicated by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) in his new Clause. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State has said about the difficulty of the exact wording. I have no doubt that the noble Lord knew when he started the job, that if he could get approval of the general principle he would be sure to be told that the words he proposed were quite inappropriate to the occasion.
    7.45 p.m.
    I do not care how much money or time private Members expend in getting Clauses and Amendments drafted, they will never satisfy the Government draftsman who thinks that he has complete copyright in this matter and that it is nearly akin to high treason for a private Member to find words of his own to express the simplest things in a Bill, in which the Government draftsman has spent hours trying to make the simplest thing unintelligible.
    I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel that he has done as well as can be expected in all these circumstances, that he will, in the further negotiations—in which, I suggest, he should associate
    736
    himself with the hon. Member for Cheadle, who is a very helpful person in this matter when he likes to be—get what he wants, and that the Government will be able to include this quite reasonable proposal in the Bill so that what has been enjoyed by the area of the "C" Division of the Metropolitan Police for the past twelve or thirteen years may now be shared by respectable people in all parts of the country.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to add a few words about this matter. First, I share wholeheartedly the views of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about drafting. As one who had to draft some fifty or sixty Amendments upstairs for this Bill—and an even larger number for the Betting and Gaming Act last year—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will pay attention to the words that it is time now that Parliamentary draftsmen should be available to private Members. If anything at all is heeded by the Government tonight, I hope that those words will be.
    Drafting Amendments is a difficult task, and I am coming rapidly to the view that the Government—whichever party is in power—do not want back benchers, even Privy Councillors, to set up good Amendments—and least of all do they want retired Home Secretaries putting on the Order Paper what they should have done years before. I see that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee is here, and I hope that he, too, will take note of what I am saying. Nothing could be more helpful to private Members than a Government draftsman assisting with the drafting of their Amendments.
    This new Clause is one which the House can accept, and it is, therefore, a good one, but I want an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on two main points. The first is that this will be applied to the country as a whole and not confined only to the Metropolis. Secondly, will it go wider than merely dancing? I believe that we would be content if it covered any wide performance by way of entertainment. It may be that my right hon. Friend will have to go wider than music, because circumstances come into it. I agree that to have only one performer is not sufficient, but I think that my right hon.

    737
    Friend could go through the various Acts relating to music—with which I am not conversant—and find something which would help him in applying this provision to music and entertainment of that nature.
    The new Clause proposed by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) also contains provisions relating to noise and neighbours. This is, in addition, covered by the Town Planning Acts. One cannot these days, have music and dancing for business purposes in a residential neighbourhood.
    I want to raise one other point, out of sympathy with my noble Friend—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but am I not right in thinking that he has already spoken to this new Clause?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have spoken on this new Clause.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case I am not permitted to allow the hon. Member to make a second speech.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Perhaps I may pass to the other new Clause, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key), to which I did not speak—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that that is not allowed, either. There is one debate on the two new Clauses and the Amendment.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: It is entirely the fault of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that I am speaking, and I hope that he will take the blame. He asked to be told the feelings of the House on the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hasting (Sir N. Cooper-Key), and it would be a pity if we failed to convey it to him.
    First, I want to comment on what my right hon. Friend said about the new Clause in the name of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I feel strongly that we must not start arguing about numbers and about what constitutes entertainment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that that suggestion absolutely stinks of bureaucracy. Let me take a fanciful example, which could nevertheless happen. With a restaurant with Louis
    738
    Kentner at the piano not have to be reinforced by the appearance of a "pop" singer before it can be said that entertainment is being provided? When we start thinking of numerical qualifications we are getting away from common sense. If the entertainment is bad people will probably not come to listen to it, and if it is good, people will listen to one performer as happily as to dozens.
    We should be making a great improvement in the law if we accepted the proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, and in this respect the House should make its views known. Many small towns have cinemas, and even theatres, at which performances end at a late hour, and usually there are not facilities for a supper trade at which drink can be procured. That situation could be remedied without doing much harm to anybody, and residential areas would not be affected. The areas where these facilities are likely to be demanded probably already contain eating houses which have licences, and it would merely be a question of allowing them to apply for an extension of hours.
    It has been said that it is difficult to draft rules for the guidance of the bench in the matter of granting extended hours, but my view is that this is bureaucracy raising its ugly head again. Our unpaid judiciary operates on the basis of common sense, and we do not trust that common sense nearly enough. It is possible to allow the bench discretion whether it gives this sort of licence. If it cannot be trusted with that sort of responsibility it cannot be trusted with the responsibility of sending its fellow-citizens to gaol.
    I am glad that my noble Friend's new Clause will recieve favourable consideration, and I hope that my suggestion will also be considered. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider whether we can do something to meet the needs of our smaller towns, which have busy and active lives of their
    own but are debarred from carrying them on even to the modest hour of midnight.
    Mr. Goodhew: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise). I hope that the Minister of State will reconsider the Clause in the name of my hon.

    739
    Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key). I am sure that the local licensing justices can decide whether or not it is reasonable to grant a licence or an exemption certificate. Had I known before we reached this stage that my right hon. Friend would have regarded a much wider Clause or Amendment as more appropriate I would have made a different contribution in Committee, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings would have moved a different Clause this evening.
    My right hon. Friend has said that this is not a good moment to make this change. I hope that he will reconsider his remarks. I appreciate that we have reached an advanced stage of the Bill, after a good deal of work, but it will be a long time before we are allowed to start tinkering with the licensing laws again. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to put this matter right in another place. In those circumstances, and in view of what I sense to be the feeling of the House this evening, I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to undertake to do something in another place.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have been very interested to hear some hon. Members urging the Minister to agree to the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key). In Committee many of us tried to get the Government to agree to continue what has been the practice and rule for many years—the practice of allowing the justices to decide whether or not licences should be granted. We are departing from that principle now for the first time in the history of this House. For generations we have entrusted to the justices the right to decide whether a licence is necessary, and we have provided that a public need should be proved.
    We have removed that right in respect of Part I, but I now see some of those hon. Members who took part in getting that provision removed supporting a new Clause which would give justices the right to grant special exemption certificates. I heard what the Minister had to say, and I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that some of us feel that the House is making a grave mistake in departing from what has been the common system of entrusting to the justices
    740
    this right of deciding whether a public need is shown, and of refusing to grant a licence if they are satisfied that it is not.
    Mr. Wise: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of giving back to the justices the power provided in the new Clause in the name of of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key).
    Mr. Vosper: The Government will give favourable consideration to the terms of the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I can say that we will consider the country as a whole and not merely the Metropolitan area. My earlier reservations are not final, but they are the sort of things which should be incorporated in any provision of this nature, which will make a considerable change in our licensing laws.
    8.0 p.m.
    I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) about Louis Kentner, but equally will he take the point that in my part of the country most public houses have pianists, and therefore one must ensure that these extensions, if that is what they are called, cannot be granted too easily. I am not being bureaucratic. I am merely saying that the repercussions of the new Clause, if accepted, would be fairly widespread, and I am anxious not to cause too much annoyance as a result.
    In respect of the second new Clause, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew)—and I think one of his colleagues—still feels that the terms of this modest Amendment are practical, but, by virtue of the words
    "by reason of the location of the premises…there is a demand for table meals outside the permitted hours"
    he will be giving the licensing justices an impossible task.
    I will further re-examine this question, but I pose to the House that the choice will probably lie in retaining permitted hours for licensed premises, or removing them altogether. I felt that at this stage public opinion and the mood of the House was not in favour of the removal of permitted hours from all restaurants. I remain of that opinion, but I will re-examine again the more limited terms.

    741
    However, my hon. Friend must see the difficulty in which licensing justices will be placed under the terms of the new Clause.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I rise to try to clarify the position and to make certain what the Minister proposes to do. As I understand it, any change which is made will apply to the provision—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but has he not already spoken on the new Clause?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir William.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A second speech would not be in order.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the leave of the House to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman? I think that it would be for the general convenience of hon. Members if those questions were asked. First, do we understand that what he is proposing to do is to say that this should be at the discretion of the justices; secondly, that it shall apply to music only, and, thirdly, that it shall be only on special occasions as envisaged in the new Clause?
    Mr. Vosper: It is my noble Friend's proposal, but certainly at the discretion of the justices, and certainly in respect of music only and not dancing.
    Mr. H. Hynd: I am sorry that I did not hear the beginning of this discussion. Since coming into the Chamber, I have been a little alarmed to hear that the Government agree with this proposal, at any rate, in principle. My hesitation in accepting this proposal is based on my fairly long experience as a magistrate. I have always been a little alarmed about the abuse of what are called occasional licences. I hope that in any arrangements the Government make they will take precautions to see that the same abuse is not possible in regard to what are now to be called special hours certificates.
    Occasional licences were intended to be granted for special occasions, but they have now come to be granted quite regularly—weekly or monthly—for regular events, and the occasional licence has gone far beyond what Parliament originally intended.
    742
    I hope that this special hours certificate, or whatever the Government call it, will not develop in the same way, and I ask the Minister to pay attention to this point when he is considering the form in which he will accept the proposal.
    Mr. G. Roberts: May I put a point to the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel)? Is not this the position, that as matters stand it is possible to apply for a special hours extension certificate in respect of premises where music and dancing are provided? The proposal is simply to provide that subject to certain conditions which are enumerated in the new Clause, and which the Minister rightly wishes to strengthen, there can be an application in respect of premises where only music is provided?
    Mr. Vosper: Occasional licences do not really enter into this debate. We are thinking of something akin to the special hours certificate on more modest lines where only music is provided.
    Lord Balniel: I accept that some strengthening of the reservation is probably desirable. On the understanding that my right hon. Friend accepts the principle of the new Clause, and that he will introduce a similar Clause in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(RESTRICTION OF SUPPLY OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR TO YOUNG PERSONS FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE PREMISES.)
    (1) The holder of a justices off-licence shall not knowingly sell or allow any other persons to sell and a servant of the holder of a justices' off-licence shall not knowingly sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen for consumption off the premises.
    (2) A person under eighteen shall not buy or attempt to buy in off-licensed premises intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises.—[Commander Kerans.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Commander J. S. Kerans: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This matter was discussed in Committee upstairs and the Government said that they would look into it again. No Government Amendment appeared on

    743
    the Notice Paper, and I therefore put down this new Clause.
    It seems somewhat illogical that a child of five-plus can go into an off-licence, purchase alcohol and take it away, and yet he cannot buy a packet of cigarettes until he is fourteen. Liqueur chocolates can be bought by a youth of sixteen, but no youth can drink in a public house until he is eighteen. This situation seems somewhat unbalanced in our modern society.
    Whether we like it or not, liquor consumption is on the increase and this is one step we can take to stop it. It is too easy to go into an off-licence and purchase alcohol, take it away, go into a car, a field, or a moped, and have a good party without anybody being any the wiser.
    We are endeavouring to stamp out crime in this country, especially among youths. Many of them are paid high wages compared with what youths of comparable age were paid in years gone by. It is too easy for them to do the sort of thing that we want to stop. Many of them are older than they appear to be, but it is illogical that a child can go into an off-licence and buy liquor, but until he is 18 he cannot get a drink in a public house. I ask the Government to put a stop to this practice.
    The Home Secretary is making every effort to reduce crime. I ask him to accept the new Clause in the spirit in which it has been moved. If it is pressed to a Division I shall vote for it, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will give me their support.
    Mr. Vosper: I rise now because we had a debate on this subject in Committee and I then gave certain undertakings. I think that in fairness to hon. Members who may want to speak I should give the result of my inquiries.
    The existing law—not the law under this Bill—which has stood for many years has the effect that liquor may not be sold on off-licence premises to a person under 14 unless it is contained in corked and sealed vessels in quantities not less than one reputed pint. When we debated this in Committee upstairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that it was the
    744
    view and experience of the Home Office that sales from off-licence premises were not a contributory factor in juvenile drunkenness.
    This is most important, because the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has already recognised my interest in young people, and from the beginning of our discussions on the Bill we recognised that any Amendment which would have the effect of limiting drunkenness among young people should be made, and therefore the House perhaps finds it a little surprising that at this stage that Amendment has not been made. But at that stage it was the view of the Home Office that sales from off-licence premises were not a contributory cause of juvenile drunkenness.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) gave one or two specific examples where there was some connection, as I think did the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have sent us one or two examples since the Committee stage of this Bill during which I gave an undertaking in these words:
    "In addition to any evidence which may be submitted to me by Members of the Committee, I propose to take steps to find out from appropriate authorities—obviously I cannot analyse every case in the country, but I can take steps to find out from the appropriate authorities—whether they have evidence that off-sales to young people are a serious contributory factor towards drunkenness. If the evidence is to the effect that they are a serious contributory factor, I will introduce an Amendment on Report. I should not do so, however, unless I was told by that impartial source that it was a contributory factor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th April, 1961; col. 1008.]
    In pursuance of this undertaking inquiries were made of the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and six provincial chief constables—Birmingham, Brighton, Hertfordshire, Liverpool, Swansea and the West Riding of Yorkshire—and six clerks to the justices—Cambridge, Cardiff, Exeter, Manchester, Nottingham and Sunderland. I hope that the House will agree that that is a representative selection.
    Mr. Bowen: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the inquiry was whether off-sales had contributed to drunkenness or to drinking by persons under 18 years of age?
    Mr. Vosper: It is a little difficult to answer that question specifically. We asked a number of questions. Those whom we questioned were asked to give their views whether off-sales were a serious contributory factor towards drunkenness among persons under 18, and to give such supporting information as they were able, including statistics showing the number of convictions for drunkenness during the last two years against persons under 18 and the number of cases where the liquor, or some of it, was believed to have been obtained by young persons from off-licence premises or off-sales departments of public houses. That is the inquiry we put to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, to the six chief constables and to the six clerks to the justices.
    The general view among those consulted was that off-sales are not a serious contributory factor to drunkenness among young people. Out of 1,120 cases—this comes from the replies which we received where young people were convicted of drunkenness, there was evidence that the offender obtained liquor from off-licence premises in only nine cases. The views of those consulted were overwhelmingly against any change being made in the law. I have examined each one of these replies and in saying that they were overwhelmingly against I certainly do not underestimate the opinion of those replying to the inquiry.
    Some of those who were consulted suggested that while young people found some glamour in frequenting public houses, they found little or no glamour in consuming liquor purchased from off-licence departments. I must give the result of these inquiries. They bear out the views expressed in the Standing Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I said in Committee that I would not put down an Amendment on Report unless the information resulting from my inquiries supported the view that off-sales were a contributory cause to juvenile drunkenness. As I told my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), I felt I could not put down an Amendment because the undertaking I gave in Committee was so specific.
    The House may argue, "Even if there is the slightest risk of occasionally a
    746
    person being made drunk or getting drunk as a result of off-sales, ought not we to legislate in that respect?" In the Standing Committee the view was strongly expressed that the purchase of liquor from off-licence departments by young persons acting on behalf of their parents was traditional in many parts of the country. It was said that those who went out to do the family shopping made purchases from the off-licence department on the way home, and that to prevent this would be a serious restriction on the activities of many families which would be resented.
    Nevertheless, I think that the Committee took the view that if it could be proved that off-licence sales were a contributory cause to drunkenness, we must overcome that resentment and sense of restriction. But it is difficult to do so in the light of the evidence from the inquiries and the replies which we received. For that reason, anxious as we are to stop any possible cause of juvenile drunkenness, it would seem hard to accept this proposed new Clause.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I think that first we should say "Thank you" to the Minister for having made the inquiries. But, having heard the result of them, I am as convinced as ever that this House should accept the new Clause. Because of my duties my service on the Standing Committee which discussed this Bill represented the first time I have served on a Committee for some period. One of the things which caused us great concern was that for some years there had been an alarming increase in drunkenness among young people. We were alarmed by the fact that we are now living in an age when young people have more money to spend. I can rejoice in this fact as I started work as a boy of 13 and received a wage of 1s. 2d. a week. I rejoice that young lads and lasses get better wages today, but that fact provides an opportunity for the tempter.
    Young people of today, teenagers as they are called—they were known as adolescents when I was young—have, according to the experts, what are called "uncommitted incomes" which total £17 million a week. This money has taken the place of the money we called "pocket money" in the days when I was young—the small amount of money left after

    747
    one had paid one's parents, or, rather, what was handed back after one had handed over all one's wages. We know those who are after this £17 million worth of uncommitted incomes. One firm alone is spending £350,000 on advertising. In the Committee we were very disturbed about this, and so we considered the question of off-sales, and I hope that we shall return to the matter again.
    We were disturbed because unaccompanied young persons, schoolboys and girls, are able to buy drink from off-licences. I come from a working-class home, and I appeal to hon. Members not to think that they are doing a service to the working classes by pandering to their bad habits. I tell my constituents that if a father in these days sent his boy of ten to the off-licence to get liquor he would not be acting as a responsible parent—
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Really.
    Mr. Griffiths: My father would not allow me to do that, and he was not a bad father. But now this happens, as the Minister knows. Examples were given by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). I received an unsolicited letter from a schoolmaster at a school not in my constituency but in England. He wrote to me after the Standing Committee debate and I asked and obtained his permission to send on his letter to the Minister. He wrote that he had reported to his headmaster, who in turn had reported to the clerk of the justices, that boys from the school had bought intoxicating liquors from an off-licence and had been provided with the means to remove the seals on the containers.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: How old were the boys?
    Mr. Griffiths: They were still at school, which is my concern.
    All children stay at school now until they are 15, and we hope that soon the age will be 16. I am glad that parents are keeping their children at school longer and that in the comprehensive school in the Metropolis they stay longer at school. Boys and girls at school as well as those who have left school and gone to work can get drink from these off-licences. I am charging my memory.
    748
    but I believe that the Chief Constable of Swansea is on record recently as having expressed himself as very disturbed about this.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Would the right hon. Member be good enough to apply his mind to the real issue? Is he saying that parents should not be permitted to send their children to purchase alcohol, knowing that that drink is in sealed or corked containers? That is the question, not whether young people can drink.
    Mr. Griffiths: I have no hesitation about that. Having regard to the situation which faces us and the increase of drinking among young people, I say that we ought to take every step to stop it, and this is one of those steps.
    Does the Minister propose to leave the law exactly as it is? What is the minimum age below which a young person cannot buy liquor from an off-licence proprietor? I believe the age is 5. If this new Clause is rejected, are we, in 1961 to allow the law to stand as it is? I may be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that any child over 5 can be supplied with liquor at an off-licence provided the liquor is in a sealed container. Are hon. Members to vote down this new Clause? The Minister told us that he cannot accept it. He has not suggested an alternative. Are we therefore to leave the law as it is at present, in the setting of our modern society, where any boy or girl over 5, whether sent by a parent or not, can be supplied with liquor by these proprietors?
    I hope that I am speaking for the majority of my constituents. I should be disappointed if I were not, but I believe I am. I believe I am speaking for the majority of fair-minded, decent-minded people in the country, who are not prepared to leave the law as it is. In moving this new Clause, the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools has rendered a service to this House and to the country. He supported us in Committee and I support him now I hope the House will support us and make it known to the Minister and the Government in no uncertain terms that these are the views and convictions of the best people in the country.
    We should sometimes legislate for the best, not for the worst. Let us sometimes raise our sights and do what the

    749
    finest people, not the worst, want us to do. As one who is proud to have been a miner, I would go to any mining branch or lodge and face my fellow miners and tell them that I voted for this new Clause. I believe they would support it. I am convinced of that. That is why I urge the House to vote for it.
    Sir Hendrie Oakshott: I gladly acknowledge the great trouble to which the Minister of State has gone in his examination of this problem. One must pay proper regard to the advice he has received. I confess that I do not like bringing in new restrictions by legislation without very careful scrutiny and without being absolutely satisfied that they are necessary.
    In that context, I ask my right hon. Friend—having listened to him with great care and once again accepting that he has given a great deal of thought to this problem—whether he can look at this question again. The present state of affairs was set out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) and I shall not repeat it. For what we all believe to be good reasons, young persons under 18 are not allowed to consume drink on licensed premises. I take it that one of the reasons for that provision is not so much the question of drunkenness to which my right hon. Friend referred as to see that strong drink is not too readily accessible to young people.
    The first new Clause moved today provided that liqueur chocolates may not be sold to anyone under 16. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. and gallant Friend that there is nothing to stop those young people going to an off-licence and, provided it is corked and sealed, buying more or less anything they wish. That seems a little odd. We must pay due regard to people like senior chief constables who have great experience in these matters, but, nevertheless, one knows of other examples which have been quoted and which bear evidence in the contrary sense.
    In these days of 1961 when young people have more pocket money at their disposal, it is very easy for a couple of young girls and young chaps to raise
    750
    between them the necessary 35s. or £2 to buy a bottle of gin or whisky from an off-licence. It is not so much a question of drunkenness as of making strong drink too readily available to people of that age. I ask my right hon. Friend if he can give some assurance that he will look at the matter again and, if he cannot accept this new Clause, try to do something on these lines when the Bill reaches another place so that something which is not only an illogicality but a definite danger can be put right.
    Mr. Bowen: I strongly support this new Clause. While it may be true that there is no evidence that this is the source of extensive trouble at the moment, it is certainly a possible source of trouble. I do not think that the exact extent of the source of the trouble has been ascertained by the inquiries made by the Minister, inquiries made in good faith. The problem is not that of drunkenness from purchases made at off-licences, but whether young persons under 18 are making purchases from off-licences, and making those purchases for their own consumption. It seems that the Minister's inquiries have not elicited answers to that problem.
    I do not want to exaggerate the present position, but I have had one or two instances in recent years which may be of interest. I will describe a recent instance. A number of young lads took a motor car and drove it away without the owner's consent, which is a type of offence which young lads under 18 are prone to commit. Subsequently a quantity of liquor was found in the car. Inquiry revealed that it had been purchased by these young lads, all under 18, at an off-licensed premises. No question of drunkenness arose. Nevertheless, it disturbed me that these three young lads, having taken and driven away a car, had stocked themselves up with a quantity of liquor during their escapade.
    These provisions are very unfair to the on-licence holder. One expects the ordinary innkeeper to take particular care to see that he does not supply young people under 18. It is a source of irritation to him that these same young lads, whom he has to refuse to serve, can go round the corner and obtain the liquor there. I hope that the Minister will have

    751
    second thoughts on this issue because I do not think that he has looked into it as thoroughly as he should have done.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: I was glad that earlier the Minister of State reminded us of the course of the discussions in Committee and repeated the terms of his undertaking, because what he said in Committee, which he has brought to a conclusion today, is that we should not interfere with the rights of the individual, extending for a long time and over a wide field of society, unless there are some very good grounds for doing so.
    In Committee my right hon. Friend said that he would look thoroughly into the evidence, as opposed to the emotions or to what hon. Members fear may happen. He said that he would look at what had happened. This afternoon he said that his inquiries had been made not only of chief constables but also of justices' clerks over a wide area of England and that a figure of considerably less than 1 per cent. emerges in evidence of drunkenness being attributed to off-licensed premises.
    One or two hon. Members, speaking with great sincerity, have said that they are not worried about drunkenness or whether it leads to crime, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) concentrated his remarks on the crime aspect of the problem, and although he covered a wide field, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) emphasised in particular the problem of the increase in juvenile drunkenness and steps which we ought to take to stop it. It seems to me, therefore, that in those two cases my right hon. Friend's reply amply disposes of the argument, because we have heard for the first time that over this wide area, out of 1,120 cases, only in nine cases is there evidence that the drunkenness could be attributed to buying in off-licensed premises.
    Hon. Members may say that they do not necessarily have in mind drunkenness but drinking as such. If we are thinking of young people between the ages of 5 and their early 'teens, it is not very easy for us to imagine that they could drink a great deal without becoming drunk. It is not likely that the child who is sent to collect father's
    752
    drink will consume a quantity of it on the way home.
    Sir H. Oakshott: I hope that my hon. Friend will not give a false impression by talking about children between 5 years old and their early 'teens. We are worried not so much about them as about those between their early 'teens and 18.
    Mr. Bennett: I used the example of those between 5 years old and their early 'teens because earlier we were discussing them in the context of buying tobacco and liqueur chocolates. I will not be unfair, and I will consider those from 5 to 18.
    Unless we stick carefully to the evidence and do not devote too much thought to opinions, we may be seriously misled. Judging from what my right hon. Friend said, that is what happened in the views expressed about the element of glamour in trying to get a drink in order to drink with one's elders. The overwhelming number of the cases, however, of young people going into the off-licensed premises is when the working man comes home at night, puts on his carpet slippers and gives the boy 1s. or 2s. to go round the corner and to get father's pint of beer for the evening.
    Mr. Stephen McAdden: Where is the evidence for that?
    Mr. Bennett: I think that that represents 99 per cent. of the cases. I hear someone behind me asking, "Where is the evidence?" Other hon. Members have expressed their views as to how the system works at the moment. I am entitled to express the view that 99 per cent. of all liquor bought at the moment from off-licences by children is taken home to their fathers, who would be very cross if they found that their children had taken a swig out of the bottle on the way home.
    Mr. Gower: My hon. Friend says that drink purchased from off-licences is generally taken home. Has he reflected on the enormous growth amongst young people of the habit of bottle parties, which are not always held under the most desirable circumstances? Girls aged 14, 15 or 16 unfortunately sometimes become drunk. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend may laugh, but it happens.

    753
    There were very unfortunate consequences in my constituency in one such case. Does my hon. Friend think it desirable that off-licences should not be subjected to any restriction in the sale of liquor to children?
    Mr. Bennett: When I gave way, I was expecting a short observation. If my hon. Friend wishes to develop his speech so forcefully, he will no doubt have a chance later. My short answer to his point is that, if he is talking about the large number of bottle parties leading to drunkenness, he should have listened more carefully to what the Minister of State said, because the question whether drunkenness does or does not flow from purchases of liquor from off-licences would be included in the statistics the Minister of State gave the House a short time ago.
    The Minister of State gave an undertaking in Committee. I believe that the view of the Committee was not that this restriction should be imposed. It was that it should be reluctantly imposed only if there was any evidence that the purchase of liquor from off-licences was a serious contributory factor to one of the social evils of our time. It does not appear from what my right hon. Friend said tonight that there is any such evidence. I have no knowledge of what the Government's final attitude to this will be, but I hope that my right hon. Friend abides by the results of the inquiries he has so carefully and sedulously made.
    Mr. Stan Awbery: If we are to reduce drunkenness in this country we should make it more difficult, and not easier, for young people to obtain drink. If the Clause is rejected, we shall make it easier for young people to obtain strong drink. I was greatly disturbed a few weeks ago when a man stopped me in the street near an off-licence. It was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). The man said to me, "Do you know, Sir, that young boys go into this off-licence and obtain bottles of intoxicating liquor sealed with a screw top with a gummed paper fastener over it?"—as if the boys and girls could not undo a paper top. Youngsters go to the off-licence and purchase drink. Some go there to make purchases for their
    754
    parents. Some go there and buy liquor for their own consumption. They leave the off-licence, go up a side street, gather together and drink the intoxicating liquor they have obtained from the off-licence.
    I sincerely hope that the Clause will be accepted and that we shall do something to protect our young people from the consequences of intoxicating liquor, which they can obtain so easily at present.
    Mr. Gower: Like many others, I appreciated what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I appreciate the obvious care and trouble he has gone to to obtain information about this problem. I agree with those Who believe that we should not lightly impose restrictions. Nevertheless, I regard the existing law as unsatisfactory.
    I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend should allow his present findings to be the only basis of his judgment on an issue such as this. We must consider the present social pattern, the social pattern of higher earnings than ever before for young people, of opportunities for them resulting, perhaps, from a parental discipline less harsh than it was ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, of opportunities with vehicles for them to enjoy mobility, taking them away from the social controls of their own localities. I put this question to my right hon. Friend. Whatever may be the pattern of behaviour in certain parts of the United Kingdom, does he, on reflection, think it satisfactory that there should be no restriction at all in respect of young people above the age of five?
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), I consider that the case here does not depend only upon proven instances of drunkenness. It arises from other social phenomena also. In an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) I referred to one such. My hon. Friend seemed to think that it was my case that young people who had bottle parties always got drunk. That was not my only case. I pointed out that these bottle parties are not always held in very desirable circumstances.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: My hon. Friend has said that I misinterpreted his observations. If I did I was misled by

    755
    his own words. He said that at these bottle parties girls got drunk and undesirable things happened.
    Mr. Gower: My main point was that these parties are not always held in the most desirable circumstances. My hon. Friend must be aware of the growing tendency. Young people buy quantities of drink at off-licences, and among their number very often are teenagers under 18. We should not in legislating make it easier for this obvious danger to grow.
    I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend, despite what he has said, will take note of the feeling on both sides of the House, a feeling which I believe to be much more vociferous than he yet appreciates. All of us who speak in this way are determined to vote against him on this, and I feel that we represent a quite large body of opinion in the country. We believe that there should be some restrictions on people in their teens simlar to those which prevent young people from buying a drink in on-licensed premises.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I never thought that I should ever rise to support wholeheartedly the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I commend him on what I thought was a forthright and thoroughly sensible speech, a speech in line with the excellent contribution made by the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), who spoke for all of us who feel as I do. We are not concerned with prohibition as such—indeed, we should oppose such a move—but we are concerned about the amplification of facilties and temptations particularly for young people.
    8.45 p.m.
    The Minister of State gave an undertaking in Committee that he would pursue an inquiry into this question. We thank him for doing that, but clearly the inquiry was not of such a nature that it could possibly go very deeply into the matter. He gave a number of centres where he made inquires, one of which, Swansea, returned the same answer as the other centres but whose chief constable only a short time ago made a report in which he said that he was seriously concerned about the increase of drinking among young people. Therefore, like the hon. Member for Barry, I find it rather difficult to accept the Minister's view that we should not
    756
    pursue this matter because of the results of the inquiry. With all due deference to the Minister, I suggest that the inquiry was valueless. It did not go far enough or deep enough, and it did not cover a sufficient number of centres.
    There is deep concern and uneasiness on both sides of the House about the present situation. This reflects a similar feeling throughout the country. Wherever we go people bring up this question. Short of a thorough-going inquiry, it would be impossible to collate the evidence properly and to bring it forward, but there is this uneasiness among school teachers, ministers of religion, parents, youth workers and the public in general. Even though there is not a body of evidence which proves that off-licence facilities contribute to drunkenness among young people, the state of the law is sufficient argument for this House to amend it.
    The position is that any child over five years can walk into an off-licensed house and buy a quantity of intoxicating liquor in a more or less sealed container. Whatever the results of the partial inquiry made by the Minister, surely this House should not tolerate that. It may be that the inquiry has shown that it is not evidence of drunkenness, but an inquiry directed to the question of drinking would have yielded a different result.
    This is an increasing problem. Young people today have more money than the young people of years gone by had. Their social surroundings are different They also have greater precocity, an earlier maturity. Whether it is a question of maturity of precociousness, I hesitate to say, but the fact is that as time goes by, because of those reasons, there is an increasing danger to young people from this facility.
    Finally, I wish to say a word or two to those who claim that it is a great con-venience to certain parents that their children should be able to go to off-licensed premises to buy their drink. Hon. Members who represent industrial constituencies assure me that that practice is declining all the time. Even if it were increasing, it would be absolutely wrong. I support the spirit and content of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said on that point. What possible deprivation or inconvenience is it to any parent

    757
    not to be able to send his children to off-licensed premises to buy his beer or spirits? Since in the last three or four years cases of drunkenness among young people have doubled, this House should set aside any such inconvenience or deprivation, even if it existed—I am convinced that it does not exist—and act in this matter so that we reassure, not only hon. Members on both sides of the House who have signed and supported the Amendment, but all shades of opinion, whether total abstainers or not, throughout the country.
    Sir C Black: I rise to support the new Clause and to express my disappointment at the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Together with other hon. Members, I am not convinced by the evidence he has obtained. Nearly all of this debate and our decision on the new Clause must hinge on the view that we take about whether there is evidence of evil arising from the present state of the law owing to the fact that off-licences can sell liquor in sealed bottles to children over five years of age.
    My right hon. Friend said that he had not evidence of a sufficiently compelling character to lead him to think that an amendment of the law was necessary. He referred to the fact that in response to the invitation he made to me on Standing Committee I had sent to him one or two cases. I feel quite sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind my saying that that is not fairly or adequately stating the case. In fact, I sent to him nine cases with full particulars of the persons and sources from which the information was obtained. As some hon. Members have expressed doubt whether in fact an evil exists in this matter, I propose briefly, because other hon. Members want to speak on this and subsequent items, to give some of the evidence that I sent to my right hon. Friend.
    The first case that I sent was an extract from the report of the chief constable of the county borough of Middlesbrough, as presented to Brewster Sessions in 1959, in which he stated:
    "Our investigations into this matter have also revealed"—
    that is on the question of juvenile drinking and juvenile drunkenness—
    "that in some cases intoxicating liquor has been obtained from off-licence premises, and
    758
    whilst it is extremely difficult to stop this practice, I hope that off-licence holders will do their best to ensure that young persons are not allowed to buy drink for their own consumption."
    I sent my right hon. Friend a statement of the warden of a community association who gave five cases within his own personal knowledge and experience; then the testimony of the vice-chairman of a juvenile bench; and then a statement by a youth leader at South-port, by a minister of a church in my constituency, by a youth worker at Cheltenham, and by a youth worker at Leeds. I also sent him two newspaper cuttings, one, significantly, from the Morning Advertiser, which reported a case of three boys, one age 15 and two age 16, who were convicted in Neath County Juvenile Court of having obtained and consumed liquor from an off-licence, and the other a report from the Crawley Weekly News of the highly-unsatisfactory position existing in Crawley new town as a result of children and young persons obtaining liquor from an off-licence, the off-licence holder having, of course, no legal authority to refuse to supply them in the present state of the law. I do not for one moment accept the thesis which is, apparently, accepted by some Members of the House that no evidence of a substantial character exists of evil arising from the present state of the law in this regard.
    I have found that a great many well-informed people, with whom I have discussed this matter, are entirely ignorant of the present state of the law. I have found it difficult to convince large numbers of people to whom I have spoken that the law is that a child of 5 or over can purchase liquor in an off-licence. I have not found anyone who is prepared to defend that legal position nor anyone who is prepared to oppose the substance of the new Clause.
    In view of the publicity concerning the existing state of the law which will result from this debate, the fact that multitudes of children and young people will be made aware as a result of this debate that they can go to an off-licence if over five years of age and purchase liquor, whatever the case might have been before this debate, this debate makes it inevitable that Parliament should deal with this matter in view of the increased

    759
    evil which must arise as a result of this debate if we do not tighten the law.
    I do not understand why my right hon. Friend thought it necessary to make these inquiries. He did not make them in regard to liqueur chocolates, which is a very small matter compared with the issue that we are now debating. He did not say that he had to ask the chief constables and the magistrates' clerks whether there was evidence of evil arising from children and young persons buying liqueur chocolates.
    My right hon. Friend accepted the view in Standing Committee without any persuasion that that was a matter that should receive attention and that if the right were to be given to confectioners to sell liqueur chocolates, clearly there should be a restriction on the right to sell to young persons. I cannot see how my right hon. Friend requires so much more conviction in regard to a larger matter when, on a smaller matter, he was prepared so easily and so readily to accept the need for this restriction.
    I do not feel that this House would be discharging its duty if it were to fail to go into the Lobby this evening to make clear to the Government the sentiment of this House. I am certain that in so doing, we should be reflecting the sentiment in the country. I am certain that my right hon. Friend is anxious to do what is right. The trouble is that he has asked the wrong questions of the wrong people and he is sheltering behind the fact that he does not have enough evidence when the evidence is available on every hand if we seek for it and obtain it.
    I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the chief constables and the magistrates' clerks who had been consulted were overwhelmingly opposed to an amendment in the law in the sense of the new Clause. If that is so, I must say with great respect to the people concerned that they have gone beyond their proper functions in expressing a view on that matter. It seems to me entirely proper for chief constables and magistrates' clerks to provide information on matters of fact in response to inquiries addressed to them, but when they take upon themselves to abrogate to themselves the duties of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and to
    760
    seek to influence this House as to what this House ought to do on a matter of legislation, that seems to me to be going beyond the proper duties and the proper scope of the activities of people like magistrates' clerks and chief constables.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: If my right hon. Friend has asked the wrong questions of the wrong people, who, in my hon. Friend's opinion, are the right people and what are the right questions for resolving this issue?
    Sir C. Black: What I would like to have asked would have been whether there was evidence of drink being consumed as a result of the present state of the law and not evidence as to drunkenness, because the two things are quite different.
    9.0 p.m.
    Are we prepared to accept the position that a child of 6 can consume drink as a result of this loophole in the law, provided that he does not consume it to the extent of becoming intoxicated? I am not prepared to accept that position. Therefore, the test with me is not whether drunkenness results but whether consumption of liquor by young persons and children results. That is the question I should like to see addressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"] My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has shown himself very willing to respond to the mood of the House today. We are all grateful to him for his willingness to seek to give effect to what is the majority view of the House and I hope that on this matter he will see fit to do the same thing, to reflect the view of the House and of the country and make an important step forward in social and temperance reform.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State intervened when he did in the debate. I fully appreciate that he did so because of an undertaking that he gave when the Bill was passing through Committee that he would seek evidence on this matter. There is no doubt that he has sought evidence but, as far as I am concerned and I gather from what has been said in the debate as far as other hon. Members are concerned, it is not such evidence as most of us would accept.

    761
    One naturally pays attention to what chief constables and magistrates' clerks say because they are engaged locally in dealing with matters of this sort, but they are not the only people whom we should consult, and, if the situation is as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) alleges, it looks as though the right hon. Gentleman has put the wrong questions. Certainly, if he asked whether these people were in favour of any change in the law and overwhelmingly they said they were against it, one must take the assertion for what it is worth. It is not a question that we should ask chief constables. It is for Parliament to decide on the evidence.
    Although one takes, quite properly, all such evidence as chief constables and others offer, it is not the only evidence that the House should take into account. My hon. Friends, both in Committee and in the House, have brought overwhelming evidence to show that drunkenness among teenagers is growing. I do not suggest that five-year-olds buy bottles of gin, although under the law they are capable of doing so if they are so minded. It is the teenagers who now, fortunately or unfortunately, have enough money to spend who go in for this kind of thing. There is not the slightest doubt that drunkenness among young people is growing. Even the chief constables whom the right hon. Gentleman approached could not deny that.
    Where do these young people obtain the drink? They possibly go to on-licence premises and get it there. Many of them nowadays look more than their age. Some can pass for 18, but on-licence holders are generally very strict and keen to comply with the law and they do not willingly serve anyone under 18 if they have knowledge of his age. There is not the slightest doubt that these young people are getting the drink and the assumption therefore must be that some of it comes from off-licence premises where the licence-holder cannot prevent their having it. The Minister said that out of 112 cases, nine cases of drunkenness were attributable to drink obtained from off-licence premises, but he did not say whether the liquor in the other cases had been obtained from off-licence premises or where the young people had obtained it. If in the other cases the young people were not drunk but they obtained the drink from off-licence
    762
    premises though only nine went so far as to be "tight", then we have evidence of 112 cases from the chief constables to their own knowledge.
    Mr. Vosper: I had better correct the right hon. Gentleman. There were 1,120 cases, in nine of which there was association between the drunkenness and sales from off-licence premises.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is even worse than I thought—1,120 cases where drink had been obtained in sealed bottles from off-licence premises.
    Mr. Vosper: No; 1,120 cases of drunkenness among young people, of which nine were associated with off-licence sales.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: How was it known where the 1,120 young people had got their drink? Surely there are only two sources. One is an on-licence and the other is a shop or off-licence premises.
    Mr. Hobson: Or a club.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, there is also a club.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise where in practice most of the drink is obtained, certainly for bottle parties? If the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) were present, he could tell us with absolute certainty. It will be found that it is done by telephone, and this has not yet been mentioned. It is ridiculous; we have been talking about evidence and so on. If young people of 17 or 18 want some drink, they can telephone an off-licence or anywhere else and have it sent round to them in crates with the greatest of ease, and do not need to go to an off-licence at all. That is how most of it comes about.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That only shows that we are not going far enough in this Bill, and we can at any rate stop this one loophole, if we want to, by accepting the Clause moved so ably by the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartbpools (Commander Kerans).
    I honestly do not understand the right hon. Gentleman. I have been sitting here trying to puzzle out how his brain has been working over this matter. He is, to our certain knowledge, a very humane Minister. He has for years

    763
    taken a great interest in work among youth, and his activities in that respect have been rather fruitful- He is quite definitely in the eyes of all of us, I hope, someone who takes an interest in young people and wishes them well, and yet here, where there is obviously a loophole in the law and there is a feeling on both sides of the House that this is an opportunity to close it, the right hon. Gentleman refuses even to consider the evidence which has been sent to him and fobs us off—I must use that phrase, because it is the only one which fits the situation—with evidence that he has got from a certain number of chief constables some of whom, perhaps—I hesitate to say this—are of a temperament which does not want interference of this kind or extra work put on their officers who are overworked anyway.
    This is the last Bill of this kind that we shall have for a long time. It is obvious that, given the atmosphere and temper of the teenagers of today and all the violence that we read about in the Press, this kind of thing is likely to continue and that the young people will get drink if there is this way of getting it. The number of cases which have come to the notice of the Minister do not appear to be great, but many of us believe that they are much greater than the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, or than he has evidence about. That being the position, and as it is likely that this kind of thing will get progressively worse and we shall not have another Licensing Bill for a long while, the proposal which has been made could do nobody any harm.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has whispered to me, if he sends his son along to the tobacconist he cannot get a packet of cigarettes but if he sends him to an off-licence he can get a bottle of gin, a bottle of whisky or anything else. That is an absurd anomaly in our law. Here is an opportunity to cure it. I am positive that when we reach the end of the debate the right hon. Gentleman will find that more people than he imagines, even from his own side of the House, will support the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposed new Clause.
    Mr. Ray Mawby: I hope that after listening to the debate my right hon. Friend will think again about his
    764
    attitude to the new Clause. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) spoke of bad habits. The only justification for allowing young people to purchase alcohol from off-licences is if they are buying it as agents for their parents. I would not say that it was a bad habit for a father to have his son get the beer, but we are going through a period of great social change.
    When I was a youngster, we went to off-licences for a pint of draught beer, but nowadays beer can be bought by a juvenile from an off-licence only if it is in a sealed container, and it is important to remember that if the seal on a bottle is broken, the game is given away to the parent.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is only if the child is under 14 that the beer must be provided in a sealed container and that children over the age of 14 can buy it whether it is in a sealed container or not?
    Mr. Mawby: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. What I was going on to say was that the breaking of the seal gave the game away to the parent only if the child was buying the bottle on behalf of the parent and took a nip on the way home.
    I well remember that when I was an apprentice and I was marking my name on my tools my mate said, "It is no good marking them because they will pinch the name as well as the tools." That is the case with a sealed container. If the child or young person is purchasing the liquor for his or her own consumption, the sealed container will give no evidence to anyone, because when the child has consumed the contents, the seal will go the same way as the container—into the nearest dustbin.
    We are seeing great social changes and it is time that we ended this anomaly whereby a young person can go to an off-licence and purchase two or three pint bottles of beer, or a bottle of whisky, but cannot purchase ten cigarettes for his father on the same errand.
    My right hon. Friend said that there was a balance which we had to maintain, and I believe that on balance all parents will say that they would rather

    765
    go to fetch their own beer than allow the present situation to continue, with young people, purchasing supplies of liquor and going into a quiet corner and holding a bottle party or a record party or whatever it is, unknown to their parents, and getting into a great deal of difficulty. I am sure that on balance most parents would want my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter, so that even if parents are given a little more difficulty, at least the younger people are not given so much opportunity or so much temptation to get into drinking at an early age.
    Dr. Horace King: This is a very modest Clause and I hope that those who are supporting it will not claim too much for it. It is, however, a useful measure making a useful and, indeed, as this debate has now revealed, a necessary reform in the present state of the law. I appeal to the Minister of State, who in a previous office was at the Ministry of Education and who was keenly interested while in that Ministry in the youth of our country, to treat this not as a debate on drunkenness but as a debate on youth. This is not a debate between the two parties in the House or between total abstainers and drinkers. There have so far spoken in support of the Clause those who are obviously teetotallers and men like myself who are not teetotallers. While there may be differences of opinion about drink itself, I would have thought that the whole House would agree that there was a need, particularly today, to keep youngsters away from liquor, at any rate until they have reached an age of maturity and can make decisions for themselves.
    9.15 p.m.
    I do not want to elaborate or exaggerate what is happening among the youth of England, particularly as the popular Press would only print the sensational things said in the debate. The Press is apt to describe youth when they go wrong and paying no regard to the magnificent achievements of most of our youth. But everybody who is interested in youth and in education is alarmed at the growth of drunkenness among young people, at the fact that, as the Crowther Report put it, to be ill-educated in an affluent society is very dangerous, and at the fact that our
    766
    young people have money to burn and that all the propaganda today is directed to urging them to burn it often in the least desirable ways.
    I do not like any restrictions on personal liberty, but I would quite willingly accept for myself a number of restrictions and discomforts if it meant keeping danger from some of our young people—the youngest ones in particular. There is no need for statistics to prove that this Clause would prevent parents from sending youngsters to buy their liquor for them. I ask any hon. Member who is to take part in the debate whether he would send his young children to an off-licence to buy liquor which he himself wanted to consume. The Clause would also prevent youngsters from buying liquor and taking it away to consume themselves. It is a matter of fact, not argument, that this will keep at any rate some youngsters away from the temptation to drink.
    I do not by any means think that the Clause would solve the great problems which confront our youth today in this materialistically prosperous but spiritually dangerous society, but it would help a little. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the fact that there have been only nine cases involving this aspect. But each of the nine is one human being. I was headmaster of a school before I came to the House. There was a young boy in that school who was not very intelligent. He was one of the nicest boys in the school but one of the weakest and most easily led.
    With some difficulty, we got him a job in the docks. He came back to his old headmaster six months later having been sacked from work for drinking when he should have been working. I cannot really forgive a society in which that was possible. The youngster, who was not a bad lad, was led astray by the ease with which he could procure liquor, and after six months as a wage earner had met with serious disaster.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, whatever his views on drinking itself may be, and whatever the views of the House may be about alcohol—and we are probably divided forty or fifty ways on this matter—will, by accepting this Clause, help to protect to some extent some of our younger people.
    Mr. Vosper: I spoke earlier because I thought it my duty to put before the

    767
    House the results of the inquiries which I promised to make in Standing Committee. I then intended to listen to comments on the figures.
    The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) thought that the form of my inquiry was not the right one—that it should have been into drinking amongst young people. I made clear to the Committee, however, the form of the inquiry which I would undertake and it had the approval of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who commented on my speech then
    "The Minister has approached the problem in a reasonable manner."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) surprised me by saying that he wondered why I made the inquiry at all and indicated that he disapproved of it. But in the Standing Committee he said:
    "I welcome the approach of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to this matter, because the kind of investigation which he proposes to have carried out is, in the circumstances, a reasonable approach to the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, l8th April, 1961; c. 1009.]
    Sir C. Black: I said nothing that contained the suggestion that I was not in favour of the inquiry. I said that the wrong questions were asked.
    Hon. Members: Of the wrong people.
    Mr. Vosper: I made clear to the Standing Committee the sort of questions which I would ask. I do not think that the people I asked were necessarily the wrong people. They were intimately concerned with the problem—chief constables and clerks to licensing magistrates working in a wide variety of places. I can well understand that the answers that I have given do not coincide with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, but I felt bound to give the information to the House. I pledged myself in Committee that I would not table an Amendment unless the evidence that I got from impartial sources showed that drunkenness amongst young people had a contributory cause in off-licensed sales. I therefore feel that I have fulfilled the obligations I undertook in Committee.
    It is clear that the evidence, limited though it is—and I admit that—does not support the Amendment; nor does the general evidence available to the Home
    768
    Office. Quite apart from the result of accepting the Clause, it would be a mistake if the House deluded itself into thinking that if we stopped this alleged loophole we should be getting at the cause of juvenile drunkenness, which is something that concerns my right hon. Friend and me as much as anybody in the House. Therefore, my approach to this question is similar to that in respect of motorways, two or three hours ago. The evidence is against the new Clause but, as my right hon. Friend said, we have to consider the mood of the House and public opinion. My intention was to state the facts to the House and then assess its mood in the following speeches.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) made the best contribution to the debate when he said that even if this is a minor cause of drunkenness the people of this country probably think that it is time for a change, and are prepared to suffer some inconvenience in the cause defended in the Amendment. That argument goes beyond the inquiry, which was limited to drunkenness.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) asked me to consider the matter again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked me to respect the mood of the House. I am willing to do both, but I cannot go so far as to accept the new Clause, for three reasons. First, I should like others than those who have taken part in the debate to reflect on the evidence I have put before them. Secondly, I should like to assess the reaction to the debate and, thirdly, the Amendment has defects as it stands, if only because no penalty is provided.
    I can assure the House that I will look at the matter most favourably, and that some action will be taken in respect of it. That may not go as far as my hon. Friends want me to go, but it is as far as I can hope to go. I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelly will agree that my approach to the matter in this debate is as reasonable as he considered my approach to it was in Committee.
    Mr. Norman Cole: When my right hon. Friend is addressing his mind to this matter I hope that he will be influenced not only by the statistics but also by the number

    769
    of people who have embarked upon a career of drinking—not drunkenness—through obtaining liquor before they were 18 years of age, who had never drunk before that age, but started the practice then.
    Mr. Vosper: Yes, I shall pay regard to that point, and to all the speeches that have been made in the debate.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate will welcome the Minister's second speech. It is not for me to say what course will be adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), but I think that the Minister has taken a very sensible course and has shown that he is responsive to the mood of the House in this matter.
    The Minister claimed credit for having fulfilled the assurances which he gave in Committee. Having read his words there, and having heard what he has said this evening, I think that he is entitled to claim credit for that. But what has emerged from the debate is that the House is not so much concerned with the evidence derived from certain selected chief constables as with the degree to which the ability of young people to acquire liquor from off-licensed premises has contributed to drunkenness or to other offences. What has emerged is that the House realises that the law with regard to the sale of intoxicants in off-licence premises is totally anomalous, totally illogical, and indefensible. As hon. Members have pointed out, the revelation as to what is the existing law has come as a surprise to certain hon. Members, and will come as a greater surprise to members of the public when they read it.
    The law on the subject is even more grotesque than was indicated by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) because at the moment the position is that any child can go into an off-licence premise and buy spirits or beer provided that they are supplied in a corked and sealed vessel. But those limitations apply only to children under 14. Children over 14 can go into an off-licence and buy any quantity they like in vessels that are not corked or sealed. Therefore, this discussion about the bottles having to be properly corked and sealed applies only to children under 14.
    770
    The implication that one must draw from the law as it stands, and as will be make known when the debate is read by the public tomorrow, is that children over 14 are encouraged by the present provisons of the law to go to off-licences and buy liquor regardless of quantity in unsealed and uncorked containers. The distinction is drawn at 14 and, as hon. Members pointed out, we are concerned in this House with protecting that teenager group between 14 and 18.
    It semes totally inconsistent that while we have deliberately included in the Bill a number of provisions designed purely for the protection of children—we have increased the penalties for selling intoxicants to children under 18 in public houses; we have taken steps to protect children in registered clubs and other places—we have done nothing to change the absurdity of the present law with regard to the supply of beer, spirts, wines and alcohol of all kinds to children between 14 and 18.
    I appreciate that the Minister has listened to this debate and that he is speaking in the absence of the Home Secretary, but we ought to have an assurance that, if the Amendment is withdrawn, as with the case of the motorways an Amendment will be introduced in another place by the Government to give effect to the sense of the House as expressed in this debate. I appreciate that the language of the new Clause suffers from some defects because there is no penalty, but unless we have a positive assurance from the Minister that the Government will take the initiative and introduce a Clause free from grammatical or drafting defects, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will press the new Clause. I would prefer to see it accepted by the House with any deficiencies of drafting that may be in it, because they can be remedied in another place. This is essentially the kind of subject similar to the one we were dealing with just now, and it is right that the House should express an opinion because it is the duty of the House to give effect to the feeling we all have so strongly that some change is required in the law for the protection of young people.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Vosper.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot compete if a number of hon. Members partially rise from their "launching pads". Mr. Vosper.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked a specific question. I thought that I was forthcoming in the words I used at the conclusion of my speech. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be disappointed in this respect. I spoke in good faith when using those words.
    Commander Kerans: In view of the statements of the Minister and the adequate assurance which has been given, and in the sincere hope that this matter will be considered in another place with the remarks which have been made in this House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Hon. Members: No.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I should not have spoken on this matter but for the fact that at an earlier stage the Minister indicated that he was not willing to accept the Clause. Since then half-a-dozen hon. Members have been called. There is no complaint about that, as they had put their names to the Clause which they seek to support. In addition, one or two, other hon. Members have spoken.
    I do not agree that this is in accordance with the mood of this House. I think there is a majority of hon. Members—many of them are absent at the moment—who hold the view which the Government expressed at the outset. They consider it of the utmost importance, and the reasons should be given by someone. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) did so in part but through the lack of time and other circumstances he did not develop these matters in detail.
    I join with my right hon. Friend in attempting to help hon. Members on both sides of the House to arrive at a correct determination of the feelings of hon. Members. I am not ashamed of the fact that I have some detailed knowledge of this subject. I have dealt with cases concerning this problem and involving a large number of juveniles.
    The problem posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) was a correctly stated proposition.
    772
    He said that if there was evidence of drink, of an increased consumption of alcohol, as a result of the present state of the law, he was in favour of doing something about it. That was also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) when this matter was under consideration in the Standing Committee. I do not want it to go out from the House that the youth of this country is given more to intoxication than hitherto, because that is a false accusation. I entirely dissent from the "Baptist vie" which we have had bandied about tonight. It is not a true statement and the evidence in that regard is quite untrue. There is no proper evidence from those who know, of any increase in the consumption of alcohol due to the present state of the law.
    If it is stated that there is an increase in the consumption of liquor obtained from off-licences, there ought to be evidence to support that statement, and there is none. An infinitesimal proportion of the cases of drunkenness relate to drink obtained from off-licences.
    Mr. G. Thomas: How does the hon. Member know?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I will tell the House in a moment if hon. Members will listen. I have had no chance to speak about this before.
    It is equally true that drink may be ordered from an off-licence by means of a telephone call without there being any knowledge of the age of the person making the call. That is done in a great many cases. We have had an analysis from the police, whose job it is to keep analyses in these matters, in relation not only to increases in drunkenness but in the consumption of alcohol which is quite a different matter. The evidence shows that in the cases of drunkenness on record there is no evidence to show that they were contributed to to any degree by sales from off-licences. I think that important. I believe the House, in an endeavour to do something which hon. Members think is right, has assumed this to be true without one wit of evidence to support it.
    When earlier we were dealing with the question of licences for premises on special roads, we were entering a new field, but this is not a new field. We have had this practice for 100 years in

    773
    working-class districts. In the working-class constituency in which I once had the honour to fight an election—it was next door to the constituency of the Chief Whip in the City of Nottingham—it was a common practice to send children to off-licences to buy drink in containers. As the question was posed by hon. Members opposite, I say that I should be perfectly proud to send any child of mine to an off-licence to buy alcohol. Why not, if it is in a container? There is no evidence whatever to show that the children sent to buy alcohol on behalf of their parents are in the slightest degree likely to steal that alcohol. If they are deceitful they will steal anything and this provision would not help one way or the other.
    As to the children between 5 and 14, is it really suggested that it will increase drunkenness or addiction to drink to allow them to buy drink from off-licenses? Will that be so in the case of children in their teens or between 5 and 14 when they act as messengers? Absolute fiddlesticks.
    As to young persons between 14 and 18, that is not the bottle party age. In the main the bottle party age starts at 17½ onwards. Persons between 14 and 18 can be sent by their parents to obtain drink in sealed containers. If they wish to obtain drink on their own, they know that they are being deceitful but they can arrange it in any one of a number of ways and they do not have to go to an off-licence to do so. Nor is there any evidence of an increase in drinking by persons of that age in this country. The evidence obtained by the Consumer Research Council is to the contrary. The increased money they receive is being spent on "pop" music, ice-creams, dresses, lipstick and things of that kind. There is no evidence to show that the increased number of coffee bars and so on has led to an increase in drinking intoxicants. On the contrary, the evidence is the other way.
    Then there is the question of the bottle parties and the awful cases in which girls are seduced. There are a few, some very bad ones, but I wish the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) were here. He knows about this problem. I wish also that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) were
    774
    here because he knows a lot about it. Do hon. Members think that either of those hon. Members would support this new Clause? I very much doubt it. Those who know the position in regard to bottle parties know that usually it is the man over 18 who goes forth and purchases alcohol and then invites girls of under 18—it is not the girls who buy it—and the girls are seduced at the parties. There is not a scrap or tittle of evidence that those under 16 or 17 go to off-licences for the purpose of buying drink for themselves.
    If the House wants to go ahead and do what I think would be a very stupid thing when there is no evidence to suggest that we should do so, go ahead and do it, but for heaven's sake do not say that we are doing it on the evidence, for we shall be doing it against the evidence. Those like myself who see this in our daily work, and policemen and probation officers, are the right people to ask for evidence. If hon. Members assume that because of religious or Baptist views they should adopt this proposal, all I can say is that I will have none of it.
    Mrs. Slater: The last speech to which we have listened was in my opinion the most disgusting which has been made in this debate. After listening to it, I am quite convinced that those of us who think there is a very great need for this provision should express our opinion emphatically on this issue. The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has been speaking about bottle parties, but this new Clause is not designed to deal with bottle parties. It is to deal with the question of the protection we should give to young people under 18 years of age.
    It has been said that young people under 18 must be able to purchase liquor from off-licensed premises because their parents need it. But times have changed very considerably. When the Act of Parliament permitting this was introduced, men worked longer hours than they work today. Thank goodness we have reduced those hours. The need of those days for a man to have his beer in the house when he returned from work has been reduced. Moreover, firms deliver drink to the door if people want it. The need for young people to fetch it grows less and less.

    775
    The question is whether it is right or wrong that young people should be able to purchase drink in off-licensed premises. In my opinion, it is definitely wrong. We are living at a time when there is more concern about young people than ever before. Although the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet apparently believes that fewer people under 18 drink alcohol and get drunk as a result, the evidence—in spite of what the Minister said—from many industrial areas is that more young people are learning to drink. If there is even a possibility of that, the House ought to take every precaution to prevent young people from being able to obtain drink in any way. The Bill strengthens the position in relation to public houses. How illogical that it should not strengthen it in this respect, too.
    It is not only that young people have more money but that more of them have motor cars or motor cycles. It is easy for them to purchase beer from off-licensed premises, take it to a quiet place, drink it and then become an added menace because they are in charge of either a motor car or a motor cycle. It is the duty of the House to tie up the law by accepting the new Clause and making sure that every protection is offered to our young people.
    The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet spoke in a sneering way about Baptist Members. Thank goodness that some of us have some fundamental principles. We believe that young people should be encouraged to live in accordance with the best possible principles. Encouraging them to drink alcohol is not encouraging them to live in the highest and best traditions.
    Commander Kerans: In view of the adequate assurance given by my right hon. Friend that the new Clause will be redrafted in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Thomas.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber throughout the debate. I have sent an apology to the Minister. In my opinion, the speech made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) should be answered from this side of the House and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Thomas: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you called me.
    Mr. Speaker: I did. I called the hon. Member in error. I was charmed into it.
    Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet and there is no point of order at the moment. The position is that the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) had gone further than I had realised and had asked leave to withdraw the Motion. But I have not put that Question to the House. I therefore require some indication from the House in order that we may proceed in the correct way. Is it your pleasure that the Motion and new Clause be withdrawn?
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Speaker: Lest I should be guilty of discourtesy, I stopped the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who wished to raise some point of order. I hope that it has perished in the normal way.
    Mr. Fernyhough: It has.

    Clause 1.—(NEW PROVISIONS AS TO LICENCES FOR RESTAURANTS, GUEST HOUSES, ETC.)
    Amendment made: In page 1, line 11, leave out from "description" to end of line 12 and insert:
    "and in this part of this Act any reference to a renewal of such a licence shall apply also to a transfer, except where the context otherwise requires".—[Mr. Vosper.]
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "customary".
    This is a very short point which caused a little anxious consideration in Committee. The description of "a restaurant licence" is as follows:
    "a licence…granted for premises structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at mid-day or in the evening."
    The word "customary" adds nothing to the definition and would merely lead to

    777
    troubles, difficulties and definitions by lawyers and others in other places. This would be undesirable.
    What the Committee and the House wants is to ensure that a restaurant provides a main meal at mid-day or in mid-evening. To add the word "customary" may lead to all sorts of arguments which I do not think would be desirable. It does not carry the matter further. I should hate to think of us having to decide whether "customary" involves having Yorkshire pudding with roast beef. Many of us have very light meals in the middle of the day. They may, none the less, be the main meal at the middle of the day, but one should not necessarily have to have a customary three course main meal. I have given the matter careful thought and I think that "customary" adds nothing. I hope that in the circumstances the Government will look at it again.
    The Solicitor-General: This is a very short point of drafting. The test here is not what the customer consumes. It is quite irrelevant whether my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has a small or heavy meal at mid-day. The test is what the restaurant habitually provides.
    After considering the matter, we feel that the word "customary" gives some indication to the courts which will be of value. What we intend is that the customary evening meal should cover such things as dinner, supper, high tea, whatever it is called, and that the restaurant should set out to give more mere snacks. We have carefully considered the words in the Clause and feel that the words "customary main meal" is the phrase which best expresses the desire, which was obvious on both sides of the Committee, that in order for a restaurant to qualify for a restaurant licence it should be a real restaurant and not a mere snack-bar.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "providing" to "and" in line 7 and to insert:
    "for reward board and lodging, including breakfast and one other at least of the customary main meals".
    As the Bill stands, the qualification for a residential licence is that the premises must be
    778
    "bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing persons with board and lodging for reward, whether full board or not".
    When we discussed this matter in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) moved an Amendment to omit the words
    "whether full board or not"
    and to insert instead
    "such board to include at least breakfast and an evening meal".
    The purpose of that Amendment was to exclude from the residential licence places which provide merely bed and breakfast, and my hon. Friend thought—I think he had a good deal of support in all parts of the Committee—that to fail so to provide might lead to abuse.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State accepted that there was great force in my hon. Friend's general approach, but he pointed out that the Amendment as put down would not do because it would be wrong to limit it to the evening meal. The important thing was that the residential accommodation should be coupled with the facility of a customary main meal being provided, and this, in the circumstances of the place, might be a mid-day meal provided with bed and breakfast. In addition, the Committee had, after my hon. Friend put his Amendment down, amended the Clause so that, as a matter of drafting, the Amendment would not fit in.
    My right hon. Friend undertook, if my hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment, to put down an Amendment at this stage to meet the point. This is that Amendment. Its effect is to cut out the establishment providing merely bed and breakfast by requiring the provision of at least breakfast and either lunch or evening dinner. It would not have the effect that the resident must take any of these meals in order to obtain a drink. He might, of course, have a meal out. He might have a picnic or go to visit friends. As on the last Amendment, what we are concerned with is the premises. The premises must be capable of providing, and the proprietors willing to provide, such a meal in order to qualify for such a licence.
    This Amendment strengthens the Bill. Part I contains liberalising provisions, but we are anxious that it should not

    779
    leave a loophole for abuse. I commend the Amendment to the House as a useful safeguard.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: The words proposed admirably meet the point which I made in Committee. I am much obliged to the Solicitor-General for giving it such close attention.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I, too, shall be brief, but I have to tell the Solicitor-General that I have such a deep anxiety about guest houses being allowed to sell drink to their patrons at all, knowing as I do what can happen to guest houses when that becomes a feature, that I welcome any tightening of the provisions which can be made. Since the Solicitor-General assures us that this Amendment will make it a little more difficult for guest houses to become disreputable places where liquor can be served at bed-and-breakfast establishments, I welcome it as far as it goes.
    I wish that we had left out guest houses altogether. I do not believe that they are the sort of establishments in which liquor ought to be served. To serve liquor in guest houses is to change the character of our national life, to change the character of our seaside resorts, to change the character of boarding houses in our big cities. It will increase the temptation for many things to develop which nobody in the House wishes to encourage. Everyone knows the sort of thing which can be encouraged at bed-and-breakfast establishments having drink for sale. I hope that there will be some guarantee of inspection and, as the Solicitor-General assured us there would be, facilities for a main cooked meal throughout the day.
    Mr. Cole: Did I understand my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to say that these establishments do not have to provide a meal? How far will that be taken? Does that mean that a bed and breakfast establishment can turn into a residential club for a night? I know that we cannot force people to eat meals and we would not wish to do so, but this point can be covered in other ways. If these words are put into the Bill, does it mean that no one will worry whether they are observed or not? I think that that is the import of what my right hon. and learned Friend said.
    The Solicitor-General: I assure my hon. Friend that was not the import of what I said—at least, it was not intended to be. The position will be exactly the same as in an ordinary licensed private hotel which provides, ordinarily speaking, facilities for drinking. It also provides breakfast, lunch and dinner in the evening, but, in order to get a drink, one does not have to have breakfast, lunch or dinner. A person may be one of those who forgoes breakfast, has lunch out and does not feel like having dinner in the evening. In spite of that, under those rigours, he may still require a restorative, and he can have one. The position will be exactly the same as in the case of the residential licence.
    Mr. Ede: Can a person who has no other connection with the place go in casually during the day and obtain intoxicating liquor?
    The Solicitor-General: No.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "conditions" and insert "condition".
    Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment those in page 2, line 16, to leave out from "premises" to the end of line 22, in line 29, to leave out "conditions" and insert "condition", in line 33, to leave out from "licence" to the end of line 36, in page 3, line 27, at the end to insert:
    (8) Where licensing justices grant a new residential licence or residential and restaurant licence, they shall, unless it appears to them that in the particular circumstances of the case there is good reason not to do so, attach to the licence a condition that there shall be afforded in the premises, for persons provided with board and lodging for reward, adequate sitting accommodation in a room not used or to be used for sleeping accommodation, for the service of substantial refreshment or for the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor; and where such a licence is granted without the condition required by this subsection, licensing justices shall, on the renewal of the licence, attach the condition if by reason of any change of circumstances it appears to them that the requirement ought no longer to be dispensed with."
    in page 4, line 1, to leave out "conditions as are" and insert "condition as is", and in line 9, to leave out "conditions

    781
    as are "and insert "condition as is".
    They all go together, I think.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The important Amendment is that in page 3, line 27. The others are consequential on it.
    This proposal arises out of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) in Committee. As the Bill stands, there must be in premises which qualify for a residential licence or a combined residential and restaurant licence a sitting-room in which drink is not supplied or consumed. We called it rather erroneously in Committee the third room. It may not be a third room in certain circumstances, and it is therefore better to refer to it as the dry sitting room. My hon. Friend moved an Amendment to provide that that condition, the condition for the dry room, should be inserted in a residential licence only where the licensing justices consider it expedient. His argument ran on the lines that there are in many cases, in seaside resorts particularly, establishments with only two rooms apart from—
    It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Proceedings on the Licensing Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Redmayne.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    The Solicitor-General: I was recapitulating my hon. Friends' argument, which is relevant to this Amendment, that there may be small establishments with only two rooms apart from the bedrooms. My hon. Friend said that this condition would prevent the service of drink except in the dining room, and if the dining room were in use only for meals it would also prevent the service of drink to all people in the house except at meals.
    My very strong impression of the course of that debate is that the Committee were divided on the merits of the proposal. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he intervened,
    782
    said that he was influenced by the fact that the Hotel and Restaurants Association believed that there was a case for this Amendment and that the Bill as it stood would operate harshly in the case of small establishments. He went on to say that if he were satisfied that it would operate harshly as reported by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, nevertheless he thought that my hon. Friend's Amendment put the onus of proof in the wrong place. In other words, my right hon. Friend felt that it would be wrong to say that the condition is only to be inserted if the justices thought that it was expedient. His view was that it should be inserted unless the justices thought that it was inexpedient.
    My right hon. Friend then undertook to consider the matter in the light of what had been said and undertook in particular to obtain the views of the Association. The British Hotels and Restaurants Association have since written in support of the proposal and make the case that this would operate to the disadvantage of the small establishment and they do not wish to see any hotel placed at such a disadvantage merely because it was small. My right hon. Friend feels that the case has therefore been made but we propose that the licensing justices should attach the dry room condition unless it appears to them that in the particular circumstances of the case there is good reason not to do so. In other words, in order to obviate the dry room condition an affirmative case must be made out for it.
    Sir F. Soskice: I do not think that I was responsible for much in the way of an intervention in the Committee stage on the question of the dry room. I appreciate what the learned Solicitor-General has in mind and I confess that I was rather puzzled when I first tried to discern the reasons why he sought to change the word, "conditions" into "condition" and to remove paragraph (b, ii) at the end to form the new subsection (8).
    I see why he has done it and, speaking for myself and particularly in view of the representations he has received, I would have thought that he had placed the onus now in the right place. In other words, there will be dry rooms in establishments which spacially can afford the space for dry rooms and not

    783
    in establishments that cannot. That is, I gather, what the Solicitor-General has in mind.
    I would merely bring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's notice a defect in the original drafting of paragraph (ii), which still persists in his new subsection. Again, I do not want to be pedantic or to usurp the function of the Parliamentary draftsman, who, no doubt, would do all this much more skilfully than I. I wish, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look again at the framing of lines 20 and 21 on page 2 of the Bill which have now found their way into the new subsection (8) in a similar form, subject, of course, to the words which provide for the assessing of the onus.
    It could be made much more clear what is meant by
    "sitting accommodation in a room not used or to be used for sleeping accommodation"
    when one finds that phrase followed by the words
    "for the service of substantial refreshment…"
    and there is little as a matter of drafting to indicate with which part of the preceding subsection the words are to be taken.
    That is very obscure, probably nearly as obscure as the argument that I have just advanced. If it is as obscure as that, I feel that my argument must be sound. I hope that the Solicitor-General will look at it and try to remove the obscurity from the drafting, which, I am sure, could not be removed from the obscurity of my argument.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the drafting is all right. There is a comma after "sleeping accommodation". It reads:
    "in a room not used or to be used for sleeping accommodation, for the service of substantial refreshment or for the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor"—
    in other words, not in a bedroom, a dining room or a drinking room. I will, however, look again at the drafting, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to do.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I should not like the Amendment to go through or the discussion to end without making my personal reservation as to its utility. It seems to me that the Solicitor-General has laid
    784
    down a clear principle which is at variance with the views of a great many hon. Members and of a big section of opinion in the country. He seems to me to be laying down the principle in respect of all boarding houses that the onus to prove the need to obtain a sitting room which he calls a dry room is placed upon the people who want such a room. That is what I understood, but if I am wrong I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. Perhaps he will reply at the end of what I have to say and put me right.
    Perhaps I may express my view and that of a good many of my hon. Friends in this way. In the matter of these new licences for boarding houses, we should proceed on the basis of the status quo, which is the fair and sensible thing to do. That is to say, they are primarily establishments which cater, first, for people who do not wish to stay at hotels, which in the vast majority of cases are licensed. Surely, that is accepted, particularly at holiday times, when families go for their holidays and—this is true of working-and middle-class families, at least—they select a non-licensed boarding house.
    We ought to start on that assumption and proceed to the conclusion that unless such a boarding house has enough rooms to provide a dry room, particularly for families of that sort to sit in, it cannot qualify for a licence. It seems to me that the Solicitor-General was assuming that the first thing to provide for in all these boarding houses, as well as in the hotels, is that they shall be licensed so that the section of the population which wants to drink is catered for and it is just bad luck if there is no room set aside for the type of people, particularly the families, of whom I speak.
    I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not under-estimate the number of families who deliberately seek to take their children to boarding houses, residential establishments or temperance hotels where on a rainy day when they have to remain indoors they will not be subjected to what they regard, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, as dangerous and undesirable surroundings. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the argument that if he proceeds on the basis of the Amendment and what he said in support of it, boarding houses will be deemed in the first

    785
    place to be licensed premises and only when they are big enough to be able to afford the room for the class of people whom I have described will they be able to cater for them.
    Mr. G. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) played a distinguished part in Standing Committee on the Bill. His contributions have been noted with great satisfaction in the Principality, in particular, and I believe that he has touched upon an important point in the Amendment. Anyone with experience of boarding houses along the sea coast, be it at Blackpool, Brighton or Margate or any of the main seaside towns, will have found that many of them have one big lounge, the rest of the available space being used for bedrooms.
    Clearly, the Solicitor-General is advancing an argument which will leave families which go into these boarding houses in the position that they will be going into a big lounge in an ordinary boarding house where drink will be flowing for people on holiday who want it. This can ruin holidays for families. This is not a light point that I am making. It will affect hundreds of thousands of families.
    We ought to make it compulsory that in any circumstances any boarding house keeper who applies for a licence must prove that he has accommodation to provide—and I here use the Solicitor-General's language—foe a wet room and a dry room. If these boarding house keepers want the licence they should prove that they have the facilities. We should not push all those who want to use boarding houses in future into a situation where both the smell of liquor and the company of people under the influence of liquor are there when children are in the house on holiday.
    Mr. Eden: Surely the hon. Member will agree on reflection that the boarding house keeper whom he has described, who is principally in business to provide for family holidays, would be the very last to apply for a licence—if he applied for it at all—because it would completely destroy the trade on which his prosperity depends.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas: I do not accept for a moment what the hon. Member says. I do not know how many boarding houses
    786
    there are in Bournemouth and what his knowledge of them is. I know boarding houses very well. I often stay in them.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: And have a drink in
    them?
    Mr. Thomas: No, I leave that to the hon. Gentleman. We ought not lightly to allow this to go through, because the Government are now in this Measure touching something very near the life of working families. Despite the general idea in some quarters that everybody wants to drink, that just is not true. There are hundreds of thousands of families who are keen to see their children grow up without a taste for strong drink, who are anxious beyond anything that their young people shall not during their holiday times have this sort of thing put before them as though it were natural to drink at any time.
    Sir Douglas Glover: I have nothing to do with the boarding house business at all, but if I were running a boarding house in Bournemouth, Cardiff, Barry or anywhere else and all my trade was based on the sort of families about which the hon. Member is talking, I should hesitate for years before applying for a licence because by doing so I should jeopardise the very sound business I had built up by sound management over a period of years. I agree with the hon. Member that there are hundreds of thousands of families who want this sort of holiday, and because there are hundreds of thousands of such families I am certain that there are tens of thousands of boarding house keepers who will not even think of applying for a licence.
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has a point as far as it goes, but is it not reasonable to say that those who run boarding houses should at least, before they are granted a licence, prove that they have alternative rooms and facilities for people Who do not want to be bothered by this sort of thing? Surely that is not an unreasonable request. I am not asking for the impossible. I am merely asking why persons should be allowed to invite families to their boarding houses—very often families do not know what the boarding house is like until they get there; we have all been to bad boarding houses as well as good

    787
    ones—when there are no facilities available for a dry room, such as the Solicitor-General has mentioned?
    I believe that the Amendment is inadequate in that it does not go far enough. I hope that the Solicitor-General will promise to have another look at the requirement to which I am now making reference, that boarding houses which seek this facility should have to fulfil very rigorous conditions before it is granted.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I thank the Solicitor-General for having arrived at a very effective compromise. This is a very important Amendment to the trade and industry as a whole. There is no doubt that if we sterilise accommodation in our hotels—they are all too small—and have rooms which are not put to effective use, it does not serve any purpose or benefit anyone.
    I believe that giving a discretion to magistrates, with, on the whole, the burden of proof against them, is a fair compromise having regard to the arguments adduced to the contrary. Frankly, I should have liked to see no provision in respect of such a room at all. That leads to the real nub of the matter, which was correctly stated by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) to be the nub.
    Since this matter arose. I have found out in my constituency, which has more boarding houses that any other, in three of four different towns, roughly what percentage of boarding house keepers would apply for a licence. It came as a great surprise to me to find out how few, and not how many, would apply. I entirely share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and there is no doubt that there will be abundant numbers of boarding houses, of the highest as well as the lowest income brackets, which will remain dry—that is to say, people will be able to go out and buy a bottle of beer and bring it to their table, but there will be no provision for its sale on the premises.
    It was because I was satisfied with that that I pressed my right hon. Friend to go further than he has gone. However, the associations which are much concerned in this matter feel that in appropriate cases they will be able to
    788
    persuade the bench of their case, and I am happy to accept a compromise that can be accepted. The minority view of those who do not drink and who want to be travellers ought to be considered, for they are entitled to have their views considered as much as those which I am putting forward, which, as is well known, are the views of the tourist industry as a whole, for they are just as much tourists as anyone else. I am sure that there will be complete and adequate protection for their interests in plenty of establishments where drink will not be sold, and at the same time, magistrates will have the discretion which they ought to be given.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: We discussed this matter at length in Committee and what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has just said he said in Committee—that there were many boarding house keepers who would not seek a licence. The difficulty is that if some boarding houses start it, the others will feel that they will have to follow in order to compete.
    Discretion now lies firmly with the licensing justices. Will the Solicitor-General consider, as the Bill leaves the House for another place, whether one of the considerations which the justices should bear in mind in granting a licence of this kind should be whether there would be any boarding houses remaining in which drink was not supplied, or in which there was a dry room, as it has been called? In that way it would be part of the duty of the justices to see that there was reasonable provision of boarding houses in which there was a dry room.
    We are now living in the days of family holidays and numbers of parents take their children with them while they are on holiday. While the parents might want to have a drink, they would like to know that there was a place in which they could go with their children and in which no drink was supplied. That does not seem to be too much to ask for and I wonder whether some kind of provision could be made which the justices would have to bear in mind when deciding whether to grant these licences.
    The Solicitor-General: I am always reluctant to give an opinion off the cuff, but it seems to me that these would be among the circumstances which the

    789
    justices would be entitled to consider under the existing wording in exercising their discretion. That is only my first impression of the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Chapman: Only some three years ago I owned a hotel myself and I should like to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). It is the sheerest nonsense to say that anybody in the hotel or boarding house trade will go out of his way to frighten away custom in the way suggested. I owned a small hotel in which we did not have a licence and I catered for people who wished to come to exactly that kind of hotel. I would never have dreamed of asking for a licence, because the price would have been to frighten away my business.
    To erect an ogre, to use these magic words "liquor" and "rooms in which people will imbibe", to see people under the influence and to draw horrible pictures of boarding houses with everybody lying about drunk or drinking themselves to death, is a fantastic statement of an illiberal point of view. We must keep a proper balance in discussion on matters of personal choice and on whether people will be influenced by business considerations.
    My hon. Friend is raising ogres and all sorts of silly pictures of things that are never likely to happen so long as the business community keeps its head, which it will do because it wants to earn its money, and so long as people have the right to say, "I am not going to that place again because of what happened last time".
    As soon as word like that gets round—that somebody has been once bitten—the whole community from which that
    790
    person comes will be warned and no one will be twice bitten. With all respect to my hon. Friend, the business community has more sense than he ascribes to it.
    Mr. Cole: I agree that there will be a considerable number of boarding houses which will deliberately refrain from applying for licences because some of their colleagues in the neighbourhood will apply. The debate has established the claims of families to go to unlicensed places as well as to others. I believe that the number of boarding houses and hotels which will take up this opportunity to apply for a licence will be far less than many people imagine.
    As we are guiding the licensing justices for the future, I should like to put round the other way the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General suggested that the magistrates might take notice that a certain number of premises might be permitted two kinds of room. I suggest that the magistrates should also have in mind limiting the number of places which are likely to have only one kind of room. This would have some effect in securing two kinds of room for premises.
    I have read Clause 1 (3, (i)), several times without light—probably it is my own fault—but I believe that my right hon. Friend should introduce a simple Amendment, to make it clear beyond peradventure, by replacing the comma in line 6 with the word "and". This would make it clear that such a room would not be provided. The comma only complicates the issue.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page
    2, line 11, to leave out "private."
    This seems a moderate request after the serious matters which we have been dealing with. This is because nobody in the House knows what is a "private friend." I have heard of a personal friend. I have friends and I have acquaintances. I have heard of my gallant friends, of my honourable friends, and of my learned friends, but I am hanged if I have ever heard of "private friends." Almost every nuance and adjective and a great many nouns can be applied to the word "friend" but I doubt the word "private."
    There is a more serious point involved than that merry opening implies, in that one might ask the whole of the rugger club, the tennis club or the visiting team to attend a function, or might arrange funeral dinners or wedding feasts or similar occasions. Of course, one might also, if one were in the modern range of tycoons, have a little bit of tycoonery by having all one's director friends. Therefore, one might in one of the residential licensed places set about entertaining them contrary to the intention of this limiting condition.
    10.30 p.m.
    All I can say is that I thought of the phrase "personal friends" at one time, but that might seem too limiting. In the end I came to the conclusion that we might leave out "private" and rely upon the magistrates to determine, if ever they have to, whether someone is really a friend or one who is merely a friend who passes in the night.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope the House will not waste time on this Amendment. We spent a pleasant twenty minutes in Committee on it, having great fun. It came to nothing. I do not think that the words mean anything one way or the other. As we want to make progress we might as well leave them there. It is quite obvious that the Solicitor-General is going to tell us that they have some use. I, for my part, am willing to accept his word for it. The words occur in the Licensing Act, 1953, to differentiate between the friend of a licensee who comes into his bar, and the licensee's private friends whom he entertains
    792
    privately and does not charge for their drink. Obviously, the word has been lifted, and brought into this Bill. Quite why, nobody knows, but there are quite a lot of things in this Bill and I have not the faintest idea why they are there. This is one of them. I do not mind if it stays.
    The Solicitor-General: I rise only to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) for that intervention, and for the kindness which is so much a characteristic of his, but which does not really extend very far when he is contemplating the provisions of this Bill; therefore, we welcome very much what he has just said.
    I undertook in Committee to look again at this drafting, while we were discussing the matter in Committee. I have done so. I confess that for the reasons I gave when we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee I cannot see any better phrase than "private friends". It has got quite a different significance from "friends". As I indicated there, it is the sort of phrase which I do not think the courts will split up but will look at as a whole.
    On the one hand, it will exclude mere drinking acquaintances the resident has just met. It will exclude entertainment of guests at a reception or a ticket dance for charity and that sort of thing. So it is restrictive. But it is also partly broadening in that I think it would include the type of entertainment which the Committee and, I believe, the House, would wish to include, and that is, for example, where the traveller goes to meet a director of a company with whom he is going to do business. He goes to a residential hotel; he may never have met that man before; it would be impossible to call him his friend; but I think that he would, in the context of this, be a private friend.
    Therefore, it seems to me, after all our search for a better alternative, that for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, we cannot do very much better.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out from "premises" to end of line 22.
    In line 29, leave out "conditions" and insert "condition".
    In line 33, leave out from "licence" to end of line 36.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 14, after "grant", insert "or review".—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Mr. G. Thomas: May we take it that this and the following group of Amendments are consequential?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: in page 3, line 15, leave out "(whether a new licence or not)".
    In line 23, leave out "or transfer".
    In line 24, leave out "or transfer".
    In line 25, leave out "made at any licensing sessions".
    In line 27, at end insert:
    (8) Where licensing justices grant a new residential licence or residential and restaurant licence, they shall, unless it appears to them that in the particular circumstances of the case there is good reason not to do so, attach to the licence a condition that there shall be afforded in the premises, for persons provided with board and lodging for reward, adequate sitting accommodation in a room not used or to be used for sleeping accommodation, for the service of substantial refreshment or for the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor; and where such a licence is granted without the condition required by this subsection, licensing justices shall, on the renewal of the licence, attach the condition if by reason of any change of circumstances it appears to them that the requirement ought no longer to be dispensed with.
    In page 4, line 1, leave out "conditions as are" and insert "condition as is".
    In line 9, leave out "conditions as are" and insert condition as is."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 2.—(GRANT AND RENEWAL OF LICENCES FOR RESTAURANTS, GUEST HOUSES, ETC.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (1).—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, to leave out "character and".
    I am glad that the question of leaving out character is not consequential. The Clause lays down conditions for the
    794
    granting and renewing of licences for restaurants and guest houses, but I think that the question of the character of the building is a new one. The first ground upon which licensing justices may refuse an application concerns the fitness and propriety of the applicant, and his age; the second is that the premises do not fall within the provisions of Clause 1, and that they are not suitable and convenient for the use contemplated in that Clause—which is clearly right, since it concerns the actual structure of the premises—and then we have the qualification,
    "having regard to the character and condition".
    I say that the word "character" is right outside the context of the Bill. Surely the character of the premises cannot be a relevant consideration in this connection. It is not the character of the applicant that has to be considered; it is the character of the premises. That is just what I do not want the justices to consider. The question whether a public house is Gothic or totally modern should have no bearing on their decision.
    Another part of the question of character may be the clientele which frequents the premises. It may be said that the character of the premises depends upon the type of person who frequents them. I do not want that to be taken into consideration, because it is contrary to the intention of the Government, as expressly stated, to make these provisions mandatory.
    The behaviour of the courts in recent years hardly leads one to suppose that there will not be lengthy, difficult, obtuse and different decisions and arguments on what is the meaning of the word "character" in this context.
    I do not pretend to express any view, but I strongly pretend to express an opposite view if somebody tells me that it means one thing, because one thing that I am sure about is that it does not mean one thing. It may mean any of several things. I have suggested two, and careful reading by other hon. Members may lead them to say that "character" in this context means something quite different again.
    I therefore submit that it should be excluded, for once one has looked at the propriety of the person, at Whether he has complied with the provisions of

    795
    Clause 1, and had regard to the conditions, to the nature and the extent of the proposed use, and to the requirements as to the sitting conditions, one has covered everything.
    The inclusion of the word "character" arises from an endeavour by the Parliamentary draftsman to bring in everything he could, but without careful enough consideration of the meanings which might attach to that word. I submit that if the words add anything, it is wrong. If they do not add anything, it is wrong again. If they do something which is thoroughly ambiguous, it is even more wrong.
    Mr. Vosper: These words stood intact during the nine Sittings we devoted to Part I of the Bill, and I should be reluctant to depart from them now, because they are an integral part of Part I of the Bill. They form one of the grounds on which the licensing justices may refuse a restaurant or residential premises licence.
    My hon. Friend seeks to leave out the words "character and." I could understand it if he sought to leave out "character and condition," but he does not do that. The phrase with which we are concerned is that the licensing justices may refuse permission on the grounds that the premises
    "are not suitable and convenient for the use contemplated by that paragraph, having regard to their character and condition…"
    If, as my hon. Friend suggests, we leave out "character" but retain "condition," the premises might be structurally sound and therefore be said to be in good condition, but they might not be of the right character for use as licensed premises. A wooden shack might be in good condition structurally, but might not be suitable for use as a licensed restaurant.
    If we are to have the word "condition," we need the word "character." There is no intention to interfere with planning decisions. It has nothing to do with the character of the applicant. It is simply the use of a building as a licensed restaurant, or as licensed residential premises.
    With due respect to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the licensing law, I submit that whilst there may be an argument for leaving out the words "character and condition" there is no argument for leaving out one of the words. These words
    796
    have stood together, and I think that they should be left in the Bill.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman resist the argument of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). The hon. Gentleman has consistently sought to weaken the powers of the Bill where it imposes any restrictions. He is honest about his argument. He wants to set those who get the licences as free as possible, and he has already indicated that he speaks for those who have a direct concern in the provisions of this Measure. I hope that the Government will stand firm because I can think of some restaurants which, by their character and condition, are certainly not automatically fitted to get a licence.
    10.45 p.m.
    I believe that if we take away this discipline and restraint from the justices and those responsible for issuing the licences, we shall be opening the door again to the sort of business that certainly the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see encouraged. I believe that we must retain the restrictive terms. If the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet feels so strongly about this as to take the matter to a Division, I hope that there will be sufficient hon. Members on both sides of the House to help to resist him.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In page 5, line 44, leave out "or renewal of a," and insert "of a new."
    In page 6, line 4, at end insert:
    (6) On the renewal, transfer or removal of a justices' on-licence licensing justices may, at the request of the applicant made with the consent of the registered owner (if any) of the licensed premises, vary the licence by attaching the conditions required for it to be granted as a restaurant licence, residential licence or residential and restaurant licence (in substitution for any conditions previously attached), and the renewal, transfer or removal of a justices' on-licence with such a variation shall not be refused except on the grounds on which a renewal may be refused of a licence of the description specified in the request.
    In line 9, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 4.—(ADAPTATIONS OF LICENSING ACT, 1953.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, at the end, to insert:
    (5) Consent shall not be granted under section one hundred and forty-eight of the

    797
    Licensing Act, 1953, for an occasional licence to be granted to a person who holds the required excise licence in pursuance only of a restaurant licence, residential licence or residential and restaurant licence, unless—

    (a) he holds the excise licence in pursuance of a restaurant licence or residential and restaurant licence; and

    (b) the justices granting the consent are satisfied that the sale of intoxicating liquor under the authority of the occasional licence is to be ancillary to the provision of substantial refreshment.

    This Amendment deals with the granting of occasional licences, and it arises out of an Amendment moved during the Committee stage proceedings by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). The House will know that an occasional licence is granted to a licensee to carry out catering on premises which are either not licensed, or not fully licensed. A typical example is a residential hotel which is licensed to sell to residents only, and the licensee might want to give a public dance. He would go to a neighbouring on-licensee who would provide the drink at the dance under an occasional licence. There are many other examples which will readily occur to hon. Members. So far it is on-licensees who have been the recipients of occasional licences.
    By Part I of the Bill we have created three new classes of licence; the restaurant licence, the residential licence and the combined licence. As the Bill stands, the holders of such licences would be eligible to apply for an occasional licence. The effect of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was to prevent a residential licensee from being eligible for an occasional licence in any event. The argument in support of that, which I think appealed to the Committee, was that we are giving residential licences for quite a different purpose and not so that the holder of such a licence can extend his licensed activities on occasions outside the hotel.
    In respect of the restaurant licence my hon. Friend drew a distinction between the occasional licence in connection with catering for food and the occasional licence purely in connection with catering for drink. He said, reasonably enough, that where it was in connection with catering for food, too, the restaurant licensee was a very good person, if not the best person, to be the
    798
    recipient of an occasional licence, but that where it was purely for the sale of drink there was no reason why we should extend the occasional licence to the restaurant licensee.
    I summarised the arguments, as I saw them, in Committee and indicated that I thought that a case had been made out but that for various drafting reasons the Amendment was defective. With, I think, the general approbation of the Committee I undertook to put down an Amendment on Report to carry out my hon. Friend's intentions as I have indicated them to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(PERMITTED HOURS FOR LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS GENERALLY.)
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, to leave out from "to" to "shall" in line 32 and to insert:
    "the following subsections, in any licensing district in England and Wales the permitted hours in licensed premises".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments at the same time:
    In page 10, to leave out lines 1 to 17.
    In line 5 to leave out from "evening" to the end of line 6.
    In line 9 to leave out from "desirable" to the first "and" in line 12 and to insert:
    (4) The licensing justices in any licensing district, if satisfied that the requirements of the district make it desirable, may by order modify for the district the hours specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, within the following limits—

    (a) the total number of hours on any day shall be nine (ending at half-past ten in the evening), or, where subsection (2) above applies or is adopted, nine and a half (ending at eleven in the evening), and the hours shall not begin earlier than ten in the morning; and

    (b) there shall be a single break of not less than two hours in the afternoon.

    (5) In this Act "the general licensing hours" means in relation to any licensing district the hours specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above, with any modification applying in the district by virtue of subsections (2) to (4) above.
    (6) An order under subsection (3) or (4) above may make different provision for different periods of the year or for different weekdays in every week of the year or of any such period, or may make provision to take effect for particular periods only, or for particular weekdays in every week of the year

    799
    or of any such period, but so that no alteration of the general licensing hours shall take effect within eight weeks of another.
    In line 16, to leave out "this subsection" and to insert "subsection (3) or (4) above".
    In line 28 at the end to insert:
    Provided that no order under subsection (3) or (4) above altering the beginning or end of the general licensing hours shall invalidate any permitted hours previously fixed under this subsection, but so much of the hours so fixed as falls before the beginning or after the end of the general licensing hours as altered shall from the expiration of six weeks after the date of the order be treated as excluded from the permitted hours in the club premises.
    In line 29, to leave out from the beginning to "to".
    In line 31 to leave out "hour from two to" and to insert:
    "period (if any) between the end of the first part of the general licensing hours and".
    In line 33 to leave out "hour" and to insert "period". In line 44 at the beginning to insert:
    "This subsection shall apply to any premises for which a restaurant licence or residential and restaurant licence is for the time being in force, except that it shall not apply to any such premises where by the conditions of the licence the time before the afternoon break is excluded from the permitted hours; and in other cases".
    Mr. Vosper: Shall we discuss at the same time the following two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman):
    In page 9, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to the first "the" in line 35.
    In page 9, line 37, to leave out from "afternoon" to the end of line 40.
    They cover the same point.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: They are to be discussed separately.
    Mr. Vosper: We come to the question of permitted hours. The Amendment which I have moved is paving and the substantive Amendment is that in page 10, line 9.
    When the Government introduced the Bill they introduced a system of uniform hours for licensed premises but on Second Reading and in Committee they were pressed to introduce a greater flexibility on the ground that local needs demanded this. In Committee I said that
    800
    on Report we would try to combine a measure of flexibility with the pattern of uniform hours, which had much to commend it, and I hope that the House agrees that these Amendments achieve that purpose.
    The principle of uniform hours is retained, but licensing justices are given a discretion to depart from the uniform hours, if they think fit, in certain directions. The uniformity of total hours—nine or nine-and-a-half—is retained and there is no discretion for the justices to depart from that. The closing hour is retained at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m., and there is no discretion to depart from that. But licensing justices are given discretion to vary the afternoon break, which stands in the Bill as 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.
    Under the Amendments it will be possible to fix the break at any time after noon for a period of not less than two hours. That is the first departure. I have received many representations asking me to provide for this flexibility in the afternoon break.
    Secondly, justices are given power to depart from the uniform hours in respect of the opening hour which, if they think fit, can be at 10 a.m., as opposed to 11 a.m. under the uniform hours in the Bill. The third variation which justices are empowered to grant is a certain amount of variation according to periods of the year, or even days of the week. It will be possible for justices, for a limited period of the year or for certain days of the week—I have in mind Fridays or Saturdays—to allow different hours for licensed premises from the hours obtaining for the rest of the week. For example, it will be possible to have 11 p.m. closing on Fridays and Saturdays and 10.30 p.m. for the rest of the week.
    That, again, is a point which was represented to me on many occasions, and I think that it is a sensible approach. Hon. Members may think that this introduces too much flexibility, but it is fair to point out that licensing justices, who, given this power to vary hours according to days of the week, might feel bound to grant the additional hours under the Bill in respect of all days of the week—may well just grant them for Fridays and Saturdays. Therefore, it should not be thought that this variation will necessarily lead to an increase in drinking hours.

    801
    Those are the principal ways in which the Amendment departs from the principle of uniformity in the Bill. It accords, with one exception, with the views expressed in Committee. That exception was the view expressed that there should be different hours for different parts of a licensing district. I could see the merit in that proposal, but the more I examined it the more I saw the difficulties involved. That part does not feature in these proposals.
    With that exception, I should like to think that we still have the principle of uniformity, which commends itself to the Government, but I am satisfied that there is a case for local needs requiring variation, particularly in the middle of the day. On Second Reading I said that I thought that when dealing with permitted hours the House wanted the best of both worlds. I hope that the Amendment, when read in conjunction with the Bill, goes as near to that as possible.
    The Amendment in page 10, line 28, relates to club hours. We have made one very small variation there. In the Bill as it stood it was possible for clubs to have two of their five hours on a Sunday during the early afternoon and the other three in the evening not before 6 o'clock. It has been represented by sporting clubs that 6 o'clock in the evening makes it a little late for them to make full use of their facilities. Therefore, this Amendment will make it possible for clubs to start their afternoon session at 5 o'clock in the afternoon instead of 6 o'clock, which will commend itself to them.
    Perhaps I may reply later to any points raised by hon. Members who have Amendments that are being taken with this group. I repeat that this implements the proposal to introduce more flexibility into our licensing system.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I shall be brief, because I realise that we all want to make progress and get away as soon as possible. It is true, as the Minister of State said, that under pressure from his own side he indicated in Committee that he would introduce on Report provisions to allow a greater period of opening hours in different parts of the country. Most of us logically are in favour of uniformity. The right hon. Gentleman said several times that he was wedded to, or wanted, uniformity, but the only
    802
    uniform thing about these proposals is their non-uniformity. I say that because there are areas now under the provisions which are proposed that can have a variety of hours, and this will mean something which I am quite sure the Home Secretary and the Minister of State himself want to obviate, namely, a rushing of drinking and "pub crawling" from one area to another because in one place the public houses are open half an hour later than in another. None of us wants that sort of behaviour, especially since it is sometimes done in motor cars. We wish to get uniformity of closing hours even if we have not got uniformity of opening hours earlier in the day.
    11.0 p.m.
    I appreciate that in a market such as Covent Garden, or in some country market, there is a good deal to be said for having the public houses open when the demand is there. For one thing, it saves the licensee from a lot of extra hanging about, and from expense which he would not incur if he could shut the public house; and it prevents the inveterate "pub crawler" who, when the pub is open, whatever the hour, will be in it doing his drinking. There is a lot to be said for varying the hours, but that has the drawback that, late at night and, to some extent, during the day, those who live only to drink and to swill from pub to pub will find themselves in a kind of dreamland. That will happen to such people when they can go from one area to another and drink almost all the clock round; and that is something which none of us wants.
    Nevertheless, the Minister of State in reply to representations from his own side of the Committee, decided to introduce this Amendment although I for one would like to see some of it not there. We are powerless in this matter and we shall have to let this go, despite the desire for uniformity which many of us share.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the Amendment as we have had it explained by the Minister of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) kept talking of "we", but I do not think that he was speaking for every one of us on this side. I see that he shakes his head in confirmation. We are quite free to speak and to vote as we wish on this matter, and I am in

    803
    favour of the Amendment. It will help such towns as those at the seaside where I live. I would remind hon. Members of what the Secretary of State himself said on this subject during the Committee stage:
    "The reasons for a modest increase are to conform to the different pattern of leisure which exists today and to place a little more responsibility on the consumer to exercise his own choice of hours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th March, 1961; c. 551–2.]
    I applaud that. This Amendment is wanted in seaside towns. People who go away for a holiday and have not to get up early in the morning to go to work are happy to break their routine and have a little extra leisure, getting all the refreshment they can from doing something which is different—getting all the benefit they can from that. I say "Good luck to them", and it is important that they should have this opportunity. Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley says, they do not get drunk; not one tithe of them do anything so silly. What they do is to spend a modest evening, listening to yarns or whatever it may be, and I thoroughly applaud the fact that they do it in a modest way which brings no disgrace whatever to anybody. In the circumstances, we need the opportunity to go on more regularly to 11 o'clock generally, and to 11 o'clock for specified periods of the year.
    I have put down an Amendment to the Government's Amendment in page 10, line 9, to insert new subsections (4), (5) and (6), which, perhaps I may mention now. I do not know whether it was to be called or not. It is an Amendment, after the second "evening" in new subsection (4, a), to insert:
    "and in either case if in their opinion special reasons exist ending at eleven thirty in tile evening".
    That Amendment would give the magistrates opportunity, if in their opinion special reasons exist, to make the closing hour 11.30 in the evening. My own view is that this would be another very modest step forward.
    Mr. Tom Driberg: Too early.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend says "too early". He and I have been lone voices pleading these liberal or libertarian
    804
    causes in the House. If we could make this modest move forward to 11.30 p.m., that would be very good.
    We do not have in mind the extension of general drinking hours to 11.30 throughout the country or, indeed, to any great extent. We want the magistrates to have the opportunity to make up their own minds about it in conditions at holiday resorts particularly, where the demand may exist, so that an experiment could be tried to see whether there is such a demand for people to stay out late enjoying themselves, on the sea front, perhaps, which ought to be met. It could be done.
    It will be said that this is hard on the publican and hard on the staff in public houses. I agree that it is. But all of us who work in the hotel trade, whether the licensed trade or not—I say "us" because I have worked in the trade—have to tolerate hours which are not convenient. People who work in the ordinary hotel trade and in the public house trade have to serve people at those hours of the day when they require service. Just as I regret the fact that a milkman has to get up at 4.30 in the morning in order to deliver our milk early enough, I regret that workers in these other trades have to work inconvenient hours; but in a trade which exists to serve the public, we have to serve people in a spirit of service. I do not think it would be an undue burden to ask people in the licensed trade, particularly in holiday resorts where they are helping people to have a good time during their leisure days, to undertake this extra half-hour where magistrates think that there is a very special reason for allowing it.
    After listening to today's debate, I feel that someone must begin to be a little more libertarian. A great many restrictions have been plausibly advanced. I pay my tribute to those who advocate them; they believe in their cause sincerely, but I ask them to understand that, on the other side, some of us feel libertarian equally sincerely. We do so not because we are drinkers—I do not touch much alcohol myself—not because we want to do all these things ourselves, not because we want to see liberty turned into licence, but because we believe that people have the wisdom and leisure to make a choice for themselves in these

    805
    matters, without the grave dangers which were present in the past when there was too much opportunity for indulgence.
    It is in that spirit that, first, I support the extension which the Minister has made and, second, I plead with him to give us a chance, in the particular circumstances to which I have referred, to allow magistrates, if they think fit, to have an experiment and permit the extension of licensed hours to half-past eleven.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I feel like saying "Whoopee" after feeling the breath of fresh air brought in by that expression of view by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). I have been rather like David fighting against the Baptist Goliaths.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Will the hon. Member delete "Baptist" and insert "Methodist"?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, I am happy to make that amendment requested by the hon. Member.
    I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Northfield. I considered very carefully whether I should put down an Amendment to make the finishing hour 11.30 or 12 o'clock. I do not think that "special reasons" are necessary. It is quite sufficient to include "until half-past eleven in the evening." I invite the Government to do it. They have had a considerable change of view since Second Reading. It will now be seen from the Amendment in page 10, line 9, that the Government have now written into the Bill what is the whole principle of flexibility. This was the real battle which I regarded as the major fight on the Bill, and I have been fighting all the Amendments on all the Clauses more or less upstairs and downstairs and everywhere.
    What I regard as the outstanding matter to the country as a whole, to the consumer, not to the trade, any trade, any interest or any religious views but to the ordinary man who wants a drink, is subsection (6) of the Government Amendment to which I referred. This is the provision which enables magistrates to
    "…make different provision for different periods of the year or for different weekdays
    806
    in every week of the year or of any such period, or may make provision to take effect for particular periods only, or for particular weekdays in every week of the year or of any such period, but so that no alteration of the general licensing hours shall take effect within eight weeks of another."
    This is to ensure flexibility.
    The position now is that we have a nine-hour licensed day, except in London which is given a preferential advantage and regarded as an important city and is still given a 94-hour day. That is wrong. I see no reason to draw a distinction between the number of hours in the Metropolis and in the rest of the country.
    First, the licensed victuallers, the licensees and others are not prepared to stand for longer than nine hours, or nine and a half hours in London. We must accept that, whether we view it as trade unionists or from the other side. It is pointless for the Press to print a lot of nonsense about the country not going in for liberalisation. It is not the country. The matter stands four-square on the trade. It will not work longer than that I take the view, which I think a great many hon. Members share, that we ought to have flexibility and also a reasonable totality of hours and that they should not be more than nine and a half hours in one day. That is also the Government's view.
    But I still plead with the Government—and there is plenty of time, for they have changed their ground considerably—that these nine and a half hours should be within the choice of the licensee within the totality in one day. I see no reason why in the Isle of Thanet, where we want it, public houses should not be able to remain open in the summer months until midnight, by adopting a system whereby they would be open from 11 o'clock until 3 o'clock and from 6.30 p.m. to midnight or 11.30 p.m. if the magistrates are prepared to fix those hours—and they are. In that way we should have the afternoon break, quite rightly provided for by the Government, and we should be within the totality of nine and a half hours but nevertheless have public houses able to provide drink up to midnight. In restaurants, special hours certificates could provide for another hour and where there was music and dancing provision would be made to remain open until 2.30 or 3 a.m.

    807
    In the industrial Midlands, in Nottingham and Derby, for example, it is true that people want a relatively early closing hour in the middle of the week. They are probably quite content with 10.30 or even 10 p.m. then, but on Friday and Saturday nights men want to be able to stay up drinking until 11 o'clock and possibly until midnight.
    11.15 p.m.
    It is not that the Government are against this. It is not that my right hon. Friend wants to be difficult, or the Home Secretary, or anybody else. They are merely trying to do what they have tried to do throughout, which is to get the feeling and spirit of the country, the House and the trade and industry. I think that the men who have not truly understood the position in their own interests are some of those engaged in the trade who are afraid of long hours and who were particularly afraid of the provision that brewers could enter into agreement with licensed victuallers which would compel them to remain open for the period of the licence. Clause 7 provides that they have the right to close, and the trade, through the brewers, has given perfectly satisfactory undertakings now, but at the time when we were discussing these matters with the trade it did not then have those undertakings satisfactorily.
    Frankly, the industry has never been very united. The brewers do not really speak with one voice. The leaders do but not the majority of the brewers. The licensed victuallers do not really speak with one voice. Therefore, it is not easy to get the exact views of the trade in that respect. It is, however, easy to get the exact views of the hotel trade because its associations have a unity of view which is absent with the others.
    Therefore, I feel that we have to look at this entirely from the point of view of the public, the consumers, bearing in mind in this House that we can do only what is practicable, that we cannot ask the men in the trade to work longer hours than they are prepared to do and have done habitually for some time past, and that those hours must certainly not exceed nine and a half.
    Therefore, I endorse and accept everything that comes in the Amendment. I hope that we may be able to get some
    808
    favourable publicity about this and that we shall continue the battle, and that another place, accepting what has now been done, will use its flexibility to bring about one change only, and then I think that this major part of the Bill will be perfect. By that I mean that it should ensure that within the framework of nine and a half hours—anything more than that will only lead to a war with the trade—a choice shall lie at the application of the licensee but subject to the endorsement of a bench. It requires only a very small Amendment. It would then enable people to choose within that "umbrella" their hours between, say, 10 o'clock in the morning and midnight. The Amendment goes a long way towards it.
    I am sorry to have taken a little time on this matter, but I think it is a very important one. If I cannot get all that I ask for, I shall certainly be glad to get 11.30 p.m. I am sure that not a single hon. Member representing one of the tourist and seaside resorts will be against me on this aspect when I say that in the summer we should certainly like the public houses to be open till 11.30 p.m. It would mean that, with the restaurants, we could go to midnight or later.
    Is there a doubt that London would like to go until 11.30 or midnight? Clearly it would, and clearly it is in its interests that it should. Therefore, while we retain a broad uniformity in that regard, let the choice be as flexible as possible. Let us advance what has already been evolved by the Government in these more flexible arrangements which I believe are those which will really meet the widest number of the largest majority in the country.
    Mr. G. Thomas: The last two hon. Members who have addressed the House have pleaded for longer hours, until 11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Not "longer" hours but "later" hours.
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, a later hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) spent some time dealing with the question of whether we were liberal enough in our attitude to this problem. Everyone has his own opinion about what is a liberal attitude and for several hours we have had to do without the benefit of the advice of those who speak with a capital

    809
    "L" for Liberal. I do not believe that merely to have later drinking is an act of liberalising our living habits. I do not regard that as necessarily a sign of progress. I know that some of my hon. Friends do, as do some hon. Members opposite.
    A case is being made for variations of hours in different places, in market towns and other places. I realise that there is a case for variation during the day, but I am appalled at the prospect of justices being able to permit closing at 10.30 p.m. in one area while other justices permit closing at 11 p.m. in another.
    Every big city has its suburbia, and if there is permitted closing at 11 p.m. within the city and the time in the suburbs is 10.30 p.m., we shall have teenagers racing in their cars into the centre of the city in order to get a last drink for the night. We all know that this is not nonsense but that it can happen. If half the stories about people being so anxious to get a drink late at night are true, there will be this movement from the 10.30 area to the 11 p.m. area.
    If the Minister of State consults the police in the large towns and talks to the hospital authorities, he will find that at closing time on every Saturday night the graph of accident cases taken into hospital goes up at a sharp angle. That is already happening and if hon. Members make inquiries in their constituencies they will find that it is so. If there are uneven closing hours at night, the possibilities of accidents will increase. This is now a matter not of teetotalism versus drinking, but of protection of the people on Friday and Saturday nights when that graph reaches its worst in every city.
    If the Government wish to vary hours of closing during the day, well and good. I prefer uniformity in this matter and I notice that the Government, who like uniformity so much in other respects, drop the principle when it comes to Wales—but that is a battle to come.
    The Minister has not given us an adequate reason for permitting different closing hours in different parts of the country and I do not like the difference, even though it is only half an hour. I believe that people will suffer from it. The Government have been very forthcoming on major Amendments
    810
    tonight, and I hope that they will seriously reconsider this matter to see whether, although variations might be permitted during the day, there should be uniform closing hours at night for public houses and licensed restaurants.
    Mr. Vosper: If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) is under the impression that the Amendment we are now discussing makes any change in the closing hours he is, of course, mistaken. Closing hours have not been changed since the Bill was first published. The closing hour is 10.30 p.m.—and 11.0 in London, as it is at the moment—in those districts where the magistrates, the licensing justices, say there is to be a half-hour extension. Therefore, there has been no change at all in Committee or at this stage in the Government's attitude towards closing hours. Though there is greater flexibility in licensing hours generally in the middle of the day, the Government have adhered to the principle of getting uniformity of closing hours as far as possible. There is that difference, of course, because it exists in London at the moment, and because I think there are parts of the country which have a good case for a later closing hour than 10.30.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) suggested that in acceding to these Amendments I was under pressure from my own supporters, but I think that there was universal support in the Committee and among the public at large for some greater degree of flexibility in the Bill, and that we have made.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), adopting a more welcome and liberal approach as we discovered in Committee and at this stage this afternoon wanted to go further and extend the closing hour to 11.30. I very much doubt, having lived with the Bill for twelve months, whether there is a great demand for a later hour than 11.0 on the part of the trade, even if there is on the part of the public, but, of course, it would mean having three closing hours, 10.30, 11.0 and 11.30, because I am quite certain that many parts of the country would then want a later closing hour. The Government do not feel they would be right in going beyond 11.0 in respect of the closing

    811
    hour, and on that we agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
    I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the Amendment moved earlier today by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) for a modified special certificate which, I believe, will be of great value and possibly of more extensive application than is generally realised, particularly in the part of the country in which, I think, he lives, but not which he necessarily represents. That, I think, will meet the need of those special cases which want something beyond the hour of 11.0.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I know, wants a greater degree of flexibility still. We have gone some way to meet him but we still feel that the earliest opening hour, 10.0, which is that fixed in the proposal of the Amendment, and a closing hour of 11.0 is reasonable in all the circumstances and generally accords with the debates we have so far had on this Bill.
    Therefore, I am glad that hon. Members who have spoken have welcomed the changes we have made. I do not think that the Government would wish to make any further changes in respect of permitted hours.
    When moving the Amendment I failed to refer to the Amendment which, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think your predecessor in the Chair called, the Government Amendment in page 10, line 28—the proviso. It allows clubs a period of grace in which to adapt their hours to the modified hours which justices may operate. That is because clubs can alter their hours only at annual meetings, and so there must be a delay before they can bring these hours into operation.
    The Government Amendments in page 10, line 29 and line 44, provide for She late lunches the closing hour of 3.0 at restaurants where the licensing justices choose the closing hour for the afternoon break earlier than that. That problem did not arise when the Bill was first published, but if the afternoon break is earlier than first envisaged it will be probably necessary to provide for late lunches, as, indeed, happens at present. That will automatically extend to restaurants with licences which request it.
    812
    I believe that these proposals go as far as possible to meet the various representations which have been made in respect of permitted hours.
    Sir F. Soskice: I think it would be right if the right hon. Gentleman would just confirm—I think I am right in saying so—that the powers to vary hours apply only to weekdays. There is considerable concern about Sunday opening. There was when the Bill was introduced, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm that that would not be possible because this change relates only to weekdays.
    Mr. Vosper: That is quite right. In moving the Amendment I referred inadvertently to Sundays. This Amendment applies only to weekdays.
    Amendment agreed to.
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, after "to" to insert "half past."
    This Amendment was widely supported when it was moved in Committee, and at that time I thought that it had been accepted in principle. It received very favourable consideration from the Government. It has a mass of support, not only from those of my hon. Friends whose names appear on the Notice Paper but from many others in Committee and in the House. There is good ground for it, because it is in the nature of a swop.
    There was a lot of criticism about public houses being allowed to remain open until 3 p.m. on Sunday afternoons, because of the fear that Sunday joints would be ruined. As a result, an Amendment was made which made them close at 2 p.m. Now there is no less than five hours' break between when they close in the afternoon and when they open again, at 7 p.m. in the evening. The law has been restricted in that respect. Previously a public house could open for any three hours between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., and there was a break between 2.30 and 6 p.m. Therefore, I submit that we should at least restore the balance by allowing public houses to remain open until 10.30 p.m.
    There are two or three very brief but strong arguments in favour of the Amendment. First, it is only reasonable to say

    813
    that people coming out of the cinema or similar entertainment on Sunday evenings should be able to get a drink in public houses before they go home. They are too late to do so if the public houses have to close at 10 p.m., but they may be able to do so if the extra half hour is added.
    Secondly, the Amendment is of very great importance to the restaurant trade throughout the country, and the whole catering trade supports it. I move it not in that spirit, however, but as one who feels strongly on the matter itself. I expect that many other hon. Members return to London from their constituencies on Sunday evening at about 7 p.m. and then go to a cinema or other show, and find over and over again that when they come out they are unable to get a drink.
    I appeal to the Minister to give us this quid pro quo, having regard to the reasonable attitude which we adopted in Committee. We should be delighted if the Minister would accept the Amendment.
    Mr. John Parker (Dagenham): I beg to second the Amendment. I moved a similar Amendment in Committee and was under the impression, when I withdrew it, that the Government had accepted it in principle and were going to find a better form of words in order to introduce it into the Bill, possibly with some modifications to allow for local variations. I was therefore very disappointed not to find a Government Amendment on the point.
    When I first came to London as a young man I used to go to a cinema, and when I came out afterwards I found it very difficult to get a meal, and if I wanted a drink I had to rush to do so. From the point of view of the community as a whole, and especially from the point of view of young people living in towns and cities who wish to have some entertainment on a Sunday evening, it is right and proper that there should be this extra half hour in which to have a drink at a restaurant or elsewhere.
    Many people go into the country on a Sunday. When they return, they like to have a drink before going home—without going on to the M.1 or anything of that sort or wandering through the byways of Sussex or Surrey—and it is right
    814
    and proper to provide this amenity for those who have been out for the day on a Sunday.
    Mr. Vosper: I am probably at fault in misunderstanding the conclusions of the Standing Committee because there was an expression of opinion that closing time should be extended to half-past ten on Sundays. When the Government introduced the Bill, they extended Sunday hours from five to six hours by creating an additional hour in the middle of the day. That proposal was not exactly popular, particularly with the trade, and the Government returned to the present figure of five hours. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend seeks to put back half an hour at the end of the day. That would give us five and a half hours on a Sunday, as opposed to the existing five. The extension of weekday hours will, of course, vary from half an hour to one and a half hours over the existing time. I therefore think that it would be popular if there was an extension of half an hour on Sundays from five to five and a half hours.
    I have been at some pains to discover whether opinion in the trade is in favour of the proposal. I think that on the whole it is, and certainly this point of view was expressed in Committee upstairs. It has been expressed again tonight by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), and the Government advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Driberg: What effect will this have on restaurants? Will they also have to shut at 10.30 p.m. on Sundays?
    Mr. Vosper: This will be the closing time for permitted hours. Under the Bill as it stands it is possible to have a supper hour on Sundays, and restaurants can go over that time with an extension. Half-past ten will be the normal closing time for those subject to the normal permitted hours.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I see it, this will be the normal closing hour for public houses on Sundays. That means that after the public house has closed at 10.30 p.m. there will be drinking-up time of at least ten minutes, the clientele will then have to be cleared out of the premises, and then the staff will have to get down to cleaning the tables, sweeping, washing

    815
    glasses, and so on. They will not be out of the place until well after midnight.
    I think that we ought to have a heart for the staff of public houses. They do a good job and try to serve their customers to the test of their ability. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that, as far as he knew, the trade was in favour of this proposal. I hesitate to say that I doubt it, but frankly I hesitate to accept the view that the majority of them want to work for an extra half hour at least on Sunday nights.
    After the liberal way in which the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary have met us on the other Amendments, I am sorry that at this late hour, more or less on the spur of the moment, when few, if any, of us expected a change of view such as this, it is the general wish and will of the House that the Minister should accept the Amendment. I do not know what we can do. We are probably in a minority. In fact, I am certain that we are, but if that were not so, and if it were not late at night, I for one would be willing to go into the Division Lobby against this proposal.
    I put in the strongest possible protest against this Amendment being accepted on the spur of the moment at this late hour when a large number of our colleagues have gone home, not expecting anything of this kind to happen.
    Mr. G. Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has rendered the House a service by uttering a word of caution and warning. I believe that I am right in saying that the Government proposed an extra hour for drinking on Sundays, but there was such a storm of protest from people in the trade and from the housewives that they felt obliged to give way. Now they are adding half an hour at the wrong end of the day. I believe that it is the wrong end of the day and in this matter, time and again, I have had the support of those responsible for law and order.
    If hon. Members spoke to those responsible for maintaining law and order in their constituencies, they would find that such people always dislike longer hours for drinking. They can better bear it during the day—it is all very well for the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) to sit recumbent and laughing
    816
    at this question, but it is a matter of considerable importance to those responsible for maintaining law and order.
    I believe that this is also an important matter for those in the trade. My right hon. Friend was right to say that this will mean a substantial addition to their working hours. It will mean an extra three-quarters of an hour, or forty minutes if we add on the ten minutes drinking-up time at the end. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members must forgive me if I am backward on this subject, but I am not well versed in matters concerning drinking. I want to know from the Minister of State whether the ten minutes is added. If it is, I am right. There will be forty minutes after the closing time originally suggested. I submit that this proposal will mean that closing time, instead of being ten o'clock, will be twenty minutes to eleven. [HON. MEMBERS: "Half-past ten."] Hon. Members opposite have been very quiet all day: I should be glad if some of them would make speeches on the subject. The night is young yet.
    I wish to ask the Minister of State not to rush this question without further consideration. It is a major matter concerning drinking hours and he should take the opportunity to look at the matter again before committing himself.
    Mr. W. F. Deedes: I have no objection to this for those who want it. But I envisage that in some country districts there will be small demand for the public house to remain open for the half-hour after ten o'clock on Sunday nights. What will be the position of the licensees of such premises?
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: I wish to support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). It would be very unfortunate if at this late hour the House adopted the suggestion of the Minister of State without reflecting what is involved in this Amendment.
    My recollection is that when the matter was before the Committee there was no general demand that the Bill should be changed in such a way that the normal closing time on a Sunday was 10.30 p.m. instead of 10 p.m., which would be the effect of the Amendment. In Committee we debated permitted

    817
    hours generally and, with one or two exceptions, the Committee were agreed that the Government's original proposal to extend mid-day opening from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. was desired by nobody. It was not desired by the patrons, the licensees or the public. That proposal was sensibly dropped.
    When we were discussing the remaining questions of Sunday opening the Minister of State said:
    "There is a demand which I should like to consider that there should be a possible extension from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. I should like to consider, in conformity with the Government's proposals for week-days, whether another extension is possible if the justices think fit. I should like to consider that—not a general extension on Sundays but an extension, at the justices' discretion, of half-an-hour".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th March, 1961; c. 563.]
    That is one thing, but this proposal is quite different, because it proposes to standardise the closing time on a Sunday at 10.30 p.m. subject to whatever the House agrees about drinking-up time. It goes very much further than the Minister of State contemplated in Committee, when he said that he would discuss the matter with the Home Secretary. It comes as a surprise to us that the Government suggest that the general closing time on a Sunday, in the country districts as well as in the cities, should be changed from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. without any discretion from the justices.
    I believe that the general feeling in the Committee was against that. There may be a case for giving the justices a discretion, but surely there can be no case for saying that in future the normal closing time even on Christmas Day should be 10.30 p.m. Will the Home Secretary give his mind to this? Is he satisfied that there is a demand that in future the closing time of public houses on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Sundays should be extended from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.? That is the proposal which the Minister of State is rashly prepared to accept. It is wrong to make a drastic change of this kind in the licensing hours without anything like due consideration and without any evidence that there is a public demand for it or evidence on the trade's attitude. From such representations as I have received, I am convinced that most licensees and their staff attach importance to being able to close earlier on a Sunday than on other days of the week,
    818
    partly because the transport hours are different on a Sunday and partly because they want to get home earlier than on week-days.
    I very much hope that before we pass from this discussion—it will not be possible to conclude it tonight—we shall hear from the Home Secretary whether he really thinks that it is sensible to make a drastic change of this kind in the Bill at this stage.
    Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that, if any half-hours are to be given away—I find no fault with that—this is the wrong end of the day to put them. There is one small, perhaps not totally unimportant, section of the community whose convenience has been too little studied in our proceedings so far. I refer to churchgoers. There is a long-standing tradition of refreshment after worship. In many areas of the country the churches "loose" at 11.30. It is a long time to wait until 12 noon.
    I do not suffer too much from that, because, although I live in an area where these hours of worship obtain, by a most convenient arrangement we collect the Sunday papers—which we all read after church because we like to hear both sides—at the village pub. We have to wait until they arrive at about 12 noon. I should not like to compromise our landlord by saying Whether his respect for the law or his sense of hospitality wins.
    I am sure that in other parts there is a great demand by many people who wish to meet and be convivial with their friends on Sunday mornings. By the time they have washed the oar, or done the garden, or fixed the washer on the tap at the kitchen sink, they are ready fox it at 11.30 and they can get back at a reasonable hour which suits the convenience of the rest of their family.
    I must not trespass too long on your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the next Amendment, which is in my name, is not to be called. I endorse the plea of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that, if anything is to be given away, it should be at the beginning of the day.
    Mr. Driberg: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will not take it amiss if I

    819
    venture to remind the House again that they speak for nobody but themselves, as we all do in this debate. That exalted position at the Dispatch Box always seems to lend a certain additional gravitas to anything which is said from it. My right hon. and hon. Friends speak in one sense only for themselves, but throughout today, and again in this part of the debate, there has inevitably been a certain representative character in much which has been said by hon. Members on both sides. There are those who speak quite openly and unashamedly on behalf of the trade. There are those who speak for what I may call without offence to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who I know will not take this as in the least personal, because we all have a great affection for him, the teetotal Lobby.
    Mr. G. Thomas: That is all right.
    Mr. Driberg: I speak only for myself, except that in so far as I speak for anybody else I speak for the ordinary average moderate-drinking man who does not belong either to the trader—licensed victuallers or brewers—or to the teetotal extremists, the teetotal Lobby.
    My hon. Friend was correct to remind us that the original proposal to extend permitted hours from two to three o'clock on Sunday afternoon was very unpopular. It did not meet with any wide acceptance either in the trade or, which to my mind is much more important, among the public generally. I agree with my right hon. Friend who reminded us of the hard work put in by those who work in public houses. We certainly should have concern for their welfare. It would be easier to do so if they were more thoroughy organised in their appropriate trade unions, but I will let that pass. What we ought primarily to be concerned with is the consumer, the ordinary member of the public who wants to, and is entitled to, get food and drink at what seem to him to be reasonable times.
    The proposed three o'clock extension on Sundays was not popular, but the evening half-hour will be popular with a very large number of people; ordinary members of the public. I personally would go a little further, but the extension of drinking in public houses to 10.30 p.m. does mean, unless I misunderstood
    820
    the right hon. Gentleman, that with meals in restaurants one will be able to get a glass of wine or other drink until 11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bourne-Arton: Until twelve o'clock, with drinking up time.
    Mr. Driberg: Good. Possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West does not accept this or understand it. He said that he was willing to learn; I would be glad to teach him practically as well as theoretically. In a great metropolis such as London is supposed to be, although I think it is sometimes rather a dim and shabby one on a Sunday night, there are at such a time a great many people who have been to some form of entertainment, to a theatre or a cinema, and who have not had time to have a meal first.
    In many cases, although this may surprise my hon. Friend, that is because they have been to church. People do not always go to church in the morning, they go in the evenings, too, or instead. Last night, for instance, on an important occasion in a church which I know very well, hundreds of people would have left the church at about 7.30 p.m., or soon afterwards. Many would have foregathered in a public house round the corner for a quarter of an hour or so and then gone to a cinema or one of the theatre clubs, such as the Arts Theatre Club or perhaps to a youth club. They see no harm in that, but think of it rather as a way of spending a civilised and Christian Sunday; enjoying themselves after divine worship by going to a show of some sort.
    That is what they do, but when they come out after the show, at 10 or 10.30 p.m. they will need a meal, and what is now proposed will be of great advantage to them. As the law stands, people who come out of a cinema at about ten o'clock can go to a restaurant, indeed, but they cannot get a drink at all. They have to be there before ten o'clock and that, in the circumstances which I have described is difficult for them. My hon. Friend does not believe in strong drink at all, but I know him not to be so intolerant as to say that those who have a meal must not have a glass of wine with it. To such people this concession will be most welcome. I wish that it could have gone a little farther, but I personally welcome it for what it is.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is right. It is possible under what we propose to buy a drink with a meal up to 11.30 p.m., and to consume it until midnight; but I would remind him that his hon. Friends on the Front Bench have put down an Amendment to leave out the extra hour. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) put down an Amendment, and, as I have said, we have left this to somebody else to take the initiative. It was taken, and has been supported fairly strongly from both sides of the Committee. So I do not think we have done wrong there.
    12 m.
    Thirdly, I did think that this should be at the justices' discretion, but, on reflection, I suggest that there is merit—this should please the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—in retaining uniformity at least for Sundays, and to accept justices' discretion on a difficult night of the week could possibly give rise to the "pub-crawling" which we are anxious to avoid. Therefore, though we can consider it further, we think that the Amendment proposed is correct.
    I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and of other hon. Members to Clause 7 (7) where under licensees may close before closing time. We discussed this at an earlier stage. The Bill gives authority, if it is necessary, for licensees to close before closing hours. It may be thought that the brewers' agreement would prevent this. The Brewers' Society has made it quite clear that it will not enforce upon licensees the additional hours introduced by the Bill, and therefore it would be possible for a licensee in my hon. Friend's constituency to close before 10.30 p.m., as I believe many will.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move,
    That the debate be now adjourned.
    I move this Motion in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary what his intentions are. As I understand it, there was an informal arrangement that we should, if we could, reach the end of Clause 5. It was hoped that we might do that at an earlier hour than this. It is now after midnight and we are nowhere near the end of Clause 5. Moreover, we have had a rather
    822
    startling innovation from the Minister of State, who has accepted an Amendment which makes a revolutionary change in the Bill, not the slightest hint of any such acceptance having been given in Committee. At the most, the suggestion was made that justices might, in their discretion, allow public houses to be open a little later on Sunday—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was wrong in allowing the right hon. Gentleman to move to adjourn the debate, because he has already spoken to the Question now before the House. That was not in my mind.
    Mr. Hall: I was not speaking to the Clause, Sir. I was speaking to the new matter, that the debate be now adjourned.
    Mr. Speaker: To the Question which is before the House the right hon. Gentleman has already spoken. Perhaps we can deal with this first, and then I shall not interfere with him.
    Sir F. Soskice: I have not yet spoken on the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I think we have not been treated at all well on this issue. The Bill was published in November. The Minister says that he has now ascertained that the trade is in favour of the change. It is very extraordinary—I say this with all respect to him—that he did not realise it before. Why should we have to wait until midnight tonight to be told suddenly of the Minister's conversion, which, again, if my recollection is not at fault, was not foreshadowed in our discussions in Committee? The question was raised, if I remember aright, as to whether there should be some discretion given to justices. [AN HON. MEMBER: "NO."] If my recollection is at fault, it is at fault, but that is my reading of what happened. We are now suddenly confronted by the Minister's acceptance of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), which has been, correctly I think, described as making a revolutionary change. [Laughter.] At this late hour, although hon. Members may guffaw about it, the fact is that several hon. Members have gone, and the matter cannot receive full consideration. We are confronted by a proposal to add an extra half-hour. It will affect the whole country, country districts and urban districts. It is

    823
    bound to cause a great deal of inconvenience for those who have to work in licensed premises.
    The Minister says that he has now ascertained that the opinion of the trade is in favour of the change. When did he ask people in the trade about it? Did he ask them in November last year? Did he not ask them before November last year? When was his inquiry made? Why have we these sudden, extraordinary conversions on the Minister's part when he suddenly wakes up to the fact that there is support for a change which he and his colleagues never proposed at any earlier stage of the Bill?
    If the matter could be discussed when all hon. Members were present, when the public might be reassured that everyone's view would be properly expressed and considered, we should not, perhaps, be so much concerned. But for the Minister to ask the House to sit at this time and suddenly confront us with this volte face which has not been previously foreshadowed is not treating the House properly. If the Minister intends to address the House again I ask him to tell us why there has been this sudden conversion. When did he discover that the trade was so much in favour of it and what sections of the trade are involved? Does it include those who work in licensed premises? Does it include those in country districts who, if the public houses are to be emptied at twenty minutes to eleven, have to get public transport to get to their beds and have to do some cleaning, and tidying up before they leave for home?
    I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has properly considered the implications. He should say categorically what sections of the trade advised him that they were in favour of this change, when they so advised him and in response to what questions of his. He ought not now to ask that we should come to a conclusion on this matter. It is one of great importance and it has been suddenly sprung upon us. It is true that it was on the Order Paper and that we all saw it, but I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet will not think me discourteous to him—I certainly do not intend to be—when I say that we are used to startling proposals by him being listened to by the Government Front Bench and turned down.
    824
    We all assumed that that would happen to this Amendment. We all enjoy the airy, fresh and free—I will not say libertine—contributions of the hon. Member to debates on this type of matter. We thought that this was one of them, and then the Minister says suddenly in a quiet voice that he has consulted the trade and that the trade is on the whole in support. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "on the whole"? Is there much division in the trade? How is opinion divided in the trade itself?
    We have been badly treated in the sense that we had no kind of indication that this extra half-hour was to be imposed. The Bill will be part of the law for ten or twenty years, and at midnight we have this extra half-hour sprung on us which has not been hinted before. Hon. Members appear to be laughing, but I seriously say that it has not been hinted at before. I do not have the Reports of the Committee's proceedings in front of me, but I have looked them up and I think that I am right in saying that it was certainly suggested that in some parts of the country there should be an extra half-hour on Sundays but it was not suggested that it should be of universal application throughout the country and there was no hint that the Minister was suddenly going to change his mind on a major matter.
    This is not a small, technical change. It is a change of major substance in the Bill. I hope that the House will recognise that, broadly speaking, my own approach has been libertarian. I limp slightly behind the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. I try sometimes to catch him up but generally the hon. Member outruns me. My complaint is of the way we have been treated in this matter. I hope that the Minister would think it fair to the public and to the Opposition and my hon. Friends to say that he will not invite us to proceed further tonight and come to a conclusion on the matter and that if we are to decide upon it it should be when the House is fresh and present in strength.
    It was the Government's hope that we should dispose of Clause 5 tonight. We are nearly at the end of the Clause. We should not be disappointing that hope very much if the Government decide that we should stop at this point on the

    825
    Clause and revert to it tomorrow afternoon when we are fresh to consider a major change in the Bill.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    I move this Motion so as to ascertain the intentions of the Government—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not in Committee. The Motion which the hon. Gentleman should have in mind is, "That the debate be now adjourned".
    Mr. Roberts: I thank you for your direction, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move,
    That the debate be now adjourned.
    I move this Motion in support of the submissions already made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I rise to enable the Government Front Bench to realise that we have very strong feeling on this question and that it would be steam-rollering their will upon the House if, at this late hour, they decided that, regardless of the appeals which have been made from this side—which have not been answered—they would press this matter forward.
    I believe that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have brought tolerant minds to a controversial subject. I never expected at the very beginning that all my point of view would be accepted on all issues, but I expected my view on some to be accepted. I think it most unreasonable that a half-hour extension on Sundays should be accepted by the Government when there has not even been any "kite-flying" in the country, when there has not been the slightest hint from official circles such as we had prior to the suggestion about an hour on Sundays, so that the matter could be aired among the public and feelings could be gathered. There has been none of that.
    I think that it would be a breach of faith with the country and discourtesy to those who hold the opinions that I do if the Government now said, "We are not prepared to mark time until tomorrow." Both right hon. Gentlemen opposite know the House well enough to realise that it is sometimes best to wait a little because they then get their business that much quicker. We have had illustrations recently where the Govrnment,
    826
    with the strength of their majority, insisted on having their own way and steam-rollered the Opposition. They can do it tonight. The Government side of the House could push this through at any moment if they so wished. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are only six hon. Members on the Opposition benches."] We speak for more than six. We speak for a vast army of people outside the House.
    Although it is possible for us to be crushed here tonight, I warn the Government Front Bench that they will be creating an atmosphere which none of us wants. We want to bring a reasonable frame of mind to bear on this Measure. Despite our strong convictions, we are trying to be reasonable in our attitude and discussion. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State will realise that we are making a reasonable request. It need not take long tomorrow, but this ought at least to be dealt with by a full House, and it should have been aired before we reached a decision.
    Mr. Hirst: I intervene for a moment or two to correct the memory of certain right hon. and hon. Members about what happened in Committee. In col. 563 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, the Minister of State made the position only too clear.
    Referring to Sunday hours, my right hon. Friend said:
    "The Government proposed originally that they should be six, but reduced them to five in view of the feelings voiced. We have to consider an Amendment suggesting that they should be five-and-a-half. I do not think that there is much demand in the Committee or outside that we should revert to the original Government proposal of six hours. There is a demand which I should like to consider that there should be a possible extension from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th March, 1961; c. 563.]
    I was on that Standing Committee, and was very attentive to my duties upon it. I recollect our very long discussion on that matter.
    It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) proceeded to get up and to say that, in view of what the Minister had said, he would not proceed to move his Amendment. I suggest, therefore, that the position has been made absolutely clear and that it will be within the recollection

    827
    of most hon. Members on that Committee that that was so. The premises upon which hon. Members have moved this Motion are, therefore, absolutely erroneous.
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: As the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has quoted what his right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, it is only fair that he should read the rest of the quotation. The Minister said:
    "I should like to consider, in conformity with the Government's proposals for weekdays, whether another extension is possible if the justices think fit."
    The Minister completely repudiated any suggestion that there should be a general extension of half-an-hour and said:
    "I should like to consider that—not a general extension on Sundays but an extension, at the justices' discretion, of half-an-hour".
    The hon. Member referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), but the Minister said:
    "I have not closed my mind to that completely, but I suggest that the Sunday hours are about right, with a possible extension of half-an-hour in the evening if the justices are of that opinion. That was the view of the hon. Member for Dagenham…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th March, 1961; c. 563–4.]
    It was on that basis that the Amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. Parker: My original Amendment was exactly in the terms as that now proposed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
    Mr. Hirst: I am well aware of that, but the Minister made it perfectly clear in his opening speech—with which I do not entirely agree, but which I none the less accept—that, to maintain uniformity, about which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has strong views, he decided not to leave the matter open to the justices, but would take it as a general decision. That was made perfectly clear this evening. There is no mystery nor any misquotation.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If what the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) says is true, and for the moment I am not concerned to deny it, what, in his view, would be the right course for the Minister to take as a result? Surely it is that the Minister should have put down an Amendment which everybody could see
    828
    and debate properly, even at a late hour so long as it was there and we had been given notice. The quarrel which some of us on this side of the House have with the Minister is the casual way in which, at the end of a very long and tiring day, he accepted the Amendment when not even an hon. Member opposite expected him to do so.
    Sir F. Soskice: The Question before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn," to which I have not spoken.
    Mr. Speaker: No. The Question is, "That the debate be now adjourned." I confess that I cannot remember whether the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has spoken on that.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) rose to speak on the Motion (moved by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), but had already spoken on it and, therefore, could not speak on it again.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that I frustrated the efforts of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) to move that we report Progress, but for another reason. I think that it was after that that the right hon. and learned Gentleman began to speak on the Question then before the House.
    Sir F. Soskice: I certainly thought that that was what I was speaking about. I do not know what other hon. Members thought that I was trying to speak about, but that was my intention.
    I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) about whether my recollection is correct, but my recollection could not have been more amply confirmed than it was by the citation which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) read. My recollection was that the Minister said that he might consider the extra half-an-hour, subject to the justices' discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said that his Amendment was in exactly the terms of that of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. So be it, but, with respect to both those hon. Members, I attach even more importance to what the right hon. Gentleman's attitude was, and that was his attitude. Perhaps it is not very profitable to discuss who is right on that point.

    829
    I put it to the Ministers in charge of the Bill that surely they will accept that this is a major matter, not a minor matter; that it is very important. Surely they must accept that it is a matter which should not be debated at 12.20 at night, when the House is considerably depleted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is a major matter and both sides of the House are considerably depleted. I know that the ranks on the Government benches can be seen to be far more replete on other occasions than they are at the moment.
    Mr. Hirst: Oh, really. Look how many of us there are here.
    Sir F. Soskice: The House is not here at full strength. There is fair selection, if I may so put it, both in looks and talent, and in other respects, but not complete in numbers.
    What I am saying is that this being a major matter which affects everybody, almost the 50 million of us who live in these islands, and which is not technical, but is a matter of substance, then surely the Ministers in charge must recognise that it is in the interests of the public and of the dignity of the House that it should be considered not tonight but when the House is here in full strength so that all opinions can be voiced, and so that a collective decision can in the true sense be taken upon the matter.
    If we are voted down then—and I do not say that I would vote either for or against this particular proposal; I should like to hear it fully discussed—after it has been fully discussed, and the House by a majority takes a collective decision upon it, nobody can complain at being voted down; but we can complain and we do complain if this major change is to be accomplished at this hour with the House with its present attendance as it is at the moment. I put that point, and I strongly press it upon the Home Secretary and the Minister of State.
    I can quite see that the Solicitor-General does not like it, because I can see his expression, and I am sure that he is not the sort of person who would like it. I do not think that either of the two other Ministers would like it, and I hope that they will give way on this. I think that this is a case in which
    830
    the Government are not living up to their usual standards. That may be a matter of controversy, but in this matter I think that they fall well below their standards, whatever their standards are. They are not treating us properly. I think that I can see a conversation going on between the Patronage Secretary and the Home Secretary. I hope that they recognise that there is sense in what I am saying. I am not committed to either view on this matter. I can see arguments on both sides, but what I feel strongly, and what I do press upon the Government, is that if they insist upon the House coming to a decision now they will be treating the House and the public extremely shabbily.
    Mr. Hirst: What? At ten minutes to one o'clock?
    Mr. Driberg: I do not think myself that there is any need to adjourn or defer consideration of this Amendment. It has received perfectly adequate discussion in the last hour or so. Various points of view have been put from both sides of the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for echoing my reminder that our right hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not speak for the Opposition as a whole, but only for themselves. It is necessary to do so.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. Friend had been in his place for any considerable period of time during today he would have realised that over and over again everybody on this side indicated that he was speaking for himself.
    Mr. Driberg: I am perfectly well aware of that. I have been in various parts of the Chamber for a considerable period during the day, although I have not ventured to intervene until tonight. It is none the less, as I was about to say when my right hon. Friend interrupted me, important to emphasise this point, because there are three of our right hon. Friends speaking from the Opposition Front Bench and it naturally gives the impression when they speak from the Dispatch Box, that they are speaking with special authority and special weight.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is another matter.
    Mr. Driberg: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), in his last intervention but one, used the word "Opposition". He must, of course, have been using the word with a small "o" and not a large "O". He was certainly not speaking for the Opposition, with a capital "O", as a whole.
    I do not want to appear to be censorious of my right hon. and hon. hon. Friends, even though I disagree with them on this point. The Government have made many concessions today. The explanation of the fact that the Amendment is not in the name of the Home Secretary may be that the Government have repeatedly been taking what the Home Secretary called "the sense of the House"—because concessions have been made, in most cases, as it has seemed to me on the occasions when I have been present, in the direction of the teetotal lobby.
    Mr. G. Thomas Mr. G. Thomas indicated assent
    Mr. Driberg: Many concessions have been made which have been a source of satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). This is a concession to another quarter, which is less welcome to him, but I beg him not to over-dramatise the situation, and not to use the tremendously exaggerated language which was used from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend said that he speaks for a "vast army" of people outside the House, but I think that that phrase is applicable neither to the trade lobby nor to the teetotal lobby; it is applicable to the millions of ordinary, moderate drinkers who like having a drink now and then, including Sunday nights.
    I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends not to use such supercharged and highly exaggerated language about this being a "revolutionary" and "drastic" change—half an hour extra on Sunday night! What sort of country is this? I do not think that we need to adjourn the discussion; the matter has been adequately explored this evening.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: There are two points for consideration. The first is whether we should now adjourn the discussion, and the second is whether we should do so specifically for reasons connected with the Amendment under
    832
    discussion. I am not prepared to accept the Motion, "That the debate be now adjourned", because we had originally intended to obtain Clause 6. However, I understood that that was not convenient for the Welsh Members, many of whom had gone home, and out of a very warm heart and out of regard for the Principality—even at this late hour—we came to what amounts to an understanding with the right hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends that we should confine ourselves to getting Clause 5. I think that that is a reasonable programme, which we should stick to. It is less than we originally intended, but it is reasonable for tonight. We will, therefore, adjourn when we get Clause 5.
    As for whether the merits of the Amendment itself are sufficient reason for adjourning, in my opinion they are not. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and many other hon. Members opposite, together with a considerable representation of hon. Members on this side, want this matter to be decided tonight, and I think that it would be unreasonable to depart from our understanding and not to do so. His remarks about "supercharged language" are justified; this is not so drastic or terrible a matter as has been made out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am as good a Sabbatarian as anybody in the House—without wishing to dwell on the fact in a personal manner—and I should like to explain how this decision was reached.
    I was fully aware of what my right hon. Friend had said in Committee, and I thought it was clear at that stage that the Government were veering towards a decision on the lines of the Amendment, but with the approval of the justices. That is the position. Since then, we have had several conferences on this matter, and the words used by my right hon. Friend tonight were used after a discussion with myself and our advisers. We came to the conclusion that it would be better to obtain uniformity where it could be obtained. We decided that we could not get it during weekdays, partly owing to the differentiation between London and the Provinces, but we could accept an Amendment involving uniformity on Sundays, and only a moderate enlargement of the present number of licensing hours. We thought

    833
    that this would help to prevent the necessity for people to go dashing from one place to another to get a drink.
    12.30 a.m.
    If the Government had adopted a non-co-operative attitude during today I could understand an atmosphere of disgust or petulence on the benches opposite, but the atmosphere has been extremely good, and I hope that we shall not spoil it now. I have adopted and accepted several Amendments, one of which at least was not in the sense desired by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). We have been very much obliged to many hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend, and I have had to accept some Amendments which have not been entirely in the sense of some of our hon. Friends. We have done that in the sense of the House.
    Taking into account that some hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that this is reasonable, and the sense of the House on this occasion, I do not think that it is unreasonable that we should make further progress and that we should stick to our decision. If another place wants to examine our decision, let it do so, but I think that we ought to accept the decision announced by my right hon. Friend.
    Question put and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, North-field (Mr. Chapman) does not wish to move the Amendment to page 9, line 43, to leave out from beginning to "shall".
    Mr. Chapman: No, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 44 and 45 and to insert:
    "at the election of the licensee conform either to the permitted hours or to the provisions for the general opening of shops under the Shops Acts for that district".
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient if we discussed with that Amendment the Amendment in page 9, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert:
    "be the same as the general licensing hours of the licensing district save that the licensee may select the hours during which he wishes to remain open for the sale of intoxicating
    834
    liquor and shall not be required to observe the statutory break in the afternoon".
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
    This is a simple Amendment. It was pointed out during the Second Reading debate that the law relating to off-licences was such that it was possible—not, I gather, that anyone did it—for the holder of an off-licence to keep open for 24 hours. When this matter was under discussion in Committee upstairs the Minister of State agreed that perhaps 24 hours was too long, and decided to make it 14½ hours instead.
    That provision is embodied in the Bill, and the Amendment seeks to delete that and to give the off-licensee the option either of conforming to the ordinary permitted hours when his public house is open, or, if it is a wine shop, the same hours, or, if it is, for example, a grocer's shop, the shop hours normal in that locality.
    Some of us take the view, and I am speaking not for the whole of the Opposition, but for those who agree with me—and I understand that that includes some hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite—that a period of 14½ hours a day is too long, and that it would be reasonable to conform to the ordinary shop hours.
    It seems to us who take that view a strange anomaly that if a person wants bread, or milk, or sugar, he has to wait until the shops open, but when it comes to intoxicating liquor he can, under the provisions of the Bill, get it from 8.30 a.m. The argument advanced by some hon. Gentlemen opposite was that it would be grossly unfair to a man if he could not get a bottle of beer early in the morning. It was pointed out that the same applied to groceries and other things, but those who took the view I have just mentioned did not think that that had anything to do with it. Never-theless, it appears to many of us that off-licences should conform to the provisions of on-licences or, at the option of the licensee concerned, the shop hours in effect in the area. I hope that this reasonable suggestion will be accepted.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil

    835
    Hall). I am sure that the Minister will be ready to make another concession. Whenever I have mentioned at meetings during the past few weeks that the suggestion during the Committee stage of the Bill was that these off-licensed shops should be open from 8.30 a.m. until 11 o'clock at night there have been outbursts of incredulous laughter. I wish that the Minister could have been with me to hear them. I believe that supporters of the party opposite are as upset as anyone about this. It is something entirely new in our social habits. It will drive the proverbial coach and four through the restrictive proposals in the Bill.
    I consider it reasonable to other shopkeepers that ordinary shop hours should apply to these premises. But, if not, then the same hours should apply as in the case of the public houses. I cannot think of any ground on which the Minister can defend this proposal. I have asked myself why, if I were in the shoes of the Minister, I should wish to keep these shops open from 8.30 in the mornings until 11 o'clock at night, and yet have strict control over the opening hours for public houses. I cannot think of any good reason.
    The Minister is aware of our anxiety about young people in relation to off-licensed premises. I believe that he will accept the Amendment and send us all home in a reasonable frame of mind. We are reaching the end of our major discussions on the licensing law and I do not consider it unreasonable to ask the Minister to show that he appreciates the spirit in which the Amendment was moved by accepting some limitation on these hours.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has probably forgotten that we have reduced the hours proposed since the introduction of the Bill. At first, there was no limitation at all, but during the Committee stage the Government introduced an Amendment limiting the opening hours to not before 8.30 in the morning. If all premises were to be opened for these hours there would be some cause for concern. But licensees will have a choice of the hours during which they can open. I think that it will be agreed that the present hours associated with
    836
    ordinary licences would be inconvenient for shoppers wishing to patronise these premises. Certainly, the Home Office has received many representations to the effect that the hours should be freed from those restrictions. Therefore, the Government introduced the provision to free all licensed premises from the normal permitted hours.
    In many parts of the country people wish to patronise off-licensed premises during shopping hours, which they will be able to do under the provisions of the Bill, but in other parts of the country, I am advised, there is a tendency, which will remain, to patronise them during the evening. To limit them to shop hours, even if the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) is right in his understanding of the shop hours, would not be satisfactory in all parts of the country. The Government believe that the right approach is to limit the period to 8.30 a.m.-10.30 p.m. and to allow the proprietors of off-licensed premises to choose within that period the hours which they wish to operate.
    It was said in Committee that the trade would be adversely affected by this. That was never my understanding; I have always understood that the trade was in favour of these proposals. But I said in Committee that if I had reason to believe that those employed in these premises would be adversely affected by this proposal, we would think again. Since that stage we have had no representations to that effect. That is because the working hours are governed by other considerations and not by the licensing laws. Furthermore, the wine and spirit trade has since endorsed the Government's proposals.
    I am in no doubt that the national organisations of the trade are in favour of these proposals. I therefore commend to the House the fairly wide choice of permitted hours during which those who operate off-licensed premises can choose which hours suit them and their customers best.
    Mr. Bowen: As I understand the position—and I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the Bill would mean that in a grocery store with an off-licence the owner could remain open for the off-licensed trade until 11 p.m. while the sale of almost every other

    837
    article in the store would be illegal. That seems to me to be an absurd position. It would place the shopkeeper in an invidious position. His shop would be open for only a minor section of his trading activities. He could sell goods under his off-licence to customers up to 11 p.m., but to remain within the law he would have to refuse to sell them food and other articles which were on display in his shop because he could offer for sale only articles covered by the off-licence.
    That underlines the difficulty which we shall face unless there is some attempt to bring the off-licence law into line with the ordinary licensing hours of the area or with the hours of the Shops Acts. If I am wrong in my premise I hope that the Minister will correct me. If I am right, I urge him to deal with the difficulties which will arise.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour, but I feel a little uncertain about the proposals with which the Government are left. I accept the necessity to change the present ludicrous state of the law and I recognise that there must be flexibility in the hours at which off-licensed premises are open, but I should be happier if the Government agreed to consider in another place the possibility of backing both horses by inserting a limitation on the total number of hours during which the off-licensed premises may be open in any day. I should not consider it inappropriate that the total should be the hours during which an ordinary on-licensed premises are allowed to open. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will think about that between now and the next stage of the Bill.
    12.45 a.m.
    Mr. Vosper: The interpretation of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) is correct. Equally, it would be permissible for a grocery store to open at seven o'clock in the morning and sell groceries, but it would not be able to sell liquor. There are great difficulties involved in assimilating the hours during which liquor is sold to those during which groceries are sold, particularly in view of the traditions in many parts of the country.
    838
    I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said. I agree that the approach he put forward, which is featured in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), is more worthy of consideration than that which we are discussing. There is some difficulty in allowing a wide choice of hours to individual off-licence holders, if only because of the difficulty of enforcement. But, if one is to consider any departure from the liberal hours in the Bill, it would be in that direction.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In page 10, line 5, leave out from "evening" to end of line 6
    In line 9, leave out from "desirable" to first "and" in line 12 and insert:
    (4) The licensing justices in any licensing district, if satisfied that the requirements of the district make it desirable, may by order modify for the district the hours specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, within the following limits—

    (a) the total number of hours on any day shall be nine (ending at half-past ten in the evening), or, where subsection (2) above applies or is adopted, nine and a half (ending at eleven in the evening), and the hours shall not begin earlier than ten in the morning; and

    (b) there shall be a single break of not less than two hours in the afternoon.

    (5) In this Act "he general licensing hours" means in relation to any licensing district the hours specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above, with any modification applying in the district by virtue of subsections (2) to (4) above.
    (6) An order under subsection (3) or (4) above may make different provision for different periods of the year or for different weekdays in every week of the year or of any such period, or may make provision to take effect for particular periods only, or for particular weekdays in every week of the year or of any such period, but so that no alteration of the general licensing hours shall take effect within eight weeks of another.
    In line 16, leave out "this subsection" and insert:
    "subsection (3) or (4) above".—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out "six" and to insert "five."
    Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment to page 10, line 28, to leave out "six" and to insert "five."
    Mr. Vosper: I inadvertently referred to this when the House was discussing an earlier Amendment. This is a short point dealing with permitted hours for clubs on Sundays. It will allow them to start their evening session at five o'clock in the afternoon instead of six o'clock. This is in response to a plea made by sporting chubs, who wish to operate their evening session earlier rather than later in the day. It does not alter in any way the total number of hours during which they can be open, but they can start earlier in the afternoon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 28, leave out "six" and insert "five."
    In line 28, at end insert:
    Provided that no order under subsection (3) or (4) above altering the beginning or end of the general licensing hours shall invalidate any permitted hours previously fixed under this subsection, but so much of the hours so fixed as falls before the beginning or after the end of the general licensing hours as altered shall from the expiration of six weeks after the date of the order be treated as excluded from the permitted hours in the club premises.
    In line 29, leave out from beginning to "to."
    In line 31, leave out "hour from two to" and insert:
    "period (if any) between the end of the first part of the general licensing hours and."
    In line 33, leave out "hour" and insert "period."
    In line 44, at beginning insert:
    "This subsection shall apply to any premises for which a restaurant licence or residential and restaurant licence is for the time being in force, except that it shall not apply to any such premises where by the conditions of the licence the time before the afternoon break is excluded from the permitted hours; and in other cases."
    In page 11, line 8, at end insert:
    "and subsection (5) above shall apply, with any necessary modification, to premises licensed under that Act."
    In line 9, leave out "Subsections (1) to (5)" and insert:
    "As regards licensed premises and club premises, the foregoing subsections."—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  CONVENTION ON GENOCIDE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  12.50 a.m.
  Sir Barnett Janner: Shortly after infamous Hitler and his like-minded sub-human followers had taken power, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and other hon. Members, including myself, endeavoured to move this House to action against the atrocities being committed already at that time. An hon. Member intervened while I was speaking about the vicious practices of these monsters against Jewish men, women and children and was so shocked that he asked me to give my authority for the facts which I was quoting. Even the information which was available at that time was too horrible to believe.
  Last month, about twenty years afterwards, I remembered that incident while I was sitting in the solemn atmosphere of the court room at Jerusalem, overcome by the evidence to which we were listening from men who had witnessed such scenes as the crashing out of the brains of men and women, and even children, by so-called human beings who were worse than the most brutal beasts of the field. Tears came to the eyes of all who were in that court, including the Foreign Secretary of Israel. It was impossible to suppress the emotional reaction which the recounting of these horrific incidents aroused.
  How was it possible that 6 million men, women and children could have been tortured and done to death in this age by such diabolical methods? Clearly, the civilised world has to ask itself how was this possible and what can be done to prevent any recurrence.
  More than twelve years have passed since the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the Convention on Genocide by 56 votes to none. It is more than ten years since the Convention came into force with the ratification of accession of the requisite number of 20 States; and more than eight years have elapsed since the then Foreign Secretary in this House said in January, 1952, in reply to a Question of mine as to whether he was in a position

  841
  to ratify this Convention, that the Government hoped shortly to reach a decision on this matter.
  A further 43 States have now ratified or acceded to the Convention, bringing the grand total to 63 States; but still there has been no decision by Her Majesty's Government. I consider it, therefore, to be my solemn duty to remind the House again of the great importance of the Convention, and in particular today, and of its basic principles. According to Article II of the Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, wholly or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group; (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
  Unfortunately, these crimes are not new. Genocide is a new name for old crimes so terrible that they have been nameless. Throughout the ages, as the late Dr. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the name, said, "This crime of crimes has repeated itself with the regularity of a biological law". The vastness of the number of victims involved, and the unspeakable measures taken against these victims, have frequently been of such a nature that the human mind of the common man in other countries has been incapable of believing that such atrocities were actually taking place.
  Thus, honest accounts of those horrors have often been dismissed as exaggerated rumours, and often, too, when the true nature and extent of the crimes have been revealed, it has been too late for any intervention to be made at all, even if it were desired by other peoples to make that intervention.
  Today, with the terrifying destructive powers of modern science and of totalitarian Governments, the dangers are greater than ever. The twentieth century has witnessed the perpetration of this crime on the largest scale by Nazi Germany. This possibility—though not the full magnitude thereof, because no normal human being could have imagined
  842
  the evil that would ensue—was foreseen by the late Dr. Lemkin, to whom I have referred. As early in 1933, he submitted a draft law to the League of Nations in Madrid to prohibit the destruction of national, racial and religious groups. It is very important to reflect how many millions of lives might have been saved had international powers been taken as early as that, before the foul machinery of the Nazis had had time to develop.
  We are all of us only too apt to close our minds to terrible events and to forget the indescribable horrors and massacres which took place in Europe as recently as sixteen years ago, but we dare not turn away from horrible realities if we wish to do our best to ensure that they will not occur again. These realities, as I have explained, were brought most vividly to my attention when I attended recently part of the proceedings of the Eichmann trial, in Israel.
  I think that I can claim to be reasonably well informed on these matters, but, sitting there in the court, I was shocked beyond belief to hear one account after another of the cold, calculated, merciless and systematic destruction of human beings, from whom every vestige of human right had been dragged. The numbers destroyed were so many as to become almost meaningless. But we must endeavour to appreciate something of the suffering entailed—children too young to understand what was happening to them, torn from their parents and sent to extermination camps, babes in arms dashed to pieces in front of their mothers, and parents killed in front of their children. We must not forget the cultural loss to mankind in the massacre of so many great scholars, artists and poets, including most of the flower of European Jewry.
  I think I have given some indication of the importance to us of every possible step being taken to prevent such crimes in the future. The great problem in the past has been that, unless persuasion could prevail, no action short of war could be taken by any one State to prevent such happenings in another State. Those of us who, in the 1930s, pleaded for the rescue of the victims of Nazi Germany were faced with insurmountable obstacles. Of course, a pattern already existed for dealing with certain international crimes, for example, slave trading, illegal production and trade in

  843
  narcotics, piracy, trade in women and children. International conventions had been signed on these crimes, and anyone guilty of them could be tried and punished not only in his own country, but in whatever country he escaped to, provided that that country had adhered to the convention in question. I state emphatically that the same procedure should apply to genocide.
  The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations to provide a basis under international law for action against Governments without recourse to war. The Preamble and Article I of the Convention make this quite clear. The Preamble states:
  "The Contracting Parties, having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilised world;
  "Recognising that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and
  "Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international cooperation is required, Hereby agree as hereinafter provided…".
  Under Article I
  "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."
  This Convention was not hurried through. It was adopted only after very careful consideration both prior to submission to the United Nations and for two years afterwards. Governments were given every opportunity of expressing their opinions. It was considered clause by clause, both by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and by the General Assembly—proceedings in which our Government took a full part. Various compromises and amendments to the original draft text were approved to meet the requirements of various States. In particular, Articles IX and XII were reworded to meet the views of the United Kingdom representatives.
  The final text, of course was a compromise. No international agreement could ever be reached if all parties insisted on all their individual requirements. Nevertheless, it was adopted unanimously on 9th December, 1948, by
  844
  the General Assembly of the United Nations. Again, in December, 1949, a General Assembly Resolution was passed to the effect that the Assembly
  "remains convinced of the necessity of inviting members of the United Nations which have not yet done so to sign or ratify the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as soon as possible."
  In 1953, a further Resolution was passed appealing to all States to ratify the Convention as soon as possible.
  There are more ratifications to this Convention than to any other United Nations Convention adopted under the United Nations Charter. Among the 63 States which have ratified or acceded are the following Commonwealth and Western countries: Australia, Canada, Ceylon, Ghana, India, France, the German Federal Republic, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Surely it is time that the name of the United Kingdom was also included.
  In April, 1953, the then Foreign Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
  "Carrying this Convention out in the letter means that legislation will have to be introduced. That legislation is, of course, rather complicated; we are doing our best to see that it is prepared, and when it is prepared, it will be brought before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 1742.]
  I know that I am prevented from asking for legislation in this Adjournment debate, but I can ask for ratification of the Convention. Anything in the nature of legislation which would have to follow to amend it in any way can be taken up under a procedure different from that which I am now using. The so-called difficulty in the way, as far as I am concerned, is incapable of being conceded by those who are conscious of the immediate importance and the nature of what is required.
  Article IX of the Convention provides that disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute. Moreover, it would appear that no question of international law is raised if the Government were to reserve, in an Act amending the extradition Acts, such safeguards as they think fit; for example, that the Government should be satisfied of the likelihood of

  845
  a fair trial before granting extradition for genocide.
  I do not think that anyone who has read or seen what is happening at present in the court in Israel where a trial is actually taking place, based on this issue, can think that there can be any question at all about the just and fair manner in which that trial can be and is being carried out, even though so many of those who have been most closely affected are many times within the presence of the court itself.
  In addition, accession to the Convention subject to reservations which are not contrary to the basic principles of the Convention is also authorised. In fact, several ratifyng or acceding States have made such reservations with regard to individual articles. At the request of the United Nations the International Court of Justice gave an opinion on the problem of reservations to multilateral conventions which was recommended by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution of January, 1952.
  If Her Majesty's Government still consider a revision of the Convention necessary, there is a remedy under Article XVI which provides that a request for a revision of the Convention may be made at any time by any contracting party. However, as long as we stand outside and refuse to become a contracting party we have no power to propose revision.
  It is correct that no convention can prevent a Government from committing genocide if they are so determined, but the same argument could be brought against any convention, whether against trade in women or children, or in narcotics. The possibility of punishment under international law may deter a criminal from committing crimes, though no convention, or criminal law for that matter, will prevent crime. The effectiveness of any law depends not upon the law itself, but upon the people who apply it.
  An appeal was made by a famous Chilean poet who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1945. He wrote:
  "With amazing regularity genocide has repeated itself throughout history. Despite all advances in our civilisation the twentieth century must, unfortunately, be considered as one of those most guilty of the crime of genocide. Losses in life and culture have been staggering. But deep in his heart man cherishes a fervent yearning for justice and love; among small nations and minorities the craving for security
  846
  is particularly alive. The success of the Genocide Convention today and its greater success tomorrow can be traced to the fact that it responds to necessities and desires of a universal nature. The word genocide carries in itself a moral judgment over an evil in which every feeling man and woman concurs."
  In spite of the limitations on the effectiveness of the Convention and the possible need for improving or strengthening some of its articles, it is undoubtedly a great step forward in the struggle of the United Nations to secure universal respect for human rights. This is a struggle in which this country should not drag behind, but should give that leadership for which particularly the free and newly independent States of the world look to us in all matters of progress, humanity and international co-operation.
  I very strongly appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary to take this into consideration and realise that we ought not to stand out. I know that all sorts of arguments are used from time to time, such as that we ourselves would not commit the crime of genocide, and that we already have certain legislation which deals with that type of crime. But we cannot stand aside from the rest of the world. We ought to be leading the rest of the world on a matter of this description. I strongly urge that we should without further delay remedy the position and accede to the Convention so that our attitude may not be misunderstood anywhere in the world.
  1.8 a.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am sure that no one who has listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), most carefully, as I have done, could fail to have been touched by the very real emotion and sincerity with which he brought forward this tragic subject to the attention of the House.
  I am sure that we all share the abhorrence that he feels and has so rightly expressed at this revolting crime. I want to make it absolutely clear that Her Majesty's Government and their predecessors have always regarded it with disgust and horror. I need hardly add, I am sure, that this country's record in this respect is absolutely clean and our conscience is clear. I do not think that anybody would question that for a moment.

  847
  The hon. Member reminded us of the conditions in which the Convention on Genocide was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, as long ago as 1948. It came into force in 1951, over ten years ago.
  It is true, and I accept, that the United Kingdom voted for the Convention in the General Assembly in 1948, and that was because we were and we are in complete agreement with the purpose of the Convention, the very purpose which the hon. Member so rightly stressed. But during the discussions prior to its adoption the United Kingdom representative repeatedly expressed grave doubts about the effectiveness of such an instrument.
  I must remind the House that in voting for the Convention we made an express reservation that we could not be taken as committing ourselves to changes in our domestic law, and we made it quite clear that a further examination of the draft would be necessary by legal experts before we could take any decision. At the same time, the United Kingdom delegation made it quite clear that its vote should be considered as being without prejudice to the traditional and inalienable right to grant asylum, to which we attached tremendous importance, in this country.
  When the question of the United Kingdom's becoming a party to the Convention came to be examined, it became clear that the legal difficulties were very real and that it would require fresh legislation—to which the hon. Member referred in passing—to give effect to the broad provisions of the Convention as part of the criminal law of this country. But this is essential before Her Majesty's Government can become a party to the Convention because, as hon. Members are aware, we cannot undertake international obligations unless our law enables them to be honoured.
  The hon. Member referred to one or two Articles and I would like to touch for a moment, in particular, on Article VII of the Convention, because that presents us with a very real problem in this matter. It says:
  "Genocide and the other acts incorporated in Article III, that is to say attempts, complicity, and conspiracies to commit genocide shall not be considered as political crimes for
  848
  the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force."
  I remind the House that Section 3 of the Extradition Act, 1870, provides that a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character, or if he proves to the satisfaction of the magistrates' court before which he is brought in the first instance, or the court before which he is brought on habeas corpus, or to the Secretary of State, that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character.
  That provision reminds us of the importance traditionally attached to this country's right to grant asylum to political refugees who seek asylum here, and the Government, and I am sure any other British Government, would be very reluctant to derogate from that right without the most careful consideration of all the implications of such a step. I am sure that all hon. Members will recall many cases in the House when urgent claims have been made that we should exercise that right of asylum, and we must, therefore, watch anything which can take away that right.
  I think that one could easily imagine cases where the surrender of a person on the ground of having committed genocide was demanded and where, under our Extradition Act, a court, or the Secretary of State, might well decide that this was an offence of a political character. A situation could arise, for example in a civil war, in which Her Majesty's Government might be required, under the very wide terms of the Convention, to surrender an individual who had taken refuge in this country and who was accused of genocide by the opposing faction.
  Her Majesty's Government might then be obliged to comply with the request for extradition even though the case was purely a domestic political matter and those demanding extradition were acting from purely political motives. I am sure that everybody will agree that the disadvantages and dangers of tying our hands in such cases must be weighed very carefully indeed.
  Sir B. Janner: May I refer the hon. Member to Article VI, by which an international court would have jurisdiction and there would be no need to send that person back to a country in respect of which there may be any question of political rights?
  Mr. Godber: Of course, there is a safeguard there, but I think that the House is very jealous of its rights to grant political asylum. That is something of which we must take account.
  I hope that I have made clear some of the difficulties which we see in the way of accession to the Convention. The House is entitled to ask why these difficulties have gone so long unresolved, as the hon. Gentleman rightly did. In answering this question, I should, first, say that it is hard to conceive that any of the offences cited by the Convention could be committed in this country. Even supposing they could be, I would remind the House that although genocide as such may not be punishable under our law many actions which might be involved are already criminal offences under our ordinary criminal law.
  Perhaps I could reinforce that by two sentences from Mr. Younger, answering a previous debate initiated by the hon. Gentleman:
  "Genocide, as such, has not previously been known to the British criminal law, but it is, of course, in most of its aspects, already covered by existing law. The great part of the crime of genocide would be covered, either by the law relating to murder or by the law relating to grievous bodily harm…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 1503.]
  Accession to the Convention would, therefore, make no material difference in the power of the courts in this country to try and to punish any persons who may commit offences of the kind dealt with in the Convention. I would further add that one can hardly conceive any circumstances in which the provisions of
  850
  our present law would constitute an obstacle to the surrender of anyone who committed genocide in the sense that we have come to know that crime as a result of the appalling deeds which were perpetrated during the last war, to which the hon. Gentleman graphically drew our attention.
  Because accession to the Convention would not materially change the situation in this country, and because there has been little prospect of finding time for a Bill on this subject in our usually crowded legislative programme, we have felt justified in postponing, in favour of more urgent matters, consideration of the detailed and technical matters which would have to be decided before legislation could be prepared.
  The Government realise, however, that a decision on the question of whether or not to become a party to the Convention has been long delayed and that that is liable to misinterpretation, although I would emphasise once more that the United Kingdom's becoming a party will not change the situation in fact as far as this country is concerned. I can, therefore, assure the hon. Member that the whole question of whether or not the Government are able to become a party to the Convention is being examined afresh and that the House will be informed when a decision is reached. If that decision is that we should become a party, the necessary legislation will be put in train when the legislative programme permits.
  I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I will seek to press ahead on this matter. I am sure that the way in which he has brought this matter forward tonight has been of real help, and I can assure the House I shall keep it very much in mind.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen Minutes past One o'clock.

MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Exports
  Exports
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Air Safety Regulations (Investigations)
  Air Safety Regulations (Investigations)
  Supersonic Airliner
  Supersonic Airliner
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hearing Aids (Development)
  Hearing Aids (Development)
  Medical Laboratory Technicians
  Medical Laboratory Technicians
  Infectious Diseases (Notification Fee)
  Infectious Diseases (Notification Fee)
  Smallpox (Deaths)
  Smallpox (Deaths)
  Vaccination (Deaths)
  Vaccination (Deaths)
  GIBRALTAR (SPANISH WORKERS)
  GIBRALTAR (SPANISH WORKERS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION (AFRICA)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION (AFRICA)
  PASSPORTS
  PASSPORTS
  UNITED STATES (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  GERMAN MILITARY BASES, UNITED KINGDOM (SOVIET MEMORANDUM)
  GERMAN MILITARY BASES, UNITED KINGDOM (SOVIET MEMORANDUM)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  SOUTH KASAI
  SOUTH KASAI
  FISHERY LIMITS
  FISHERY LIMITS
  ANGOLA
  ANGOLA
  POLARIS SUBMARINE BASE, HOLY LOCH
  POLARIS SUBMARINE BASE, HOLY LOCH
  GERMANY (ARMAMENTS)
  GERMANY (ARMAMENTS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Women Bakery Workers (Hours of Work)
  Women Bakery Workers (Hours of Work)
  Ionising Radiations (Sealed Sources) Regulations
  Ionising Radiations (Sealed Sources) Regulations
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Wales
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Wales
  Wharves, River Hull
  Wharves, River Hull
  Trawlers (Naval Protection)
  Trawlers (Naval Protection)
  Salmon Rivers
  Salmon Rivers
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  Africa (B.B.C. Broadcasts)
  Africa (B.B.C. Broadcasts)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Sick Persons (Examination)
  Sick Persons (Examination)
  War Widows (Children's Allowances)
  War Widows (Children's Allowances)
  National Insurance Fund (Contribution Income)
  National Insurance Fund (Contribution Income)
  Retirement Pensions (National Assistance Allowances)
  Retirement Pensions (National Assistance Allowances)
  Doctors (Unemployment Benefit)
  Doctors (Unemployment Benefit)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Methane
  Methane
  Employees (Trade Union Membership)
  Employees (Trade Union Membership)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Police Headquarters, Leeds (New Switchboard)
  Police Headquarters, Leeds (New Switchboard)
  MR. FREDERICK BEEZLEY
  MR. FREDERICK BEEZLEY
GAMBIA
  Conference, Bathurst
  Conference, Bathurst
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Grants and Loans
  Grants and Loans
EDUCATION
  Training Colleges (Places)
  Training Colleges (Places)
CYPRUS
  English Schools
  English Schools
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Societies (Profits Tax)
  Building Societies (Profits Tax)
  Medical School (Students)
  Medical School (Students)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Headquarters, Leeds (New Switchboard)
  Police Headquarters, Leeds (New Switchboard)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Cars (Imports)
  Cars (Imports)
BRITISH ARMY
  Service Vehicles (Accidents)
  Service Vehicles (Accidents)

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

THE OXFORD WESTERN BY-PASS
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 the contract date for the completion of the Oxford Western By-pass; the reason for the delay, and the date when the by-pass will be actually finished and open to traffic.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the contract date for completion of the Oxford Western By-Pass is September 16, 1961. It was originally March 15, 1961.
In 1959 it was extended to June 16 because of difficulties in obtaining entry on to some if the land. The further extension to September 16 was approved because of the bad weather of last summer and autumn, and the general shortage of labour in the area.
My right honourable friend has had no further application for an extension of the completion date.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept my thanks for the helpfulness of his reply. Perhaps he will forgive me for expressing the view that his reply is based more on hope than fact. From personal observation I think we shall all be surprised if this work is completed by the end of the year. But in the meantime, would the noble Lord look into the reason why the Southern by-pass is still closed to traffic, and has, in fact, been closed to traffic for fifteen months? Is the noble Lord aware that the reason originally given for closing the Southern Ely-pass to heavy traffic was because of
960
the necessity to join the Botley road end of the Southern by-pass to the end of the Western by-pass? Is the noble Lord aware that this has meant that the heavy A.34 traffic has had to go through the centre of the City of Oxford? As there is no apparent reason why the Southern by-pass should not now be opened, would he use his influence and his endeavours to get it opened to traffic?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in the first place with regard to the Western by-pass, all I can say to the noble Lord is that I do not know of any reason why the date I mentioned should not be effective. Whether the question of the Southern by-pass arises out of the question of the Western by-pass I am not entirely sure; nevertheless, I will look into the situation and see whether it is anything like the noble Lord describes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The connection between the two by-passes is a physical one; because one joins the other.

POLICE SURGEONS AND BREATHALYSER TESTS
LORD DERWENT: 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 consideration has now been given to the conclusions reached by the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain at their recent annual conference in so far as they deal with the proposed introduction of blood tests and breathalyser tests for motorists; and whether it is proposed to take any action as a result of these representations, and if so of what nature.]
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. Careful consideration has been given to the representations made by the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain. Her Majesty's Government are, however, satisfied that all the points made by the Association are ones that they had already taken fully into account when framing their proposals before presenting them to your Lordships' House. The points were also all discussed during the

961
debates on the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. Her Majesty's Government do not therefore think it necessary to take any further action as a result of these representations.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, is it not a fact that the Bill was drafted, and most of the discussions took place, before the views of the police surgeons became known? In view of the fact that police surgeons have more practical experience than anyone else of dealing with, and testing, drunken drivers, why have Her Majesty's Government closed their minds to the police surgeons' recommendations?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not closed their minds to these representations. When my noble friend comes to look at my original Answer in Hansard he will see that I said Her Majesty's Government had already thought of the points concerned. Therefore the actual timing of their arrival from the police surgeons does not preclude the fact that they had already been considered.

COMPENSATION FUND FOR KENYA LANDOWNERS
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: 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, while it is still within their power, they will set up a fund to compensate our kith and kin who are landholders in Kenya in the event of dispossession of their property.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, if I interpret the noble Earl's question aright, he is suggesting that we set up a compensation fund now against a hypothetical possibility in the future. If this is the correct interpretation, the answer is that Her Majesty's Government do not believe that this would be in Kenya's interest. Apart from anything else, it would mean that we anticipated the failure of our policy, whereas we are
962
determined to do all we can to ensure its success.
Her Majesty's Government's policy for land in Kenya is that it should be regarded primarily in economic rather than racial terms, as the country's most valuable asset. In this connection I would assure the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the immense contribution made by the European farmers to the best use of the land and that we attach great importance to this contribution continuing.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Of course, we all know that the Government are trying to do all they can for the landed interests in the Colony, but recent events have not been reported sufficiently in the papers of this country, so that a great number of people do not know what the position of security is out there. Is the noble Earl aware that in the Legislative Council on May 28 Mr. Swann, the Minister for Internal Security and Defence said that a plot had been discovered to murder the Ministers and their families, and that fourteen arrests had been made in three different places? Settlers in the Rift Valley and elsewhere are saying—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I am asking if the noble Earl is aware of all these things, because it is almost impossible to make my point that there is a need for a compensatory fund in this Colony unless noble Lords and Her Majesty's Government are aware of the upset state of the settlers because they now are afraid about security. This is my final question: does the noble Earl not think that, if this country can pump £20½ million into that Colony with the state of security as it is, the Government and the taxpayers can afford to start some fund to which the settlers, who may fall by the way if things go badly, may have some recourse? Many of them have used up all their earnings, have put them into their farms and have no future.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I say this? This is a very important matter. Does the noble Earl consider that question and answer is the best way of dealing with

963
it? There is so much to be said on both sides. While one has a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl in what he is desiring to achieve, I feel that this method of questioning is not the best way of getting the views of the House on the matter.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, to answer the last question, I quite agree that the whole of this issue of Kenya, or the land there, is one of great interest to your Lordships and of fundamental importance to the future of the country. Of course it is always open to your Lordships at any time to debate the issue, if that is thought appropriate; that would be arranged in the usual way. But to answer the particular question put by the noble Earl, what I would say is this. I have tried to explain in my earlier answer why we do not think it is appropriate to set up a compensation fund now. On the other hand, I should like to assure the noble Earl that I realise very well the anxiety of many of the settlers in regard to security, and I can assure him that everything possible is being done to ensure that there will be law and order. In that connection I think we are well placed, both in regard to the police force and to the other reserves that may be available if there should be further trouble.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, while I am delighted to hear the latter part of the answer of the noble Earl, does he realise the very great disappointment that settlers in Kenya will feel over this compensation question?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, it is not a new policy that I have enunciated to-day; it is something which has been known for many months. While it may be that some of the settlers feel that a compensation fund would be satisfactory from their point of view, I hope that the great run of them, considering the reasons why we want to follow the line we are taking, will in the end come to realise that it is in the best interests not only of themselves but also of Kenya as a whole.

CEREMONIAL EVENTS AND PARKING METERS
2.48 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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, on occasions when it is considered necessary to put all the parking meters in any one area out of action, adequate steps can be taken to announce the fact publicly.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the use of parking meter bays may have to be suspended over an area in connection with ceremonial events or other public occasions. Special traffic arrangements are made by the police at these times, and every effort is made to inform the public fully. Details are given to the Press and broadcasting authorities, and notices are distributed beforehand to frontagers and regular parkers in the areas affected.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that last week in Pall Mall all meters were put out of action by the police? It is true that police notices were distributed along the pavement, but could not something have been done the night before, on T.V. or by the B.B.C., to inform people that that would be the case?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, about that particular occasion my noble friend is, of course, right. There were 116 meters in that area suspended on that day. Notices were distributed by being put through the letter boxes of the frontagers, and by being tucked under the windscreen wipers of cars parked there previous to the occasion. A Press notice, of which I have a copy, which I shall be glad to show my noble friend afterwards, was issued to the Press and to the broadcasting authorities. Unfortunately, there is no way in which we can make the Press or the broadcasting authorities publish the full text of such notices. If there is anything else that my noble friend thinks could be done, I should be very glad to pass it on to the appropriate quarter.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that it is not really enough to put notices in letter boxes and the like, because the cars

965
parked at the meters are not necessarily the property of the frontagers to the street? It needs something a little better to inform everybody what is going on; otherwise people arriving there and expecting to be able to park will find they cannot, and then they will clutter up the traffic unnecessarily in an effort to try to find somewhere to go.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I did not pretend that the distribution of notices was all that was necessary. I merely asked whether there was anything else that could be done apart from the issue of a notice, fully descriptive of the arrangements, to the Press and to the broadcasting authorities, which I should have thought was reasonable action for the police to take. I do not know what else they could do in the circumstances. If there are any useful suggestions, as I said, I shall be pleased to pass them on.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, one thing that could be done is to pay for an advertisement in the Press and on I.T.V.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could not the Minister consider putting a notice on the parking meters saying that they will be out of action on the following day for such-and-such a period of time?
LORD CHESHAM: These are suggestions which, as I said, I will pass on.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in his first reply my noble friend use a phrase that I have never heard used before—I hope he will give the House a definition. Can he tell us what a "regular parker" is in a parking meter zone?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have heard it suggested that the only way of finding that out is by acting as a nosey-parker.

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 Zanzibar at a suitable moment during the afternoon.
LAND DRAINAGE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS (RENEWALS, EXTENSIONS AND FEES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (BLOOD TESTS) BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, before I move formally that this Report be now received, I should like to explain to the House that on the Committee stage, at the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, I promised that I would put down an Amendment which would ensure that the parties were given a full explanation of what the tests were all about and what their purpose was, before they were subjected to them; and that this explanation should be read to them by the clerk of the court and would not merely be handed to them on a piece of paper. Following that, I had some talks with the Home Office, and we agreed that it would be better if that were to be done by regulation or by rules which would come under the Bill when it becomes an Act. I have spoken to the noble Baroness about this matter and she has agreed that that procedure would meet the suggestion she made to me. Therefore I have no Amendments to move to the Bill at this stage, and I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Evidence on charge of unfitness to drive
2.—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under the said section six, the court shall have regard to any evidence which may be given of the proportion or quantity of alcohol or of any drug which was contained in the blood or present in the body of the accused, as ascertained by analysis or measurement of a specimen of blood taken from him with his consent in the presence of a medical practitioner, or of urine or breath provided by him, at any material time; and if it is proved that the accused, when so requested at any such time, refused to consent to the taking of or to provide a specimen for analysis or measurement, his refusal may, unless reasonable cause therefor is shown, be treated as supporting any evidence given on behalf of the prosecution, or as rebutting any evidence given on behalf of the defence, with respect to his condition at that time.
2.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved in subsection (1) after the first "shall" to insert:
"(subject to subsection (4) of this section)"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee on April 27 the noble Lord, Lord Taylor moved two Amendments which he suggested were connected with each other. The first one proposed that the Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing
"the methods of collection of specimens of breath, blood and urine."
I said that the Government would consider this. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, at that moment was the only occupant of the Benches opposite, but he was encouraged by some of my noble friends on this side of the House not to be content with Government consideration but to press the Amendment to a Division which was carried by your Lordships. In spite of this, the Government are still considering the case which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on that first Amendment and it may be necessary at a later stage to move a Government Amendment to take out subsection (4), but, in view of the fact that it was rather peremptorily decided in the Division Lobby, I think it better for me at this stage of the Bill to say nothing further about it.
But the second Amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said was consequential on the first, although it was not strictly consequential, was that specimens of blood and urine in prescrbed containers shall be offered to the accused person. That Amendment I said I would accept in principle, and the noble Lord was good enough to say that he would agree to that, and he withdrew the Amendment. The Amendment which I now move is to give effect to the undertaking which I then gave. The only way in which it differs from the Committee Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is that it provides that the accused should be supplied with a specimen of blood or urine only if he asks for it and that the specimen should be so supplied in a prescribed container only if the accused so requires. I think it is reasonable to provide that the accused person should ask for a sample if he wants one, because otherwise, if the police were required to offer specimens of blood and urine to all accused persons whether they asked for them or not, the police might have to ensure that they could afterwards prove that an offer had been made in every case where the accused had not accepted the offer, in case the accused later alleged that the offer had never been made. Therefore, I think your Lordships will agree that it is reasonable to provide that it should be supplied to the accused person if he asks for it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to subsection (4) of this section)"). —(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor has asked me to express his regrets that he is unable to be in his place at this hour of the sitting. He also authorises me to say that, by and large, the Amendment now proposed meets the points that he had in mind, and he would like to express his appreciation of what has been done both by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the Committee stage I agreed to accept an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham to the effect that the samples of blood, urine, et cetera,

969
taken from an accused person, should be taken in the presence of a medical practitioner. That Amendment was agreed to and it is now in the Bill as it stands at present. After I said it would be accepted the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No.71), col. 999]:
"Before the noble Earl is so obliging, does this mean that even where there is a medical practitioner carrying out the test there would have to be another medical practitioner present?"
I replied:
"Certainly not".
Lord Silkin said:
"It could mean that. The noble Earl will no doubt look at it again."
This Amendment, which leaves out "in the presence of" and inserts the word "by", is intended to meet that possible objection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("in the presence of") and insert ("by").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.59 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after the first "time", and to substitute:
"and the court may further have regard to any refusal of the accused without reasonable cause to consent to the taking of, or to provide, a specimen for analysis or measurement".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to obviate the expression which appears in the latter part of subsection (1) that refusal to provide a specimen for analysis may be treated as supporting the prosecution or rebutting the defence. In my submission, it is not for Parliament to teach the courts how they are to treat particular pieces of evidence. It is much better, surely, to leave the courts free to treat the evidence before them in the only proper manner. Surely they may be safely left to discharge their duty in the proper way. To seek by Act of Parliament to tell the courts that this particular evidence is to be treated in this particular way smacks, in my opinion, of what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, called, in another connection, grandmotherly legislation.
No doubt it is perfectly in order and desirable in a particular case that Parliament shall say that such-and-such
970
evidence shall be admissible; and my Amendment seeks to do that in this case. It says:

"… the court may … have regard to any refusal of the accused … to consent to the taking of … a specimen for analysis …."
The Amendment allows the court to "have regard to" that evidence, but leaves the court free to treat the evidence in the only proper manner in which it is to be treated; and in that way the Statute would not be seeking to tell the court how they are to treat the evidence. I am authorised to say that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, would have spoken in favour of this Amendment had he been able to be in his place this afternoon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("time") to the end of line 24, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Airedale.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I say one word before the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to consider this point? This afternoon he has agreed to the Report stage of the Affiliation Proceedings (Blood Tests) Bill, which contained a principle similar to this. Why is it, therefore, that at this stage he objects to the same principle being embodied in this Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: Per incuriam.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): What does that mean?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, when I first met this Amendment I thought that the noble Lord was trying merely to improve the language of the clause without affecting its meaning, but as he explained it I see that he really wishes to whittle the thing down. He wants the court to take into consideration the fact that the person has refused to allow a medical examination. The clause as it stands says that that is to be regarded as at any rate prima facie evidence that the person is guilty. I think that this is the clear issue between us. I hope that the House, subject to what I shall have to say in a moment about compulsory tests, will accept the view that, if the tests are not to be compulsory, a refusal without good ground is to be

971
treated by the court as prima facie evidence of the guilt of the person, subject, of course, to all the other circumstances of the case.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I cannot think that this Amendment is necessary for any of the reasons suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who moved it. So far as I can see, in the words as they at present stand in the Bill there is nothing offensive at all to the court. It does not say that this evidence shall be conclusive; it says simply that the refusal may be treated as supporting any evidence, and then it states the point on which evidence of refusal is relevant. If the language of the Amendment were adopted it would not be at all clear what the relevance of this evidence would be. If the evidence is produced it must be produced as tending to show something. The Bill as it stands shows what makes the evidence relevant, and it does it in a way, it seems to me, which in no way prejudices the traditional view we take of the proper function of the court. I think the effect of the Amendment is this. There is a chance that, if the Amendment were adopted, after a time the court would come to the conclusion on the matter being raised and argued, and possibly going to appeal, that the words meant precisely what is in the Bill now; but if they did not, what they meant would be wholly obscure. The Bill as it stands shows clearly what evidence shall be relevant, and in no way binds the court to treat the thing as conclusive, because the words are "may be treated". I hope that the Government will abide by the words at present in the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was invited to look at this question again on the Committee stage. We have done so, but with the result that we felt our drafting was as good as it could be made and ought not to be altered. The speech which T should have made to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has in fact been made—and put rather better—by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and therefore I shall not trouble the House by repeating it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is make a mistake in saying that we are trying to dictate to the
972
courts or instruct the courts as to how they should treat this evidence. We are stating what the courts may do in order to remove any possibility of doubt and pointing out that the evidence is relevant.
I think that if the noble Lord looks at the phrasing again he will see that all that has been done is to make it clear that the courts, notwithstanding the fact that submission to a test, as the Bill at present stands, is voluntary, may treat this evidence in this way; I have heard doubts—not shared, I may say, by me—expressed as to whether, if the test was truly voluntary, the courts could look at a refusal although it was unreasonable. We thought it was fair to make it plain beyond peradventure. The only effect, I think, of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would be, as my noble and learned friend said, to render obscure what the clause meant. But if it means anything, it is a slightly more mealy-mouthed way of saying what we have put more plainly into the Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords who have spoken for what they have said. It is quite clear that noble Lords, on the whole, are against me. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.9 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "requested" to insert "by a constable". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage my noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord Somers moved a similar Amendment to this one. The object of their Amendment was to ensure that a request to provide a specimen for a chemical test was not made by anyone other than a policeman. I said at the time that I should like to look at it again with a view to putting down an Amendment on Report; and, my Lords, this is my Amendment. I hope that, in the form in which I have put it down, it will meet the views of the noble Lords concerned and of all noble Lords. It is almost exactly the same as that put down by my noble friend Lord Somers, but it uses the more usual word "constable", which is already taken to include a policeman of any rank.
I think it unlikely that the police will want to request a sample anywhere other than at a police station, but I should

973
prefer not to have in the words suggested by my noble friend Lord Teynham, because of the possibility that a sample might be requested at a hospital. Indeed, in due course, with the possible future development of the breathalyser, there would seem no reason why it should not be used on the spot. I mentioned on Committee stage the possibility that the request might be made by a doctor or by a police matron, who would not be covered by the term; but, on reflection, I do not think that that is more than a rather remote contingency and it seems quite unnecessary to provide for it. I feel that, in almost any circumstances when a request for a sample is likely to be made, a policeman will probably be present; in which case, if the request was made by a doctor and was refused, the policeman could formally repeat it. Therefore, my Lords, I think that I this proviso that the police only should request samples is a reasonable one. I hope your Lordships will think so, too, and that this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("requested") insert ("by a constable").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for this proposed Amendment, which I think meets the case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() If the accused refuses without reasonable cause shown to consent to the taking of, or to provide, a specimen for analysis or measurement as provided in subsection (1) of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a joint effort by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to put down something which would, we think, be workable to meet the case of those who feel that the tests should be compulsory and that, if a person does not agree to submit to a test, then he should be subject to a penalty. Noble Lords will remember that this point was fully discussed on Second Reading, and a number of noble Lords—a fairly high proportion of those who discussed this question at all—took the view that they
974
did not like Clause 2, particularly as it stood: they had some doubts about the effect of a person refusing a voluntary examination, and they felt that, on the whole, it would be better that the examination should be compulsory.
I share that view, as I have said all along, subject to one point, which is that I must be satisfied that the tests were fairly reliable. I am not sure that I am entirely satisfied now; but if any notice is to be taken of a voluntary test the same question arises. If the results of this test are not reliable, it is just as dangerous to take it into account as in the case of a compulsory test. Noble Lords on the Front Bench have taken rather different views about the reliability of these tests. Some have been more certain than others; and I think my noble friend Lord Taylor, perhaps, has been most certain of all. He has said that the tests really are reliable and can be depended upon as fair evidence of the amount of alcohol in the blood or in the system, and it is on that assumption that I am moving this Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount who I believe is to reply tells me that these tests are not reliable, or are not substantially reliable, then I shall have no justification for asking that they should be compulsory.
The case has been so full argued, both on Second Reading and on Committee stage, that I do not think I need argue it at any length this afternoon. Apart from the unsatisfactory drafting of the Amendment moved in Committee, the noble and learned Viscount gave two reasons why the principle could not be accepted. One was that it rather assumed that the facilities for testing were universal and were available all over the country, whereas that was not the case. He also went on to say that some of the equipment necessary was not even available in this country at all, and that it was perhaps premature to make the test compulsory. I would ask, if that is true, is it not equally premature to refer to voluntary tests, and to set up the whole paraphernalia of voluntary tests in this clause, when you have neither the equipment nor the facilities for carrying them out? If the noble and learned Viscount were to say that in answer to my Amendment, he would do far better to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and delete the clause, and to

975
put in something else which would hereafter enable the Government, if they so desired, to make provision by Regulation for the carrying out of tests, whether they be voluntary or compulsory. On the whole, I think that that might be a more satisfactory course.
The noble and learned Viscount raised a second objection to the Amendment moved in Committee. He said that compulsory testing was not practicable because, as the Amendment then stood, it would involve using force and compelling people to submit to having their blood or urine taken, or their breath tested. I suppose some tests would be much easier than others; but at any rate I can see the objection to forcing people to give their blood, and possibly holding them down violently. I think the noble and learned Viscount suggested that that might be necessary in some cases. He himself suggested that it would be better to impose a penalty in case of refusal, and that is the way in which the present Amendment has been drawn. I think that, subject to the test being a satisfactory one, it should be universal and compulsory. I think it is the only way.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, although I did not agree with his Amendment, was really protesting against something which is inherently unsatisfactory: this suggestion in the Bill that a person who does not agree to be tested is for all practical purposes (I know that the language of the clause does not go as far as that; but it means for all practical purposes) to be regarded as guilty. At least, the onus is shifted so that he has to prove his innocence. The noble and learned Viscount shakes his head, but we are dealing with lay benches all over the country, and a lay bench, looking at this clause, will say to themselves, "Here is this man; he has been wobbling all over the place; he smells of drink; his speech is a little thick and incoherent; he refuses to be tested and gives no adequate reason for it. Of course he is guilty." And the last straw would be his refusal to be tested. It is invidious, and I think the most satisfactory way out of it is to make the test universal and compulsory. For those reasons, I beg to move this Amendment. But I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that if he
976
is prepared to take his Amendment to a Division, I shall be happy to support it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the thought behind this Amendment, as I think my noble friend obviously has made clear, is that we, I think in company with a considerable number of your Lordships, are anxious that there should be available to courts the best and most reliable evidence possible as to whether a suspect was or was not in fact guilty. Some of us tried to bring that about during the Committee stage by moving for a compulsory test. As I understood it, two main objections to a compulsory test were put forward by Government spokesmen, in particular by the noble Viscount who leads the House. The first was that a compulsory blood test might amount to something like a personal assault. I could not help thinking that there were some somewhat imaginative pictures of people—screaming victims—being held down. Many of us have been blood donors, and I am sure we have never seen anything of that sort during that process.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend does not overlook the fact that he is dealing with people who are not entirely sober.
LORD ELTON: Yes; I make allowance for that. I admit that one might get one in a thousand who had to be held down, but let us waive that point. The objection is that it was, or might be, regarded as involving something like an assault. The first object of this Amendment is to get round that difficulty. In Norway they get round it by one of their latest Acts, which I think was brought in last year and which provides that a person who refuses to co-operate with the doctor or to undergo a medical inspection automatically loes his driving licence for two years. If within five years of the first offence he is again found guilty of the same offence of refusing to undergo an inspection when suspected of being drunk in charge of a car, then he loses his licence permanently. I should have preferred something of that sort. But this Amendment, although it does not go as far as that, does put some pressure

977
on the suspect to submit to one or other of the tests which the Government propound in this Bill.
There was, however, another objection, and one which interested me a good deal. It was put forward by the noble Viscount, and I am not sure I understood it. When I moved my Amendment for a compulsory test, the noble Viscount said [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 230 (No. 71), col. 982]:
"There simply is not the apparatus available, at the different hours of the night and day at which suspects are taken in, … All the noble Lord "—
that is myself—
"is providing by this particular Amendment is that the police cannot get a conviction in cases of this kind, even though the clinical evidence and the evidence of behaviour is absolutely overwhelming, unless one of these scientific tests is taken—";
and he pointed out that it could not always be taken, because the apparatus is not available. What I want to know is: was not the noble Viscount then thinking in terms solely of the blood test? That objection may be valid in respect of blood tests—I say "may be", because they have had blood tests in Norway for more than 30 years; and anyone who has driven motor cars in Norway, as I have scores of times, knows that the distance between police stations may well be up to seven hours of driving along roads bordered by unguarded precipices. Yet they have blood tests in Norway, and I believe the explanation of it is that the police have the right to take the suspect not to a police station but to a doctor, and a doctor may perhaps be more readily available than a police station in that country, and I should have thought might be available in this country also. However, let us waive the blood test point.
The point I really wish to make is that here we have three possible tests put forward in the Bill. The urine test requires no apparatus whatever, except the bottle suitably prepared which can subsequently be despatched to a registered police laboratory. How can it be said, in a country which is proposing to advance with space exploration, that it is beyond the capacity of our administrators and scientists to provide that bottles should be available in every police station? How can it be said, in other words, that the test is not available? As regards the urine test, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord
978
Silkin again reverted to the possibility that the test is not reliable, because I should have thought that anyone who had studied the Drew Report or the B.M.A. Report would have been persuaded that it is infinitely more reliable than any of our present methods, and is quite reliable enough for us to do what the Government are in fact proposing to do in this Bill—that is, to make it one of the means of testing the drunkenness of a suspect.
On May 11, as was reported in several newspapers, the Association of Police Surgeons had its annual general meeting, and they sent to Mr. Marples a telegram in the course of which they said:
"Specimens of urine serve equally well, and may be obtained without risk."
The noble Lord is, of course, aware that for some eighteen years in Glasgow urine tests have been the order of the day. They have been found perfectly satisfactory. The vast majority of persons who have been examined have agreed to the test. The authorities have accepted it as just and fair. Out of 522 persons proceeded against on this basis during the year 1957, which is the latest year for which I have any exact information, only 25 were acquitted. Out of 494, 457 were fined or sent to prison.
In effect, this Amendment is simply designed to put some pressure—pretty feeble pressure, I think, in view of the known reluctance of justices to impose the fines which they may impose—on suspects to submit themselves to this test. Once we dispose of the argument that these facilities are not available, surely we are brought up against the fact that the test is used in Glasgow, and has been used for eighteen years, with complete success. If it can be used with success, it surely brings about what we all want to bring about, which is that the best possible evidence as to guilt or innocence should be available to the courts.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am certainly against this Amendment, which seems to me to bring in a form of compulsion. If the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will allow me to quote his words—if he is not going to quote them himself—may I say that I think they meet the case extremely well. He said on the Committee stage, on this same part of the clause [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 71), col. 1007]:

979
"It is a reasonable compromise between severity, which would involve the compulsory test of the kind I have resisted, and laxness, which would allow anybody to refuse a test without that fact being immediately in evidence at the trial."
I entirely agree with those words. Then the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, who I do not think is in the House, went further and said that the intention of the clause,
"as I understand it, is simply to allow the fact of the man having been asked for a test, and his refusal to undergo it, to be given in evidence. Surely that is sufficient."
I certainly agree entirely with all those words.
3.29 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I opposed this Amendment when it was moved during the last stage of the Bill on the ground that it created an entirely new offence hitherto unknown, and I so argued on that basis. I will not weary your Lordships by doing the same thing again, but if I may take the argument which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in moving the Amendment, I should like to use the same basis against it. First of all, may I say that my noble friend Lord Elton argued a large part of his case not on the clause as it stands but on how it might stand; and he has come down to one of the three types of testing for which the clause is asking.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he was against the whole clause and not pressing this Amendment because at the moment testing was unsatisfactory—I think that is a fair way of putting what he said. I propose to go back to the conference of police surgeons, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton, about which I had a question down to-day. These surgeons are experts who deal with drunken drivers and test them now. May I quote, instead of the one sentence given by my noble friend, the last two paragraphs of the telegram from the conference? I will run them into each other, though there are some words in between.
"Withdrawal of blood for the purpose of estimating the concentration of alcohol in the tissues is undesirable. Specimens of urine serve equally well, and may be obtained without risk.… It was further agreed that apparatus at present available for the examination of the breath for estimation of the alcohol content is complex, and its results are not sufficiently reliable to be acceptable by a court."
980
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the situation which he described that these three tests are in an insufficiently advanced state to be acceptable—certainly does not apply. I would hope that he may seek to withdraw his Amendment and follow my noble friend Lord Teynham into the Lobby, if my noble friend divides the House on a later Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. It is to be noticed that the two noble Lords in whose name the Amendment stands take precisely opposite views on the merits of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has indicated that if there is a Division on the Motion to leave out the clause, he would support its omission. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, likes the clause and desires to strengthen it. I think it is worth pointing out that the two noble Lords are entirely opposed to one another.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I put the noble Lord right? There is not the conflict that he is making out. I am in favour of the principle of testing. I have some doubt whether it is sufficiently advanced and I only want this clause omitted and something else put in its place—that is, power to the Government, when they feel the time is ripe, to provide for testing by regulation. It really amounts to the same thing.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if I in any way misinterpreted the noble Lord, I am glad that he has put me right. I certainly think that scientific knowledge has made sufficient advances amply to justify the clause which Her Majesty's Government have inserted in this Bill. Let me say at once that this Amendment has not quite the objections to it that the previous Amendment for compulsory testing had.
In my submission, the argument against the present Amendment is simply this. It is not useful to create a new criminal offence, if the creation of that offence is wholly unnecessary for the purpose in view. The fact that a refusal of test without reasonable cause can be given in evidence, as it can under the part of the clause which we have already passed, means that there is an effective

981
pressure to undergo the test, if there is no reasonable cause for refusing it. For that reason, to make a criminal offence of the refusal is wholly unnecessary for the purpose which the Government have in mind.
It is also worth observing, though I do not profess to have examined all the legal provisions applicable in countries where such tests are used, that in many of them they find it effective to provide for these tests without creating a new criminal offence out of refusal. On an earlier stage, I ventured to give the example of one State in the United States which provided that consent to undergo a test should be presumed in a driver who applied for a licence and, if the test were refused, as in the Norwegian example which the noble Lord, Lord Elton mentioned, there is a sanction of taking away the licence. There are other methods which can be used, but the short point is that there is no necessity at all for a criminal offence to effect the purpose which the Government have in mind. And since the creation of a new criminal offence is unnecessary, it is also, on that ground, undesirable.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, as your Lordships know, I dislike all the contents of this clause. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment we are now considering, because to my mind it makes a complete mockery of any sort of justice that we may be seeking to insert into this statutory provision. As I understand it, Clause 2 (1) gives any person who is charged with an offence under this clause the right to refuse his consent to this particular form of test. The Amendment says, in effect, "Yes, but if he exercises this right, which Parliament has given, to refuse his consent to this test, he shall be fined up to £100." That does not seem to me to be carrying out justice in any way at all. I do not see how we can give a person the right to withdraw his consent and then, if he does so, make him liable to a criminal conviction.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and once more I will try to give our reasons for saying, with my noble and learned friend, that it is a wholly confusing proposal, which would
982
achieve nothing worth achieving. We decided, and the House endorsed our decision on Committee stage, after careful consideration, not to create a new offence of having a definite percentage of alcohol in the blood. If we had taken a contrary decision on that point, there might have been some value in compulsory tests. But we decided, at any rate in the present state of development, that these tests were valuable in conjunction with the other evidence—for example, eccentricities of driving and behaviour and other clinical symptoms—in ascertaining the truth about the quantity of alcohol consumed. For that purpose they are as adequate and as reliable as other tests ordinarily used as evidence in the criminal courts. They are not absolutely conclusive or foolproof, but they are perfectly adequate by the standards by which we judge our criminal procedure.
What we decided to do, therefore, was to allow the use of these tests—in fact, they are used at the moment in certain parts of the country for this purpose—and to provide for what their effect would be. We recognised that an unreasonable refusal would be one of the circumstances to which a court could look to draw a proper inference against an accused person in a proper case. That is the purpose for which we are using these tests and in that context they are valuable.
On Committee stage, I pointed out to my noble friend Lord Elton that it is not only unpracticable but undesirable to insist upon a test in every case. Clinical evidence may be quite sufficient without it; and there may be reasons why, in a particular case, a test, whether of urine, of blood or of breath, cannot be made available at the right moment. Urine is easily the most commonly available, but there are subjects who find it impossible to produce a sample, and there may be difficulty in collecting from women when the only persons present are men. I am not as satisfied as my noble friend appears to be that the mere provision of some kind of bottle is good enough in order to satisfy the requirements of the test.
The points about universality that I made on Committee stage do not really arise in relation to this particular Amendment. The arguments that I presented were designed to meet a particular Amendment which my noble friend

983
Lord Elton put forward on Committee stage, and which was not persisted in. I am bound to say that I do not understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that either these tests ought to be applied in every case, whether necessary or not, or they should not be applied in any case. That seems to me to be a false dilemma. They are useful in probably a wider range of cases than they are used in at present, but I should not think that they ought to be used everywhere, or not at all. That would prevent a number of convictions where the evidence amply supported a conviction without any test.
The reasons we have felt impelled to accept against a compulsory test are, I should have thought, amply sufficient. First of all, there is the question of public opinion. I do not suppose that anybody who lived through the Committee stage in this House—and, indeed, nobody who has listened to the three or four speeches which have come from my noble friend in this House during this short debate—could fail to realise that we must have public opinion behind us if we are to carry confidence in the use of these tests by the police. I would say that it is plain beyond peradventure that, if we were to make it an offence to refuse to submit to a test, we should not have public opinion behind us to that degree necessary in the light of the speeches that we have heard in this House, which represent wide and powerful opinions outside this House.
But the ultimate and, to my mind, conclusive answer against the Amendment is that given by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford. There was a modiæval philosopher who used the latin tag called "Occam's Razor": Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. I should like an amendment of "Occam's Razor" to say: Crimina non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. The only effect of this Amendment is to create a new crime—it does not do anything else—and before we create a new crime we should at least discuss whether any advantage is obtained by anybody if we do so.
The answer, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, is that, in the context of the way in which these tests are being used, there is no advantage in creating
984
a new crime, for this reason: that we have decided to use the tests as an aid to discovering whether a man is fit to drive, and to use a refusal as one of the relevant circumstances to be taken into account if he does in fact refuse. One of two circumstances must be true: either you could prove the substantive offence of being unfit to drive by reason of alcohol in the light of the refusal, as we propose to do, in which case nothing additional is gained by adding refusal as a second charge to the charge sheet, because the more serious offence will be proved; or alternatively, you cannot, in which case any court would be driven to assume that the accused person was innocent of the substantive offence, because he will not have been proved guilty, despite his refusal, in which case I cannot conceive of any court of just-minded magistrates imposing any significant penalty under the new clause. In other words, it is fundamentally a confused state of reasoning which has led my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to propose compulsion in this particular case. For that reason, I would urge the House not to accept the Amendment.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I do not like this Amendment. I think it goes too far. But since I have moved in the direction of the spirit behind it, this might be a good moment—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can possibly guess some part of what my noble friend is going to say, and I expect he would wish to speak on my noble friend Lord Teynham's Amendment, which has not yet been moved. I am not sure whether he would not find that a more appropriate occasion.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to say so, but I have to get away.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: By all means; I am sorry.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Your Lordships may remember that in Committee I suggested that these tests were somewhat misleading, and I accepted a challenge from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to undergo further tests. These tests have now been made. I must confess that at the beginning there

985
was some little dispute between the noble Viscount and myself as to what form the alcohol should take. The noble Viscount suggested, rather austerely, I thought, neat alcohol; but I pointed out to him that the most vicious drunkard would hardly ask for a double surgical spirit and soda. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, smartly countered by saying that with a slice of lemon it tasted quite delicious.
The tests were taken at Scotland Yard, with a doctor from the Medical Research Council in attendance. Here I must stress the extreme courtesy of the police. What I thought would be a minor ordeal turned out to be the most pleasant and informative occasion. Samples were also given to the biochemist who took the previous test. I thought, however, that I should not rest content with purely chemical tests. Other noble Lords, and I myself, expressed concern in Committee about the undeniable fact that one man can absorb far greater quantities of alcohol than another without prejudice to his judgment. It therefore struck me as important that we should have not only evidence of the alcohol content in the system, but also a report from those present at my imbibings on the psychological reactions of the guinea pig and his general capacity or incapacity to drive. This report I also have. I propose, first of all, to give quite briefly the results of the biochemical tests, and I will then follow up with the witnesses' observation of my general condition. I hope, incidentally, that I shall be forgiven if I seem to be reading a great part of this speech, but we finished our tests and discussions only last night.
For the tests I had what I had before, a quarter bottle of whisky, having abstained from drinking alcohol for the previous twenty hours. The results, both from the police laboratory and from the biochemist, were in the last analysis—and I repeat in the last analysis—almost identical. But there was this difference: that when I had drunk nothing, the police reading was 00, but that from my friend the biochemist was 9. That is an important difference, your Lordships may say; and, indeed, it is. But the point is that the methods of distillation are different. In one, with no alcohol in the system, you get a zero reading straight
986
away; and in the other you get a plus figure resulting from what is called the blank. But that figure is constant, and you subtract it automatically when you come to the final conclusion. Your Lordships may say that this makes a standard form of analysis desirable; and this may be so. But what matters is that the final results are the same.
My Lords, a biochemist attached to a hospital cannot afford to make mistakes. On his analysis may depend the life or death of human beings. And I am convinced that my friend does not make mistakes. I make this point most particularly, because in our earlier debate g noble Lord questioned his competence. I was sorry about this, and I would hope that the noble Lord in question would withdraw that remark. What we say in this House under privilege can be of deep consequence to individuals.
That point having been, I hope, satisfactorily cleared up, may I come to the second part of the Report, that which deals with my personal reactions to this large quantity of alcohol? On this the three observers are brief, but deeply informative. They say they were satisfied (1) that I showed evidence of being under the influence of alcohol, and (2), that in normal circumstances I should not be in any danger of being charged with being under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper charge of a motor vehicle. Your Lordships might think that I am going to argue from this that it is safe for anyone to drive a motor car when having drunk a quarter of a bottle of whisky on an empty stomach. I am going to do no such thing. I am convinced that a young woman or a younger person, or someone less accustomed to alcohol than myself, would be quite unsafe after half that quantity.
What I am going to argue is that there is a possibility of injustice in these quasi-compulsory tests. You are going to penalise the man who is found after an accident to have large quantities of alcohol in his blood, though in fact he may be in full, or almost full possession of his faculties. You may let off a man or woman who, for the first time in his or her life, has had two double whiskies and is utterly incapable of driving, though the alcohol content in his blood may be small. For let us not deceive ourselves,

987
juries and justices are going to be deeply impressed by these tests, and we can only hope that they will regard them as what they are—purely ancillary evidence.
I would say that in logic these tests cannot be defended. They may be factually and scientifically correct, but they do not take into consideration that most vital thing, human reaction and human element. My reason tells me that we should not have them. But, as I told your Lordships, I spent the day of the tests in Scotland Yard with people who know about death, accidental or contrived —policemen who, because of the grisly nature of their police duties, are not given to sentimentality. During the course of the day they told me much about road accidents, and they gave it as their confirmed view that drunken driving was one of the greatest single factors in road deaths to-day. I could not but be shocked and impressed. What finally settled it for me was when it was graphically pointed out that, had I seen the number of fine young bodies lying on the slab, mutilated and dead for no purpose, I should not only favour a statutory figure for the alcohol content of a driver's blood beyond which he should be declared incapable of driving, but I would demand that no one be allowed to drive if he had drunk any alcohol at all. An emotional argument if you like, my Lords, but from an unemotional man. And it convinced me. I think these tests may in the odd case lead to injustice, but they may save life and, therefore, I believe we must have them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

ZANZIBAR
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think it would be convenient if I now made the promised statement about Zanzibar. I regret that, as noble Lords will know, there has been serious rioting and loss of life in Zanzibar. The disturbances, which began on the 1st June during the election poll, are the result of tension between the African and Arab communities, and started with a number of sudden isolated incidents which took place at polling stations in Zanzibar town. The situation quickly deteriorated. Large crowds gathered in open spaces and small gangs in the maze of small streets in Zanzibar town attacked indi-
988
viduals. There has been a number of incidents on each following day. The British Resident declared a State of Emergency on June 1 and has imposed a curfew from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. The police have been reinforced by two general service units of the Kenya Police, by the 5th Battalion of the King's African Rifles, and two companies of the 6th Battalion. I regret to say that so far 47 persons have been reported dead, and that among some 300 injured, 78 have been admitted to hospital. The total number of arrests to date is 575, including gangs attempting to loot. The security forces have now been deployed throughout the two islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, and the latest report is of quieter conditions. My right honourable friend is in close touch with the British Resident.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving us the statement which has been made in another place. I am sure we shall all be concerned at the size of the serious loss of life and the number of injured which have been the consequence of this outbreak. We are glad to notice that there have been substantial reinforcements in the force available now for the maintenance of security, and I hope very much that the quieter conditions now operating will come back to complete peace in the community. But there has been some criticism as to the state of information in the possession of the authorities as to what kind of contingents there were going to be, and what security forces were required. One is a little anxious about communities of this sort, which perhaps are shaping up for self-government. If we do not see that proper steps are taken to have sufficient security forces to see a general election through, it does not augur very well for the future. I do not know whether the noble Earl could tell us why they should have been so imperfectly provided beforehand with the necessary security forces to see the election through.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I know that all the House regrets these events and, as the noble Viscount has said, we hope that the quieter conditions will prevail. On the point about why there were not further security forces at the time of the elections, I

989
would say this, first of all. There were elections only a short while ago—some six months ago—and at that time the forces were quite adequate. What happened this time I do not know in detail, but it is quite clear from the reports that the outbreak came on unawares and unplanned. I think there was no good ground to expect something different this time from the last.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Viscount that we are all very shocked at the loss of life and the damage to people, and possibly to property, in this territory, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in view of the statement by the Civil Secretary that the situation is quiet but confused and politically dangerous, and also the information which we have that there is considerable apprehension in the island of Pemba, he is satisfied that the present forces in those two islands are sufficient to maintain adequate security there?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think the quotation the noble Lord used was made by the Civil Secretary perhaps yesterday or the day before, whereas my report which talks of the quieter conditions was given to us at about lunch-time. Therefore, to that extent the situation is a little happier. On the question of whether we are satisfied that there are adequate forces, I can only say that if the British Resident felt there was need for any further increase, of course we would take the necessary steps.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the explanations he was giving just now as to why the possibility of this kind of outbreak was not known and provided for, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Secretary of State might consider having a special inquiry into the circumstances. It does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory explanation. Usually you do not get an outbreak of this magnitude and with such serious results to life and limb without having at least some intimation beforehand that it is likely to arise. Could we have an inquiry?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I was not trying to give a complete explanation of the reasons for the outbreaks in answer to what the noble Viscount said about
990
why we did not foresee the event. I was trying to make the point that there had previously been elections recently and the situation had not been dangerous. On the question of an inquiry, I would say that until things are a little more clear it would not be proper to consider that, but a little later it would be something that I should be glad to look at again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps if we repeated the question in a week's time the noble Earl would give an answer.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think that would be an entirely reasonable suggestion.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is part of Amendment No. 1 which we have already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
(" (4) Where the accused, at the time a specimen of blood or urine was taken from or provided by him, asked to be supplied with such a specimen, evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in the specimen shall not be admissible on behalf of the prosecution unless—

(a) the specimen is either one of two taken or provided on the same occasion or is part of a single specimen which was divided into two parts at the time it was provided; and

(b) the other specimen or part was supplied to the accused and, if he so required, was so supplied in a container of a type prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.") —(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I put down this Amendment to leave out Clause 2 not perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may think, with a view to striking out the clause but rather to obtain a statement from the Government as to whether an inquiry has been made as to the extent to which blood, breath and urine tests can be effective in disclosing the amount of drugs which have been taken by motorists—drugs which, either in conjunction with alcohol or otherwise, may have some material effect in impairing his ability to drive,

991
Your Lordships will no doubt remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill the Leader of the House, in reply to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, used these words:
"I should certainly not think that the same tests which would be applicable to alcohol in the blood, urine and breath would necessarily be valid for drugs".
I think he further went on to say that he would cause an inquiry to be made. Perhaps it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to make a statement on this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I shall find it very difficult not to support this Amendment, if the noble Lord, Lord Teynham intends to press it —he now says that he does not. Perhaps if he had said that before, when he was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, it might have save the House some inconvenience. Because my Lords, I am one of those who believe that we must have these tests. I think they have to be made compulsory and there must be inserted in this Bill a standard of alcoholic content, either in the urine or in the blood, above which guilt is automatic; as the noble Earl Lord Arran, said, a content of alcohol in the system that is sufficient to impair the proper and safe driving of a motor vehicle.
I believe this sincerely, and during the Recess and since the Committee stage I have made further investigations—though not the same kind of investigations as were made by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I sat through two whole days of quarter sessions listening to two charges of being drunk while driving a motor car. Incidentally, it was cheering to me to note that, despite popular opinion, in each of these cases a verdict of guilty was found by the jury. They could hardly have come to any other verdict on the evidence. In one case the whole of the evidence was medical: there was no other witness, because the accident which led to the prosecution happened very early in the morning. Unquestionably the accident could not have happened if the driver of the car had not been under the influence of drink: but the question was: to what extent?
992
The medical evidence by the police surgeon and by the doctor called for the defence went on for 2½ hours, in examination, cross-examination and reexamination. After the case was over I asked why this was, in spite of the fact that an analyst, who gave his evidence clearly and well, had stated that the alcoholic content found in the urine of this man was sufficient to support the charge. I forget the number he had reduced it to, of pints of beer, or single whiskies; but it was far higher than any content that I have heard in clinical measurements mentioned in your Lordships' House. Now that has convinced me. I asked why all these other tests were necessary, and I was told that the reason is that a police surgeon must be certain that, when he is cross-examined, the defending counsel cannot point to one thing he has not done. As I have said, in the case I heard the interminable argument went on between counsel. And it is, of course, their duty to put questions.
If this Bill goes through as it stands to-day, if this clause goes through without there being prescribed a definite standard, and without any compulsion, in what way will the situation be different from what it is to-day? The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, almost convinced me with his argument that, as the Bill is now drafted, there is as good as a compulsory test. But the argument by defending counsel is going to be: "But my client can stand more drink than that; he is a hardened drinker. Six whiskies and sodas are nothing to him". My Lords, are you going to add to this turmoil of argument? What are you doing to correct the position in which we find ourselves to-day? I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House will give a specific answer to this question; how much further does this clause take us, as it is in this Bill to-day, than where we are without it?
If we deleted this clause should we be any worse off than we are to-day? I doubt it. First of all it will only give rise to more argument, the first grounds of which will be: why did the defendant refuse the test? That is going to be the argument. Is that going to be taken as a sign of guilt? Legal argument on that point will go on and on; then when that argument is finished, in the absence of

993
any standard of alcoholic content counsel are going to argue and argue again.
Are we going to take public opinion with us? As I said on Second Reading, I think that the Government have made a mistake. They adopted the principle that to correct the evil of driving when under the influence of alcohol drivers should be subject to a test, and then, in my view, they ran away from it. I do not think they are prepared at the present time—and in this they may be right—to go "the whole hog", if I may use the expression.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, you may not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With, of course, apologies to the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House. I do not think the Government are achieving anything by putting this subsection into the Bill until, first, they are satisfied with the tests, and secondly, they are satisfied that they can make one of them compulsory, or if they do not want to have them compulsory, they can make them quasi-compulsory, if I can use that expression, as they are. But there must, in my view, be a standard. Where the content is above that standard there is no argument. The only argument that can then take place, in either the magistrates' court or quarter sessions, is in mitigation, but the man is guilty.
I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said. It is no good giving loopholes for argument that one man's constitution can absorb more alcohol than another. You are never going to get anywhere like that. My hope is that the Government—and I think they would be wise to do so—will drop this particular clause entirely, let the matter stand as the law stands to-day, re-think the whole matter out until they are satisfied that they have the apparatus that can satisfy themselves, whether it is an agglomeration of the three tests or any one of the three. I think the Government would be well-advised to have another think, as perhaps they already intend to do, and to drop this clause out of the Bill and bring in, perhaps in another place, or back in your Lordships' House at some time next Session, a proper and well-thought-out standard on which medical opinion can agree and which the House and the public will support.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I deal first of all with the second speech to which we have listened and then come back to that of my noble friend, Lord Teynham? I somewhat faint before the prospect of saying again what I have now said three or four times about the standard of alcohol in the blood. It was argued exhaustively in Committee, and the House has endorsed three or four times our decision not to have one. I would only, therefore, condense in a very shortened form the arguments which seem to me to be overwhelmingly against it. The truth of the matter is that neither the tests nor the standard have adequate scientific validity to justify what is proposed. Assuming that there is—as there certainly is—a wide range of idiosyncrasy in the human body, any Government that sought to impose a standard of alcohol in the blood as a conclusive test for this offence, or alternatively to make the standard itself into a new offence, would be faced with an impossible dilemma, which I thought the House had accepted. Either the standard asserted in the Act would be too low, in which case a number of perfectly innocent people would be convicted or it would be too high, in which case a number of drunkards would treat it as a minimum. There is really no way out of that dilemma. We have taken what we believe to be the reasonable course, and the House has supported us, and I would ask the House to support us again.
As regards the remarks of my noble friend, Lord Teynham, I think I was completely accurate in what I said in Committee, but, as I promised, I have made inquiries about drug tests. I should like, therefore, to make the following observations, which are the result of that investigation. In practice testing for drugs, as distinct from drink, is extremely rare. Testing for salicylates—that is, the aspirin group of drugs—is carried out as a matter of routine in every case where a sample of urine is analysed, but testing for other drugs is not carried out unless the forensic science laboratory is notified in advance that there is reason to think that a specified drug is present in the sample. In the ordinary course the medical practitioner who carries out the clinical examination at 'the police station will ascertain whether the

995
accused is suffering from the effects of a drug; sometimes the police inquiries will elicit this information. Chemical testing for drugs on the relatively small specimens usually provided by accused drivers is a more difficult matter than testing for alcohol, and it will not always be possible to make any precise quantitative analysis, although the analyst will probably be able to say whether the drug is present in a relatively large or relatively small quantity.
Of course, it might be represented that since existing methods of testing for drugs do not always produce accurate results, the provisions concerning the admission of evidence of the proportion of a drug, again as distinct from alcohol, found in a specimen ought to be taken out of Clause 2, and, in particular, that a refusal to submit to a test for drugs ought not to be admissible as evidence in support of the prosecution. I think it is relevant to say that the provisions in the Bill with regard to the submission of evidence about chemical testing for drugs, being purely permissive, are better in than out, and in practice there is no danger of the defence being prejudiced, since such evidence would be given on behalf of the prosecution only if it was scientifically valid.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount continues, would he be kind enough to answer the specific question I asked him? If this clause goes through, how will the law be altered from what it is to-day in regard to these tests? Because the noble and learned Viscount himself said in a speech he made this afternoon that the urine test is taken to-day in quite a lot of cases in the country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am a little puzzled as to exactly what it is the noble Lord wants. Clause 1, of course, slightly alters the statutory definition of the offence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am referring to Clause 2.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: None of the provisions in Clause 2 is spelt out in the existing law. One of the advantages of Clause 2 is that it clarifies the existing law. There are people who would say
996
that the existing law goes as far as Clause 2, and there are others who would say that it does not go nearly so far. One of the great advantages of Clause 2 is that it clarifies the existing law. It also includes a number of quite valuable provisions, some of which have been inserted by this House in Committee, for the supervision of the tests and for the protection of the subject when they are applied. These are real advances in the protection of the subject, and I should have thought were real improvements in existing practice. It is, of course, quite true, if the noble Lord wishes to take the point, that this is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary clause. It is based upon existing practice. It is based upon the existing offence and not a different offence, and it really provides a clear method of ascertaining, so far as science can, the actual amount of alcohol consumed by means of the blood content, as a guide in conjunction with other evidence, to elucidate the question whether the accused person is fit to drive within the definition of Clause 1. Because the existing law cannot, I think, be stated with complete confidence, it is equally not possible to state with complete confidence how much further we have in fact gone.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation on the question of drugs, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Disqualification on conviction of certain offences
3.—(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act the court shall order him to be disqualified for such period not less than twelve months as the court thinks fit unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise.
(3) Where a person convicted of an offence specified in the said Part I or the said Part II has within the three years immediately preceding the commission of the offence and since the commencement of this Act been convicted on not less than two occasions of an offence specified in those Parts, the court shall order him to be disqualified for such period not less than six months as the court thinks fit, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise.
4.20 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "otherwise" and insert:
"him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are minor Amendments to Clause 3 (1) and, if I may refer to it at the same time to save your Lordships' time, Amendment No. 14 is a similar Amendment to Clause 3 (3). These are the first Amendments to that clause; there are some others, and no doubt there will be some discussion about certain provisions of the clause. If I may, with respect, suggest this course, I think that perhaps the discussion would be better taken on the next or subsequent Amendments, and not on these Amendments because they are so minor. Perhaps your Lordships would consider accepting them in the meantime.
What they do is this. In subsections (1) and (3) there is provision that the court shall order disqualification in certain circumstances for minimum periods, unless the court for special reasons "thinks fit to order otherwise". The words "thinks fit to order otherwise" originated in the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Those words were right at that time to deal with cases where disqualification followed automatically from a conviction unless the court ordered that it was not to follow. They are not right to describe accurately the situation envisaged under this Bill, where the courts are required in certain circumstances to order disqualification but, if they do not wish to do so, are allowed to refrain from making an order, instead of making a definite order that it shall not happen. These Amendments are moved merely for greater clarity in the law, to make it plain that if the courts decide not to impose disqualification, they merely refrain from doing so, and are not required to make an order that the offender shall not be disqualified.
The only reason why the Amendment is not virtually drafting is that it makes clear and spells out that the court may also for special reasons order a period of disqualification less than that which is specified in Clause 3. I would ask your Lordships to accept these Amendments on that. As I said, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will in
998
the near future be saying more about this, because it is an innovation. It is not one of great principle, but it enters into what he is going to say to your Lordships. I therefore ask that your Lordships will accept these Amendments, of which I beg to move first, Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("otherwise") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am speaking personally when I say that I am willing to be accommodating and to go a long way in taking on faith what the noble Lord has said. I should like to be clear about one thing. There is reference in this clause to "special reasons". As I understand it, the law is that "special reasons" relate to the circumstances and not to the particular person who is accused. If this Amendment makes no change in that position, but merely clarifies the word "otherwise" as meaning less than twelve months or no disqualification at all, then I am perfectly satisfied. I should be glad to have the noble Lord's assurance that that is the position.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. It is rather difficult to explain so simple and small a matter without making it look most complicated, and I am sorry if I was not able to do it quite so explicitly as I should have liked. But that is what it means. It clarified the word "otherwise", but it would not have been honest, I think, if I had put it to your Lordships simply in that way without drawing attention to the fact that there has been inserted this provision that the time of disqualification may be less than that specified in the subsection as printed. In short, the answer to the noble Lord opposite is, Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have listened throughout much of the debate that took place on the Committee stage and to everything that has taken place here to-day. There is one thing about this Bill which does not inspire me with any confidence at all. I understand that under the Bill the power is taken from the courts to consider a

999
case on its merits, and automatic disqualification takes place following the most minor incidents—those connected with tail-lights or headlights, or any minor incidents of that character of which one may think. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, whether it is really a fact that, for some of the most minor offences, a person may suffer disqualification?
Then there comes the question that has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that of "special reasons". The ordinary motor driver will have no idea of what "special reasons" mean unless he can be told by the Government quite definitely what they are. We are told that "special reasons" depend upon a decision of one of Her Majesty's Courts of Justice. I do not know anything about that. I have not seen it in any Bill; I have not seen any definition of it, nor have I even heard one. In view of the very large number of cars and commercial vehicles on our roads to-day, surely we ought to be able to give better guidance than can be got from reading this Bill.
Take the case of a lorry driver whose tail-light goes out once, or perhaps twice; or maybe he takes a wrong road and goes somewhere where he ought not to go. He is convicted and his licence is taken away for six months. That man has lost his livelihood. Are you really going to take away a man's livelihood for offences of that sort? It seems to me a most tragic thing. I suppose it will be justified by saying that it is in the interests of road safety. But does road safety depend on a tail-light? Does it depend on a fellow taking a road that he ought not to take? Does it depend on silly things like that? It seems to me that we must have a definition of what are "special reasons", so that everybody can understand the definition, and so that a person knows that where special reasons are set out in the Act and that sort of thing, he will probably suffer for it. I, as a road user, have no idea of what "special reasons" may be. I have listened to the whole of the discussion on this Bill, but I have heard nothing to improve my knowledge.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount who replies for the Government can do anything to help us,
1000
but I would ask, most sincerely, that the Government should, if possible, give us an idea of what "special reasons" are. And if, as I rather imagine from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, there is to be some alteration in the whole set-up of the Bill, I hope that it may be clearly explained to us, so that the ordinary individual like myself, without too much intelligence in these matters, and no legal knowledge, may quite clearly understand the position and thus avoid breaking what will be the law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (3).—(Earl Howe.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I moved this self-same Amendment on the last stage, and the noble and learned Viscount my Leader persuaded the Committee that he was right and I was wrong. I still disliked the clause, but I was quite prepared to accept the judgment of the Committee. But what has happened? The noble Viscount the Leader of the House persuaded your Lordships on my Amendment, which was exactly the same as this Amendment we are now discussing, that this was not a matter of detail but was a matter of principle; and I agreed with him.
My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong in saying that the case for the Government was simply this: that there were certain offences (and they appear in Part I of the First Schedule) which were in themselves serious or dangerous. Then Part II of the same Schedule contained those offences which might be serious or might be dangerous. They could in most cases be trivial, but they were of such a kind that the Government felt that, even if they were trivial, if a man committed any of them three times in three years it meant he should lose his licence for six months. The principle had nothing to do with the seriousness of the offences; it was simply that he should not be on the road. We then came to the less serious offences in Part III of the Schedule. The case was put to the Committee and was accepted by a comparatively small majority.
But, my Lords, what do we find now? The whole principle on which my Amendment was defeated is thrown overboard. Certain offences which in themselves can be serious or deliberate.

1001
or which can be trivial are to come out of Part II of the Schedule. I quoted the actual case of a tail-lamp which had gone out when the driver was not in a position to know that it had gone out. Something of that nature is quite trivial. But suppose that a man, on a rather dark, foggy night, is late leaving his office and is going somewhere to dinner in the pouring rain. He finds that his tail-lamp has gone out and that he has not a spare bulb. If he takes the view, "I cannot be bothered; I must get to dinner", and gets in his car and drives to the dinner that is a most serious and dangerous offence, because it is deliberate. I should be glad if everything came out of this Part II. But why is this offence being taken out? It is not on the principle enunciated by the Government when they defeated my Amendment. I showed that an offence could be merely silly, and I said then that this subsection (3) could not be amended to make sense. I think that this proves it. There is, evidently no principle involved of the kind the Government put forward. I agree with what the Government said first of all: that this is a matter of principle. I maintain that this subsection is wrong in principle.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, during the Committee Stage I put down an Amendment to subsection (3) of this clause which would have ensured that no individual would be unfairly or unreasonably penalised for offences which did not involve actual danger. Her Majesty's Government, in resisting this Amendment, said—and it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I think—that the words "likely to involve danger" would better meet the case. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House indicated that he would consider this in relation to other undertakings, but he said that his difficulty was on the use of the word "danger". With all due respect, I would point out that this very word already appears in the Bill, in paragraph 22 of Part II of the First Schedule. In this it is laid clown that it is an offence to use a vehicle on the road under certain conditions
"so as to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger".
Those are, in fact, the very words suggested by my Amendment during the Committee stage. I hope, in view of the fact that the question of danger is al-
1002
ready covered in the Bill, that the noble Viscount will look at the whole matte again.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it would be convenient if I used this Amendment from my noble friend Lord Howe to explain the various Amendments to Clause 3, to which we shall come a little later, which have been set down on behalf of the Government in the light of the criticisms of the clause which were made in Committee. I should like to say, to begin with, that I personally regard Clause 3 as, so far, the most valuable in the Bill; in fact I think that it is the acid test of the seriousness of this House in dealing with road accidents. I must say that absolutely plainly. Of course, I have some reason personally for knowing, I think, a little about motoring accidents. A very large part of my practice at the Bar was concerned with them. I have also departmental responsibility nowadays for the Road Research Laboratory, and I know how strongly they feel about matters of this kind.
Many, many times in your Lordships' House I have heard the kind of speech which says, "Let us deal severely with serious offenders but leave the ordinary motorist out of it." There is a certain amount of truth in that in dealing with drunken driving or with reckless driving which creates accidents. But it is my belief—and I say so quite frankly—that we have achieved the maximum or, at any rate, very nearly the optimum deterrent effect on really wicked driving by existing penalties and those which we propose in the Bill. In my experience, as in the experience of anybody who has a long acquaintance with accidents and their results, I think one is driven to the conclusion that the great majority of accidents in this country are due to negligence. They are not due to wickedness; they are due to negligence—the same kind of negligence that leads to accidents on the shooting field; the same kind of disregard of safety precautions that leads to accidents in the Army; the same kind of disregard of safety precautions that leads to accidents in factories. So unless we are going to deal with negligence we are not going to deal with accidents.

1003
Of course, one answer is better roads. We are not discussing that point at the moment, but no account of the matter would be adequate or proper unless one placed it in the perspective of better roads. Better roads are part of the policy of the Government and, I hope, of this House towards accidents. They reduce accidents enormously, because they reduce the consequences of human negligence in relation to driving; and, of course, that is part of the answer. But no amount of better roads will prevent fatal accidents with the increase of motor traffic; and it will be a very long time even on the most optimistic forecast, before we have a road system that will be adequate to reduce accidents even to the maximum to which good roads could reduce them.
In the meantime we have to face the fact that people disregard safety precautions. They go too fast; they do not keep a proper look out; they shoot over traffic lights; they drive on the wrong side of the road, and they disregard the white lines. Of course, danger is not always involved. That, quite honestly, is my answer to my noble friend Lord Teynham: it is impossible to say that danger is always involved. It depends on whether there is another man there. But that is the kind of practice which must be treated, I am afraid, as potentially lethal; and unless we are prepared to deal with this with a certain degree of seriousness of mind, without undue tenderness about it, we are not serious in our attempt to prevent motor accidents.
We know from experience that disqualification is the one punishment which is both appropriate to the crime and is effective. In 99 cases out of 100, imprisonment is wholly inappropriate. Imprisonment is always inappropriate for negligence, I should think—it is an appropriate punishment for wickedness—but disqualification is both appropriate and effective. The one fact on which there is absolute agreement among both those who have studied the question scientifically and those who have studied it in the courts is that it is an effective punishment.
We are not removing the discretion of the courts; my noble and learned friend is quite wrong about that. We never were. Still less are we removing the discretion of the courts under the
1004
proposals which I am about to explain. They will have a discretion except in the three or four most serious offences contained in Part I, and except in the circumstances where an accused person has committed three offences in Part II in three years. In each case then, the disqualification is automatic, subject to something which I am about to say, and in the absence of special reasons—another subject to which I must obviously refer, in view of what my noble friend has said. But I am afraid I must insist that, if we are serious about tackling accidents, there must be a class of cases in which disqualification becomes automatic for the disregard of safety precautions. There is room for a great deal of argument as to the circumstances in which that is right; there is room for a great deal of argument as to which offences it should apply: but I seriously say that, unless we are prepared to do it in some circumstances in relation to some offences, we shall not make a serious attack upon the accident figures.
Now I should like to cite one particular experience which establishes the importance of an automatic disqualification. We have, as a matter of fact, some very precise figures. Until three or four years back (I think 1956, but it was three or four years back) the punishment for the offence of driving while uninsured was automatic disqualification. The figures then were that there were about 22,000 convictions a year, and, under the automatic disqualification, 80 per cent. were disqualified. In the remaining 20 per cent., special reasons were found. We took it off in 1956. The result has been that the convictions have doubled—that is to say, the incidence of the crime has multiplied by two in less than four years—and the disqualifications have gone down to just over one-third. The truth of the matter is that if we want the end, which is to reduce the road accident figures, this is the means. We can refuse to take it, but then we are not serious about attacking road accidents—and I say that seriously.
I make no concealment of the fact that when this proposal was put forward on Second Reading every individual offence had been argued and re-argued by officials and Ministers inside the Government. I will say perfectly candidly to my noble friends that, if one looked

1005
at a Schedule containing about 35 offences (which I could name), one would find no two intelligent people who held exactly the same views about all 35. Therefore I approached the Committee stage without any preconceived ideas or dogmatism, except about one or two things which I have either mentioned or will mention. The result of the Committee stage, in my mind—and I was able, after having reported to my right honourable friend, to persuade him that this was right—was to lead me to two broad conclusions.
Perhaps I should say, by way of introduction, that Part II of the Schedule, which is the one we are really talking about at the moment, started on Second Reading with 24 offences in it. The result of the Committee stage, purely statistically, was that, owing to the Amendments proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, that figure has arisen to 27 or so. I make no complaint about that. My noble friend Lord Conesford was slightly more severe than my colleagues had been at first blush in this matter; and, on the whole, the House supported him, and did not support the Government when we resisted his severity. That has been accepted by the Government as a clear indication of the wish of the House; and we accepted it in good faith and, I hope, reasonably. I am paying no idle compliment to the House in saving that I was quite convinced, when I brought these proposals to the House, that only an open discussion in Parliament would really improve them. We had gone as far as internal discussions inside the Government could possibly take them.
However, I came to two conclusions about the criticism which came from the other side. The criticism of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, in substance, was that we had omitted offences which ought to be there. The other criticisms were, on the whole, that we had been too severe: that we had included offences which we ought not to have included, and that the field was open, despite the fact that, among the millions of drivers that there are, there are relatively few—probably I could find out the statistics, but there are very few drivers—who are convicted three times in three years of these offences, even among the
1006
professionals who do over 100,000 miles a year. But there were criticisms that certain offences, by their very nature, were too trivial to be included in these severe offences; and, also, that the courts should be given a limited discretion. When I answered the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent on Committee stage, I said frankly that I would go through the offences in the Schedule very carefully indeed to try to reduce those about which there could be legitimate doubt as to whether they ought to be included in the more severe provisions of Part II; and, secondly, that I would look into the question of a limited discretion.
My Lords, I and my colleagues have done both those things. In the first place, we have given the courts a limited discretion. We have done so by a machinery which I describe here only shortly, but which will be dealt with more fully in one of the subsequent Amendments. We have tied the automatic disqualification in Part II not to the fact of conviction, but to the fact of endorsement. If there are three endorsements, there is automatic disqualification. The question of endorsement, both in the first two offences and in the third, is now a question of limited discretion; but the discretion is limited by the doctrine of special reasons—special reasons fortified by the provisions which the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches, Lord Goddard, asked for in the Committee stage: that those reasons should be set out in a form in which they can be challenged in a superior court.
The provision as it stands, therefore, is that three convictions will result in endorsement on three occasions, and three endorsements make a disqualification if they take place within three years. But in the case of each endorsement in turn the court may, for special reasons, forgo it, and, in that case, it does not count for the purpose of automatic disqualification. After very careful consideration of all the alternatives, we have adhered to the phrase "special reasons", and we have decided, after various attempts, that it is quite impracticable—and, indeed, not in the interests of the motorist himself—to give an exhaustive or precise definition of what those special reasons can be. We think that would fetter the discretion of the courts too much.

1007
All I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said when he was sitting in a judicial capacity, was, in substance, two things. The first was that a special reason must be special and not general; the second was that it must apply to the circumstances of the offence, and not to the circumstances of the offender. Subject to that, the court can find anything a special reason, so far as I know, and the wider the discretion, the more I should have hoped my noble friend Lord Howe would have been pleased with the width of the definition. We thought at one time of introducing words like "trivial" or "inadvertent" into the definition, but we came to the conclusion that this was really not practical politics, and that the existing phrase, which has now been the subject of three or four decisions either in the Divisional Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal, is really the best way of tackling it. That is the first thing we did: to reintroduce a limited discretion of the court for special reasons to forgo endorsement, and thereby secure that each offence can be disregarded for the purpose of any subsequent automatic disqualification. That is a very substantial concession, but I think it is an improvement.
Secondly, we have, in a great deal of detail in Amendments which come later, pruned the list of offences which come within this part of the Schedule. That, again, I personally think of advantage. It so happens that all Lord Howe's examples have now been pruned away from the list. Every one that he chose will no longer count against the lorry driver: neither the lighting offence nor the choosing of the wrong road. So we have done a great deal to make concessions to criticisms we received in Committee. I do not agree at all with my noble friend Lord Derwent that we have thereby abandoned the principle. On the contrary, all we have done is to take account of the criticisms which have been levelled at us—that we were adopting too serious a view of what safety precautions to employ within the more severe provisions of the Act.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I, myself, never made that point about Part II. I never said that some were too serious or were not serious enough. The
1008
whole of my argument was that Part II left no discretion for the court at that time, whether serious or otherwise.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we have sought to take account of my noble friend's point, and I think we have kept the principle. There is one other thing that I ought to say, which I am afraid may not be altogether agreeable to my noble friend Lord Howe. One of the happiest memories of my youth was when I read in the paper that the Prince of Wales had fallen off his horse, and that the honourable Frank Curzon had been convicted of speeding. I am afraid the offence of speeding is still there, and I must say that it is there for a very good reason. We are convinced, and so is the Road Research Laboratory, that this is something which requires a realistic speed limit and requires just enforcement, and wise and legitimate enforcement. It is one of the things we have to tackle seriously if we want to reduce the road casualty figures. We are under no manner of doubt about that.
A very wide series of experiments in traffic engineering have been carried out, which have been published by Doctor R. J. Smeed, of the Road Research Laboratory, and the publication was reproduced in the publication Roads and Roads Construction. The effect of these is this. I want now to quote from a statement in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science, made only a few days ago. He said, in answer to a question [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 640 (No. 111), col. 1089):
"The Road Research Laboratory has analysed data from a number of countries on the speed of traffic and on accident frequency before and after speed limits were imposed.
"It was found that speed limits, although exceeded by a high proportion of drivers, produced a major effect in reducing very high speeds. Their imposition in urban areas was usually followed by a marked reduction in serious accidents …".
Then he went on to say that it had little effect in reducing speeds just above the limit, or on the number of slight accidents.
That is our conviction, and I think it is the conviction of anyone who has had long experience of road accidents, either forensically or scientifically. I am

1009
bound to say that I regard the general provision that there should be some automatic disqualification attendant on what I might call "offence proneness" after a certain time, and on the inclusion of speeding within those offences, subject only to the revision of speed limits in a realistic sense, as the acid test of our seriousness in dealing with the question of road accidents. That is the attitude of the Government on this Amendment; and I hope, in defining it, that I have also made clear what is really being done in the Amendments which follow in the name of my noble friend.
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I should like to express my personal thanks to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having so fully explained the position of the Government in regard to this matter and for having taken us into his confidence as to the intention and object of the future Amendments which deal generally with this clause. May I say, straight away, that I share with him to the full, as I know he does, the passionate desire to do something to reduce road accidents? I also agree with him that this House will very largely be judged on the attitude it adopts towards seeking to achieve that aim. Also, I would remind him that on a previous discussion of this Bill I committed myself to the view that I had no personal objection to the principle of automatic disqualification.
Having said that, I must repeat that I do not think that this clause is the right way of achieving the objects that we have in mind. I wish I could think constructively of something better to offer the noble and learned Lord, but it is, as I think your Lordships are aware, exceedingly difficult for a Back Bencher to offer, on such a comprehensive and complex subject as this, a constructive Amendment which is going to be all-embracing. I think, however, that the Government have gone some way—a considerable way—toward meeting the criticisms which were addressed at a different stage in regard to this matter, and I am grateful to them for having done so.
I was surprised and rather apprehensive at one remark made by the noble and learned Viscount, if I understood him aright. In the first place, he argued, as I entirely agree, that the one effective
1010
deterrent and punishment in regard to the commission of offences which give rise to a lack of road safety is disqualification. But, having gone on to say that we are now seeking to establish the fact that the Government, and public opinion as a whole, is determined to improve road safety, he then, as I understood it, indicated that the probability is that, out of all the millions of drivers on the road, there would be only very few who would be likely, under the provisions of this Bill, to become subject to automatic disqualification. If that, in fact, is so, I think it is going to be exceedingly difficult to see how we are going to achieve our object. It is difficult for me to argue that there are going to be more disqualifications than my noble and learned friend anticipates—I hope with him that there will not be, for the reason that there will not need to be—but, on the other hand, if we are going to use disqualification as a deterrent, then I think it must so be used. I am exceedingly anxious, however, lest the number of offences which will qualify for disqualification should become so great as to render that particular form of punishment one which the courts become loth to inflict simply for the reason that it is becoming too common. I think that in the history of our country we have found that reaction coming from our courts, where they have felt that public opinion had swung round against the official view of what punishment fits the crime.
May I add one word on the question of speed limits? I think that this all depends on whether the Government intend speed limits to be imposed in a realistic and constructive manner. If the speed limits are in built-up areas, where there is a danger of children running across the road or of vehicles coming out from hidden turnings, I entirely concur. But I beg the Government to avoid falling into the error, which has been fallen into by many other countries, of imposing an all-over speed limit in open roads all over the country. This is totally unenforceable, unless there are speed cops and police traps all the way up such roads as the Great North Road. And they largely do away with their own object. Therefore I trust that the Government, if they are seeking to pursue this line, will adopt a realistic and sensible attitude towards it.

1011
Finally, I am frankly not seized with what are going to be considered "special reasons". Probably we shall have an opportunity of going into this in greater detail a little later, but I enter my caveat that, if special reasons are the reasons such as I have come to understand them to be from listening to the debates here, they may be too narrow for the purpose for which they are required.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I share with the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House the desire to reduce accidents on the road, but I venture to disagree with him on the question of speed limits. I also venture to disagree with the Road Research Laboratory on this point, though perhaps that is a bold thing to do. Any experienced motorist knows what is the safe speed to drive at. This word "speeding" is a very misleading term. Driving at a modest speed of 31 m.p.h. in a built-up area is, technically speaking, speeding. Let me make this quite plain. I am not in favour of driving faster than is absolutely safe on any given stretch of road in any given car by any given driver. But there are so many totally unnecessary speed limits that it is practically impossible, unless one drives with one's eyes glued to the speedometer, which I think is an extremely dangerous thing to do, to know whether one is going too fast. A great many people exceed the speed limit daily with impunity, but if this regulation comes into force, I fear that that impunity will no longer be there.
If a motorist is driving through London at 12 o'clock at night, I cannot see that there is much danger of a child suddenly running across the road, and though I would certainly not drive at 60 m.p.h., I do not see any harm in going up to 40 m.p.h., or something like that. Would it not be possible perhaps to put a time limit on speed limits? Would it not also be possible to restrict speed limits to those areas in which they are really necessary? We have only to drive round the country to see numberless futile impositions of speed limits on roads that are in open country. There is a stretch between Epsom and Leatherhead, which is completely open with the exception of Ashtead, yet is subject to a 30 m.p.h. limit the whole way.
1012
Disqualification is a very heavy punishment, and though I am all in agreement with its use for offences which are going to cause danger, I cannot see why a punishment of such severity should be imposed on anybody for exceeding by two or three miles a totally unreasonable speed limit. I have an Amendment down to move this offence from Part II to Part III, but I thought that this would be an appropriate moment to speak about it.
5.7 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think that the House would be prepared in a moment to come to a decision on this Amendment. I rise only because my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House was good enough to mention the Amendments which I sought to make, and which have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, to add certain offences to Part II of the First Schedule. The only important point on which I differ from the speech which my noble and learned friend made in dealing with this Amendment is that he sought to connect the merits of subsection (3), which this Amendment proposes to omit, with the number and nature of the offences which should be included in Part II.
Many of us took the view, because we shared my noble and learned friend's view of the effectiveness of disqualification, that everything should be included in Part II as an offence for which we might disqualify if it was already on the list of offences for which drivers could be disqualified and there was no reason to believe that the right to disqualify had been abused. Many of us, including my noble friend Lord Derwent, for that reason did not wish to diminish, but on the contrary wished to increase, the number of offences included in Part II of the First Schedule. The point on which we were doubtful was the merits of subsection (3). I think that the whole House, whatever view noble Lords took on that, agree that the Government have made a real effort to meet many objections that were then raised.
I am going to reserve my attitude on the proposed omission of offences from Part II until we reach the Amendments concerned, but I thought it right to make clear that my objections to subsection (3) had nothing to do with the number of

1013
offences that might be included in Part II. We may find subsection (3) agreeable or not agreeable. I am not going to raise this again because on a Division at an earlier stage the Committee decided that it was in favour of subsection (3) in principle. I may say that I voted against the Government on that occasion, but the Committee decided that point, and I think that we should accept it at this stage as a matter that has been decided, especially as the Government have gone a good way to meet the various points of criticism that have been made. I raise the matter now only because I do not think that it follows, merely because some discretion has been given to the court and on account of various other improvements that the Government propose to incorporate, that it is right for them to claim, as a matter of course, that there is merit in reducing the number of offences for which disqualification can be awarded.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the argument, but I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for what he said, both on disqualification and about speed limits and about this being the acid test of how serious we are in our desire to reduce accidents. The only other thing I would say is this. I hope that he will not take too seriously my noble friend Lord Brentford's plea that we should never consider imposing a speed limit on the open road. It has already been tried on special occasions in holiday seasons with considerable success—and by that I mean a reduction of mutilation and death—and it has been introduced in many European countries and in most of the States of the United States of America without the difficulties of enforcement which are sometimes alleged against it. The noble Viscount said that the Government have statistics showing that after the introduction of the speed limits there had been notable reductions in death and serious accidents. He did not say whether he was referring only to speed limits in built-up areas, but I think I am right in saying that that reduction of serious and fatal accidents did follow not only on the introduction of speed limits in built-up areas, but also on their introduction on the open road.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I rise only to say that I thoroughly agree
1014
with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, about its being unwise to take too many of these offences out of Part II of the First Schedule. But would not what he seeks to accomplish be achieved by some Amendment such as the next one, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, under which we could keep discretionary disqualification for certain offences without having those offences all included in subsection (3)? I think this would be achieved by some such provision.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in view of what has been said, I do not propose to press the Amendment. I should, however, like to tell the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that for the first time I think I understand the Bill a little. I feel that the Government have done their best to improve it, and I only hope that events will show that they have improved it. I hope the noble Viscount will not be too severe on the speed question, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (3), after "or" to insert "paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Gosford and myself. Without wishing to repeat what I said on the Committee stage, I should like to state that the sole object of this Amendment is to ensure that there will be compulsory disqualification for a third offence within three years only for the following three offences: dangerous driving, careless driving and being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. Noble Lords will recall that on the Committee stage the noble Viscount the Leader of the House stressed the wish of the Government to discourage the habitual offender with regard to serious offences. That, I feel, is a justifiable attitude, and if the two previous offences were of a serious nature, and were included in Part II, then it would seem right that the third offence should bring about this compulsory disqualification.
But to take, for example, offence No. 13, failure to comply with traffic

1015
directions, that may be committed unknowingly, possibly in the mist, to which my noble friend Lord Chesham referred on the Committee stage. Then, with regard to offence No. 22, committed in contravention of the Construction and Use Regulations, it could happen that it would be theoretically right to convict, but wrong in practice, because a horn might have gone out of action due to a flooded area in winter. Surely, in a case like that it would not be practicable to abandon the vehicle. Then, with regard to reflectors which are fitted in accordance with regulations, these are frequently stolen by children when a vehicle is stationary. In a case of that sort, surely it would be absurd to abandon the vehicle.
As a further example I would mention the possibility of a driver of a public service vehicle or a lorry finding himself in charge of a vehicle with a defective or punctured silencer—it could be that the silencer was in a rusty condition and had become punctured during the course of the vehicle's outing. It would be the operator of the vehicle and not the driver who would be to blame on account of faulty maintenance. In that case, there could be no blame attaching to the driver—because it is not his duty to inspect the vehicle before he takes it out—but he would be liable to lose his licence.
May I now consider offence No. 19, that of a contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations—
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but he made rather a long statement about faulty silencers and so on, and I am afraid I had some difficulty in following him. I am not sure under which paragraph of Part II he is suggesting that disqualification will follow.
LORD MERRIVALE: I understand that it would come under the Construction and Use Regulations (I believe it is Regulation 77), which is offence No. 22. With regard to offence No. 19, contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations, again an offence may be committed under conditions of mist or fog, or purely because the driver just at that time finds the sun in his eyes. He may be an extremely careful driver, and it would not be his fault if he unknowingly committed an offence.
1016
With regard to Offence No. 14, it is conceivable that a vehicle could have a breakdown—for instance, a rear-axle could "pack up" just round a blind corner. If the driver was in charge of the motor car, no doubt he could see that the vehicle was removed from the road; but in the case of a lorry or a public service vehicle that would not be practicable. As I understand Section 16 of the principal Act, this offence constitutes an absolute liability, and the driver would in my view appear to have no defence. This offence may be the third within three years, and the driver would therefore lose his licence and livelihood at the same time.
Before ending, I should like, with other noble Lords, to refer to this question of "special reasons", because I feel, as other noble Lords have said, that it is an important point. As I see it, the Government Amendment to Clause 3 constitutes a clearer indication to the court by the substitution of the word "otherwise" in lines 35 and 46 of page 2. But in effect, in conjunction with the next Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, it is little more than window-dressing, for I am advised that, as a result of decisions of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, the circumstances in which courts are entitled to decide that special reasons exist are unsatisfactorily restricted. Also, as my noble and learned Leader said on Committee stage [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 73), col. 1248]:
"'special reasons' means special to the offence."
It may be, however, that the two previous offences committed within three years were of a less serious character, and that, in spite of mitigating circumstances, the driver was convicted. The third court would be unaware of the circumstances which had been brought up before the two previous courts, and therefore they could do nothing but automatically disqualify, in spite of the fact that it might be the first serious offence of that driver. I would therefore ask your Lordships to support this Amendment, because the court would still retain discretionary powers of disqualification for all the offences in Part II, and if the circumstances warranted it the driver could still be disqualified for a third offence committed within three years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("or") insert the said words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the obvious care he has taken to meet some of the wishes of the House in the Amendments which he and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will be moving. But it seems to me that we are still very much in the position that the motorist is guilty unless he is proved innocent, instead of the reverse.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, can my noble friend point to a single provision in this clause which says that the motorist is guilty unless he is proved innocent? If he can, I shall be very much surprised.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I am afraid I am batting very much as a local cricket team against a Test bowler. But it strikes me that the motorist will suffer automatic endorsement, if he is convicted, unless there are "special reasons". That seems to me rather going towards the situation I mentioned. I am with the noble Viscount in everything he said about the serious necessity of reducing road accidents, and it may be necessary (and I think it is) to produce this new Bill so that the motorist knows full well that if he misbehaves himself, in the jargon, he has "had it".
There are still, however, some offences—those in Part II, other than offences 8, 9 and 11—which seem to me to be too technical in character for this harsh treatment to be meted out. I am not going into detail. My noble friend Lord Merrivale has already cited some of the possible cases, and it seems to me that these offences should not be subject to automatic endorsement—unless, of course, the court decides otherwise—because there are so many occasions where these particular offences cannot be the responsibility of the driver. The result of this legislation will be that where at present, if drivers are summoned on any of these offences—I apologise for stopping, but I should like my noble friend to hear this particular point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: The point, as I see it, is this. For these offences, other than 8, 9 and 11 in Part II, in
1018
most cases at the present time the driver, or the owner of the vehicle, if summoned, usually writes in, pleads guilty and pays £2 or £3 in so far as he considers it to be a technical offence. Now I think it will be found that anybody who is summoned for one of these offences will automatically fight it. What the result will be in the courts I leave to your Lordships' imagination. I think you will find that business in the courts in motoring cases will almost come to a standstill. To come back to the original reason why I joined my noble friend Lord Merrivale in putting down this Amendment, it seems to me quite wrong that these purely technical offences should be automatically subject to such harsh treatment. As Lord Merrivale has already said, anybody convicted for the offences can be disqualified.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to add one point which has not been mentioned during all the stages of this Bill; that is, that when there is an accident on the road it is not necessarily the motorist's fault. There are others who misuse the roads—for instance, pedestrians (though I think perhaps my noble friend Lord Elton, as Chairman of the Pedestrians' Association, would not admit that), and also cyclists and dogs. I do not think that the motorist should be held guilty for something which he cannot prevent. I regret to say that, although I have the greatest respect for the magistrates of our country on the whole, there are quite a considerable number of them who share the view that when there is an accident the motorist is always guilty. In fact, I know of some courts where any motorist knows that he might as well plead guilty at once. There are not many I admit, but there are such courts. As I have said before, I think disqualification is too severe a punishment for offences which either are not the motorist's fault or do not cause danger to other people.
5.30 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the Bill as originally drafted was obviously unacceptable to the House, and we must be grateful to our noble Leader for having gone out of his way, in a rather ingenious manner, to try to make it less objectionable, but I still believe that the method put forward by my honourable friend Lord Merrivale is a better one

1019
than the one put forward by Her Majesty's Government, because one simply cannot deny that there are a number of offences which, per se, are likely to be left in and I believe it to be quite wrong for there to be automatic disqualification on an accumulation of trivialities.
We are, of course, arguing to some extent in the dark, because we do not know to what degree our noble Leader is prepared to meet my noble friend Lord Teynham on Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 dealing with special circumstances, because as the special circumstances now stand the position would be most unsatisfactory. I agree with my noble Leader that disqualification is the greatest sanction. The courts can, of course, disqualify, and if they will not do so and do not do so it is either because they are refusing to administer the law, in which case British justice is not functioning as we always believe British justice does function and there should be some reform of the courts, or else there are far more cases of mitigating circumstances than the Government are willing to admit. I cannot believe that the right principle is to lay down automatic penalties for the courts to impose because that is thought to be the only way by which the courts will impose penalties severe enough.
Curiously, to-day, on browsing through that national daily the Daily Herald, I came across a relative passage in an article by a barrister. He said:
"Less than a century ago English Statutes prescribed minimum sentences for a lot of offences, both grave and trivial. They belonged to the Dark Ages of futile severity and perverse acquittals by sympathetic judges. They have all been repealed because they did not work."
It is Her Majesty's Government's claim that this country is not a régime of perverse acquittals by sympathetic courts, but that would appear to be the burden of the case they are making over this particular matter.
The three offences Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which my noble friend seeks to include, are severe ones and I would compromise with my principles to the extent of being willing to admit automatic disqualification for three offences of that nature, but I should be very reluctant to admit automatic disqualification for three cases of speeding quite regardless of the
1020
circumstances. I welcome the Government's conversion, and believe it is a conversion, to the belief that speed causes fatalities. Of course it always causes accidents and the faster you go the bigger the bump; therefore, the faster the speed the more likely you are to have fatal casualties. But to-day the limits are not realistic. Even the new commercial vehicle speed limit put forward by the Government for 40 m.p.h. is not a realistic one when one knows that traffic has to proceed at 45 m.p.h. to keep the trade of the country going. But, as I say, we are arguing very much in the dark because we do not know Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the special reasons Amendment further on.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, may I say one word on this Amendment? I certainly feel that there is a great deal to be said for automatic disqualification with regard to a person who consistently breaks the law, consistently driving dangerously or something of that sort, but I think there is a great deal in what Lord Merrivale has said, that many of the offences contained in Part II are hardly what one would call offences justifying automatic disqualification. I submit to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that maybe some considerable difficulty will arise in this respect. Subsection (3) provides for automatic disqualification if three offences have been committed in three years immediately preceding the act for which the driver is charged, and then he is to be disqualified unless the courts have special reasons why they think fit to order otherwise. What are those special reasons to have regard to? What are the special reasons? I can well understand that in many of the instances which Lord Merrivale gave the courts may say: "That was a very trivial offence and we ought not to take it into account." But I am not sure that they can, because under this clause it will rank as an offence.
If there have been three offences within three years it seems to me that there is little room for the application of special reasons. Magistrates will apply special reasons in the most extraordinary circumstances. That is one of the reasons why, in a case to which various uncomplimentary references had been

1021
made, the court over which I was presiding thought it necessary to lay down that the reasons must be special to the offence and not to the offender. I am leaving that matter out for the moment. But I am in great difficulty to see how this provision is going to work, because circumstances which would give a court discretion—not to enable them to exercise discretion—would have nothing to do with the offence which the driver has actually committed; because it is not the offence which he has actually committed and for which he is before the court which will lead to his disqualification, but because it is the third occasion on which he has been before the court. There is no getting away from that. The application of special reasons to avoid automatic disqualification will give rise to very considerable doubts and difficulties.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House is bound to respect any view which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, expresses on a matter of this kind. I have approached this particular provision with a certain amount of suspicion; I felt very much as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale did. On the other hand, we have to do something about the persistent offender, and I think a lot of cloud has been engendered in this by calling some of these offences technical. When you describe an offence as technical you are thereby implying that it is not at all a serious matter; yet I submit that it can be a serious matter. Take one of the technical offences—driving over a pedestrian crossing. You can call it technical if you like, but I have seen some people driving over a pedestrian crossing to the very great danger of pedestrians, missing them by inohes.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as one who is co-sponsor of this particular Amendment, may I say this? I am sure that particular offence would come under the heading of dangerous driving, under No. 8.
LORD HAWKE: Or at least under the heading of careless driving.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Not necessarily; otherwise it would not be necessary to have a regulation to enforce it.
LORD SILKIN: I merely instance that as dealing with the thing by a misuse of
1022
words. You call it technical. You call it technical also if a person has been deprived of a certain apparatus, his horn. That is a technical offence; but it may be very dangerous indeed.
I do not want to go through all the various paragraphs under which Clause 3 (3) can operate. I would suggest the possibility that one or other might be eliminated, but I could not possibly agree to a wholesale elimination. The clause provides that there may be special reasons, and, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, I cannot myself see the difficulty that a court would have in applying it. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, gave a number of instances. There may be a fog or a mist which would prevent a person from seeing the pedestrian crossing. If it was so bad I do not know whether he ought to be driving at all, but at any rate he might not see the crossing in time. Would that not be a special reason?
LORD GODDARD: That is a special reason with regard to the previous offence. What makes him liable to disqualification is the fact that there have been two previous offences.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect, I think what is misleading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, is that he has not really considered the effect of the Amendments on the Paper, which I did endeavour to explain before, and which render his observations inapposite to what is in fact proposed.
LORD SILKIN: Of course, it is the fact that three offences have been committed, but it is the last offence which counts to make up the three. Subject to what the noble and learned Viscount will say in reply, I should have thought that the court could quite properly say "This is a special circumstance" if some child had stolen a piece of apparatus and the owner was not aware of it. While he might be guilty of the offence, because the Statute says so, there would be a special circumstance which the court could take into account. At any rate I hope so—I hope that the courts can be sensible about these things. It may be necessary to widen or define what is a special circumstance. I myself should not be prepared to agree that it should go so wide as to cover the

1023
offender himself. I do not think there should be different law for different types of people. But if the existing understanding of what is a special circumstance is not wide enough, I think that the Bill should so widen it as to enable the court to take into account the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, had in mind.
LORD MERRIVALE: Would it not be a factor that one court may consider the stealing of the reflector by a child as a special reason—I do not know at all; I have no legal knowledge on the matter—while another court might take a completely opposite view?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, realises that our Amendment does not stop endorsement of licences. All we are asking is that for offences 8, 9 and 11 disqualification should remain automatic unless the court decides otherwise, but that in the other cases the court should have a discretion.
LORD SILKIN: I follow that. But I think disqualification should be automatic unless the court decides that there are special circumstances. If the noble Lord had his Amendment it would mean that there would be no automatic disqualification for a good many of the offences which I think are serious and which are referred to in the second Part of the Schedule, whereas my own view is that the words "special circumstance" ought to be wide enough to cover the exceptional case, of a reflector being stolen, or of the weather being so misty that the driver could not see the crossing, and so on. I think that if that were the case then this provision would be perfectly satisfactory.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may say so, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I think that he has largely confused himself by not studying the Amendments which are down in the name of my noble friend as to what is proposed. He gave the House a whole series of examples which one after the other are dealt with under those Amendments, and only one which was not. The first was the reflector. The reflector will be out; that point the Government have accepted. The next was the silencer.
1024
The silencer was never in, and is not there now. It is simply the noble Lord who thinks the silencer is in. It is not there now because of the words referring to danger which are in the First Schedule, in No. 22. Then there was the car which broke down at a corner and was supposed to be left in a dangerous position. If the court has the discretion which I propose, I cannot myself conceive of a much more obvious example of special reasons.
Of course it is quite true, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said, that as the Bill was originally drafted it was the third offence which counted. But this is not so under the concessions which I tried to explain to the House about a quarter of an hour ago. What counts now is each separate offence, because the automatic disqualification now attaches to three endorsements and not to three convictions as such, and each endorsement has to be considered by the Bench which tries that offence. The Bench which tries that offence will, if these concessions which I have tried to explain take place, be entitled to find special reasons why it should not endorse. It follows that the great difference between the Bill as originally drafted and as we hope it will emerge from Report is that it is not only the third offence which counts.
It is true, of course, that speeding is still there; I have never concealed that. And it is also true that the pedestrian crossings are still there. I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. These are not trivial offences, and the Government cannot consent so to deal with them. We can have the argument once more, as one always does on Road Traffic Bills; you can say that if there is a child actually on the crossing you can prosecute for dangerous or careless driving. So you can. You can say if there is a car on the other side of the corner when you disregard the double white line you can prosecute for dangerous or careless driving. So you can. But the truth is that experience over 50 years now has taught us that there are safety precautions which have to be observed whether or not there is danger. The Government are not prepared to treat as trivial offences which disregard these safety precautions simply because danger is not actually caused.
What is proposed by this Amendment is to limit the automatic disqualification

1025
to the seven serious offences listed in Part I of the First Schedule, together with the first offence of dangerous driving (the second offence already being in), careless driving, and the offence of being in charge of a vehicle whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. For the reasons which I explained, the Government are not content to limit the automatic disqualification to persons who have committed these offences three times. Of course it is true that if you impose regulations regarding pedestrian crossings, or if you impose a speed limit, there is an element of the arbitrary; but there is also the fact that those regulations have been found to be necessary in order to ensure safety on the roads, and unless they are supported with adequate penalties, whether or not a prosecution for dangerous or careless driving accompanies them, we are not really being serious in enforcing those regulations. Having said that, I would say that we have done all that we could to assuage the legitimate feeling of anxiety which noble Lords have expressed.
I do not think it is a coincidence that all the examples which have been given, with, I think, only one exception, are cases with which, in my belief, our proposed Amendments already deal. On only one, that of speeding, I frankly admit there is a difference between us; but I think we should be deceiving ourselves if we thought that the mere fact that you quarrel with the actual speed limit is a reason for not treating speed limits seriously—it is a reason for changing the speed limits. Nor should we, I think, be doing other than delude ourselves in imagining that the ordinary prosecution for exceeding the speed limit applies to people who have just exceeded it. Obviously, if you are going to have a limit at all there is a group of people who have only just committed the offence. But that may be an argument against having a limit at all.
However, it is inherent in the nature of a limit that you ought to draw the line somewhere. All you can do about that is to make sure that there are not any prosecutions for trivial offences of just exceeding it or, in the case to which we revert from time to time in these discussions (which I must say I have never heard of in practice), of the driver who is driving just in excess of the speed limit on an empty road in bright moon-
1026
light at 2 o'clock in the morning. Nobody with actual experience of the way in which these limits are enforced really thinks that this is a typical case I have never heard of one. Of course, this may be a reason, as my noble friend says, for putting some kind of clock on the speed limit, to say that after a certain hour it shall not apply. That is quite a separate issue. The issue with which we are confronted in this Amendment is whether we should be sufficiently serious about speed limits, which, in practice, have justified themselves, to attach an automatic disqualification to persistent offenders even though they do not happen to have been prosecuted for dangerous or careless driving in the same connection. This is a perfectly clear point, and I must say that it is one to which the Government attach importance and on which, beyond the point which I have tried to explain, we cannot make many more concessions.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I never thought that I should be able to claim that I know anything which my noble and learned friend did not know. But I do know of the case of a young friend of mine who was fined £5 and had his licence endorsed for driving through Holyhead at, I think, past midnight when there was nothing else on the road.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It may be that he should have appealed against his sentence. Obviously, I cannot deal with individual cases of that kind. I can only say that it is an extremely rare one.
I should only like to say this to my noble friends Lord Gosford and Lord Somers. There is nothing in the Bill, or in this clause, which presumes a motorist guilty until he is found innocent. The Bill deals with the penalty which may or may not be imposed if he is proved guilty by the ordinary standards of criminal justice. There is no basis at all for their fear that a motorist is to be presumed guilty. I do not myself agree with the rather different point made by my noble friend Lord Somers, that there are, in fact, magistrates who presume motorists guilty despite the clear law to the contrary. If there were any case of such a bench, I should hope that my noble friend would feel it his duty at once to report the magistrates to the Lord Chancellor for an extraordinary dereliction of duty, or

1027
alternatively, that the litigant might have the common sense to appeal, either by way of a writ of certiorari to the Divisional Court, or to the Quarter Sessions to get the decision reversed.
But I tell my noble friend that certainly my own experience of lay magistrates—I think it is fair to say that many of your Lordships are actually magistrates—is that they are excessively tender to offenders, and that if they have a fault it is that they do not impose disqualification where a more stern but a more just judge would do so. They are mostly motorists themselves and they have every reason to be tender towards motorists. I think that my noble friend Lord Somers is dwelling in the world of Kipling's particular village that voted the earth was flat. This may have been true 60 years ago, but it has no relation to my 25 years of experience in the criminal courts, either those presided over by trained lawyers or those presided over by lay magistrates, who I think, do a fine job in accordance with the provisions of the criminal law.
LORD SOMERS: I was not born 60 years ago.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, unlike my young noble friend Lord Somers, I am not young—I am now 87—but I have driven a car since cars came on to the road. I have never been before a court in any way whatsoever, for dangerous driving or any other sort of breaking of the law while driving. I have sat here I think for the whole of this Bill, and I do not think it is going to get us anywhere unless we insist that those who break the speed limit at 12 o'clock on a moonlight night—and they have broken the law—are punished, whether or not there is any danger on the road. Unless you insist on the speed limit being rigidly adhered to you are going to have a continuance of death on the roads. The chief thing about this Bill is that you must definitely decide upon whether or not the speed limit is to be adhered to. When anybody exceeds it he must be punished for so doing. With great respect to my noble Leader and others who use the roads, as I have, I say that we must insist upon that. The speed limit is the chief thing, and if you do not adhere to the legal speed limit you will continually have these appalling casual-
1028
ties on the road. I hope that the Government will insist upon such a rigid adherence throughout this whole matter.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, there was one point upon which I should be most grateful to have the noble and learned Viscount's clarification. As I understand it, under the Bill as it now stands with the Amendment about to be introduced, a person may be convicted of two offences, both of which carry compulsory endorsement. If he is then convicted of a third, let us call it a minor or technical offence, which does not carry obligatory endorsement, he must, despite the Bill as it stands with the Amendment, be disqualified. Reading the Bill, as I understand it, there is no question but that if he has already been convicted of two offences and he is then found guilty of a third offence, he must be disqualified, even though the third offence does not necessarily carry disqualification. If on the other hand, he is convicted of the same offences but in a different order—No. 1, carrying obligatory endorsement with it; No. 2, carrying endorsement at the discretion of the magistrates, and they do not endorse; and No. 3, again carrying obligatory endorsement—he gets oft lighter. I do not know whether I have made this clear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. But the position is exactly the same, in whatever order the offences are committed. In Part I there is an obligatory disqualification, anyhow—on the first, the second or the third one, if it comes within Part I. If he comes within Part II, then the licence will be endorsed unless there are special reasons. If there are no special reasons, three endorsements carry a disqualification in whatever order the offences are committed. But if in respect of any offence special reasons are found, there will be no endorsement, and that offence, in whatever order it is committed, will not count for the purpose of automatic disqualification.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am entitled to speak only by leave of the House, but I should like just to say that I still believe that the courts should retain discretion with regard to the third offence; that is, an offence contained in Part II. I feel that the courts can perfectly well appreciate whether or not the

1029
offence is serious. With those few words I would say that I do not wish to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (3), after "Parts" to insert:
"and particulars of the convictions have been ordered to be endorsed in accordance with section five of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first of the series to which I have referred, and I have, I think, explained how this works. Clause 3 replaces the existing provisions of the 1960 Act as to disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence. Subsection (3) provides that where a person commits any offence listed in Parts I or II of the First Schedule and has already had two convictions for any such offence within the three years immediately preceding the third offence, the Court shall order him to be disqualified for not less than six months unless, for special reasons, they think fit to decide otherwise. The reasons for that original provision I have fully explained, but the experience on Committee led us to believe that the discretion given to the court should apply to all three of the offences, and not just the one; and that there should therefore be a limited
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foley, L.

Sinha, L.

Allerton, L.

Gosford, E.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Hawke, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howe, E.

Swaythling, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Terrington, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Cross, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Falmouth, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Merthyr, L.

Auckland, L.

Goddard, L.

Molson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newall, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hampton, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bossom, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Brentford, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Silkin, L.

Chesham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Strang, L.

Conesford, L.

Latham, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denning, L.

Lawson, L.

Teviot, L.

Derwent, L.

Lindgren, L.

Torrington, V.

Digby, L.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Dundee, E.

Lucan, E.

Williams, L.

Elton, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

discretion in the case of each of the three offences not to allow it to count for the automatic disqualification.
The machinery by which we propose to achieve that is, I think, most clearly to be seen from Amendment No. 17. This series—Amendments Nos. 11, 16, 17 and 20—I think we might conveniently take together. The way we have done it is to provide, first of all, that, on the occasion of the third offence, the court may for special reasons omit either to endorse or to disqualify: on the two previous offences, the court may, for special reasons, not endorse. In each case, by a subsequent Amendment, the court must state what its special reasons are: it must state the reasons which have influenced it to use its discretion in favour of the motorist.
The expression "special reasons" has come in for a certain amount of judicial comment; but, as I say, the only limitations imposed by the courts of which I am aware in relation to the reasons are, first, that they should be special to the offence and not general reasons; and, secondly, that they should not apply to the offender, but should apply to the circumstances of the offence. The kind of thing which I would say was a special reason was very well exemplified. I think,

1031
by my noble friend Lord Merrivale in the course of his previous Amendment, when he gave the case of a man whose car broke down on a dangerous bend. He was incapable of moving it and he found himself, by some quirk of misfortune, prosecufted for leaving his car in a dangerous place. I am not myself sure that he was rightly advised that he had left his car at all. I should have thought that, in a sense, the car had left him. But, assuming against him that he had left his car, I am certain that special reasons would be found in that case.
A fairly general but not, I think, unreliable indication of the scope of special reasons is afforded, I think, by the figure which I gave in rather a different connection two or three Amendments ago. Before we removed the automatic disqualification for driving while uninsured, there were about 22,000 convictions a year, of which about one-fifth were not disqualified, the bench finding special reasons. Therefore, I suppose that one might find that, in a fairly wide minority of cases, for one reason or another, the bench would certify that there were special reasons, and a motorist would accordingly be exempt from the imposition of the automatic penalty.
I feel that this is a better protection for the motorist than if we were to seek to categorise what the special reasons are. It is difficult to foretell the hazards of the road or the misfortunes which can overtake motorists. My own feeling is that one can trust the bench, for the reasons which I have given—largely because they are themselves motorists—to recognise when an offence has been trivial or inadvertent, or has arisen purely through circumstances which the motorist cannot control; and if they can be satisfied about this in a sufficiently clear way, not amounting to mere sentimentality or tenderness of heart, I think it would be adequate for the purpose.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount: when do the special reasons start? There are people going about at the present time who have endorsements on their licences. Do those come in?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is nothing to do with special reasons. These provisions will not begin to operate until
1032
the Bill becomes law. I think the noble Earl will be able to start with a clean sheet. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, after ("Parts") insert ("and particulars of the convictions have been ordered to be endorsed in accordance with section five of this Act").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I hesitate to challenge something that the noble and learned Viscount has said, but he just now gave an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about the question of a third conviction causing an automatic disqualification. If one reads subsection (3) with the proposed Amendment in it, it would appear that, if the two previous convictions have been endorsed on the licence, the new offence, the third offence, would cause an automatic disqualification whether or not it was endorsed on the licence. If I may read it, it says:
"Where a person convicted of an offence specified in the said Part I or the said Part II has within the three years immediately preceding the commission of the offence"—
that is without any qualification about endorsement—
"and since the commencement of this Act been convicted on not less than two occasions of an offence specified in those Parts, and particulars of the convictions have been ordered to be endorsed in accordance with section five of this Act …",
and so on. That would seem to indicate that it does not matter whether the third conviction has an endorsement or not, provided the first two have endorsements. I may be entirely wrong in my reading of what was suggested should be the amended subsection, but that is how it appears to me to read.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but I think the noble Lord is not so much wrong in his reading as in not having read far enough. He should have read on to the clause which says
"unless the court, for special reasons, thinks fit to order otherwise".
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, would this be a convenient moment for me to ask my noble and learned friend one point for clarification? Suppose that the third offence—we always seem to assume that people will commit three offences within the specified period—is a Part I offence, so that he is automatically

1033
disqualified for not less than twelve months on that Part I offence, and also becomes automatically disqualified by the cumulative effect of having been convicted of three offences, two of which have been endorsed, and the third of which carries obligatory disqualification. What I want my noble and learned friend to tell us is whether the two disqualifications run concurrently or consecutively. Because previously during the course of these debates we have been somewhat apprehensive about the cumulative effects, and I understand that it is the Government's intention to clarify those parts of the Bill, when they come under consideration, so as to ensure that, if there is an accident in which a multiple collection of offences has been committed, one of which carried the liability of endorsement, there will be only one endorsement to count in respect of that cumulative episode of events. Therefore, I hope that the Government will say that in this case, where there are two liabilities for disqualification, they shall run concurrently and not consecutively.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think there may be two separate points here. This, of course, does not arise on the Amendment at all, so I am being a little unguarded in replying without taking counsel on the matter. First of all, it does not count twice in respect of the same occasion, even though there may be two different charges in relation to the same set of circumstances. It is quite clear that it does not count twice. It is the occasion, not the number of charges effectively proved, which counts.
I think my noble friend may find the answer to what he asked in subsection (5) of Clause 3, which provides at the moment as follows:
"The period of any disqualification imposed under subsection (3) of this section or on a conviction of an offence under paragraph (b) of section one hundred and ten of the principal Act"—
which is the section on driving while disqualified—
"shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification imposed … under this section or under the principal Act or an enactment repealed by that Act or under the Motor Car Act, 1903".
Therefore, that means that the period is additional to, and not, I suppose, concurrent with, the automatic disqualification imposed by this clause. I think that
1034
is right, but I am afraid I was taken slightly off my guard.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I feel exactly the same difficulty as my noble friend Lord Swaythling feels about this clause, and I hope the Government will look into it again. I think there will be great difficulty in applying this clause, because if there are two endorsements on a licence, then if a third offence is committed, according to the Bill the offender shall be disqualified for a certain time, unless the Court, for special reasons, thinks otherwise. But what special reasons could there be? The fact is that he is liable to disqualification because, in the past, he has had two endorsements on his licence and has now been convicted of another offence. This other offence may be the kind of offence where the magistrates, if it had been a first offence, would have said that they could not give disqualification at all. Then the answer is: "Yes, but he has already been convicted twice". Therefore, as I read the clause, he would have to be disqualified. However, Heaven forbid that I should try to elucidate a matter which I am sure will give rise to a great deal of litigation and several briefs to the Bar! I will not say any more. I can only say that I think there will be great difficulty.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think difficulty will arise, but having regard to the fact that the noble and learned Lord feels some difficulty, out of respect to him, and indeed out of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, I will have this matter looked at again by the draftsman. If there is a difficulty, it is purely a drafting difficulty; but I do not see the difficulty at all, myself. The Bill, as originally drafted, said that on the third conviction—and it so says now—the court must order a disqualification unless, for special reasons, it orders otherwise. That means that in relation to the third offence there always was a discretion. The discretion, however, did not arise in relation to the other two offences, and the difficulty which arose on the original draft related to the fact that, if two previous offences had been committed and the offender had incurred automatic endorsement, the only set of special reasons the court could consider were the special reasons attaching to the third offence.

1035
The only difference we have made to that—but it is a vital difference—is to provide that the court need not endorse on the two previous occasions for special reasons. That means that in each case, in the absence of special reasons, there must be an endorsement; and in the third case there continues to be an automatic disqualification, in the absence of special reasons. In each case the court may find special reasons in the appropriate way in favour of the motorist. If there is a difficulty—and the noble and learned Lord feels that there is one—it can certainly be dealt with by draftsmanship. Therefore I will refer this matter to the draftsman to achieve the result which I have endeavoured to explain and which I think has already been achieved.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Viscount? Arising from practice, it is my view that it will in fact automatically be the third offence where the discretion of the court has to be considered. Take the average petty sessional bench. They do not imagine that those who come before them are perpetual criminals or perpetual breakers of the law. My experience has been that successive endorsements, except for speeding, are not very common. Therefore, on the first two offences, the court is almost bound to endorse if the penalty carries endorsement with it. Where they are likely to start further consideration will be on the third offence, which carries the additional disqualification.
Arising from that, the noble Viscount made it quite clear—at least I understood it clearly—that the "special circumstance" is surrounding the offence, and in no way the person. If that is so, it falls harder on some groups of persons than on others. May I illustrate that? We may have two offenders, one a practising doctor, the other not. The disqualification of the practising doctor would be a much more serious thing than the disqualification of a person who does not have to use a car in the course of his professional life. Therefore, is it quite clear that it is completely outside the discretion of the court to include the personal circumstances of the offender as well as the offence?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am being very stupid, I know, but could my
1036
noble friend explain to me again whether the third office, for subsection (3) of Clause 3 to come into force, has to be an endorsed offence, or can it be an offence which is not endorsed, but the man will still lose his licence if the first two offences have been endorsed? That is what is not clear to me.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, on the third offence, in the absence of special reasons, he will lose his licence and have it endorsed. He will get both; but, of course, it is disqualification which will count.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I still do not understand. On the third offence, his licence will be endorsed but he will lose his licence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, neither will it be endorsed nor will he be disqualified, if the Bench find special reasons. That is the intention. But I will look at the drafting again, in case there is more in it than I now think in respect of drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.31 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "for special reasons". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps we may debate Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together. We have heard a great deal to-day about "special reasons". The object of this Amendment is to ask Her Majesty's Government what is meant by the words "special reasons", which have a very special bearing on the discretion of the court. The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has already mentioned the difficulty of effective definition. Subsection (3) of this clause, as now amended, gives the courts the discretion to order disqualification for not less than six months or not to order any disqualification at all, subject to a finding of "special reasons". I would suggest to your Lordships that, if there is no clear definition in the Bill as to what may constitute "special reasons", it would be preferable to delete any reference to "special reasons" and give the courts an unfettered discretion. Surely this is the fairest thing to do, owing to the difficulty of defining what are special reasons. If Her Majesty's Government feel unable to accept this Amendment, perhaps they

1037
would be prepared to accept my alternative one, which makes clear that the courts would be able to exercise their discretion in regard not only to the offence but also to the circumstances of the offender, such as his previous record or any special hardship which might occur in the case of a long period of disqualification. I suggest, too, that minor offences might be considered "special reasons." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("for special reasons").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this, because I was party to the decision in Whittle v. Kirby, in which it was laid down that "special reasons" must be, first, something which was not a general reason and, secondly, something special to the offence and not to the offender. When the Act which enabled the courts to exercise discretion for special reasons first came into force, the special reasons which were given were often of a remarkable description. If a man was a first offender, that was put forward as a special reason, but it is a reason which could apply to hundreds and thousands of persons. If Parliament had intended that a first offender should not be disqualified, it would have said so. Another reason which used to be given as a special reason was that a man had been free of any offence for, say, five or six years. Is that an excuse for driving a car under the influence of drink or without insurance, or something of that kind? A third "special reason" advanced was that of hardship in the case of the professional driver. To a man who made his living by driving and who had committed an offence for which he was liable to disqualification, it was much harder on him than on a man keeping a car for his own pleasure. Again, it had not been said anywhere that the fact that a man was a professional driver was a special reason, and there are so many professional drivers on the road that it could not be said that professional driving was a special reason. It was a perfectly general reason.
In the courts we have had to decide on many occasions what are—or at least what can be—special reasons. We have had to decide whether there was any evidence which would justify the court in holding
1038
that a reason was special. It was only after a great deal of thought that we gave the judgment in Whittle v. Kirby that special reasons must be special to the offence and not the offender; and that, to some extent has channelled the cases. It is very difficult, but I hope that the House will not abandon this qualification, which the Court brought in in about 1948 and which has been followed ever since, because it is the only way in which any sensible qualification can be put upon this very wide expression, "special reasons".
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, after that explanation from my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, I do not think that there is much that I ought to add. I think that my noble friend has forgotten that the expression "special reasons", which has been convassed a good deal in this debate, has been part of the law of the land since 1930, when it appeared in the Road Traffic Act of that year, and magistrates have found no difficulty in finding "special reasons." I think that it was about 1946 when my noble and learned friend made his decision, which I am bound to say was abundantly justified by the practice which had grown up of magistrates thinking that they had an unfettered discretion—which they had not—in cases of drunken or uninsured driving, or in cases in which endorsement was compulsory in the absence of special reasons.
In the Divisional Court, my noble and learned friend made it plain that the fact that it was a first offence was not a special reason, because the Act of Parliament had said that endorsement or disqualification, as the case may be, should attach to that offence; and, equally, that a clear licence for some long time was not a special reason. Again, the mere fact that somebody earned a living by driving was really irrelevant to this question upon which Parliament had pronounced. Of course, it is much harder on a professional driver than on an amateur, but it would be at least as hard on a doctor, who is not a professional driver, and it would be just as expensive. But if Parliament has decided that a particular kind of driving makes a man a danger to a child crossing the road, unfortunately he cannot earn his living in that way. That is our view.

1039
We do not intend that there should be unfettered discretion. Experience has shown that if there is unfettered discretion to the courts, they do not exercise this penalty sufficiently strongly. If we are seriously concerned about tackling accident figures, we can see no better way than sticking to the words which have been part of the law of the land since 1930, and which I think have not given rise to any great difficulty, in the light of the decision of my noble and learned friend, which, in my opinion, did nothing but good—although one must recognise, of course, that, like other things in the administration of criminal law, it inflicts hardship on those who break it.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend the Leader of the House has turned down so abruptly my noble friend's Amendment, because I think that it goes a long way towards reconciling many noble Lords to the Bill. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea of how "special reasons" have been defined by the courts. May I ask this question? I think it would be possible to say that the committing of a motoring offence must vary to some extent according to the distance which a person travels, and it is more reasonable to expect that someone who motors enormous distances will commit more offences than someone who does not. Would the fact that a driver covered 30,000 miles in three years be a
special circumstance when it came to a third conviction or endorsement, or would that be considered as a purely personal matter? If the former, I think it would reconcile one a little towards the arguments of my noble Leader; but if the latter, it would be a rather unsatisfactory position.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, again I do not want to impose upon the House, but I afraid I cannot give my noble friend much comfort here. My experience of professional drivers, for what it is worth—and I cannot pretend that it is anything like so great as I should wish it to be—is that they are better and more careful drivers than amateur drivers. This is not generally the view held by amateur drivers, but I think it is correct; and I feel that it ought to be so, because they are on the road a great deal more. But I do not think we could allow magistrates to decide whether to endorse or disqualify by reference to the mileage covered. That I think would make nonsense of the position.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks of my noble Leader. I gather from him that he does not very much like my second Amendment and, in the circumstances, I feel that I must press the Amendment.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Foley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

Colwyn, L.

Gosford, E.

Somers, L.

Cross, V.

Hawke, L. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Tevnham, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Goddard, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Peddie, L.

Amory, V.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Silkin, L.

Bossom, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Latham, L.

Swaythling, L.

Burden, L.

Lawson, L.

Terrington, L.

Chesham, L.

Lindgren, L.

Teviot, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Listowel, E.

Torrington, V.

Conesford, L.

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Williams, L.

Digby, L.

Merthyr, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Dundee, E.

Molson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the second of the minor Amendments

1041
similar to that which I introduced at No. 8 and which your Lordships were good enough to accept. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the matter again, because it is little more than drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 46 leave out ("otherwise") and insert ("him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified"). —(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Removal of disqualification]:
6.50 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved to leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
Removal of disqualification
4. In subsection (2) of section one hundred and six of the principal Act (which specifics the periods which must expire before an application to the court for the removal of a disqualification may be made) the following shall be substituted for paragraphs (a) to (c):

"(a) two years, if the disqualification is for less than four years,

(b) one half of the period of the disqualification, if it is for less than ten years but not less than four years,

(c) five years in any other case."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Molson put down an Amendment whereby there should be no remission of disqualification, and there should be no way at all of getting your licence back once it had been suspended. I undertook to reconsider this matter with a view to putting down an Amendment and to consult with the noble Lord. Unfortunately, I was unable to carry out the consultation because my noble friend went to Italy. Of course, I am always conscious of my duty, and unsparing of myself in pursuing it, so I went to Italy to look for him and to carry out the consultation. Although I searched diligently I was unable to find him, through looking in the wrong place. Therefore, I had to put this Amendment down without the consultation, which I am sorry did not take place.
The original clause was put in because we were concerned at the rate of successes of applicants in getting their licences back after a certain period. The whole point of this Bill, with which your Lordships in principle agreed, was greater use
1042
of disqualification, and therefore it was thought essential that it should be more difficult for drivers to get their licences back when they had been disqualified. Our way of doing it at the time was to say that applications should be considered only by the appropriate court of quarter sessions, and then only if it was presided over by a legally qualified chairman. Your Lordships did not like that very much, and perhaps it was right that you did not.
In the light of the views expressed, we came to the conclusion that it would be best to drop entirely the original proposals in Clause 4, in so far as they required applicants to go to quarter sessions. As I said, your Lordships seemed to support the view that disqualification was a useful weapon, and that it should be more difficult for drivers to get their licences back, though not in that way. Putting it fairly generally, the position at the moment, under Section 106 of the 1960 Act, is that a driver can apply at the end of half the period of the original order for the removal of any disqualification ordered. What we now propose is that the minimum period before such an application can be made should be two years. We also propose that, in the case of periods of disqualification exceeding four years but less than ten years—at the moment it is more than one but less than six; we upgrade it to exceeding four and less than ten—the person convicted should wait for half the period of that disqualification. If the period is longer than ten years, then he should have to wait for five years. That compares with the present provision of having to wait for three years if the period is longer than six years.
It may not at first sight appear as stringent as perhaps your Lordships felt was indicated. But may I point out to your Lordships that in 1959 33,570 orders of disqualification were made. Of those, 30,155 were for periods of two years or less. If, therefore, in 1959 the proposed provisions had been in force, only 3,415, or roughly 10 per cent., of the drivers disqualified that year would have been entitled to apply—leaving aside, of course, the proportion of such applications that would have been successful. That number would have been entitled to apply and what I am trying to draw from that is that it

1043
would seem that our proposal will bite on at least 90 per cent., or a little over, of drivers who are disqualified. That seems to me a pretty high proportion of drivers who are disqualified who have to serve the full term.
My noble friend Lord Molson moved an Amendment in Committee which would have prevented their getting any remission at all. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think, supported that view. I would resist going so far as that, and there is one cogent reason that I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. It is that the power of the court to order disqualification is an exceptional one, in that, unlike their power to order a fine or imprisonment, there is no statutory maximum, which is the case in almost all fines and sentences of imprisonment that courts have power to order. Therefore the length of the period of disqualification is subject to no control, even from the immediate right of appeal on merit to a higher court. I think that is a rather formidable power to give to courts, because they can interfere with the liberty of an offender for a very long time.
We should be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the courts to impose substantial periods of disqualification where they are justified, but I think that such a stringent power is not reasonable without some provision somewhere for the more serious orders to be subject to review after a minimum period. Of course, we are putting up the minimum period. Having said that, I hope that your Lordships will find that this Amendment meets with the views expressed, and in particular that my noble friend Lord Molson may see his way clear to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is quite true that I was a supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in his Amendment. I thought there was a case for it, but in the light of the figures which the noble Lord has just given I think he has gone a very long way. It means that more than 90 per cent. of the cases in which there is a disqualification for two years or less will be covered, and to the extent that it covers that percentage of cases
1044
the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has really succeeded.
As to the 5 per cent. of cases, they will have the opportunity of making their case. I think, on consideration, it also meets the case of the person who is a driver by profession. Perhaps after a period of disqualification of at least two years he ought to have the right to go along and point out that there are special reasons, which could not make any difference under the deciding case, but at any rate he has suffered very much during that period through not being able to carry on his normal employment; that he should be allowed to come back; that he has tried to make good, and so on. I have no desire to influence Lord Molson in any way but I think the Government have met that case, and handsomely.
The other point of this Amendment is that it will no longer be necessary to go to quarter sessions. I think that point has been met, too. The person making the application will be able to go to the court which made the original decision. That, I think, is an improvement also. For the reasons which I give—and I think I had an Amendment on that point on the Committee stage—I am glad that the Government have seen their way to meet that point, and I hope the Amendment can now be accepted.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has moved this Amendment, and that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the necessity of going to quarter lessons for the restoration of a licence has been abandoned. There are two questions I should like to ask: first, whether, when this Bill becomes law, it will apply to disqualification passed before the Bill has been passed, or whether people who have been disqualified previously will be allowed to apply in the way they have hitherto. The second question I want to ask is this. In the present Act I believe the re-application, if the first application is turned dawn, is limited to certain specific periods. Is that going to be continued? If the first application is turned down by the court, the driver is allowed to apply again after six months under the present Act. I should like to know whether that will still apply when this clause becomes operative.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it is now, according to the standards of hours of work of your Lordships' House, a little late, and, as a result, some of my friends and associates are no longer here. It may well be that had they been here there would have been more who would have raised their voices to say that they did not feel that the Government had really gone quite far enough in this matter. I do not wish to repeat all that I said when I moved my Amendment in the Committee stage. At the same time I would remind your Lordships that this power of a court subsequently to reduce the period of disqualification is quite exceptional. My Amendment did not in any way interfere with the rights of an accused person to appeal against his conviction. All that I sought to do was to see that when he had exhausted all his rights and when he had been sentenced to disqualification after a proper hearing of his case, that decision of the court should be as final as it would be if they had imposed a fine or a sentence of imprisonment.
I still maintain that there is no logic at all in treating disqualification in an entirely different way. Indeed, I would say to the contrary; for in the case of imprisonment, which is intended to be punitive, it might be arguable that there might be some remission of the period. But it has been agreed by your Lordships on both sides of the House that disqualification is not a punishment; that it is the removal of a privilege. If a person has so behaved in driving a vehicle as to show that he is undeserving of that privilege, then, when it has been decided to suspend that privilege for a period of time, I see no logical justification whatsoever for that period to be subsequently revised. In the case of imprisonment, a prisoner can obtain remission of his sentence by good behaviour. But the only logical way in which a driver would be able to justify a reduction in the period of disqualification would be if he had been able to show that he had been driving a vehicle safely and carefully over a considerable period of time; and that, by the very nature of disqualification, he could not do.
Now my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, has justified this exceptional right on the ground that there is no statutory maximum in the
1046
period of disqualification. But there is a maximum. The maximum is the lifetime of the person disqualified, and there are a great many offences on the road, such as repeatedly driving when under the influence of drink, sometimes culminating in the injury or death of people on the road, when I would say that disqualification for life is the only appropriate punishment and the only way in which the public can be properly safeguarded. I recognise that more than 90 per cent. of those who at present are disqualified will not have any opportunity of seeking a reduction in the period of the disqualification, while others, who will still be entitled to go to the courts and obtain a remission, are exactly those who have been guilty of the worst offences.
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning, who unfortunately cannot be here, authorised me to say that in his experience, both as chairman of quarter sessions and as a Judge, it is only in exceptionally bad cases that disqualification for more than two years is imposed, and he takes the same view that I do: that it is entirely illogical and unreasonable that in the case of offences which have resulted in injury and in death there should be this entirely exceptional and illogical right.
Having said that, I remember the old adage that "half a loaf is better than no bread", and if I sought in any way to reject the concessions the Government have made to me I should be doing a very foolish thing. But if they care to look up the discussions on the Act of 1956 and before, they will find that those concerned with road safety have been wanting all along to curb the unreasonable tendency of the courts to restore licences to those who have been disqualified. My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, told us in the Second Reading debate that 50 per cent. of those who are disqualified for two years get their licences back after six months.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. I think my noble friend said that before, and it is not quite right. I said 50 per cent. of those who applied.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged, but I think it is in the general knowledge of everybody that a very large proportion of those who are disqualified, knowing

1047
how easy it is to get their licence back if they do apply, do in fact apply. I hope I shall not be thought to be ungrateful or ungracious in saying what I have said, but I believe that it has been generally in line with the policy of the Government as explained by my noble and learned friend the Lord President, when he spoke about special reasons, and I cannot regard it as being entirely logical that they should not have gone a little further to meet my Amendment than they have done.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Endorsement of licence]:
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the general group of Amendments I have already explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) of this section").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The same applies to this one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert—
("(2) Particulars of the conviction shall not be endorsed as aforesaid if—

(a) the court, in accordance with subsection (1) or subsection (3) of section three of this Act, for special reasons does not order that the said person shall be disqualified; or

(b) in any other case, the court does not order him to be disqualified and thinks fit for special reasons to order that the particulars of the conviction shall not be so endorsed.").—(Viscount Hailsham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the first of a group of three Amendments, Nos. 18, 19 and 21, which are minor procedural Amendments. They are designed to ensure that the provisions of Clause 5, which deal with the endorsements of licences, are amended to fit in rather better with the way the licensing authorities actually work. The first one, No. 18, in this connection is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("endorsed") insert ("with any particulars").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is a little more than drafting. It is concerned merely with the case where an offender who does not hold a licence is ordered to have any licence he does hold endorsed. He has to produce any new licence in court within five days. As a new licence when issued after an endorsement order will have the endorsement already on it, it seems unnecessary then for him to have to produce it after five days. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, after ("endorsement") insert ("unless the particulars have been entered under subsection (5) of this section or he has become entitled under subsection (7) of this section to have a licence issued to him free from those particulars").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is part of the series of Amendments that I have already explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, after ("offence") insert ("and the court makes an order under subsection (1) of this section").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the third Amendment of the three I mentioned, and is really concerned only with a word. On any new licence the licensing authority are required, as the Bill is drafted, to copy any endorsed particulars from any previous licence held by the person in question. They do not copy them. They either issue a new licence by pasting on a new renewal slip and leave the endorsement alone, or if it is a new licence, they enter the endorsement on it. Therefore, "copy" is the wrong word and this Amendment puts it right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("become") in line 6 and insert ("ordered to be endorsed on any licence held by him shall be entered on the licence unless he has").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is a little more substantial, but not much. It is in the nature of a unifying step. Under subsection (7) of Clause 5 it is provided that where an order for endorsement has been made the person whose licence is to be endorsed can get a new licence—that is a clean one—issued to him free of the endorsed particulars if he applies not less than three years after the date of the conviction in consequence of which the endorsement was made. In other words, the position will become that you can have an endorsement removed after three years irrespective of whether you have had another endorsement. At the present time you cannot do that; you have to wait three years from your latest endorsement before you can get the previous one off. In view of the fact that endorsement is no longer regarded as a punishment but is to be used only in connection with automatic disqualification, there is no harm in each endorsement disappearing after three years, because the court is no longer interested in it. It seems ridiculous to have two sorts of endorsement, one pre-Act and one post-Act; and this Amendment means that endorsements which would have had to wait for the expiration of three years from the latest one will also be able to be taken off as they become three years old, although they will not count for the automatic disqualification system. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, after ("section") insert ("or any previous enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.18 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following clause:
Statement of special reasons, etc.
".In any case where a court for special reasons exercises its power under section three or section five of this Act not to order any disqualification or endorsement or to order disqualification for a shorter period than would otherwise be required, or, having regard to special circumstances, imposes a fine as an adequate punishment for an offence under section one hundred and ten of the principal Act, it shall state the special reasons or special circumstances in open court and, if it is a magistrates' court or, in Scotland, a court of summary jurisdiction, shall cause them to he entered in the register (or, in Scotland, record) of its proceedings."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment I put down as a result of an undertaking I gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, who had put down an Amendment on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord pointed out to us at the time that provisions of this kind, relating to special reasons, had been responsible for a large number of appeals to the High Court, and that it was often difficult to understand what had been the special reasons the magistrates had had in mind. The effect of the Amendment is to provide what I think the noble and learned Lord had in mind; that where there are special reasons why the court —which includes a court of assize and quarter sessions, as well as magistrates' courts—decides not to order disqualification or endorsement, it must state its special reasons in open court, and in the case of a magistrates' court must enter them on the register or record of the court's proceedings. I hope that is what the noble and learned Lord had in mind, and that the Amendment will find favour with your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the general purport of the Amendment is good and right, but I wonder whether it could be improved by asking the magistrates to state the special reasons in writing. Under this clause they are under no obligation to do so; all they need do is state them in open court verbally. There may be no reporter, no shorthand writer or anything of that kind.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may speak again, in the case of the magistrates' court it is provided that it shall be entered in the register, or in the record, as they call it in the case of the Scottish courts.
LORD SILKIN: I had not noticed that.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, if I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think that would be enough. We want it in the event of a special case being stated. If these are put into the record the clerk who will draw up the special case will have them before him, so I think it will be enough.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Minimum age for driving certain motor vehicles]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH moved, after "but" to insert:

"(i) such regulations shall not authorise a person under seventeen years of age to drive a tractor on a road except when proceeding from land in the occupation of his employer to other land in the occupation of his employer; and

(ii)".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, who unfortunately had earlier on to leave your Lordships' House for another engagement, I beg leave to move this Amendment in his name. I cannot say that I am really enthusiastic about it, although it at least enables me to make one or two observations which I should in any case like to make.
May I again draw your Lordships attention to paragraph (b) of Clause 16, which reads:
"that the age under which a person may not drive on a road a tractor used primarily for work on land in connection with agriculture shall …".
This paragraph seeks to reduce the age from 17 to 16. Noble Lords will observe that so long as a tractor is taken from one agricultural area to another—that is, land anywhere in any part of the country so long as it is agricultural land —then a boy of 16 years of age can drive that tractor. There is, of course, a qualification—namely
"… if the tractor is of a description specified in the regulations and is driven in circumstances so specified"
Therefore your Lordships will observe that if this clause in its present state is left in the Bill, a boy of 16 years of age will be able to drive a tractor on the roads from one agricultural unit to another anywhere in the country, unless the regulations specify in some form that he cannot do so.
I know that certain conversations are going on between Her Majesty's Government and the trade unions representing agricultural workers. That is all to the good. I am simply warning the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that they will be taking note of what is said in this short debate. The Amendment itself simply widens slightly the possibility of
1052
a boy of 16 driving a tractor on the roads for miles and miles. I am sure the noble Lord cannot resist this. Even the Amendment states that
"such regulations shall not authorise a person under seventeen years of age to drive a tractor on a road except when proceeding from land in the occupation of his employer to other land in the occupation of his employer."
That widens the margin just slightly. But even so, it is well worth drawing it to the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It means that a boy of 16 can drive a tractor on the roads for any distance in any part of the county or in any part of the country, unless disqualified by the regulations, as I assume he will be ultimately. I am sure the noble Lord never intended that, and I am sure that his right honourable friend the Minister never intended it either.
I have in mind one farmer, living not a great distance from me, who at the moment owns 22, or it may be 23, farms which are separated over several counties. As the Bill now stands, and even with this Amendment, a boy of 16 can drive from one county to another so long as his employer owns a farm, shall we say, in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire or any other shire. So long as it is the same employer, and it is used on agricultural land, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a boy of 16 years of age driving on the road with all the variety of trailers behind the tractor that are in use on farms in these days. Perhaps that is taking an extreme view. I quite understand that. I cannot imagine that the noble Lord himself would be happy unless, in the regulations, there was something to restrict the distance on the roads for which young boys at 16 years of age shall be allowed to drive a tractor with the massive machines that they haul behind them.
I do not want to waste your Lordships' time, but I ask the noble Lord to tell us that Clause 16 was intended radically to be amended by the conditions that are intended to be laid down in the regulations. I hope that he will bear in mind that the Bill, as it now stands, would mean chaos on the roads, particularly in rural areas, if boys of 16 could travel from the home farm to an outlying field perhaps two or three miles away. As the Bill now stands, there is nothing to prevent that. I am hoping

1053
that, in replying to this Amendment, the noble Lord will tell us exactly what it is intended to do in the regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 24, after ("but") insert the said words.—(Lord Williams of Barnburgh.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. The only hesitation I feel about it is that I suppose it might be said that if a boy of 16 can drive a motor-cycle, since a farm tractor is probably a good deal less dangerous a vehicle on the roads, perhaps no great harm is done in allowing a boy to drive a farm tractor upon the roads without restriction. On the other hand, certain attendant advantages go with permission to drive a motor-cycle. A boy may get great advantages thereby which perhaps may be said to outweigh the possible disadvantages of the slight element of danger that he may encounter upon the roads with a motor-cycle. Where a farm tractor is being driven beyond the confines of the farm the only person who benefits is, I think, the farmer—it is not the boy at all. I should have thought that if a farmer wished his tractor, for whatever purpose, to be driven on the roads beyond the confines of his farm, it was reasonable to expect him in the interests of road safety to supply a driver over the age of 16. For those reasons I support this Amendment.
LOB CHESHAM: My Lords, I was not quite certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, really wanted me to consider accepting this Amendment. He made a good case against it, as I think reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT will probably show. I was not quite sure where I was with this one; but I do not think it matters very much.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: If the noble Lord will excuse me for one moment, he will note that there is a slight difference between paragraph (b) of Clause 16 as it now stands and the Amendment. So long as the boy is driving a tractor that is used on agricultural land, as the clause now stands the boy can drive it on the roads all over the country. The Amendment says that he may do so only on his employer's land.
LORD CHESHAM: That is quite true. I was only taking the opportunity of
1054
administering a small tweak to the noble Lord's leg. As I was saying, it does not really matter because there is little, if anything, between us on this Amendment. I can certainly see the point of this Amendment; indeed, from a private word I had with Lord Albemarle, I thought that he had another point as well that he was concerned about: that such lads might be working for contractors and thereby going greater distances. I can easily agree that the purpose of this clause is one, and one only—namely, to make it possible to avoid unnecessary dislocation of operations on farms. There is no wider purpose behind it. There is no deep and dark intent, no thin end of the wedge, or anything like that.
I would only say, before I come on to something else, that the Amendment as it stands does not seem to do exactly what it is that the noble Lord who moved it had in mind; because, in the first place, so far as I can see, by restricting the provision (and I can see what is wanted) to journeys between land in the occupation of the driver's employer we should rule out the farmer's son if he worked with his father but not under contract of service. Therefore, a lot of benefit to the smaller farms would be lost, which I think would be a great pity. It singles out—the noble Lord made a certain amount of this point—a particular consideration which is really not the most important one. I think that those to concentrate on for the regulations are the safeguards concerning the type and dimensions of the tractor and the trailer and load, if any, which the sixteen-year-old can be directed to drive, because they are very much more important, as also is the proficiency of the driver, which is to be established by a Ministry test before he drives on the road. Those factors are very much more important than the actual distance over which he drives. I think your Lordships would agree with that.
I should like to say at this stage that the Government fully agree with the idea of this Amendment to confine the operation of the concession to driving for the purpose of—may I call them?—individual farming operations and not, as it were, public ones. But what I should like to do would be to consider whether this purpose would be best carried out by putting down a further Amendment

1055
on Third Reading (I do not like doing that, but I would if necessary) or whether the point ought to be dealt with, which I think I should prefer, in the regulations when they come to be drawn.
The noble Lord asked me to state what the regulations will be. That I am unable to do to-day because they have not been drawn. I should like to repeat to the noble Lord that the Minister has given an undertaking that the regulations will not be drawn and will not be brought in without consultation, and full consultion, with the unions concerned. I know exactly, as does he, what is the position of the unions at the moment and what they feel about it; and the Minister has given that undertaking which will be carried out. In fact, I myself am meeting representatives of the Trades Union Congress on the 19th of this month for a preliminary discussion, so I think my assurance on that matter must carry some weight. I hope therefore, that by accepting it, as it were, in principle, to be brought into effect probably by regulation or possibly by Amendment, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, after the Parliamentary Secretary's statement I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment and await the production of the regulations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.34 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Commencement of section 102 (4) of principal Act
". Subsection (4) of section one hundred and two of the principal Act shall come into operation not later than six months after this Bill receives the Royal Assent."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising this point again in the hope that we shall perhaps have a slightly more satisfactory and sympathetic reply from the Government than we had during the Committee stage. At the moment anybody can hold a provisional licence, year after year, without any legal obligation to take a test. The Government, in their wisdom, in the 1960 Act put in a clause which in fact, if I read it aright, means that if you hold a provisional licence for more than about two years you should
1056
not be given another one unless you first submit yourself to a test or satisfy the local authority that you have tried to do so.
This, I feel, is a very reasonable and not at all a strong measure to prevent young motor-cyclists from going on from year to year without a test. I am entirely sympathetic with regard to the great difficulties concerning increasing the number of testers, and I know this is a difficult problem, but in view of the number given in Committee—1,700,000 people running around with "L" plates, and this number will probably increase —surely the time has come to state quite firmly that at some date in the future this method of going on year after year has to stop. I think all sides of the House will agree that it is not the car driver who is really at fault; it is the young motor-cyclist who now can get a machine and need never take a test. In fact, unless the Government say something definite to-night, it looks as though this may go on for many years. I think your Lordships will agree that a motorcyclist who goes in for the Royal Automobile Club training scheme and bothers to take his test is someone who is probably safe on the road. Those who are bad drivers of motor-cycles are the ones who are probably not going to do so.
It is strange that in Clause 17 the Government go to so much trouble to make sure that people turn up for their driving test. Although I am sure it causes great inconvenience if people fail to do so, it has nothing to do with road safety. Here is a provision which I am asking the Government to bring into effect. I think the time has come for a stand to be taken, and I am sure the Government will agree it is not going to cause an absolute flood at the testing stations, because, after all, with the provision as it stands here, people will come in gradually over a period so far as the tests are concerned. I hope that the Government will look into this provision carefully, because I am certain that it will contribute to road safety.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in a very few words I want to beg the Government

1057
to give a more forthcoming reply on this stage of the Bill than they did on the Committee stage. When I began to be concerned with the drafting of the Road Traffic Bill in 1955 the case of people who went on taking out provisional licences year after year without submitting themselves to a test was considered to be a matter of the utmost importance from the point of view of road safety. In the first Bill we introduced we provided that a local authority could refuse a provisional licence if they were satisfied that the applicant had no intention of taking a test and had really made no effort to do so. That was criticised in another place, and, as a result, in the second Bill that was introduced after the General Election of that year we provided the wording which is now Section 102 of the Act of 1960.
There are a number of cases of people who drive motor cars who continue to take out these provisional licences without submitting themselves to a test; but, because of the obligation to have a qualified driver with them, it is not an abuse of any great dimension. In the case of motor-cyclists, where there is not that obligation, it has become an abuse of the first importance. I confess I was astonished when my noble friend Lord Dundee told us that if this clause were put into operation it would result in an extra 1,700,000 persons submitting themselves for test. My Lords, this is really an alarming and astonishing figure. It means that, as regards motor-cyclists, a very large proportion are habitually riding, year after year, upon the roads without submitting themselves to a test. In view of the fact that such a large proportion of road accidents are associated with motor-cyclists, it seems to me that the Government should do something about it.
My noble friend Lord Dundee said that the reason that the Minister had not been able to do anything about it so far was the difficulty of dealing with even the present rate of applications for driving tests. My Lords, there should be some priority in this matter associated with road safety. It is of the utmost importance that those who are habitually riding motor cycles on the road should be obliged to take a test. That should be done, in my submission, even if it does result in a further delay
1058
in the testing of new motorists. I regard this as a matter of the utmost importance. It seems to me anomalous that we should be considering a new Bill in order to try to improve road safety and that one of the important provisions of the Act of 1956 should not yet be put into force. I hope that, as a result of what my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and other noble Lords said on Committee stage, we may have a slightly more responsive reply from the Government this evening.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, which is identical to that which he moved in Committee, says he has done so in the hope of getting a more satisfactory and more sympathetic reply. I quite understand that the reply may not have been satisfactory, but I do not really see how it could have been much more sympathetic than it was. If your Lordships will look at the debate in Committee, you will see that I assured your Lordships then that my right honourable friend the Minister is just as anxious as any of your Lordships to bring in this subsection as soon as he possibly can. He wants to do so with as little delay as possible; and, as I quoted to your Lordships in Committee, he stated in the House of Commons a short time ago that
"Section 102 (4) of the Act will be brought into force as soon as we are satisfied that the increase which it may well cause in the number of applications for a driving test will not lead to applicants for a test having to wait unreasonably long for an appointment."
My right honourable friend is doing his best to increase the number of trained examiners in order to reduce the number of applicants awaiting driving tests; and, as my noble friend Lord Molson suggested, and as I thought I had made plain on Committee stage, he wants to do this on the principle of priority. Now, he cannot do this merely on his own authority. And I would point out to your Lordships that this is perhaps more a question of administration than of legislation. Suppose that Section 102 (4) was brought into force now: it would still be only permissive upon the local authorities, who have the power to apply it or no to apply it as they think right. If it were to become law to-morrow, it would be open to licensing authorities either to continue as

1059
at present, issuing licences to all applicants, irrespective of whether they were covered by the conditions of the subsection—that is to say, the local authorities, if they thought there was going to be too much congestion of applicants awaiting driving tests in their area, could go on doing nothing—or, on the other hand, a local authority could apply the formula rigidly, not with any principle of priority at all, and refuse a licence to everyone who was covered by the provisions.
What my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport would like to make sure is that they will agree to do it by stages, as my noble friend said, on the principle of priority; beginning with the refusal of licences to what you might call the worse cases—probably most of the motor cyclists, as my noble friend said—who have had a provisional licence for an exceptionally large number of years; then, after they have been dealt with, dealing next with those who have had one for a lesser number of years, and so on until it is brought down to more reasonable proportions. I can assure your Lordships that no one could be more anxious to start this, in cooperation with local authorities, than the present Minister.
When my noble friend Lord Molson asks me to be more forthcoming, I wish I knew exactly how I could be more forthcoming than I am trying to be. I will certainly, if my noble friend likes, consult the Minister and see what he thinks would happen if I were to accept the Amendment. I think he would probably say that it would make very little difference to what would happen. He might be able to bring it in much sooner than six months after this Bill comes into law. I understand the date on which this Bill will come into law is not altogether certain; but, anyhow, he might be able to do so sooner. On the other hand, tying him down to a legislative date might conceivably do more harm than good; I do not know. I do not think the Minister wants to be tied down to a date. I can assure your Lordships that he is anxious to do it as soon as possible. If my noble friend wants me to be as forthcoming as I can, I will certainly consult him and see whether he thinks there would be any harm in accepting the Amendment, but I do not think it would do any particular good.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I just interrupt my noble friend? I think that in my time applications for driving tests were dealt with strictly in order of priority of application. It seems to me that, when you have this problem of 1,700,000 motor-cyclists riding on the road without submitting themselves to a test, it would be desirable to give priority to their tests when they seek to have them; and pressure could be brought to bear upon them to do so by the local authority.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I hope that is what will happen. My noble friend speaks of 1,700,000 motor-cyclists on the road. What I said—and I think I made it clear—in Committee [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 75), col. 1461] was:
"The Ministry of Transport has not got any close estimate of the number of additional tests which would arise if it were now put into force, but it is estimated that if it were applied to all classes of driver, and everybody covered by the section who wished to drive applied for the test, there might be an increase of about 100 per cent.…"—
that is, 1,700,000. It does not mean 1,700,000 motor-cyclists, as my noble friend said just now, although I agree that many of the people who have these provisional licences may be motorcyclists, and it is with them, largely, that we want to deal. If my noble friend will accept my assurance on behalf of the Minister that he is doing all he can administratively to bring this in as soon as possible, I should be very glad. If he would like me to approach the Minister and see whether it would do any good to accept the Amendment—I honestly do not think it would make any difference on the favourable side—I will certainly do that. I am most anxious that my noble friend should not regard me as adopting an attitude which is otherwise than forthcoming on this question.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not feel that the reply can be regarded as satisfactory, and I am sure the noble Earl himself does not think so. If it is merely a matter of tactics, as to whether it is better to accept the Amendment or not accept it, I have no doubt in my own mind that it would be better if the Amendment were accepted. At least it would give the Minister a target—six months. It is true he might have been able to do it earlier; but, from everything that the noble Earl has said, I can

1061
hardly believe that it is as likely as that. I think the probabilities are that, with the best will in the world, other things are more pressing, and this thing will drag on. It has already been dragging on for five years. I feel it would be a very great advantage if we now gave the Minister a target and said, "This has got to be done within a certain period". The noble Lord says six months, and I think that is not unreasonable. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment can be accepted. I will not put it to the noble Lord that he should divide the House, but if he were to divide the House I should certainty support him.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If the Amendment were to be accepted, there would have to be some drafting alterations; for instance, "Act" instead of "Bill". In view of what your Lordships have said, may I consult my right honourable friend and see whether he would agree to this point being put down by the Government on Third Reading? I will certainly do that, if that is what your Lordships desire. There is no question of principle here—we both want the same thing. The Minister is just as anxious as your Lordships to do this as quickly as possible, and if your Lordships feel that it would help him to have a statutory date put in, I will certainly put the point to him and see whether we can get his agreement to it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lois, I feel that I am in the hands of the House on this matter, and I should like the Amendment to go forward.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I must point out that I cannot accept the Amendment in its present form.
LORD SILKIN: I would advise the noble Lord, in view of the undertaking which has been given, which I think is very reasonable, to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: I feel that my noble friend has gone as far as can reasonably be expected, and I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am sorry, I misunderstood the noble Earl. In view of that, I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.53 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on display of "learner driver" distinguishing mark
".—(1) A person authorised to drive a motor vehicle by virtue of his holding a licence (not being a provisional licence) granted under Part II of the principal Act shall not drive the vehicle while there is displayed on it a distinguishing mark of a kind prescribed by regulations under section ninety-nine of the said Act such as would have to be so displayed if the person driving the vehicle were the holder of a provisional licence:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if there is present in the vehicle another person who would be authorised to drive the vehicle by virtue of his holding a provisional licence.
(2) A person who contravenes the provisions of the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage a number of your Lordships expressed views about the use of L-plates as being a very valuable provision in helping to ensure safety on the roads by seeing that special care is taken when motorists are passing or going near cars driven by learner-drivers. It appears that there is no provision in the law which insists that an L-plate should be taken off a car when no learner-driver is actually in the car. It has seemed to me for a long time that there is a case of calling "Wolf!" too often, and that if motorists continue to drive cars carrying L-plates when there is no learner in the car at the time, the value of this safeguard is considerably reduced. Furthermore, drivers may well continue to keep L-plates on purpose in order to get through the traffic more quickly if they think that people will make way for them. This will all add to decrease the value of carrying L-plates.
There is a second reason why I have put down this new clause, and that is because I thought it would be of considerable help to the police. At the present moment it is more or less obligatory for the police to stop any car carrying an L-plate which contains only the driver and no passenger. That is because, on the face of it, it appears that an offence is being committed; it is assumed that the driver of the car has only a provisional licence, and has no competent driver with him. On stopping the car, the polce often find that the

1063
driver has an ordinary licence, and therefore they waste their time in stopping cars of this sort, and so are unable to do a good deal of other work which they should carry out. For those two reasons, therefore—namely, to maintain the advantages that the L-plate has, and to assist the police—I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Swaythling.)
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord's Amendment. I know a certain lady by acquaintance whom I have often seen driving about with an L-plate on her car. I asked her why she did that, knowing full well that she had passed her test, and she replied that she always carried it because she received priority and better treatment from other users of the road. I think it seems quite unfair that people should carry an L-plate on their car when they are no longer learner-drivers.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this seems a somewhat far-fetched evil which we are trying to legislate against. So far as I can see, anyone who continues to use an L-plate after he is licensed is a fool. He is liable to be stopped by the police, so that any advantage he thinks he might get he is liable to lose. I do not think we want to clutter up our legislation with far-fetched possibilities of this kind. If the noble Lord had been able to establish that this was a real evil, and that large numbers of people who.already had a licence were driving around the country with L-plates, perhaps we should deal with it. But I cannot conceive that there can be any substantial number of people, if anybody, who do this. In fact, I should imagine that the first reaction of anyone on getting a licence is to remove the L-plates as quickly as he could. I have no strong feelings about this matter, but I suggest that it is an entirely unnecessary Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am a little caught on the hop. The noble Lord opposite said most of the points I had in mind to make. While I confess that I have a little personal sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendment, it really is not one that I could
1064
advise your Lordships to accept. Apart from what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said—with which I completely agree—the Amendment is, as it were, self-defeating. The whole nub of the thing lies in the proviso which comes after subsection (1) in this proposed new clause. Without that proviso, the Amendment would be very harsh indeed in operation. The proviso, however, weakens the Amendment so much that it would achieve nothing. If there is any virtue in the noble Lord's point that it is wrong for a licensed, experienced driver to drive by himself a car carrying L-plates, why should it be all right—I know what is coming, and I will give way in a moment—for him to organise himself a passenger who happens to hold a provisional licence? If this abuse is as widespread as the noble Lord seems to indicate, that is surely what it will do. It will not stop anything; it will merely make the abuse, if abuse is determined upon, more difficult. I know what is coming, and I will let the noble Lord say it now.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I was only going to say that when a person is teaching somebody else to drive, they may well want to change places in the car, either because the situation is dangerous or because the teacher may want to demonstrate what the learner should do. Obviously, he cannot jump in and out to change L-plates on those occasions, and it is for that reason that the proviso was put down.
LORD CHESHAM: That is so, but it also has the effect of weakening the Amendment almost to vanishing point in value for the purpose the noble Lord has in mind. It merely makes it a little more difficult and does not prevent such abuse. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we cannot cater by legislation for every piece of undesirable behaviour which motorists perpetrate on us. Even if the police were up to fullest possible strength, it would be very difficult for them to enforce the existing law and deal with all the varous kinds of offences which are committed. I do not think it can be right to create some motoring offences unless we can show that it will make a positive contribution to road safety. Frankly, it is difficult to claim that this one has any great harm in it from the point of view of road safety.

1065
I have dug into the Home Office figures as best I can and cannot find anything which indicates that this is a serious problem. I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to help the police, but I do not find myself able to accept that it helps them very much, to relieve them of one offence by creating another which is more difficult to detect and enforce than the first. If, at the end of the evening, we may have a cocktail of metaphors, I would say that, while there is a thimbleful of merit in the noble Lord's Amendment, I think that he is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and a rather small nut which is not guaranteed to be good inside when he has cracked it. I appreciate the noble Lord's helpful attitude throughout the Bill and I would hope that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is it not vital that police officers should be encouraged, if they see a single person alone in a car with L-plates, to stop that car, since a prima facie offence is being committed because there is no qualified driver sitting beside the driver of the car? Is it not vital that they should not be discouraged from that duty by saying themselves that this is only another case of a qualified driver who has not bothered to take off the L-plates? Is not the result of that going to be that the daring and foolhardy L-plate driver will take a chance and drive unattended, knowing full well that the police, even if they observe him, will not stop him because they will take the view that he is another of those qualified drivers alone with L-plates?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in view of what we can find out about what goes
1066
on, I think that we can leave this to the police, who can manage perfectly well for themselves. Whatever we do, we are bound to get a few people who get round it. I think it would be easier for the police to pull up a single driver with L-plates than L-plated cars containing two people just to see if they have the right sort of licences for sitting in the right sort of places. I do not see any advantage in making this more complicated and more difficult to enforce than it is already.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, while I do not agree with everything the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I thank him for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VICOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is not a good moment to propose that we may adjourn. I think that we have made very good progress and, if it is in accordance with the wishes of the House, I beg to move that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
RIVER RAVENSBOURNE &c. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD) PREVENTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.

  TRADE WITH THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
  TRADE WITH THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC