Sitting of 6 June 1961

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

  SAINT BENET SHEREHOG CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
  SAINT PANCRAS, PANCRAS LANE CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Petrol Filling Stations, Salop
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many applications to build petrol filling stations he approved in the County of Salop in 1958, 1959, and 1960; how many of such applications were made by tenants of, or persons under agreements with, petrol companies; and how many were made by private individuals.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My right hon. Friend has not approved any applications to build petrol filling stations in the County of Salop in 1958, 1959 or 1960.
    Mr. Yates: If he does receive applications, will the Minister consider most carefully those from disabled people and also those from people who have seen service with the Armed Forces?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has to make decisions on the applications that come to him on planning grounds, but so far as is compatible with that he will bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

    Planning Procedures
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take steps to expedite planning procedures, particularly in those cases referred to him because amendments to town maps are required.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am extremely anxious to expedite planning procedures and I will always welcome suggestions for doing so. As far as town maps are concerned, recent changes I have introduced in methods of presentation should simplify the handling of amendments and reduce the time taken.
    Mr. Peyton: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and also for the great expedition with which a certain recent case that came to his Department was handled. I am very much appreciative of that fact. May I ask my right hon. Friend in general whether he will impress on all planning authorities the real need for understanding the urgency which is very often attached to these projects and the irritation which is caused by what seems unnecessary delay?
    Mr. Brooke: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is my constant desire that both planning authorities and my Department should deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible. We must be scrupulously fair to all concerned, but it is really unfair if there are unnecessary delays in reaching decisions.

    Water Resources in Wales (Report)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take upon the Report on Water Resources in Wales, Command Paper No. 1331; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: This Report provides a factual assessment of the water resources of Wales, as well as an estimate of the demands likely to be made on them in the foreseeable future. It contains no recommendations calling for specific action on my part, but I am sure it will

    853
    be very useful to everyone who has a concern with the conservation and use of water resources, myself included.
    Mr. Hughes: Now that this Report discloses and confirms that there are vast untapped resources of water in Wales, will the Minister bear in mind that there is a strong body of opinion in the Principality which favours the setting up of a Welsh water board to plan and conserve the distribution of water supplies?
    Mr. Brooke: I have been misreported as saying that I would be opposed to any Welsh water board for the whole of Wales. What I in fact said was that I am not myself convinced of the necessity of that, but if Cardiff and Swansea and Newport and all the existing water undertakings think that the job would be best done by handing over responsibility to a Welsh water board, then obviously it would be my duty seriously to consider that proposition.
    Mr. Hughes: And in considering Cardiff, Swansea and Monmouth, will the Minister also take into account the views of the rural areas?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope, by what I said, that I referred to all the other water undertakings throughout the country, whether or not I specified them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am at present engaged in trying to get them regrouped into stronger units.

    Towns and Cities (Trees)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the results obtained by his Department's circulars and books, Trees in Town and City; what proposals he has to stimulate further action to improve all cities and towns in the industrial areas; and if he will institute a national cleaning and beautifying campaign to include the planting of grass, trees, shrubs and plants.
    Sir K. Joseph: It appears that the publicity referred to by the hon. Member is stimulating effort. There are current a number of vigorous programmes, trends and campaigns which all serve to improve the urban environment; clean air; tree planting; the provision of open space; attention to the
    854
    street scene generally: and attacks on clutter and litter. The total effect can only be judged fairly infrequently.
    Mr. Smith: The Parliamentary Secretary can take it from me that no one appreciates more than I what has been done but, relatively speaking, things have been moving along very slowly. Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman consulted his right hon. Friend with a view to carrying out the limited proposals that are contained in the Question and asked for the co-operation of the other responsible bodies?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that the pace is quickening and that it will continue to quicken. This is a long-term matter involving education and example.

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has made a study of the May-June, 1961, issue of World Health and the monograph published by the World Health Organisation, copies of which have been sent to him; what further action he intends to take to clear poisons from the air, in view of a demonstration described on page six of World Health of the relation between air pollution and bronchitis, cancer and pneumonia and of the effects of exhaust from non-maintenance of diesel engines on the roads; and if he will institute a campaign to see that the Clean Air Act is fully implemented in all industrial areas before next winter.
    Sir K. Joseph: I welcome all such publications which stress the importance of clean air. Local authorities in the black areas of England and Wales have made a start under the Clean Air Act, and my right hon. Friend will continue to urge progress upon them.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is a fine publication, both in its informative character and in the way it is produced? Does not this World Health Organisation publication show the need for action of the kind suggested in the Question, especially in industrial areas, where we suffer from bronchitis and respiratory diseases more than any other country in the world?
    Sir K. Joseph: The principal feature in this publication was about the Los Angeles smog, which is of a different order and of a different seriousness than any we have here.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that the publication also emphasises the importance of dealing, for example, with the fumes from diesel engines? Are we not suffering to a great extent from this sort of thing, and, if that is correct, is it not time that the Minister took action?
    Sir K. Joseph: While this Question is mainly for the Minister of Transport, the article referred to stated that motor vehicle exhaust did not cause cancer. That is the current result of research reported in the publication.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why his Department's Estimate for expenditure in 1961–62 under Class V, Vote 1, subhead G.3, for the acquisition of derelict land and improvement of amenities under the Local Employment Act, 1960, is less than the estimate for 1960–61.
    Sir K. Joseph: The estimate for grant payments in respect of derelict land under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, for the financial year 1960–61 was unusually high because an exceptional number of schemes were undertaken in the last year of that Act. The applications submitted by local authorities under the 1960 Act do not warrant a larger estimate for 1961–62.
    Mr. Boyden: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to get rid of industrial clutter and litter, is it not time that he took a more progressive attitude on this problem? Is he taking a very narrow view of applications as they come forward, or is he taking an expansive view?
    Sir K. Joseph: Not only does my right hon. Friend not take a narrow view, but he would welcome more applications.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage local authorities in the Bishop Auckland constituency to acquire and improve derelict land under Section 5 of the Local Employment Act,
    856
    with a view to improving prospects of employment in the area.
    Sir K. Joseph: When the Local Employment Act came into force I sent a circular to all local authorities explaining the grants available under Section 5 of the Act and encouraging the submission of schemes for rehabilitating derelict land in development districts. Details about the grant and how to apply for it were also sent out.
    Mr. Boyden: Since there has been only one application in my constituency and I understand that there has been only one in the Durham County Council area—and that was turned down—will the hon. Gentleman take more positive steps to see that local authorities get together on these applications, because at the moment it appears as though the Act is not working at all in this area?
    Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps this answer will serve to encourage local authorities more. We have encouraged them as much as possible, but the schemes have to benefit long-term employment prospects in order to qualify.
    Mr. Boyden: Has the right hon. Gentleman had consultations with the Board of Trade over this?

    Gravel Working, Linford
    Mr. Delargyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will reconsider his decision to permit the excavation of sand and gravel from Rainbow Shaw, Linford, Essex.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Delargy: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I am very disappointed that this Question, which I put down for the Minister to answer personally, has not been answered by him, although he is present in the Chamber? Will he ask his right hon. Friend whether he has received a letter from the Urban District Council of Thurrock saying that all of its members are shocked at the decision? Further, will his right hon. Friend accept the invitation contained in that letter to visit the place, and to see for himself the results of his decision?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend followed here the recommendation of his

    857
    inspector who held the inquiry and saw the site. The inspector stressed that under an existing agreement with the Forestry Commission the wood in question is in any case due soon to be felled.
    Mr. Delargy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that evidence is regarded by many people in the area as highly doubtful; that its accuracy has been questioned?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that at the inquiry that was subject to cross-examination, and that the inspector brought out all the conflicting views locally.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Will either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary accede to my hon. Friend's invitation to visit the area and see the results of their decision?
    Sir K. Joseph: It really would not be practicable for my right hon. Friend to visit all the places of inquiries. If he started with one he would have to go to large numbers.
    Mr. Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Oxford Roads Inquiry
    Mr. Woodhouseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will announce his decision on the recommendations in the report of the Oxford Roads Inquiry.
    Mr. Brooke: I hope that detailed consideration of the inspector's report may enable me to announce a decision before the Summer Recess, though I would not like to promise that.
    Mr. Woodhouse: If I am right in assuming that the decision will not be announced before the debate on 26th June, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that public interest in this matter is not confined to the Upper House; and that what the public interest requires is that a decision should be taken and carried out with the minimum of avoidable delay? May I also ask him whether, in view of the debate in the Upper House, the Government will
    858
    arrange for Members of this House to address their Lordships from the Bar of that House?
    Mr. Brooke: The last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is not a matter for me, nor, I think, for you, Mr. Speaker, but I can certainly give the assurance that no decision will be reached by the Government in advance of a debate in another place. I am very anxious that public opinion should have an opportunity to play upon the inspector's report. At the same time, I thoroughly share my hon. Friend's feeling that there should not be an interminable delay here, because it is desirable that before long a firm decision should be announced and promulgated.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister still willing to listen to representations that may be made to him in this matter by hon. Members of this House? It is true that I have an interest here, having been in one of the colleges that will be very directly affected by the present proposal.
    Mr. Brooke: Certainly, another place has not the monopoly of interest, or of access to the Minister in this.

    New Office Blocks
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will seek to ensure some flexibility in the internal planning of the new office blocks now being built or projected in London, so that when they become redundant they will be readily and economically convertible for housing purposes.
    Mr. Brooke: Planning control does not extend to the internal planning of buildings. I have no powers, therefore, to require flexibility in internal design.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it the Minister's view that there will ever be redundancy in office blocks in London? Will a point ever be reached at which he will think that there are enough of them, or too many? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an undertaking that when they are redundant, as in the case of State House, the Government will not always come to the rescue of these profiteering developers and rent space for Departments which would be better housed outside London?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am extremely anxious that those who possibly can should move their offices outside London rather than occupy offices in central London. The hon. Gentleman's Question as to future redundancy is one that neither he nor I can answer with certainty, but I should dearly like to see the time come when the rent that can be obtained for office space in London begins to fail. But I am afraid that moment has not yet come.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has looked at St. James's Palace from the top of St. James's Street since the Mill-bank tower was built, and at the steeple of All Souls', Langham Place, from the south since the Broadcasting House extension was built; and if, before permission is given for the building of major new office blocks, he will give an assurance that he will consider, from various planning aspects, their effect on the urban skyline.
    Mr. Brooke: Planning permission for both the new buildings referred to was given by the London County Council as local planning authority. I know it is the policy of the council that each proposal for a high building shall be considered on its merits, including its effect on the skyline. I apply a similar policy to applications or appeals which come to me for decision.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware that before permission was given for the Shell building—although it is not a particularly good example—a balloon was flown at the projected height of the building and that members of the Royal Fine Art Commission were taken in a coach to look at the balloon from various points of view? Why was not something similar done when the Millbank tower was projected?
    Mr. Brooke: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, neither of these two developments came to me at all, and I cannot speak for the precautions which the London County Council, as local planning authority, sought to take. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the L.C.C. has a set of questions which it applies to every proposition for a high building that comes before it. I think that it is a sensible set of questions. I
    860
    believe that these decisions are difficult to take. Of course, existing high buildings like Big Ben and the Victoria Tower may have seemed very much out of place when first built; yet after the years we have become accustomed to them.
    Sir G. Nicholson: What does my right hon. Friend mean by that reply? Does he mean that he washes his hands completely of anything done in London unless it comes directly under him? If so, it just is not good enough.
    Mr. Brooke: I mean that throughout the country and not only in London, local planning authorities have powers to take decisions. I am reluctant to remove those powers and to call in applications unless that is absolutely essential. The L.C.C. has announced a set of tests which it applies to projects for high building which come before it. I believe that these tests are sensible tests.
    Mr. MacColl: Is not this another argument for extending the powers of appeal to third parties who are affected by planning decisions?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Franks Committee examined that proposition and rejected it.

    Central Advisory Water Committee (Sub-Committee's Report)
    Mr. Pymasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when the Central Advisory Water Committee is expected to complete its study of water conservation, and to report.
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that the sub-committee is considering the terms of its report. I cannot say just how soon it will be completed and presented.
    Mr. Pym: While drawing some encouragement from my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that several parishes in Cambridgeshire have already run out of water, which, in May, is a very serious and grave state of affairs? Does not he think that we should begin urgent works straight away in order to cope with the rising demand for water? If

    861
    we do not, the situation may get out of hand.
    Mr. Brooke: I was very sorry to learn that two villages in my hon. Friend's constituency ran out of water last month. I do not think that there was any overall shortage of water. I think that something went wrong with the distribution arrangements. As my hon. Friend knows, I am at this moment seeking to bring about a regrouping of water undertakings in the county which, I hope, will go a long way to preventing a recurrence of such difficulty. However, that is a matter which will be going to a public inquiry shortly and I must not prejudge it.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that we do not get into the state of affairs concerning water conservation that we did concerning land drainage before the introduction of the Land Drainage Bill in such a way that the Ministry gets involved in undertakings to interested bodies to such an extent that Parliament cannot get a word in edgeways?
    Mr. Brooke: I very much hope that it may fall to me to bring forward a water conservation Bill in due course. When that happens, I shall be extremely anxious to have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in making it as good a Bill as possible.

    Caravans (Site Charges)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take the necessary steps to give protection to caravan dwellers against unreasonable charges imposed by owners of caravan sites.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. If in any particular case it is considered that charges are unreasonable my right hon. Friend would advise an approach to the local authority to inquire whether alternative sites are or can be made available.
    Mr. Lipton: That is a most unsatisfactory reply which does not in any way help the very large number of caravan dwellers in various parts of the country who are being grossly exploited by the owners of caravan sites. In those parts no alternative sites are available and
    862
    the caravan dwellers are at the mercy of the site owners. If I send the Parliamentary Secretary details of such exploitation, will he, apart from sending a soothing and non-committal reply, take appropriate action?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but it would be more appropriate if details were sent to the local councils which, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, are given power to make sites available if necessary.

    Cement Works, Westbury
    Sir R. Grimstonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that work on the projected cement works at Westbury is being held up owing to the demand for a further public enquiry into this project which has already been approved in principle; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: The planning permissions given in 1947 and 1948 were subject to conditions requiring further approvals to be obtained before erection of the works, including approval of the detailed building plans. These were not submitted until March this year. Wiltshire County Council, which as local planning authority was asked for its views on these plans, takes the view that the development now contemplated goes beyond the permissions already given, and has asked for an inquiry into the whole matter. This raises various preliminary issues which I am considering in the light of representations from the parties.
    Sir R. Grimston: It would appear from that Answer that my hon. Friend is not entirely correctly informed. Is he aware that the Westbury Urban District Council, within whose confines this cement works will be, entirely approves the new project? Incidemtally, it will double the output of the works with works half the size. The water problem has been overcome. This appears to be an effort on the part of those who never wanted the cement works to raise the whole issue again.
    Finally, having regard to the national interest in this matter, with the country crying out for cement, will my hon. Friend do what he can to expedite

    863
    matters, as there have already been two local inquiries?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but my right hon. Friend has had local representations against this project. It has been represented to him that the scale of the project is so different from what it was when planning permission was given that a new application is necessary. It is these representations which my right hon. Friend is considering.

  HOUSING

    Oakengates
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affairs how many council houses have been built, and how many houses approved for private ownership, by the Oakengates Urban District Council between 1955 and 1960; and what additional arrangements he approved to ensure a proper supply of waiter for domestic use in the local authority area.
    Sir K. Joseph: Five hundred and six council houses and 224 private enterprise houses were completed. My right hon. Friend has no details of private enterprise houses permitted but not finished in the period. During the same period he approved schemes for deepening an existing borehole, sinking a new one, linking the Oakengates and Shifnal supply systems and laying additional mains to improve pressure.
    Mr. Yates: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that constituents of mine are still short of water, and although the water board is trying to put the blame on the Minister, I think, in view of his reply, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know what that means. I shall assume that it is notice given.

    South-East Lancashire (Land)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on building land problems in south-east Lancashire and on the proposals for a new town there.
    Mr. Brooke: I have put in hand, with the help of the local planning authorities, a detailed study of housing land requirements in south-east Lancashire and the adjoining parts of Cheshire. Until this is completed the hon. member will appreciate that I cannot form a view on proposals for a new town.
    Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that. Is the Minister aware of the very strong feeling in Lancashire that only Government action can solve this problem and that in its absence the City of Manchester, for example, is being forced to deal with no fewer than 14 different local authorities in an attempt to solve its tragic housing situation?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Member probably knows, I made a special visit to Manchester last Tuesday and had full discussions with the authorities about their problems. At the moment, they are not held up by lack of land. But I did express the view then that we must make sure that the necessary housing progress does not falter for lack of land, either in the 1960s or the 1970s.

    Building Land
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the continued high price of land what further action he is taking to assist local housing authorities who cannot build urgently needed council dwellings.
    Mr. Brooke: Housing authorities already receive substantial assistance towards the cost of expensive sites. I have no reason to think that with this aid they are not able to meet the cost of purchasing land required for urgent housing needs.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that many councils have had to abandon much-needed schemes because of the high cost of land, including one that has a waiting list of more than 500, which has closed its books and has stopped building altogether for the same reason? Is the Minister not further aware that the payment of subsidies is no solution for tackling the root of the problem and, unless he deals with land speculation as a matter of urgency, increasingly socially necessary building will be priced out of the market?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not aware of any local authority which has closed down on grounds of the cost of land. There are these expensive site subsidies, which rise continually, with no particular limit. I am at the moment taking through a Housing Bill which will assist authorities that are in special financial difficulty with their housing progress, and I believe that with this assistance every local authority should be able to carry on.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Although the expensive site subsidy may be necessary to help certain local authorities, its net effect is to enable speculators to exploit all of us—instead of people in particular localities. Will not the Minister consider more radical remedies of this problem of the rising price of land?
    Mr. Brooke: I have indicated my attitude towards the rising price of land. Undoubtedly there is pressure for land, especially around the large cities, but my concern is that there should be no artificial increase in the price of land through land being withheld from development which is, in fact, suitable for housing development. As regards reports in the papers that a certain local authority, not so far from London, has ceased building on the grounds of the cost of land, I am advised that that is not true.
    Mr. Watts: Does the Minister not agree that this problem will not be solved unless it is worked out on an area basis—the North-West, Birmingham, the London area, and so on? Does he not further agree that this must be done under Government strategic supervision, with particular regard to the needs of immigrants into this country?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not at all anxious to take local duties out of the hands of local authorities, but I have made clear to the House on several occasions that I am bringing together all the planning authorities in all the major conurbations to assess the supply of housing land and the demand for it. That will help me to reach conclusions.
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many cases he has refused loan sanction for housing development because of the high
    866
    cost of the land on which the houses were to be built.
    Mr. Brooke: Such cases are very rare. I cannot give an exact figure.
    Mr. MacColl: Does the Minister think that the rarity is due to the fact that local authorities realise that they could not develop these schemes even with the subsidy, or is it due to the fact that the subsidy does not cover the cost?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot say what the cost of it is. Obviously, a local authority does give consideration to the cost of the land. At the same time, the subsidy is a not ungenerous one and, as I remarked before, there is no upper limit to it.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will so amend the Improvement Grants Regulations as to make it no longer compulsory that all five of the amenities exist before a grant is obtained.
    Mr. Brooke: The five standard amenities are a bath, a wash-hand basin, a w.c., a hot water supply and a food store. All these are commonly accepted as essential facilities these days. I should therefore be reluctant to consider amending the scheme to allow grant to be paid where any of them is missing.
    Mr. Allaun: Yes, but does the Minister not think it unreasonable that because, for example, a house lacks a suitable place for a cupboard, none of the other things—such as a bathroom or hot water system, however badly needed—can be installed even if the landlord is agreeable to it?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises the difficulties. These are grants from public funds and hitherto it has been almost universally accepted that they should not be used for improving a house unless that house will end up with the essential amenities for modern-day life. I would be reluctant to pay Exchequer grants towards improving houses which, in the end, were not going to be really satisfactory.

    Expensive Site Subsidies
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will state for the last convenient year the names of the local authorities which have received expensive site subsidies, and, in the case of each authority, the average cost per acre of the land in respect of which it has been paid.
    Mr. Brooke: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing for the London County Council and for county boroughs in which payment of expensive site subsidy was approved during the five years ended 31st March, 1961, the number of sites concerned and the average cost per acre of the land. The cost for this purpose of subsidy includes the cost of clearance and preliminary development as well as the cost of buying the land.
    To examine individually the records for each of the other 1,400 housing authorities would involve a disproportionate amount of work which I do not think would add significantly to the information in the table, but I will willingly give the hon. Member the facts and figures for any individual authority he desires.
    Mr. MacColl: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a very alarming increase in the cost to public funds of the expensive site subsidy due to the increase in the cost of land? Do the figures he quotes indicate whether it is true that only a few local authorities are suffering from this problem? If so, why is it necessary to look at the returns of many small authorities? Is it not, as he says, the large authorities in the conurbations which are suffering?
    Mr. Brooke: The list I shall circulate includes the names of about 25 county boroughs, but the hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that this does not give any direct indication of the cost of the bare land. For purposes of expensive site subsidy, one has to take into account also the cost of any buildings that are on the land being acquired, and also the cost of preliminary development of the site.
    Following is the table:

    Authority

    Number of Sites

    Average cost per acre as developed

    £

    Birmingham

    15

    10,808

    Canterbury

    3

    5,167

    Coventry

    3

    10,500

    Croydon

    8

    6,620

    Bristol

    1

    13,500

    Grimsby

    1

    6,591

    Halifax

    1

    10,000

    Hastings

    1

    4,500

    Huddersfield

    2

    9,000

    Ipswich

    1

    22,024

    Leicester

    1

    14,550

    Manchester

    2

    8,071

    Middlesbrough

    2

    13,783

    Newcastle

    4

    5,800

    Nottingham

    14

    6,739

    Plymouth

    18

    13,481

    St. Helens

    1

    5,500

    Salford

    11

    8,579

    Sheffield

    12

    12,612

    Southampton

    1

    22,885

    South Shields

    1

    5,500

    West Ham

    19

    7,342

    Wolverhampton

    4

    7,500

    York

    1

    5,988

    L.C.C

    155

    15,616

    Land, Newton Aycliffe
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in view of the correspondence between the hon. Member for Sedgefield and himself regarding rent increases at Newton Aycliffe and the desire of the Aycliffe Parish Council to meet him on this question, if he will now agree to meet such a deputation to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I have already explained to the hon. Member why I do not think it would help if I saw a deputation.
    Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very disappointed with his further reply to my request to meet the Aycliffe Parish Council, and that no doubt the members of that parish council will also be disappointed? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  RUANDA-URUNDI

    Federation (Discussions)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the official discussions which took place between delegations from Tanganyika, led by the Minister of Education, and Ruanda-Urundi, led by the King of Ruanda, Mwami Kigoli, which resulted in a joint appeal to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations to permit the federation of the two territories.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): After a visit to Dar es Salaam in April, the Mwami of Ruanda and the Crown Prince of Urundi issued a statement supporting the idea of a federation; but there were no official discussions with the Tanganyika Government.
    Mr. Brockway: First, will the hon. Gentleman express to the Secretary of State our sympathy in his illness? We hope that he will soon return to the House. With regard to the Question, is it not the case that the Minister of Education in the Tanganyika Government led the delegation from Tanganyika, and will the Government give the fullest possible support to this proposal in the United Nations as a first step in the realisation of Julius Nyerere's imaginative idea of a federation for East and Central Africa?
    Mr. Fraser: I must recall what Mr. Nyerere said on this matter. He would certainly welcome federation with Ruanda-Urundi, but the desire for it must come from the people themselves. This remains the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: While we understand the Government's desire not to embarrass the Belgian Government, although we on this side do not sympathise with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we do not sympathise with them and hope that the Belgian mandate will be terminated as soon as possible—surely the hon. Gentleman is aware of the very strong feeling in Tanganyika Government circles and elsewhere in East Africa that a union with Ruanda-Urundi would be an excellent basis for a growing East African federation of free States.
    Mr. Fraser: The whole object of my right hon. Friend is not to embarrass Mr. Nyerere in any way by intervention. It is a question, not of the Belgian Government, but of being of assistance to Mr. Nyerere in his views.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Foreign Nationals (Enfranchisement)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which Colonial Territories foreign nationals have been enfranchised since the last war.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Nyasaland, Uganda, Tanganyika, Sarawak, and the Southern Cameroons.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Constitution
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations for a new constitution in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The Governor has reported fully to my right hon. Friend on his discussions in Lusaka and is now, with my right hon. Friend's agreement, embarking on a further short round of consultations, with the political groups. He will also be seeing the Litunga of Barotseland this week.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued political uncertainty is gravely damaging the economy of the Federation and that there is little chance of winning the Southern Rhodesian referendum unless there is an agreed solution in Northern Rhodesia? Can my hon. Friend undertake to say that there will be an announcement in this House about the Northern Rhodesian Constitution at least four weeks before the date now fixed for the Southern Rhodesian referendum?
    Mr. Fraser: These are difficult discussions, but I can express as more than a hope that it will be possible to make an announcement to the House in a matter of weeks on the Northern Rhodesian Constitution.
    Mr. Callaghan: Why have these discussions taken something like five

    871
    months to complete? Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia will be settled on its merits irrespective of the situation in Southern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Fraser: I am unable to give any general assurances except that this will be in the best interests of the people of Northern Rhodesia.

    Public Meetings
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will announce the results of his investigation into the regulations governing public meetings in Northern Rhodesia and other complaints put before him by the United National Independence Party.
    Mr. H. Fraser: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 27th April and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 11th May. My right hon. Friend is satisfied, as a result of consultation with the Governor, that no restriction is placed on the lawful activities of any political party in any part of Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Grimond: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to an Answer which his right hon. Friend gave me on 16th May, which said that the Governor had the matter still under review, or implying that it would be reconsidered? May I ask him whether that reconsideration has taken place?
    Mr. Fraser: There has been some relaxation, as my right hon. Friend pointed out before. Individual cases have been studied by the Governor, and he has returned to me the news, which I have given in answer to the Question, that there is no restriction placed on the lawful activities of any political party in Northern Rhodesia.

  KENYA

    Land
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he now has for assisting the problems of land development and safeguarding the security of land titles in Kenya.
    Mr. H. Fraser: As regards the first part of the Question, the Kenya Government's present plans envisage the purchase, sub-division and farm planning of 180,000 acres. My right hon. Friend is awaiting further proposals from the Kenya Government for land purchase and development. On the second part of the Question, the position remains as indicated in my right hon. Friend's statement of 20th December last.
    Mr. Wall: Does that mean that further financial assistance will be provided for this country for land development? Can my hon. Friend say whether talks will be initiated with both Africans and Europeans about the whole future of land in the Colony?
    Mr. Fraser: Regarding the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, after my visit to Kenya, the Kenya Government are coming here with a plan for further development, and that we shall be looking into. As regards talks with Africans and Europeans on the question of land title, these talks, I believe, will at the appropriate moment be of vital importance.
    Mr. F. Harris: On the security of land title, inasmuch as everything in Kenya so much depends, economically, on the future of the long-term farming of the European farmers, how will the Minister overcome these difficulties of encouraging confidence in long-term farming, instead of this deplorable short-term farming which has to go on at the present time?
    Mr. Fraser: I quite agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. It must be one of the prime objects of policy to ensure the title not only of Europeans but of African and Asian colonists inside Kenya.

    Financial Assistance
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will detail the extra money made available to Kenya as a result of the recent Ministerial visit to London.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Before the Ministerial Delegation visited London, Her Majesty's Government contemplated providing, over and above the assistance already promised, an Exchequer loan of £3 million provided the need for it could

    873
    be established. The delegation satisfied Her Majesty's Government on the need for this loan, and Her Majesty's Government also agreed to provide a further £3 million for development, half of which will be grant and half loan. In addition the delegation was given an assurance that Her Majesty's Government would, subject to the approval of Parliament, give further assistance towards recurrent expenditure, and a supplementary estimate will shortly be presented to Parliament for the provision of £4 million for this purpose. £250,000 of this latter sum was included as a direct result of representations by the delegation of the need for more expenditure on education.
    Mr. Williams: While welcoming the clarity of that statement, would not my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that when the Ministerial delegation left London there appeared to be considerable misunderstanding whether the new money involved was £800,000 of extra expenditure or £3 million, and that it is just this sort of misunderstanding which can create a breach of faith or exaggerate a breach of faith, and which can create misunderstandings between the United Kingdom Government and the Kenya Government, at a moment when the restoration of faith and confidence is of supreme importance? Therefore, would not my hon. Friend agree that greater care should be taken in the future to make quite clear on a fundamental point such as the matter of new money, as in this case, what exactly is the position, rather than having to repair the situation weeks later?
    Mr. Fraser: I think this was very largely made a debating point by certain persons. This matter was made perfectly clear in Kenya by Mr. Ngala in the Legislative Council on 26th May, when he made this point absolutely clear.

    Under-Secretary of State (Visit)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what debates have taken place in, and what decisions have been taken by, the Kenya Legislative Council on the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and on the process of constitutional advance.
    Mr. H. Fraser: My visit was the subject of an adjournment debate in the
    874
    Kenya Legislature on 30th May. No decisions were taken by the Legislative Council.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has read that debate, and, if he has done so, whether he has noted the criticisms that have been made of the hon. Gentleman in his statements during that visit? May I ask him directly whether he did not find in Kenya that the leaders of all races are now adjusting themselves to the inevitable African majority in the independence of that country, and whether, in that situation, it is not better to reach a decision rapidly rather than leave the matter in a condition of uncertainty?
    Mr. Fraser: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the admirable letter, except for the mathematical points about a majority, which was published yesterday in The Times from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse)?
    Mr. Callaghan: May I take it that the Under-Secretary now appreciates the unwisdom of making statements that indicate that in the situation which Kenya has reached, we and we alone can determine the future? Does the hon. Gentleman not now realise as a result of the adjournment debate that the future of Kenya is much more likely to be determined by people out there than it is by him in this House?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. Of course, it has to be determined both by people in Kenya and by Her Majesty's Government.

  NORTH BORNEO

    Piracy
    Mr. Turnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the considerable fall in the volume of the barter trade with North Borneo east coast ports due to piracy on the high seas, he will reconsider with the Secretary of State for Air the question of stationing Royal Air Force patrol aeroplanes at Jesselton or Sandakan.
    Mr. H. Fraser: No, Sir. Naval patrols are preferable. They can make direct contact with suspected vessels and they have had considerable success recently.

    875
    The Air Officer Commanding in Chief, Far East, is considering how the Air Force can best assist.
    Mr. Turner: While welcoming the assurance that the Navy is now going to be present, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there has been a considerable deterioration in the situation in the last six months, and that at this moment there is a complete lack of confidence in that part of North Borneo in the ability of Her Majesty's Government to take really courageous action?
    Mr. Fraser: With respect, I think that is a gross exaggeration of the position. I think that what has happened was that there was undoubtedly a fall mainly in the movement of copra, but, although it fell in April to 893 tons, it went up in May to over 1,200 tons. As a result of the naval patrols in May, three suspected pirate vessels and 35 suspected pirates were arrested.

  SOUTHERN CAMEROONS

    Cameroun Republic
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what stage negotiations between the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroun Republic have now reached; and to what extent the possibility of a federal constitution is being discussed.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The Premier of the Southern Cameroons and the President of the Cameroun Republic had discussions in Yaounde from 22nd to 24th May. At this meeting they confirmed that reunification of their two countries should be on the basis of a Federation. Further discussions are to be held very shortly.
    Mr. Thomson: While welcoming the assurance from the Minister that reunification will take place on the basis of federation, which seems the only practicable basis given the difficulties, can the Minister give us an assurance that these negotiations will be completed in time for the elections in the Southern Cameroons in September, and in time for the reunification to be completed by 1st October, without any danger of an administrative breakdown?
    Mr. Fraser: Obviously, the whole question of an administrative breakdown fills the thoughts of my right hon. Friend at this moment, and this we are bearing in mind. Discussions are going on, and we are trying to be as helpful as we can in what is inevitably a difficult situation.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made to staff the administration and to maintain law and order in the Southern Cameroons pending the completion of arrangements for association with the Cameroun Republic.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Until 1st October, 1961, when United Kingdom Trusteeship ends, the present arrangements will continue in force. Arrangements after that date are being discussed between the authorities concerned in the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroun Republic.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that there is now a very short time in which to deal with extremely complicated problems? Will he agree that there is an overriding responsibility on Her Majesty's Government, as the administering authority, to maintain law and order there and not to leave a Congo type of chaos? Would the Minister give us an assurance that if there are to be difficulties about timing the Government will go back to the United Nations and try to get an extension in order to ensure that law and order are preserved and that the reunification takes place peaceably?
    Mr. Fraser: I will certainly report my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend. We are determined to see that the hand-over is correct and that the problems on which he has tried to touch are met.

  NYASALAND

    Civil Service (Appointments)
    Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet reached a decision with regard to the report of the Localisation Committee on the training of Africans for senior Civil Service appointments in Nyasaland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The recommendations of the Report are generally acceptable to the Nyasaland Government. The recommendations on departmental training in Chapter 7 are already being implemented through a training pool and steps are being taken to implement the wider implications of the Report subject to the availability of finance on which I am in touch with the Governor.
    Mr. Fisher: In considering the financial aspects of this matter, would my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are only just over 100 Africans in the senior Civil Service in Nyasaland out of about 1,000—only 10 per cent.—and that the educational output in Nyasaland is totally inadequate even to achieve partial Africanisation of the Civil Service? Will he give serious consideration to that?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. That is why I am regarding this matter with urgency. One thing we have to consider also is that the Committee of Inquiry into African Education in Nyasaland is to report in the next few weeks.

  GAMBIA

    Constitutional Talks
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the progress of the con stitutional talks in the Gambia.
    Mr. H. Fraser: I have nothing at present to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) of yesterday.
    Mr. Callaghan: Has a formal request yet been made for the transfer of the talks to London on the ground that they are not proceeding satisfactorily? If so, what reply has been given?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. As explained yesterday to the hon. Member, these are purely talks of officials in the Gambia and we hope later to have talks at a political level.

  GIBRALTAR

    Spanish Restrictions
    Mr. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Gibraltar
    878
    that the expressions of good will and co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain are not being accompanied by practical steps towards better relations at the Spanish frontier with Gibraltar; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of this Colony.
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the concern of the people of Gibraltar at the continuing unfriendly attitude of the Spanish Government; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve the situation.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking within Gibraltar to protect the internal interests of the Colony, in view of the fact that they have suffered as a result of the lengthy duration of the unfriendly attitude of the Spanish Government to this Colony.
    Mr. H. Fraser: With the hon. Gentlemen, I am aware that Gibraltar would be helped greatly by the relaxation of certain Spanish restrictions and it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this connection to try to secure for Gibraltar practical benefit from improved Anglo-Spanish relations.
    Mr. Jeger: We have been hearing this for many years from the Government and Gibraltar is beginning to demand deeds, not words. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Gibraltar Press, which is getting impatient about this matter. Does he realise that these many years of appeasement of Franco are bringing nothing but a feeling of frustration and disappointment to Gibraltar? Have we so many loyal Colonies in the Mediterranean that we can afford to disregard the most loyal of the lot?
    Mr. Fraser: I would certainly see that we do all we can to improve the situation. I am fully conscious of some of the pinpricking regulations, but I ask hon. Members, on both sides, to regard this as a realistic situation and one which can best be solved by improving relations between our two countries.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep feeling among Gibraltar people about the restrictions

    879
    imposed by the Spanish Government and that they feel a sense of injustice? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to endeavour to have these restrictions removed to that the people of Gibraltar may enjoy the freedom which they should have as British people?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds: How much longer are we to get these spineless excuses for Spain's shabby treatment of Gibraltar? Is it not a fact that there are unnecessary restrictions on cultural, sporting and commercial relations, that Spanish or other foreign nationals are not allowed to go into Gibraltar and that the only change in recent years is an astute move by Spain which has enabled Gibraltarians to go into Spain and spend their money, with harmful effects to Gibraltar? Why do not the Government stick up for the people of Gibraltar and do something?
    Mr. Fraser: I would point out to the hon. Member that there has been some easing of restrictions in the last few months—
    Mr. Dodds: Which ones?
    Mr. Fraser: There has been some easing. Let me point out to the hon. Member, however, that speeches like his contribute nothing to the solution of these problems.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the complete and continuing unwillingness of the people of Gibraltar to be associated with Spain, may I ask the Under-Secretary whether Lord Home raised with the Spanish Government the question that one of the ways of improving relations would be for Spain to drop her claim to the Rock of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Fraser: That is a Question which should be addressed to the Foreign Office.
    Mr. Dodds: Owing to the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Answers by not only the Joint Under-Secretary, but by a whole lot of other Ministers, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: I have repeatedly asked hon. Members to adhere to the traditional formula when giving notice and, in the interests of time, not to make speeches.

  SCOTLAND

    Accidents in the Home
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for a campaign in Scotland to reduce the number of deaths and injuries in the home this year; and whether it will be designed to deal with a specific hazard.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, to whom a Government grant is made, undertakes each year, in co-operation with local health authorities and others, various specific campaigns dealing with accidents in the home. A six months' campaign on the prevention of fire and burning accidents will be launched in October of this year.
    Sir J. Duncan: Will that include gassing accidents, in view of the very large number of people—196—who have been killed by gassing accidents during the last year?
    Mr. Maclay: I will consider that point and write to my hon. Friend.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
  Mr. Marshasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of recent cases in which members of the Government have made public statements on important political issues without first ensuring that they represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will take steps to stop this practice.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The hon. Gentleman's syllogism seems to me to be false. I do not accept his premise and therefore I cannot accept his conclusion.
  Mr. Marsh: Is the Prime Minister not treating this matter with rather unusual levity? Whilst we would agree with his noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) about the peculiarities of the present Administration, would the Prime Minister none the less agree that it is rather unfortunate that statements on delicate facets of foreign affairs should be made at convivial dinner parties in the middle of the night while people are on holiday?

  881
  Has the Prime Minister also read the statement, attributed to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, regretting the statement that he made in Kenya, and since this could possibly have had a serious effect upon life and property in that Colony, does not the Prime Minister think that he should exercise control over some of his Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: We had all this out a week or two ago. I do not see any point in rehashing it all now.
  Sir Richard Pilkington: Is this not an extraordinary suggestion coming from the Opposition?

  PRESIDENT KENNEDY (TALKS)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent talks with President Kennedy.
  Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his official discussions with President Kennedy on the future of Berlin.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister (1) what proposals he made in his discussions with President Kennedy about the West's policy in Berlin and the possibility of a limited arms zone in Germany;
  (2) to what extent, in his discussions with President Kennedy, he considered the feasibility of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent he discussed with President Kennedy the possibility of Berlin becoming a neutralised and open city with the security of its inhabitants guaranteed by the United Nations.
  Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister (1) what agreement he reached in his recent conversation with President Kennedy concerning the normalisation of the present anomalous conditions in Berlin or concerning the stabilisation of the German-Polish frontier;
  882
  (2) what commitments he undertook during his recent conversation with President Kennedy concerning British participation or military intervention in East Germany; and in what circumstances these commitments will become operative.
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether, in his recent talks with President Kennedy, he agreed to the nuclear rearmament of Germany.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the communiqué which was issued after our talks yesterday. Of course, the British and United States Administrations are in constant touch on these matters as we are with our other Allies at various levels. I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to make a detailed statement on the specific points raised in these Questions.
  Mr. Healey: While welcoming the fact that President Kennedy should have taken such personal pains to keep Her Majesty's Government so fully in touch with his recent conversations with foreign Heads of State, and particularly welcoming his insistence at the airport of the importance of Britain's rôle as a world Power and the importance of retaining Britain's existing links with Africa and Asia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I should have thought that hon. Members opposite might well themselves have approved of these views—may I ask the Prime Minister, in spite of what he has just said, three questions?
  First, has President Kennedy given him any indication that General de Gaulle is now ready to make adjustments in the Rome Treaty to make it possible for Britain to join the Common Market? Secondly, did the Prime Minister make any further progress with President Kennedy towards getting the Peking Government seated in the United Nations? Thirdly, did he inform President Kennedy of the view held, I think, overwhelmingly among the British people that despite the inexcusable behaviour of the Soviet Government in the current negotiations at Geneva for a test ban, we would regard it as most undesirable that the United States Government should now resume nuclear tests?
  The Prime Minister: If I were to answer any of those questions, I should be doing exactly what I said I would

  883
  not do. The President wished to have a private conversation with me and it was agreed that it should be private. If I were to publish afterwards what we said to each other, it would not have been a private conversation.
  Mr. M. Foot: Can the Prime Minister at least say, in view of the urgency of the matter, whether he had any opportunity of discussing the sensational reports which have appeared in the New York Herald-Tribune of projected moves against Berlin and whether he had a chance of expressing the British Government's strong objection to these proposals?
  The Prime Minister: I really do not know what is said in the New York Herald-Tribune. I only know what I discussed with the President. Since this matter is mentioned in the communiqué, I will remind the hon. Member of what was said. We said:
  "The situation in regard to Germany was reviewed, and there was full agreement on the necessity of maintaining the rights and obligations of the Allied Governments in Berlin."
  Mr. Swingler: Without asking what the President said, are we not entitled in the House of Commons to know what the Prime Minister said? Is he not responsible to this House? May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he put to Mr. Kennedy any proposal for reducing the war danger in Germany, such as a limited arms zone—a proposal which he himself has put forward previously—or any similar proposal for a zone of controlled disarmament?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Discourteous as it would be of me to publish or to give an account of what President Kennedy said, it would be even more discourteous of me to give an account merely of what I said.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Without trespassing on the area of these private discussions—upon which, after all, the fate of mankind depends in the end—could the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of his own views—whether he conveyed them to the President or not—about two questions? The first is whether he considers that the present state of Berlin can go on for ever, and, if not, what constructive proposals Her Majesty's Government
  884
  will make for the removal of that anomalous situation.
  Secondly, with regard to Question No. 55, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it possible that there can ever be a feeling of stability or security in Europe while the frontier between Germany and Poland remains in dispute?
  The Prime Minister: Those are all important questions, but I will not discuss them in connection with the Questions on the Order Paper—that is to say, my discussions with President Kennedy. The Head of the United States Government asked to have a private conversation with me. It was a very long and valuable conversation. It is proper that I should confine myself to the communiqué which was issued.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the right hon. Gentleman congratulate Mr. Kennedy on his commonsense in meeting Mr. Khrushchev in a neutral country? Does the fact that Austria is a neutral country imply anything to anybody? Why should people be so afraid of neutralism?
  The Prime Minister: After very long negotiations, lasting for many years, the Soviet Government finally agreed to the signing of the treaty which liberated Austria.
  Mr. Harold Davies: With regard to Question No. 57, irrespective of whether or not the right hon. Gentleman desires to reveal what he said to the President—and I am sure that the whole House is glad that these top statesmen have met over the last few days—will he at least do the House of Commons the courtesy of presenting in a White Paper the arguments for and against the Common Market, so that we can explore the issue in the House over a number of days, and ultimately face the nation so that the great debate can be fought out at the hustings?
  The Prime Minister: That is another matter. The Questions I have answered today were directed to what I said in discussion with President Kennedy. The hon. Member's Question is about terms which it may or may not be possible to arrange for joining the European Common Market. This issue is already widely debated in the Press and in the

  885
  country, and I hardly think that a statement in a White Paper would add anything at the moment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest—which we all share—in seeing that the points on both sides of the argument should be properly discussed and weighed.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that I myself was guilty of causing some confusion. I called the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to ask a supplementary on Question No. 56. I think that he asked one on Question No. 57, which was not one of those answered by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister include Question No. 44 in his package reply or is he reserving it for Thursday?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It was not included.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While nobody expects the Prime Minister to reveal the detailed contents of his private discussion with President Kennedy, nevertheless would not he agree that it is profoundly unsatisfactory if they inhibit him, as they appear to do, from explaining to the House what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is?
  In view of the fact that President Kennedy is, I understand, to make an important statement on his visits, either this afternoon or tomorrow, will not the Prime Minister reconsider his refusal to say a word to the House of Commons on these vitally important matters, such as the nuclear test negotiations and Berlin?
  The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that when Questions are put down to me, or to any of my right hon. Friends, we are always ready to answer them. But I do not want to answer these Questions in the context in which they have been put—that of a discussion which was, at President Kennedy's request, held privately without even any of the ordinary advisers being present.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement on the Government's attitude to the situation in the nuclear test negotiations—which are at a very critical stage—at the earliest opportunity?
  The Prime Minister: If a question is put down on that subject, I will do my best to answer it.
  Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about his willingness, if they are put down, to answer questions about matters which he does not wish to discuss in association with the conversations with President Kennedy, can it be made clear that if questions are put down to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject they will not be transferred to the Lord Privy Seal so that the Prime Minister avoids any obligation to answer at all?
  Mr. Speaker: That is everything but a point of order. The transfer of questions is not for me.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to Question No. 58 on the Order Paper?
I tabled this Question after representations by certain of my constituents that there should be an official proposal to invite Major Yuri Gagarin to this country as some indication of our recognition of a very gallant feat by this officer. I am advised that the Question would have appeared originally as Question No. 50, but it was transferred by the Prime Minister's office to the Lord Privy Seal.
I made representations to the Prime Minister, who, on reconsideration, very courteously said that he would answer it himself. The Table Office then put it back in the list as No. 58, and I wonder whether you could give a Ruling as to whether it should have been taken de novo by the Table Office?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that. I did inquire about what had happened to the hon. Member's Question, but the difficulty is that the transfer of questions is not for me, and when one is retransferred back to the list from which it was taken, I cannot help the fact that meanwhile it will have lost some priority.
The circumstances, though I do not know exactly what they are, seem rather strange in this case. I am sure that the Ministers concerned will have heard

887
what has happened to the hon. Member's Question, which should be a matter of regret.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is your view that that Question is not one for you to answer but for the Prime Minister, may I have your permission to ask it of the Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some misunderstanding. I thought that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was still addressing me. I do not think that I can give him permission to ask another Question of the Prime Minister, because the time for Questions has gone. If I make an exception in the case of the hon. Member, I would have to make it equally in respect of others.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I have a guarantee that if I leave Question No. 42 on the Order Paper it will be reached before the end of this Session?
Mr. Speaker: How happy I should be to give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. I am not sufficiently rash, however.

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

    Clause 6.—(SUNDAY CLOSING IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.)
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of order. [Interruption.] I will wait a moment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen please go out of the Chamber more quietly.
    Mr. Griffiths: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you do not propose to call the Amendment in my name, and in the names of several of my hon. Friends, to page 11, line 29, to leave out Clause 6. May I, with respect, ask if you would be good enough to reconsider your decision? I should be grateful if I could be allowed to submit to you why I think it important that the Amendment should be called and that the House should be given an opportunity of discussing it.
    As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is a general licensing Bill applying to the whole of England and Wales, except for two of its provisions, embodied in Clause 6 and in the Second Schedule, which relate exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire. The provision in Clause 6 repeals the Wales (Sunday Closing) Act, 1881, which was later incorporated and consolidated in the Licensing Act, 1953.
    Through the Government's action in seeking to repeal that old Act in a general Measure applying to the whole of England and Wales, Members of Parliament for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire were denied the opportunity which the Standing Orders of the House give them of considering the matter in Committee themselves and of pronouncing upon it, which would have been the case if the Government had followed the course open to them of bringing forward a separate Bill dealing with the separate Welsh issue. Moreover, even with this Bill it would have been possible for the Clause and the Schedule concerned to be referred to a

    889
    special Standing Committee if the Government had been willing to do so.
    I was able to table a Motion which was strictly in order and by which the Government could have done this, but they refused it. They are, therefore, denying a right which Parliament obviously intended that we should have. If, therefore, you do not call the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, neither Welsh Members nor the House will have an opportunity of pronouncing on this Clause separately from the vote on Second Reading.
    There is another reason why I suggest, with respect, that the Amendment should be called and the House should have an opportunity of discussing and pronouncing upon it by a separate vote on its own apart from other provisions in the Bill. There is a provision in the Clause, whereby when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, plebiscites are to be held in certain areas in Wales within a certain time. One of the features of this provision is that the polls must be held on the same day in all the areas and, therefore, this becomes in effect, if not technically, a national referendum.
    This is a very important constitutional precedent, as those Ministers who attended the Standing Committee will know. We did not have the advantage of the attendance of the Home Secretary or of the Minister for Welsh Affairs in a matter concerned with Wales, but in Committee we discussed this point at considerable length. Views were expressed on both sides of the Committee that this provision for polls differs from provisions made by the House for polls on other matters, for example, those on the Sunday opening of cinemas.
    In the first place, these are polls confined exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire whilst others are general throughout the country. Secondly, this is not a provision for one poll, but for an initial poll and for others at intervals of ten years. We are, therefore, making permanent provision for polls at intervals in Wales and Monmouthshire.
    This is an important constitutional precedent. Views were expressed on both sides of the Committee that, having regard to the history of our constitution as a Parliament and the fact that what has happened in the past is likely
    890
    to happen in the future, we having established this precedent, this device of a referendum, it will be invoked for other purposes. We should, therefore, be creating an important constitutional precedent for the whole country without the House having an opportunity of deciding whether it wants it incorporated in the Bill.
    I hope that for these reasons and others, Mr. Speaker, you will reconsider your decision not to call the Amendment. I hope that you will consider, first, that it is in the interest of hon. Members for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire to call it, because otherwise they will be denied the opportunity of discussing collectively a matter concerning Wales alone. Secondly, the House will be denied the opportunity of deciding, quite apart from the merits or demerits of Sunday opening, whether it wants to establish a constitutional precedent of such an important charcter.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. George Thomas: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that we need to hear more about it, without discourtesy to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). The point really is this: naturally, I gave the most earnest consideration to all matters of selection on the Bill and not least to this one, because I knew that it was a matter of great interest and importance to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), to other right hon. Gentlemen, to much-respected hon. Members for the Principality, and to the rest of the House.
    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly for the way in which he has raised this, letting me have in advance what he was to say and, much before that, letting me know in advance of my making any selection whatsoever what the points were that he wished to urge in favour of the matter. I gave the most earnest consideration to them all. Naturally, if, in the circumstances, I could properly do so I would most eagerly make this selection, but I came to the conclusion that I ought not to do so, in accordance with tradition and practice. I must say that reconsideration would not cause me to change my mind about it, because I have carefully considered all these points.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order. With every respect to you, Mr. Speaker, would it influence your judgment on this matter if you were to realise that there are hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies who have had no opportunity, since we were not selected to serve on the Standing Committee, of arguing the merits of one of the biggest issues affecting the Welsh people in the post-war years? As the great majority of Welsh Members have not been able to argue this question at all, would you give further consideration to allowing us the opportunity, which, on Third Reading, as you know, is quite inadequate, since we would have only to vote against the whole of the Measure rather than against this part, of discussing it now?
    Mr. Speaker: I considered that matter, of course. It is part of the problem which I had to consider. I had to weigh up these matters and reach my conclusion. I must ask the House to accept it, because it would be a deplorable precedent to argue about these matters. I hope, therefore, that I shall be acquitted of discourtesy if I decline to argue about this further.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Without any intention of arguing in the manner you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, may I put a point in support of the submission made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, rightly, that only seven Welsh Members were chosen to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, out of a total of 46. Consequently, only a fraction of the total membership from the Principality had the opportunity of considering the Bill even in Committee. Further, the Chair in Committee ruled against discussion of the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    Today, therefore, we are in the position of not having been able collectively to discuss this Clause, which is prescriptively related to Wales and to nowhere else. On Second Reading, for obvious reasons, the debate itself was part and parcel of a debate on a general Bill. Consequently, because of our having
    892
    been deprived of an opportunity of collectively discussing this matter in Standing Committee, and the fact that we are now being faced with a possibility that we cannot argue collectively even at this late stage, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, to reconsider your decision.
    Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me all these arguments in a letter of 1st June before ever I embarked upon the process of selection, so all the matters he has been urging on me were in my mind from the very beginning. It was despite that that I came to the conclusion that I must act in this way.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I, and I am sure the whole House are obliged for the consideration that you have given to this matter and, of course, we accept your decision, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that consideration. It only illustrates the fact that by the action of the Government, not yours, the Welsh Members of Parliament have been denied the opportunity which the Constitution provides for them.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be getting out of order if, on this point, he were to express his distaste of the conduct of the Government.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, during our proceedings today, there will be an opportunity for a separate debate on whether this Clause shall or shall not stand part of the Bill?
    Mr. Speaker: No, because the rules of the House do not permit such a question. I hope that I may call the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the Amendment to page 11, line 35.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who was not selected to serve on the Standing Committee, may I put this view, with every respect? Have you in any way considered what an affront this decision of the Chair will be to the overwhelming proportion of the people of Wales, what reaction we can expect from them to the decision?
    Mr. Speaker: No, I am not concerned with the reaction of other people; I am concerned to do my duty, as I conceive

    893
    it rightly to be, towards this House in the performance of selection. That, rightly or wrongly, I have done.
    Mr. Clement Davies: With every respect, Mr. Speaker, may I make one or two suggestions to you for your consideration? This is not an ordinary Clause in an ordinary Licensing Bill. It is not just like Clause 5 or Clause 7. It is not merely dealing with licences. This is a Clause dealing with a nation, with its habits and customs, which has a separate philosophy, a separate language, a separate heritage, and which is entitled to separate consideration and always has been. That being so, there is no precedent that applies to a case like this.
    In my long experience of the House, I do not remember a Clause of this kind being put into the middle of a general Bill. It deals with the position of a whole nation, whereas this Licensing Bill merely deals with licensing matters. I would have thought that we were entitled to separate consideration of this Clause.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, of course, a point that I have had in mind, from what seemed to be its right bearing on the process of selection, which is a very different matter from criticising the Government in the sense of complaining of their not putting it in a separate Bill or referring it to a Welsh Committee. This is rather different from my point of view, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will acquit me of any want of courtesy in this matter. I have discharged my duty. It is not usual to debate these matters and I think that we have reached a time when we ought to get on.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a rather different point of order, Mr. Speaker, could the selected Amendments on this important question be published in the Lobbies?
    Mr. Speaker: I have found it impracticable to attempt to do that. The method that I have adopted for the general convenience is to pass out to the Whips the selection made as soon as it is available. I have to trouble hon. Members to be good enough to ask their Whips, if they have any, so that they can find out what has been selected. That was done yesterday. Of the starred
    894
    Amendments, three are to be called and one will be discussed with other Amendments.

    Clause 6.—(SUNDAY CLOSING IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.)
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, after "section" to insert:
    "and in which at least fifty per cent. of the electors entitled to vote shall have voted".
    My hon. Friends and I who have subscribed our names to this Amendment urge the Government to consider it earnestly. You, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear that I cannot go into the merits or demerits of Clause 6, but I think that I can say two things about the Clause without in any way infringing the rules of order.
    First, Clause 6, if it is passed, will set in motion a new kind of constitutional procedure. Secondly, it could have the effect of changing the social pattern throughout Wales. On the first point, I do not think that anyone in the House would dispute that this procedure is a constitutional innovation. It is, in one sense, a national referendum, because on one particular day, to be fixed, all the people of Wales will vote on one particular issue, although, in its ultimate effect, it will have local application. A step from that kind of referendum to a referendum proper is a very small one indeed.
    To those who say that this Amendment would introduce an innovation, I would say that the whole procedure is something new in our constitutional history. Personally, I do not like this procedure. If we are to have a referendum of this kind, let it reflect the views of the majority of the people of Wales. I think that is what the Government would desire.
    The Government spokesman, on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, justified this procedure on the ground that we already have local option in the country for the opening of cinemas on Sundays under the 1933 Act. There is an enormous difference between local option for the opening of Sunday cinemas and this procedure. If we are to draw a comparison between local option for the opening of cinemas on Sunday and the opening of licensed

    895
    premises on Sunday we have to look at the result of the Sunday cinema polls.
    The truth is that the Sunday cinema polls have been a travesty of democratic procedure since they started. In some cases as few as 5 per cent. of the electorate have voted in those polls and I would have thought it desirable, in this instance, to avoid a farce of that kind. It might not happen immediately, but the House must look to the future. It may well be that, if and when this poll takes place in the autumn, the vote will be relatively high, but the House should consider what may be the state of the poll in seven, fourteen, twenty-one and twenty-eight years' time.
    4.0 p.m.
    It may be argued that the Amendment is contrary to democratic practice, a point which one or two hon. Members made in Committee. I do not agree. We want to see democracy working effectively both in the forthcoming poll and in the future. The House will be aware that there are good democracies where compulsory voting is established practice. Australia is an example within the Commonwealth. We do not go as far as that in the Amendment, and nor do we intend that, but where a social change of this magnitude is contemplated—and that is what it would be in Wales if the proposal went through—the voice of at least half the electorate should be heard.
    I should have thought that the Government would have been prepared to accept this Amendment because on Second Reading the Minister for Welsh affairs said:
    "…the Government, after very careful thought indeed, were led to the conclusion that the solution must be to find out what the people of Wales really desired…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 153.]
    We will not find out what the people of Wales really desire if only 5, 10 or 15 per cent. of the people vote, but only if at least half of the electorate takes part in the poll.
    There may be passionate protagonists of the Clause and passionate opponents, but the House wants to be certain that the floating voter goes to the poll on this occasion and makes his opinion abundantly clear. This is not a partisan
    896
    issue and the arguments apply fully to those who are for and those who are against Clause 6. I hope that the Amendment will have the support of both sides of the House and that the Government will accept it.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: While I quite understand the motives which inspire the Amendment, the House will be well advised not to accept it. In his very reasonable presentation of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) pointed out that in some countries the view is taken that it is desirable that there should be a very high poll, and in some parts of the world there are certain sanctions to ensure that there is. However, that has never been our practice here in our most important elections, to the House of Commons.
    The House and the country generally have taken the view that in some ways, even in matters of great importance, abstaining can be a positive action. This kind of proviso, which is so much at variance with our practice, even for dealing with an important issue, would be a most undesirable innovation.
    Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Member forgotten that in Parliamentary practice the Government cannot closure a debate unless they get 100 Members in the Lobby to support them?
    Mr. Gower: I am talking not about practice within an assembly, but public polls, which are completely different. I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Anglesey about the importance of this issue, but, unlike him, I like the idea of this referendum. This is the kind of social issue about which a solution could not otherwise be reached, for we cannot have guidance about the wishes of the majority in Wales unless we hold these polls. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who asked for them?"] I would be out of order to discuss that. It is most desirable that we should have this guidance and a clear majority in the normal way, as in Parliamentary elections, will be perfectly reasonable in this case.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I am anxious to support my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). I find it very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower),

    897
    who thought that the Amendment introduced an innovation which we could not accept, forgetting that, in any case, local option itself is an innovation.
    This is the first of a series of Amendments designed to make the Clause and the related Schedule more workable and to ensure that local option county polls for Wales are dignified in conduct and authoritative in results. No one can pretend that the Clause and Schedule as originally presented could possibly attain those objectives. Indeed, the Schedule emerged from Committee in ruins, as the Minister of State well knows. For instance, originally it had no provision for a recount, nor even for avoiding a clash between the dates of the local option poll and a general election. Today, we have the Notice Paper littered with hasty attempts by the Home Secretary to make good the deficiencies of the draftsmen.
    Even now, the mechanics of the proposed poll are deficient and, without substantial Amendments, of which this is one, we do not see how these polls can result in what I have called dignified and authoritative decisions. One requirement for such a decision is that there should be substantial participation in the voting. It is possible that in some areas the percentage voting will be very low, but I think that it will be very high in others. I am told that experience of such polls in Scotland varies in different counties. The experience of local option polls conducted under the Sunday Closing Act, 1933, is that in some instances the poll is as low as 5 per cent.
    The question to be decided is far-reaching, effecting a revolutionary change in the position in Wales and involving the opening of public houses in Wales on Sundays for the first time in eighty years, and the opening of a vast number of new licensed premises and off-licence premises—not only their opening but a change from the terminal hour of 10 p.m. which is now to be 10.40 p.m. because of the addition of the 10 minutes' drinking time and the introduction of the extra half-hour by sleight of hand in the early hours of the morning by the Minister of State.
    The House should, therefore, make sure that in no county or county borough is the question decided by a fractional vote of the electorate. It is reasonable,
    898
    when a question of this magnitude is to be decided, that at least half the electorate should participate. I very much hope that the Minister will recognise this point and will respond to the appeal so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) spoke of the Government Amendments to Clause 6 as being hasty Amendments for the benefit of the draftsmen. In fact, they are attempts to meet points which were raised by him and his hon. Friends in Committee. As he knows, I am anxious to make any reasonable attempt to improve the procedure for the conduct of these polls, but, although the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) spoke in modest terms, I do not see why he thought that the Government should be prepared to accept the Amendment, which, as he said, is a complete innovation.
    The hon. Member correctly drew the comparison with polls for the Sunday opening of cinemas, but he might well have talked of his own election for membership of this House. I am well aware that more than 50 per cent. of the electors of Anglesey turn out when the hon. Member stands for election to this honourable House, but there is no requirement that they should do so. The county of Anglesey may be exceptional, but I doubt whether 50 per cent. of the electors turn out for local government polls. Yet no one has suggested that in any form of local government election there should be a requirement that 50 per cent. of the electors must vote.
    In the procedure for these polls we are following the local government procedure and this is not the place in which to make it a mandatory requirement that 50 per cent. of the electors must turn out. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    I accept that this is an important matter, but, because of that, and because of what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said earlier today, I would have thought that there would be large polls at these elections. Certainly I hope so, but I think that it

    899
    would be quite wrong to impose this sort of requirement, for which there is no precedent in our legislation.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sorry that the Minister of State is taking such a view. As he knows, we had a very interesting discussion in Committee about this matter. We shall discuss later Amendments he has put down, but I think that there are many of those Amendments which would not have been put down if we had not discussed this subject in Committee.
    It is quite clear that the Home Office put in this Clause without due thought of how it would work in practice. We know what happened, and, indeed, it was not the Home Office which wanted the Clause in. The Western Mail and the Conservative Party say the Home Office did not want the Clause, but would have preferred other legislation which, I understand, is to come.
    I beg the House to realise what it is doing. Let us clear out of our minds the issue of Sunday opening and consider this question as a constitutional question, as a political question. The Minister of State rejects the Amendment on the ground that it would be a complete innovation because we do not have this provision for elections in local government and to Parliament. That is quite true, but a referendum is not an innovation. There are elected members of legislative assemblies elected by referendum in several countries. They have special rules for referendum. I think that this is so in some of the Colonies. At any rate, they can make special rules for elections. That is what I am asking the House to do in this instance.
    This will be an election without candidates. Candidates have personal responsibilities and a personal stake in Parliamentary elections. The Minister of State and I are old election agents. I think that one or two other Members who were members of the Standing Committee are, too. An election agent has responsibilities laid down by law.
    In this election there may be people with a direct financial interest in the result. There is money in this. What are we going to do to prevent money from being the deciding voice? We shall come to that later, but that is a relevant consideration now.
    900
    I beg the Minister of State to consider this matter again. I beg hon. Members opposite to do so, including the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)—if I can have his attention. I think that when he spoke just now he spoke for the first time on this Bill. I was very glad to hear his voice. So far, he has been a silent witness.
    Mr. Gower: I spoke yesterday.
    Mr. Griffiths: Until then, the hon. Member's part had been a silent one.
    Mr. Gower: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that until yesterday I did not have any opportunity at all of speaking, for I was not a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and the Bill came back to the House only yesterday?
    Mr. Griffiths: There was Second Reading. But I am glad to hear the hon. Member, although, as usual, he is supporting the Government. I put this point to the hon. Member for Barry. Does he think that this will be the last demand to come from Wales for a referendum? Some of my hon. Friends hold the view—I do not—that there ought to be a Parliament for Wales. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Barry holds that view or not. I put this point to him. Suppose that those who hold that view say to the Government, "We want a referendum in Wales on whether Wales should have a Parliament or not". I wonder what the hon. Member's view about that idea would be. Let him and the House consider that by passing this Clause as it is we shall be starting something which, once it starts, will go on and grow.
    4.15 p.m.
    It is important that we should be clear about what we are doing. This poll will repeal an Act of Parliament. I myself would much rather that this House should have the courage itself to decide one way or another upon this matter. It was the House which passed the Bill which became the Act. I would much prefer that the House should have the courage to amend it itself, if it wants to do so. But it did not have the courage, and neither did the Conservative Party. It had no mandate for this Clause. Not one hon. Member opposite mentioned this in his election address. Not one

    901
    Member from Wales and Monmouthshire mentioned this. Does any hon. Member deny that?
    Mr. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman is looking at me and asking a series of questions and he has referred to me by name. What I would say in reply to his question is that this is an issue which falls into a small category of social matters not usually for party political determination, particularly as both parties—all parties—may be split amongst themselves upon an issue like this, so that it is very difficult for political candidates of any party to put them in an address effectively.
    Mr. Speaker: I have been for obvious reasons in an unduly generous mood, but I think we shall have to pay some attention to the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. Griffiths: I wanted only to give the background to all this, Mr. Speaker.
    What we say is this. In our view, in a referendum of this kind it is essential to provide rules, just as we have rules for election to Parliament or to local authorities. We elect councillors for only three years. Then they have to come back to seek re-election. We elect Members of Parliament for five years and then they have to seek re-election—or they may have to seek re-election sooner. Here, we are to have an election every seven years, an election with very important consequences. Whether we like them or not, whether we desire them or not, they are important. So it is very important, in our view, to lay down now what should be the rules, and not only for this question, because what we do here today may be taken as a precedent by others in years to come. In a matter of this kind no change of this magnitude should be made unless by a poll in which at least half—and that is not asking too much—of the electorate take part.
    I have no doubt myself that in most of the places where a poll is held more than half of the electorate will take part, but I am concerned not only with this time and not only with seven years on, but with fourteen years and twenty-one years' hence. I am concerned with what may be done by other Governments who, in the future, may want to decide other social questions by a
    902
    referendum and who, pointing to what the Goverment propose today to do, may say, "Here is a precedent laid down by the Government in 1961. We will have a plebiscite and a referendum."
    I beg everyone to put on one side the question whether or not he is against Sunday opening and simply to ask himself whether we are now to make sensible rules for now and the future. I believe that a referendum would not be of proper effect in making a change of this character, in other matters besides this, unless 50 per cent. of the electorate were to take part. To provide that is, I think, to make a sensible and democratic provision. I commend it to the House in that way, and I hope the Minister of State will think about it again.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that he would prefer the House to make the decision, rather than leave the Welsh people to decide. I may be unduly suspicious, but I can imagine the thunder of disagreement with which would be greeted any attempt to impose a change upon the Welsh people if it were made predominatly by Englishmen.
    Mr. G. Roberts: May I interrupt?
    Mr. Bennett: I think it is rather early in my speech.
    Mr. Roberts: It is not too early to dispose of what the hon. Member has said. Can he show that the House is not disposing of this Welsh issue in the way he is at the moment suggesting we would object to? Is it not a fact that this Amendment is subject to an overriding veto by English Members?
    Mr. Bennett: I think that the hon. Member might have left it to his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly to carry on this argument, for he is well equipped to do so without support. I stick to my contention: I have sufficient admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence to know how it would have been developed in rather different circumstances.
    The right hon. Gentleman eloquently insists that half, at least, of each electorate should make its voice heard on so important an issue. But that does

    903
    not tie up with his statement that he would have preferred the Government to make up their mind on this issue, because in that case it would have been not half of the Welsh electors but the overwhelming body of English electors who would have decided it. I find it difficult to reconcile his two arguments.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has been unjustly under fire. I must defend my hon. Friend, otherwise it might go out from the House that he is disinterested in this Welsh question. On Second Reading he tried very hard to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, but was not successful. For the right hon. Member for Llanelly, who was complaining a few minutes ago about non-selection, at the same time to criticise my hon. Friend, who had suffered from non-selection in another sphere, seems a little hard. My hon. Friend was not a member of the Standing Committee. In all the circumstances, therefore, the first conceivable occasion on which he could have raised this Welsh issue was today in the House—and my hon. Friend was on his feet to speak even before I was. I hope that that accusation has been satisfactorily met.
    It has been argued that this is so substantial a question that there ought to be a minimum requirement of half the electorate voting. I agree that it is substantial and important, but I do not think that hon. Members can claim that it is more substantial and important than the issues which are decided in a General Election, when there is no minimum requirement.
    It has been said that there is no constitutional precedent for this referendum, but that is no reason for not having one if there is evidence that it is necessary. There are a series of Amendment on the Notice Paper, including one dealing with polling cards, which is designed to ensure the maximum poll. In that respect, I shall have pleasure in supporting the right hon. Gentleman.
    This Amendment, however, seeks to depart from the constitutional practice which applies not only to General Elections, but also to local and parish elections and even to trade union elections, in which there is no requirement for a minimum poll. I see no grounds for introducing a provision which we have
    904
    never introduced before unless there are far more convincing reasons than have yet been adduced.
    Mr. Stan Awbery: Members are elected to borough councils and other local authorities for a short time, whereas the Bill will pass into law provisions for a decision which will be permanent.
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member is not quite right. A General Election, for instance, is for five years, and there is a provision in the Bill stating that the referendum is for seven years. In any event, therefore, we are arguing about only twenty-four months.
    Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. Either there is much passion in the Welsh nation directed towards throwing out this "wicked" attempt to impose something which will interfere with their way of life, in which case they will flock to the polls, or else there is no such feeling, in which case an artificial procedure of this kind will no nothing other than interfere with the constitutional practice which has been followed in this country for a long time. If there is such a strong feeling in Wales it will be felt without Parliament trying to do something which we have never done in any other form of election in this country before.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: The decision which hon. Members take on this issue depends upon their answering a very simple question. I refer more particularly to my Welsh colleagues than to representatives of English constituencies. The short and simple question which requires a short, clear and simple answer is this: does this Amendment conflict with all the known principles of political democracy? As far as I know, there is no section of the British political constitution which includes such a reservation as is contained in the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Australia voting in a Parliamentary General Election is compulsory? Is he suggesting that Australia is not a democracy?
    Mr. Thomas: I am talking about our internal political situation. The very fact that my hon. Friend had to travel

    905
    10,000 miles to find a fact in support of his contention shows that he has a very weak case.
    Mr. Hughes: Surely New South Wales is the best of all examples.
    Mr. Thomas: I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency in particular to answer this question: if he became Minister of Local Government would he write into the political constitution a provision that more than 50 per cent. of the electors must participate in the poll or else the poll will be declared null and void?
    Are we discussing a principle in the Amendment or is it advanced merely as an expedient and not as a principle? If this reservation had been built into the law governing local government elections, the London County Council's administration would have been paralysed for days.
    Sir Douglas Glover: It is now.
    Mr. Thomas: All local government throughout the country would be paralysed, because few of the candidates have been returned to authorities in elections in which the poll has exceeded 50 per cent. of the electorate. The Amendment has not been put down to preserve democracy. It has been put down to destroy democracy, because my Welsh colleagues were defeated in Committee on the main principles of the Clause and they are determined to thwart the will of the Welsh people.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: My hon. Friend will note that the cheers were from the Government side of the House. There are his "Welsh people".
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) had better keep his cheers for a little later.
    This is a deliberate act of political sabotage, introduced by people who claim to be the advocates of democracy, in order to hamper and deter the expression of the will of the people of Wales on this vital matter.
    Mr. Awbery: The purpose of a referendum is to ascertain the wishes of the people. If fewer than 50 per cent. of the people vote, we are not ascertaining the wishes of the people. Is not that a democratic argument?
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas: I should have to change the terminology only a little in order to agree with my hon. Friend. The only purpose of a General Election is to ascertain the wishes and the will of the people.
    Mr. Awbery: For five years.
    Mr. Thomas: For five years or for seven years. The value and virtue of principles can never be determined by time. They are as vital for five minutes as for five centuries and whether the time is long or short does not matter. It is a question of principle and the time factor does not enter into it at all.
    This Amendment is deliberately designed to make it as difficult as possible for the people of Wales to express their opinion on this matter. To me, there is evidence of inconsistency, there is a conflict between logic and emotion. On the one hand, we have heard many speeches, during the Second Reading debate, during the Committee stage proceedings and again today, warning the House about the emotional and political revulsion in Wales against the Bill. Hon. Members have so much confidence in what they say that now they are expressing fears that the people of Wales will not respond according to their expectations.
    As has been said, the essence is that by this Bill we should find machinery to make sure that the declaration of the poll shall be a reflection of the expression of the majority opinion within the Principality. Therefore, hon. Members say that unless there is participation by 50 per cent. of the electorate the poll shall have no validity and should not be accepted.
    The purpose of Clause 6 is to nullify the Sunday Closing Act of 1881. If this poll is in favour of Sunday opening it will nullify that Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a plain fact. I do not know why anyone should quarrel with it. Here is the contradiction. The Act of 1881, which my hon. Friends are trying to preserve, was based on a minority

    907
    opinion in Wales at that time, as nobody can deny. It did not have behind it the opinion of the majority of Welsh people. The thirteen Members of this House who represented Welsh constituencies at that time did not carry with them the majority of the Welsh people.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will recall that the original Act of 1881 was consolidated in the 1953 Act.
    Mr. Thomas: I go back to the beginning, because we in Wales go back to Genesis.
    Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman is trying to stop the exodus.
    Mr. Thomas: We find that enlightened political Welsh democrats in 1961 are defending and preserving an Act of Parliament passed in 1881 which did not reflect the majority opinion in Wales. As we all know, a substantial number of the Members of Parliament then representing Welsh constituencies were not Welshmen at all. They were the sons of English merchantmen and of the marquises and lords of England. They were not Welsh peasants, because in 1881 the propertyless peasants of Wales never had a vote. At that time the only people who could have a vote were those who owned property, and the workers and the common people of Wales had no choice in the returning of these men as Members of the House of Commons. The ironical fact is this—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Because I was not quite sure, I have looked up the record, and I now find that my hon. Friend was a Member of this House in 1953 and that he voted for the consolidation of the 1881 Act in the 1953 Act
    Mr. Thomas: They do say that consistency weighs on the human mind like an alp. The irony of this situation is that of the Members of Parliament who represented Welsh constituencies in 1881 and brought about Sunday closing, 90 per cent. were members of the Athenaeum Club, of the Devonshire Club, of the Naval Club and of the Reform Club, and most of them lived in London. They were prepared to bring about Sunday closing in Wales and to stop the peasant from having his drink, but they made sure that they were able to become members of the top ten clubs in London.
    908
    Those hon. Members who support the Amendment are basing their arguments on the principle that the only authority which they are prepared to recognise is that of public opinion. If they wish the overwhelming majority of opinion to support the necessary consent for change, why is it that they have rested so long on the 1881 Act? Let us take the position of Caernarvonshire, represented by my hon. Friend who has left the Chamber—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We all enjoy the speeches of my hon. Friend, but you will recall that earlier I sought to get Mr. Speaker to agree that we should discuss Clause 6 in its entirety. I will not now quarrel with the decision about that, but when I began to stray from the point I was called to order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the same tolerance shall be shown to other hon. Members with different points of view as has been shown to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas)?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I thought that the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) was dealing with the background, but that he was dealing with it rather extensively. I may have allowed him rather a lot of latitude but I hope that the hon. Member will not trespass further.
    Hon. Members: Go on.
    Mr. Thomas: May I, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with the greatest respect, submit that my argument is based on the fact that in speeches today it has been contended that the purpose and motive behind the Amendment is that if the poll represents less than a 50 per cent. of the electorate, it should become null and void. I submit that the hon. Members who represented Welsh constituencies for eighty years have been slipping, because the Act of 1881, which determined that public houses in Wales should close on Sundays, resulted from a minority opinion in the Principality.
    I wish to give the figures relating to Caernarvonshire. In 1881, the population of Caernarvonshire was 105,000—but only 10,000 were on the register of electors. Glamorgan, with a population in 1881 of 162,000, had only 13,000 on

    909
    the register of electors' panel—that is, Glamorgan, excluding Cardiff, Swansea and Merthyr, because Cardiff was a constituency, although it had only one seat. The two Rhonddas was not a constituency and Aberdare was not, but Merthyr, of course, has always been a constituency.
    The same pattern prevailed throughout the Principality. The total figures for Wales were 1,110,000 in population in 1881—but only 112,000 were on the register of electors. Therefore, the Act of 1881 has rested and, indeed, was founded on that very substantial and narrow minority of the people of Wales.
    Hon. Members are today discussing this matter in the enlightened political democracy of 1961, when every man and woman over the age of 21 is entitled to vote. I am merely hoping that the traditional political democratic principles that have been built into our way of life in the course of the past 800 years—and have been extended to all parts of the realm—shall be preserved, and that we will resist this attempt to tamper with the machinery of political democracy in order to thwart the will of the people of Wales.
    I therefore ask hon. Members to resist the Amendment and I urge all my Welsh colleagues who have any regard for the principles of democracy to heed the warnings that I have given. I urge them to look at Europe and to see what happens when someone begins to tamper with the machinery of political democracy. When that is done, no one can foresee what will be the outcome.
    Sir D. Glover: I will, if I can—after the interesting and amusing speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas)—come back to the narrow point of the Amendment, because, in my view, hon. Members should resist it.
    Apart from whether it has anything to do with political passions in Wales or with a referendum, we have heard from the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) that there is compulsory voting in Australia. That is true and I should like to point out that it is compulsory voting for 100 per cent. of the electorate. There is something to be said for a system where everyone entitled to do so votes and has a sanction imposed to vote. But there is nothing whatever that can be said for deciding upon an
    910
    arbitrary figure of how many should vote before an election can be considered valid.
    At present—and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West made this clear—the London County Council would very nearly have to resign because very few of its members are supported by 50 per cent. of the electorate. In nearly every county council in England and Wales councillors would have to resign. If an arbitrary figure is fixed—and, although I cannot be sure, I think that there is a great deal of politics behind this Amendment—I suppose that the people of Wales could be told to boycott the referendum and, as a result, stop Sunday opening. People could be told to keep away from the poll. That is the sort of thing that this Amendment might lead to. It might lead to political chicanery of the worst order.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. C. Hughes: We are not machiavellian in Wales.
    Sir D. Glover: I only wish that that were true. I think this Amendment is machiavellian and if not, someone from over the border, either from the West or the North, or from across the Irish Sea, would soon show them how, by avoiding the poll, they could decide the issue if they wished to do so, but making sure that 50 per cent. was not reached.
    For that reason alone, apart from any rights or wrongs of a local referendum, this Amendment should be rejected without any further argument.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) spoke of the conflict between logic and emotion in many of my hon. Friend's speeches during the Committee stage of the Bill. May I inform him that there was little logic, and a great deal of emotion, in his speech today? There was also a comparable inconsequential inconsistency about his whole attitude.
    The hon. Member for Rhondda, West may draw some comfort—like the supporters of the 1881 Bill did—from the sons of aristocracy and from the members of the exclusive clubs opposite. That was a point which the hon. Member for Rhondda, West made. The 1881 Bill was supported by the very kind of people

    911
    who are today supporting the speech that he made this afternoon. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West said that by the Amendment we are seeking to thwart the will of the people. It is, in fact, that very will that we are trying to ensure, so that we have the maximum expression of the will of the people of Wales.
    I was extremely disappointed by the answer that hon. Members received from the Minister. I hope that, before we come to the end of this debate, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a further answer. The Government are continually saying that they are anxious to have the opinion of the people of Wales on this absolutely crucial matter. Are they going to be satisfied with the opinion of expression of only 10 per cent. of those people?
    It has been said that the numbers may be greater in the first poll. That may be the case. There should be a great agitation following the passage of the Bill, and so on, and, in the first poll the voting figures may be high. The first poll, concerning cinemas, went extremely well, but, since then, the numbers taking part have fallen severely and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) pointed out, in many instances it is now only 5 per cent.
    As has been pointed out, we have to think not only of this first poll but of those in seven, fourteen and twenty-one years' time. We want to be certain that we shall then be able to ascertain the views of a high percentage of the people in Wales. It is perfectly true that those who feel strongly fox or against will vote, but it is very important also to get the intermediate voter—perhaps it would be appropriate in this instance to call him the floating voter—represented in the poll.
    The Minister of State said that when my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey was elected he no doubt had something like a 50 per cent. poll. I might say that when my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey and I were either elected, or not-elected, as the case may be, the poll was very much higher than 50 per cent. To say that to put some limit on this is to contravene democratic practice, is to do something heinous, something appalling to the Constitution, is really the most arrant nonsense.
    912
    Let us face it. If it were true that at General Elections the poll in a very high percentage of constituencies fell, as in the case of the cinema polls, to 5 per cent. and the like, it really would be time to start thinking about adopting the system in Australia, but in Parliamentary elections we have never been faced with that position—
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Is it not a fact that in our political history we have had Governments elected on a minority vote?
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: That does not make it right.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I do not think that that makes it right at all; I would not defend that. This country has suffered from the most appalling policy as a result of that, notably before the war, when the Governments did not represent the views of the people.
    But that is not my point; the electoral system is totally different. Here, I say that in a matter which is of immense importance to Wales, and to the way of life of the people of Wales, we should, at any rate, be able to ensure a high percentage vote so that we may establish that it is the will of the people that is speaking.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: We must do one of two things. We must either say that we want to collect the opinion of everyone who has an opinion, in which case we do not put a minimum on the voting, or we say that we wish everyone to vote whether or not they have an opinion, in which case the Amendment should provide for compulsory voting. It does neither. All it says is that we must have a vote, not of 49 per cent. or of 51 per cent., but of 50 per cent. I have not heard one word of justification for this magic 50 per cent., in which I can see no merit at all. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be overwhelmingly rejected, as it does not offer us one of the only two reasonable choices that we could be offered.
    Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) that many Acts prior to 1884 were passed on minority votes, including the Reform Act, the

    913
    Factories Acts, and the Education Act of 1870. There is therefore no validity in the argument that the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881, was passed on a minority vote.
    My hon. Friend challenged the motive behind this Amendment. It is always very dangerous to suspect people's motives. I venture to say that behind the Amendment there is a real and genuine motive. He also suggested that it means tampering with the democratic machine, but I suggest, and I think that I have the support of many hon. Members, that it is this innovation that is a tampering with the British constitution. We know that what is proposed is true in France, but it has never been true in this country—apart from local option voting on the Sunday opening of cinemas. It is because there is this tampering with the democratic machine that we are anxious this afternoon to put this new system on as sound a basis as possible. We know from experience that local option voting on the Sunday opening of cinemas has, in far too many instances, proved to be a farce.
    I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West that this House is not our only democratic institution. We adopt the principle of the 50 per cent. vote, and the more-than-50 per cent. vote in other institutions, and that on democratic grounds. Would the workers come out on strike on less than a 50 per cent. vote?
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Is my hon. Friend addressing the question to me?
    Mr. Idwal Jones: Would a major, democratic, political party change its political policy on a small majority vote?
    I come from Wales, and I now speak from knowledge of Wales. The chapels of Wales are democratic in their constitution. The members would not consider calling a minister to a church on a mere majority of members; they would want a substantial vote, and a substantial majority. That is as much a democratic principle as that which we find in this House now.
    All we ask is that before we have this major change in the social life of Wales we shall have at least 26 per cent.
    914
    of the population in support of the change. It is surely not too much to ask that before making a major change of this kind at least 26 per cent. of the people should support it. I suggest that anything less than 26 per cent. support does not justify a change of this magnitude.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: As an expatriate Welshman, I enter with some hesitation into this debate affecting Wales, particularly as it has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) that there are, at any rate, some Welshmen who prefer Guinnesses to Genesis. He has conjured up this democratic Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) as being something undemocratic, unconstitutional and unprecedented. I think that it is none of those things.
    5.0 p.m.
    First, it is certainly not unprecedented. I owe what I am about to say in this matter to the learning and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He has disclosed things to me which indicate that Scotland can, in this respect at any rate, give a good guide to Wales. We are very glad to seek and to get allies from North of the Border when we are in trouble. It is as well that the House should know the facts and should not ride off on foolish fears that we are embarking on revolutionary changes, a development which anyone on this side would naturally regard with horror.
    My hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the fact that in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, which I understand was a consolidating Measure, there are provisions which require that a certain minimum percentage of the electorate shall participate in any decision on whether there should be a change in the number of licensed premises, whether there should be any limitation in the number of licensed premises or whether there should be a no-licence resolution. Whether such a revolutionary resolution has ever got by Kilmarnock or anywhere else in Scotland, I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] I understand that it has.

    915
    The Licensing (Scotland) Act states that
    "A limiting resolution shall be held to have been adopted at a temperance poll if…(b) not less than thirty-five per cent. of the electors have voted in favour thereof…"
    My hon. Friend has suggested 50 per cent. in the case of a limiting resolution. There is a requirement in this Scottish legislation that not less than 35 per cent. of the electors must have voted in favour of the resolution before it can be accepted.
    A no-licence resolution requires, as one may expect, a larger proportion of votes. The Act states:
    "A no-licence resolution shall be held to have been adopted at a temperance poll if (a) not less than fifty-five per cent. of the votes recorded at such a poll are in favour of that resolution"—
    Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby)Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby) rose—
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Just a moment—
    "and (b) not less than thirty-five per cent. of the electors have voted in favour thereof."
    Mr. Wise: In one of the cases which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted the requirement was that 55 per cent. of the persons voting, not of the total electorate, should be in favour. Is it the case in the second instance that he quoted that 35 per cent. of the total electorate or of the number of votes cast should be in favour?
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: The Act says:
    "A no-licence resolution shall be held to have been adopted at a temperance poll if (a) not less than fifty-five per cent of the votes recorded at such a poll are in favour of that resolution…"
    The hon. Gentleman interrupted me when I was reading the provision which answers his point, which is
    "(b) not less than thirty-five per cent. of the electors have voted in favour thereof."
    Therefore, 35 per cent. of the electorate have to vote in favour and 55 per cent. of the votes recorded have to be in favour before a no-licence resolution can be adopted. There are provisions similar to those which my hon. Friend has so practically, democratically and precedently suggested.
    With regard to a requisition for a temperance poll, there is a requirement in Section 113 of the Act that it shall be
    "signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area".
    916
    There is therefore an abundance of precedents for what is proposed in legislation of an identical character.
    There is a certain value, generally speaking, in the introduction of provisions of this kind. I see nothing undemocratic in compelling an important decision affecting the social life of a country to be supported by a substantial part of the electorate before a substantial change comes into force. Requirements of this kind would have a considerable educative value in our democracy. It is a matter of grave concern to us as a democracy that such a miserable proportion of the electorate bothers to vote in local council elections. It makes one tremble to think by what a narrow thread our democratic institutions hang. I should have thought that there was a good deal of merit in accustoming the people to the idea that they have a right to express an opinion and, what is more, a duty to express an opinion.
    I therefore think that this suggestion is one which should commend itself to the House. I do not know the requirements of the Swiss legislation concerning referenda. Switzerland is the home of the referendum, which has played an important part in the life of that country. My recollection is that a certain percentage of the electorate must vote in that country before any matter which affects its constitution can have the effect of amending the law.
    There is, therefore, precedence in our own democracy for this proposal, and the constitutionalist, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West, can set his fears at rest and can recline into the conservative anti-revolutionary state of mind which, at this stage of his life, he has apparently arrived.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I have listened with the greatest care to the speeches of my hon. Friends. There is no doubt that they hold their views about this matter strongly and sincerely and that they represent a large number of people in Wales in stating their opinions. However, it is the duty of all of us who represent Welsh constituencies in particular to listen to the debate and to make up our minds on the basis of the arguments, which is what I have been attempting to do.

    917
    The argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that difficulties will arise from the procedure under the Bill is valid. A referendum, although speciously a democratic instrument, may well not be so at all. My right hon. Friend's arguments are very powerful, although they apply more to Clause 6 itself than to the Amendment. The fact of having a referendum, which is an innovation in our constitution, even though there may be some forms of precedent, creates particular difficulties in the machinery of democracy which we have to consider on their merits.
    Despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South Mr Elwyn Jones) said in quoting most ingenious precedents, I do not think that we can settle this issue by precedents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly also argued powerfully in that sense. He was saying, in effect, that the Government were doing something entirely new in shoving a referendum into the middle of a Bill of this kind and that they were seeking to do that which they should not seek to do in this fashion. He did not rely on precedents. Because this is a new and unique kind of action, I do not believe that we can quote precedents from Scotland, New South Wales or anywhere else on the Sunday opening of cinemas which are relevant to this case.
    Therefore, I believe that on this Amendment what the House has to do is to settle the matter as best it can on the merits of the argument. There seem to me to be two very serious objections—I do not say fatal objections, though if anybody can produce the answers to them, I should like to hear them—to the idea incorporated in the Amendment. The first objection seems to me to be this. We have heard a lot about the desirability of people voting in elections. I am all in favour of that. All we shall do by this Amendment, if we carry it, is to penalise the people who have voted. As far as I can see, there is no getting round this. Whether the vote goes in favour of Sunday opening or against it, we shall be penalising the people who come out to vote if we insist that there must be a 50 per cent. poll.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is developing a very good argument. It is quite true, but this is not a "once-and-for-all" matter. It is a continuing poll at seven-year intervals, and, therefore, if there were not a 50 per cent. poll the first time, there would be no change for seven years, but at the end of seven years there would be another one.
    Mr. Foot: I think that would be a very good reason for having an Amendment providing that there should be a poll every three years. It would be a powerful argument for that proposal, but I do not think it is a rebuttal of the case I was putting, and I do not see how we can get round it. If we insist on this Amendment, we shall be penalising the people who have taken the trouble to come out and vote, and, whichever way the vote went, I should not have thought that that was a defensible proposition. At any rate, it has not been defended so far. We have had many powerful arguments presented, but nobody has defended that proposition, which would be the consequence of carrying the Amendment.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I do not quite follow what my hon. Friend means when he says that if we insist upon a minimum participation of 50 per cent., that will penalise those who take part.
    Mr. Foot: It will penalise them in this sense. We are told that it is very desirable that people should vote, and in the polls that have taken place throughout Wales the percentage is something like 49 per cent. Not all people vote the same way. Some vote one way and some another way, but these people are the ones who settle the matter by their votes. If the Amendment is carried, they will not be able to settle it by the vote, but will be told that the whole proposal fails because they had not been able to get the necessary 50 per cent. Therefore, those who wish to exercise their choice by going to the poll would be denied the right to exercise their choice, and I think this is still the case.
    There is another factor about it. Many people in Wales, and we can see the evidence when it comes to the polls, may say that they do not want to vote one way or the other. I do not think that this is a disreputable attitude in

    919
    such a case as this. It would be perfectly proper for a person to say, "I know there are strong feelings on this issue in Wales, that there are some people who hold strongly and passionately that if this Measure is carried through it will not only affect Sunday opening but life in Wales generally, and I know that there are others who want to exercise their right to have a drink on a Sunday." Many people in Wales might say "I am not going to choose between them, because I do not happen to feel strongly about it one way or the other." It is not a crime not to feel strongly on this subject. Personally, as a person who likes to have a drink now and then, I am not prepared to vote against the right of somebody else to have a drink. Therefore, I come back to the attitude—"Let the people who feel strongly about it settle it".
    5.15 p.m.
    If we carry the Amendment, we shall be robbing that person, who wishes to abstain from voting, of his right to leave the issue to the others to settle. It is a fact that there is no charge against a person who says that he does not want to vote one way or the other. It is a perfectly reputable thing to do. That person may say, for the highest reasons, that he wants the issue to be settled by the people who feel most strongly about it, and it would not be a disreputable thing to say; but, if we carry the Amendment, we shall deny people the right to be able to approach the matter in this fashion.
    For these two reasons—because, if we carry the Amendment, we shall penalise the people who have voted, and, secondly, because it would be a quite creditable attitude if some people wished to abstain when it came to the poll, while still wanting to have the matter settled—I do not see why, because a number of people wish to abstain, it should invalidate the choice of those who want to choose.
    For these reasons, I do not think that we shall improve this referendum procedure by carrying the Amendment. Indeed, I think that we should introduce into the procedure discriminations which are unfair.
    Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendment. I think that
    920
    all the analogies which have been drawn between the referendum and local government and Parliamentary elections are quite false. At Parliamentary elections or local government elections, one votes for a candidate, but one may or may not be voting for a party. Here, they are voting on a specific issue in regard to a branch of the licensing law. They will be voting in an election which raises the whole question of local option. In my view, all these analogies laying down percentages of polls at local government and Parliamentary elections do not bear analysis.
    This is the appeal which I make to the Government. The Government have quite clearly conceded, or, at any rate, have recognised, that, in relation to local option procedure in the field of licensing, it is appropriate that a minimum percentage should be laid down. They took that point of view as recently as 1959 in regard to Scotland. That is to say, the Government recognise quite clearly that, in the field of local option on licensing matters, it was right and proper that there should be a minimum vote before we could have any exercise of local option in the field of licensing. All I ask the Government is this. Why should they depart from that approach to the problem in relation to Wales? Why, when it came to Scotland, did the Government in their wisdom think fit to insist upon minimum percentages?
    I do not think that we have been greatly assisted in this matter by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), and I do not want to remind the House of the figures, because they have been given. If the Government regarded it as just and proper that limitations of that character should be placed in the licensing laws relating to local option in Scotland, why do they depart from it in relation to Wales? All I am asking, and all that the Amendment asks, is that the same principle in the field of local option should be applied in Wales as was applied as recently as in 1959 in Scotland.
    Mr. T. W. Jones: I believe that it is agreed on all sides that the people of Wales never asked for this Bill. I asked the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) who was behind it. The hon. Gentleman is not here at the

    921
    moment; perhaps he has gone to try to find out. He need not have gone, because I can tell him. The people behind this Bill, particularly in regard to Clause 6, are the brewers. [Interruption.] Of course, they are. They are the bosses of the Tory Party.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: If my hon. Friend is so convinced that the brewers have this terrific influence on the Government, why is it that they forgot to tell the Government to bring it in directly themselves, and not introduce Clause 6?
    Mr. Jones: The brewers are more subtle than that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has left his place, because he opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member happens to be a lord of the manor in my constituency. Suppose that the people of Merioneth held a referendum to decide whether he, as a foreigner, should be removed from the locality and fewer than 50 per cent. took part in the poll. I wonder whether the hon. Member would accept the decision as the right one.
    I hope that we do not think in terms of an ordinary election when thinking of this poll. It is a poll to decide the voice of Wales. Surely, if less than 50 per cent. of the people participate in the poll, whichever way it goes—either way—we cannot claim that that represents the voice of Wales. It may be only a minority.
    Here I differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I could not follow his arguments. When voting to elect a Member of Parliament, the electorate can be divided into three classes. There are those who support, those who are against and those who are indifferent. This is an entirely different issue.
    The question that will be put to the people of Wales when the polls are held is as follows: "The existing situation has been in force since 1881. Are you in favour of it or against it?" If the people refrain from going to the polls, that can be interpreted as being against a change and, therefore, the majority would be against it.
    Sir D. Glover: I do not think that the hon. Member can draw that conclusion. In most cases, it would mean that the people were not very interested one way or the other.
    Mr. Jones: That is exactly my point. They do not want a change, otherwise they would take the trouble to vote.
    This is a simple Amendment which I thought that the Government would readily accept. It provides that at least 50 per cent. of the people should declare one way or the other. When we have heard the opinion of 50 per cent., we can agree that that is the voice of Wales. It gives me great pleasure to support the Amendment.
    Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I oppose the Amendment, for a number of reasons. I agree with the contentions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who has raised two fundamental points. In a democracy, it is totally unfair to penalise the man or woman who goes to vote. Let me, however, put one or two other problems which may arise. I do not like local option very much, but I must face the fact that in the Bill as it stands, that is the method that the people of Wales must follow to decide this issue.
    I wish to put some of the problems which could arise if the Amendment were carried. Let us assume that in Glamorgan there is a poll of 49 per cent., 47 per cent. in favour of change and 2 per cent. against. The 2 per cent. would be given the right of winning an election which they had already lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) said that all that the Amendment meant was that if 26 per cent. voted in favour of change, their decision would be carried. I have given an instance to show that 49 per cent. could vote but their decision would not be carried. That is the basis of the Amendment.
    There might be a 51 per cent. vote, per cent. in favour and 2 per cent. against. Because the figure was over per cent., the decision would be valid. If, however, the 2 per cent. had not voted, the fact that they had not done so would give them something which they wanted but which they could not obtain by voting. This is a completely ridiculous situation. In view of merely these few points, the House should unreservedly reject the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 263.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES

    [5.25 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Randall, Harry

    Awbery, Stan

    Hilton, A. V.

    Rankin, John

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Holman, Percy

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Ross, William

    Boyden, James

    Hunter, A. E.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Evans, Albert

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Wade, Donald

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

    Mapp, Charles

    Wllkins, W. A.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Grimond, J.

    Monslow, Walter

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Owen, Will

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hannan, William

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Mr. Bowen and Mr. John Morris

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Green, Alan

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Allason, James

    Costain, A. P.

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Coulson, J. M.

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Balniel, Lord

    Critchley, Julian

    Gurden, Harold

    Barber, Anthony

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Barter, John

    Cunningham, Knox

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Curran, Charles

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Bell, Ronald

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hastings, Stephen

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Dance, James

    Hay, John

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hendry, Forbes

    Biggs-Davison, John

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hlley, Joseph

    Bingham, R. M.

    Delargy, Hugh

    HiH, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Bossom, Clive

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Dodds, Norman

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Bowles, Frank

    Doughty, Charles

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Box, Donald

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hooking, Philip N.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Driberg, Tom

    Holland, Philip

    Brewis, John

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hollingworth, John

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Duthie, Sir William

    Hopkins, Alan

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Hornby, R. P.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Eden, John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Bryan, Paul

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Buck, Antony

    Farr, John

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bullard, Denys

    Finch, Harold

    Jackson, John

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Finlay, Graeme

    James, David

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Jenkins, Roy (Steohford)

    Callaghan, James

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Forrest, George

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Freeth, Denzil

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Gammans, Lady

    Kirk, Peter

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gardner, Edward

    Lambton, Viscount

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Leavey, J. A.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Cole, Norman

    Goodhart, Philip

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Cooke, Robert

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gower, Raymond

    Longbottom, Charles

    Longden, Gilbert

    Peart, Frederick

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Percival, Ian

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Peyton, John

    Teeling, William

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Temple, John M.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    McLaren, Martin

    Pitman, I. J.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Maddan, Martin

    Pott, Percivall

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Maitland, Sir John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Pym, Francis

    Turner, Colin

    Marsh, Richard

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Marten, Near

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Rees, Hugh

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Mawby, Ray

    Roots, William

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Russell, Ronald

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Walder, David

    Mills, Stratton

    Shaw, M.

    Walker, Peter

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Shepherd, William

    Wall, Patrick

    Morrison, John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Mort, D. L.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Watts, James

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

    Webster, David

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Smithers, Peter

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Whitelaw, William

    Noble, Michael

    Snow, Julian

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Speir, Rupert

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Wise, A. R.

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Stodart, J. A.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Parker, John

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Partridge, E.

    Tapsell, Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Peel.

    Mr. Ifor Davies: I beg to move, in page 11, line 40, to leave out "five hundred" and to insert "two per cent. of the".
    We have heard in the previous debate some very interesting speeches, one in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), who said that Welshmen always went back to beginnings He even referred to our going back to Genesis. I do not propose to go back so far. I merely ask the House, in considering this Amendment, to come back to common sense.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to establish the principle that the number necessary to requisition a poll should be relative to the electorate. This is precisely the same principle as the Government themselves applied when arguing for local option as against a national referendum. The purpose of local option was to recognise that the electoral strength of each county should be respected. The same logic should surely be applied to the requisitioning of polls.
    I want to refer to the speech made by the Minister for Welsh Affairs on Second Reading. I have informed him
    926
    of my intent. I regret that he has not been here this afternoon so far, but he may come later. He said:
    "Speaking as Minister for Welsh Affairs and with a full sense of responsibility, I say that it would be wholly wrong in my view if the more lightly populated and countrified counties, such as Merioneth and Cardiganshire, were asked to come into a national referendum in which they would know that their total, voting strength would count for little against the big battalions of the south."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 154.]
    I submit that we should be concerned with the same principle in the requisitioning of polls. The same point is involved—respect for electoral strength. I invite the House to examine the situation. I take the example quoted by the Minister for Welsh Affairs—Merioneth. This has an electoral population of 26,435 and is expected to have 500 requisitions. Glamorganshire has an electoral population of about 500,000, but it, too, is to have only 500 requisitions. Does the House consider that fair, to say the least? In this Amendment we are proposing that requisitioning should be by not less than 2 per cent. of the electors.
    I want to assure my hon. Friends who have talked about the word "myth"—

    927
    and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West, has referred to some mythical things in the life of Wales—that there is no myth about the proposed 2 per cent. It is a realistic figure. I go further. It is the Government's own assessment, because 500 in terms of percentage among the electors of Merioneth is about 2 per cent. The exact figure of 2 per cent. of the electors in Merioneth is 528. Thus, 2 per cent. is applied by the Government themselves by their own reasoning—and I assume that the figure was arrived at by fair mental reasoning. It is not a mythical assessment.
    The Government have decided that requisitions are necessary. I have heard people asking what the point of having requisitions is, but the Government say that we must have them. They say that we must have 500, which is 2 per cent. for the lowest populated county. It is surely not common sense to believe that the same figure of 500 should apply both to the lowest-populated county and equally to Glamorganshire. In passing, I might say that in Scotland 10 per cent. of the electorate must form a requisition before there is a referendum on local option. Therefore, 2 per cent. is very reasonable. It will be fair and equitable.
    No doubt it will be argued that the question of requisitions is not important because they are merely an introductory phase. Indeed, the supporters of Sunday opening make this very point. I have a circular from the Wales and Monmouthshire Sunday Opening Council which says:
    "Requisitions form an introductory phase comparable to the nomination of candidates in parliamentary and local government elections." But this is an entirely different matter.
    Hon. Members have referred to this as a social question. It is nothing of the kind. I would quote as my authority the words of the Minister for Welsh Affairs in his speech on Second Reading on 28th November. I praise the right hon. Gentleman for his comment on that occasion. It was a notable contribution. I hope that he believes it. I give him full credit for it. His words were:
    "The argument which weighs most with me personally in all this against making any change in the 79-year custom in Wales is that any change must cause deep offence to a number of people to whom the Sunday closing of public houses in Wales is not simply a question of social policy to be discussed on sociological grounds, but a question of moral faith."
    928
    I agree that it is a question of moral faith. The right hon. Gentleman added:
    "In my view they deserve our special respect on that account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 150.]
    If those words mean anything at all, they mean that the demand for a poll should not be made too easy. To suggest a 500 requisition, equal to 0·1 per cent. in Glamorganshire, is to make it far too easy.
    As some hon. Members may be inclined to do and as I have heard it said recently in speeches in Wales, it may be easy to ridicule Sunday observance in Wales and to pour scorn on the Welsh way of life and the Nonconformist conscience, but the fact remains that it exists. Mae yn bôd, mae yn gweithio. The Minister for Welsh Affairs said on Second Reading that Stopford Brooke's grandson could not be charged with utter ignorance of the Nonconformist point of view, but I say to him with great respect that if he does not support the Amendment he can be charged with disrespect to that point of view by making it far too easy for supporters of Sunday opening to win the day.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gower: I am sure that the whole House will agree that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) presented the Amendment very reasonably and that superficially, at any rate, there would seem to be a good deal of merit in what he said. His case is that if a figure of 500 is reasonable for a county like Merioneth a larger figure would be more appropriate for a county like Glamorgan and a city like Cardiff. It is an attractive line of argument, but the hon. Member seemed to attach an enormous amount of importance to this as if it was the decisive factor in the final assessment of the votes.
    I submit that it would be fairly easy in any county to obtain 500 signatures and that it would be reasonably easy for the other side to obtain a larger number. I have made a hasty calculation. I believe that the effect of the Amendment would be that in Merioneth 530 would be required whereas in Cardiff 3,500 people would be required to sign a requisition. The effect in the County of Radnor would be to reduce the figure below 500. I am open to correction but I believe that these would be the results of the Amendment.

    929
    I do not know whether the Minister would have very powerful objections to it, and I do not think that it is as important as the hon. Member for Gower seems to imagine. It would be quite easy in Cardiff, for example, for either side to obtain 3,500 signatures and I think that it would be just as easy to obtain even 10,000 in the County of Glamorgan. At least it would not be difficult. The only question is whether it is worth the bother. The Amendment would make this a cumbersome matter. It seems to me that 500 is a reasonable figure and that the real point is that it should be established that the request for a poll is bona fide.
    Mr. Wise: It is not as easy as all that. The signatories must be qualified electors. As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult enough to obtain six signatures on a nomination paper. To obtain 10,000 signatures for a requisition would be very difficult.
    Mr. Gower: I accept what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. I. Davies: But the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has just said that it would be easy.
    Mr. Gower: I do not think that it would be difficult. I will modify what I said. I do not think that it would be extremely difficult to get a larger number of signatories from a larger population. Proportionately it would be as easy to obtain 3,500 signatures in Cardiff as it would be to obtain 500 bona fide signatures in Merioneth. The point is whether this is important. I should have thought that the question is whether the demand is bona fide, and if 500 qualified people signed a requisition I believe that that would be reasonable. However, I do not feel very strongly about it.
    Mr. I. Davies: The whole point is not whether there is a number of bona fide people but whether the demand is there. We are told that there is a great demand. Surely the logical conclusion of the hon. Member's argument is that there should be an extension of the logic which the Government are applying in the figure of 500 for the lowest populated county. The important principle is that we must see to it that people feel strongly enough about the
    930
    subject to sign a petition in numbers proportionate to the electorate.
    Mr. Gower: I have no doubt that that could be done, but I do not think that the strength of the demand would be measured by signatures. The size of the demand or lack of it would be measured by the subsequent poll, but I would not feel strongly about this one way or the other. What I am saying is helpful to the hon. Member's case and unless there are very strong and more positive objections than I have in mind I imagine that my right hon. Friend would consider the Amendment with a good deal of sympathy.
    Mr. John Morris: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for his reasonable attitude in taking no sides in the debate and in sitting on the fence. I am sure that he was as surprised as anyone when the Bill was introduced at the beginning of the Session. I am sure that neither he nor any other Conservative Member for a Welsh constituency had an electoral mandate to support these provisions being thrust upon Welsh people in this way. Now we find the hon. Member for Barry hedging back a little and trying to be on both sides.
    Mr. Gower: If the hon. Member had been here he would have heard me state very positive objections to the previous Amendment that we discussed, but this Amendment is somewhat different. The hon. Member was not here.
    Mr. Morris: I regret that I was not here. I was attending other business, but the hon. Member is now discovering the strength of opinion in his own constituency. He realises that there is feeling in Wales about the manner in which the Bill, and this Clause in particular, are being thrust upon the Welsh people without their having had any opportunity of discussion at a General Election. I hope that when this matter goes to a Division he will not vote for the Government but will retain his position firmly entrenched on the fence. I am, however, quite sure that there is no hope of that.
    Mr. Gower: Had the hon. Gentleman been here last night he would have heard me tell my right hon. Friend that I was about to vote against the Government on

    931
    another Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is here only for his own Amendment.
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Member has put his finger on the nub of the question. Then there was about to be a vote, but no vote took place, and the hon. Member knew quite well that that would be so.
    I want to place on record that the Bill and this Clause in particular were introduced without any thought whatsoever on the part of the Government. They knew nothing of the implications. The Amendment which we are trying to put into this Clause would try to remedy the lack of thought shown by the Government in rushing the Bill through without a mandate. I am quite sure that this whole matter is the work of the backroom Tories in Wales, who have always been in the backroom, who will always remain there and who have never had popular support in Wales. I dare any hon. Member opposite to go to a poll in Wales and declare that he is in favour of the Bill.
    A novel principle has been introduced into this Clause. What we are seeking to do is to try to plan for the future. We ask on this side of the House, why this figure of 500 has been inserted in the Bill. I do not know whether that is the figure for other polls or referenda. We are entitled to know why the figure of 500 has been inserted. Is there any reason why it should not be 400 or 800?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) discussed the difference in the result of the application of the Amendment in the various counties of Wales. In Radnorshire it will be less than 500 if the Amendment is accepted. There is nothing wrong in that if it is a fair and democratic principle. In counties like Merioneth the figure will be a little more. What reason can there be for having the same figure for a small county like Merioneth and for the largest county, from the point of view of population, of Glamorgan?
    The hon. Member for Barry asked whether it was worth the bother to have this Amendment. If it is not worth the bother of 2 per cent. of the population of the County of Glamorgan to requisition a poll, it is not worth having a poll at all. I attach great significance to the
    932
    hon. Member saying, "Is it worth the bother?". If it is worth the bother of 2 per cent. of the people of Glamorgan to have a poll, those people will go to the trouble of sending in properly signed requisition papers.
    One of the worst features of the Clause is that for as long as this Measure continues it will operate on a seven-year basis. Every seventh year there will be a referendum, not unlike an American Presidential election, and as the end of each seven-year period approaches there will be vast activity on the part of the chapels and churches on the one side and the public houses on the other. Public life generally will suffer. If we are to have this problem every seven years, we shall be subjecting public life in Wales to frivolous polls. They will be frivolous polls if 500 people in the whole of the County of Glamorgan can demand a poll, and this will go on as long as this Measure remains in force.
    Every seven years in the County of Glamorgan 500 people out of 500,000 electors can put the whole of the county to expense. The signatures can be collected quite easily. There will be no difficulty on that score. Does the House propose to accept a drastic and fundamental change in the constitution not by General Election, not by Members of Parliament, but by referenda every seven years?
    It will be possible to demand a referenda in seventeen districts in Wales by a very minor number of signatures of people collected in a few public houses or chapels. Both sides can equally demand a poll. The public houses in one county may demand a poll on one occasion and in seven years' time the chapels may demand a poll.
    The Amendment, in my submission, is a reasonable one. I object to the principle of having a referendum, but if we are to have it, it should be by a substantial number of the population, who feel it worth while to go to the trouble of demanding requisition papers. It would be tragic if we were to go through this pallaver every seven years in the County of Glamorgan as a result of a very small minority of signatures collected in one small sector of that great county, and that the county should be put to this expense.

    933
    In Committee, a higher figure of 5 per cent. was asked for. That was a reasonable demand, but it was not accepted. I put forward this plea as strongly as I can: is there anything at all against insisting that before we have this fundamental change in the constitution of the Principality of Wales, to be manifested every seven years, a substantial number of people should have to go to the trouble of making it worth while to insist that a poll takes place?
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has rightly reminded the House that the point which we are now discussing applies to all polls, not only to the poll which may be requisitioned in the ensuing months by those in favour of Sunday opening, but subsequently by those who may requisition against the opening of public houses and licensed premises on Sunday. I would be the first to agree that there is some merit in the point moderately raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that the numbers required for a requisition should be proportionate to the size of the electoral area, but, on balance, I suggest that the arrangements in the Bill are preferable.
    It has been said that Parliamentary and local government elections bear no relationship to this problem, but we are following the Representation of the People Act procedure in other respects. For Parliamentary elections, ten signatures are required on a nomination form and the number is fewer for local government nominations. The nearest precedent for this case under English law is the requisition for a Sunday cinema poll. The arrangements are admittedly somewhat different, but in that case 100 signatures are required.
    The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) reminded the House that the Licensing (Scotland) Act provided that one-tenth of the electorate was required to sign the requisition, but in that case the poll can be for an area as small as a parish, so that is very different from the proposition which we are now discussing.
    The Government felt that a reasonable number of signatures was required before an election should be held. The number of 500 was chosen in relation
    934
    to the number required for a Sunday cinema poll, but is five times that number. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) was quite right when he said that it was a question not of collecting 500 signatures, but of collecting them in the form required under the Appendix to the Second Schedule. That is no easy undertaking and it is something which may not have been fully appreciated.
    If the Amendment were accepted, 3,400 signatures would be required in the City of Cardiff and 10,000 in the County of Glamorgan, but the number required in the County of Radnor would be reduced from 500 to approximately 250. It seems to me that 10,000 signatures in the form required under the Second Schedule would be too onerous a proposal to contemplate, while in the case of the smaller counties it could well be argued that the requirement was not sufficient.
    Reducing the figure to 1 per cent. would make the poll too easy to requisition in many of the more scattered counties of Wales. The Government felt that the precedents should be followed and that we should stick to a number. In Committee, I promised the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that I would consider again whether the number should be 500, 600 or 800. On reconsideration, my right hon. Friend and I have concluded that 500 is a reasonable number in this connection.
    Mr. Morris: I did not follow what the right hon. Gentleman said about the poll being made too easy. Can he repeat that?
    Mr. Vosper: I had in mind the County of Radnor, where the number required for a requisition would be reduced to 250 if the Amendment were accepted. If on the percentage basis the figure were reduced to 1 per cent., the number would be 125 and it would then be held to be too easy to obtain a requisition in that county.
    Mr. Morris: If the hon. Member feels that in a small county like Radnorshire reducing the number required to requisition a poll to 250 might make it too easy in that county, surely he will agree that having a figure of 500 makes it far easier in the County of Glamorgan.
    Mr. Vosper: I would certainly think that if it were just a question of collecting 500 signatures, but I beg hon. Members to realise that it is not that and that the completion of a nomination form in accordance with the Schedule is not an easy exercise. I accept that it will be a fairly easy undertaking in Glamorgan, but care must be exercised and the undertaking should not be entered upon lightly. My advice to the House is that, on balance, the number of 500 is correct.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sorry that once more the Minister has turned down a very reasonable Amendment. In Committee, we suggested that the figure should be 5 per cent., and we have now suggested that it should be 2 per cent. In Committee, it was argued that 5 per cent. was too high. I am very glad that the Minister has not quoted precedent against us, for what we are seeking to do is what we do collectively as a Parliament, except that in this case there are no candidates. The House has felt it desirable and essential to take steps to prevent frivolous candidatures. When a candidate seeks nomination he must be nominated by the requisite number of electors, and if he then goes to the poll and polls less than one-eighth of the votes cast he suffers the penalty.
    That is not something which has existed since 1881, but is something which has come about in more recent times. I was a member of a Speaker's Committee which considered all these matters and nobody suggested a change in that procedure which was felt to have worked very well on the whole. It is not too onerous a responsibility on a candidate that he should find £150 which, if he polls more than one-eighth of the votes, is returned, but which he forfeits if he polls less than one-eighth of the votes. The House has made that provision to prevent frivolous candidatures. We are now to have a referendum, but it will be not one referendum but a series continually over a number of years. Ought we not to make sure that we do not get frivolous demands for such a referendum?
    The Minister will agree that in Committee those of us with experience of Parliamentary elections tried to bend our minds to this thought, and we all agreed that we wanted these polls to be dignified, as the polls for Sunday cinema
    936
    opening have not been. Those polls have been no credit to our democratic procedures. There has been an obvious use of money and people have been carted about in loads and requisition forms have been signed. I do not want that sort of thing to happen in my town, nor in my county, Monmouthshire. I beg my English hon. Friends to remember that this is a matter with which we will have to deal. I do not want requisition forms to be hawked about anywhere by anybody. That is what has happened with Sunday cinemas and I have too much respect for our democratic procedures to want to see it happen in this case.
    Mr. Wise: How will the right hon. Gentleman get 20,000 signatures in a county like Glamorganshire if the requisition is not hawked about?
    Mr. Griffiths: When we were saying that the figure should be 5 per cent. we were charged with being pessimistic about the number of people who would want to vote. We have said that there are better ways of doing this and we have made several suggestions. I could take round one of these forms and ask people in the chapels and "pubs" and clubs and on the road and in the pit and outside to sign it. I do not like that procedure.
    We put down an Amendment, which will show that we have given some thought to the matter. We suggested that anyone requiring a poll—now for Sunday opening and perhaps for Sunday closing in seven years—should go to an office which would be provided by the clerk of the county, or county borough, who would be under an obligation to open such offices at appropriate places throughout the area. Anyone requiring a poll would go to one of those offices and ask for a form which he would sign in the presence of the officer appointed by the clerk.
    That was the suggestion we made in Committee, along with many others. We did not press them in the hope that the Minister would consider them and perhaps put forward Amendments to meet us on some of them. That is the motive which inspired us. I am sure that it is a motive shared by every Member in this House. It is not too much for us to say, is it, that we do not want frivolous

    937
    applications for a referendum? It means that there must be a reasonable demand.
    I know the County of Glamorgan very well indeed. I spent a large part of my life in it. Is it unreasonable to ask that 10,000 should demand a referendum? They will be local electors, and they will be 10,000 in a county of 500,000 local government electors. Only 500 in Glamorgan, as my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) and Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, would be quite farcical. They may decide now—I do not know—one way or the other, but in seven years' time another 500 may demand a poll to achieve the opposite. Do we want that?
    I think that the number of 500 applied in Merioneth, Montgomery and Glamorgan is hardly reasonable. The Government are not enabling the matter to be treated in a dignified way. I wish that the Minister of State had considered other Amendments we put forward. I warned the Committee and I warn the House that I am afraid—and this has nothing to do with Sunday opening—of ugly things taking place. I will be frank. It has to be borne in mind that there is money in this, and I do not want even an appearance of ugly things taking place in our democratic life. That was why we proposed a number of Amendments—this is one of them, and it is a minor one of them—and that was why we proposed the one which has just been rejected by the House. I hope that the House will not reject this one.
    As we said in Committee, so we say now, that since the obligation is placed upon us of deciding this matter by referendum in our country, the House should make provisions which will assist us to carry out the obligation in a dignified way.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has spoken of very ugly possibilities and a certain amount of social immorality—to call it that for want of another term—occurring in carrying out the collecting of the signatures for the requisition of a poll. If my right hon. Friend wants to minimise the possibility of all these ugly situations which might develop it is in his interest to reduce the number of signatures which are required to requisition a poll. He has
    938
    the solution in his own hands. If he wants to avoid those possibilities he should not increase the number and increase the burden on those people who will be collecting the signatures, but should reduce them.
    I think that too much importance has been attached to the avoidance of the frivolous requisition. To my mind, a figure had to be written into the Bill as merely a nominal part of the machinery to initiate the process of the poll. It is purely nominal, serving the purpose of the formality which has to be observed to initiate a poll.
    6.15 p.m.
    We have 36 Members for Wales in this House and it required 360 signatures to elect those Member representing over 2½ million people. Compare that number with the figure of about 80,000 to initiate a poll. I think that it is really ludicrous. Somebody here mentioned that the comparison was not a good one, but when we realise that the purpose of the 500 is to give the necessary jolt to start the democratic machine forward I cannot understand why it is not. That number is purely notional, purely to initiate what we should be doing——
    Mr. Ifor Davies: My hon. Friend keeps referring to this matter as purely emotional.
    Mr. Thomas: I said "notional."
    Mr. Davies: Notional, then. However, this is not a light matter. It is a change in the law. This is not the electing of a person. We are introducing a requisition in order that the law may be changed. That is why we attach so great an importance to the requisition.
    Mr. Thomas: The duty of all democrats is to make access to the democratic machine easier. The main provisions of the Clause have been accepted. There is machinery which the people of Wales can use if they so require, in order to express their views on this matter.
    I have been a Member of the House for eleven years, and I know that whenever we have built up democratic machinery in other parts of the world, for Asiatics or Africans, people we have liberated over the past ten years, we have made every possible effort to make the accessibility and use of the machinery as easy

    939
    as possible. That has been our effort and we are very proud of it. I cannot understand why democrats should make accessibility of the machinery more difficult rather than easier.
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Member keeps on harping on the duty of democrats. It is the duty of democrats who seek to have fundamental changes made in the law to say what they propose in their election addresses and in the manifestoes of their parties.
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend raises a point which is easily disposed of. No Member of this House who wrote this issue into his Parliamentary election address or manifesto could then say that he was elected on that, because that would be buried in the middle of about half a dozen other things, and, while he might think that he was elected on one thing, he really would have been elected on another.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that one would say in an election address, "Leave out five hundred and insert two per cent." but that is what we are talking about.
    Mr. Thomas: I was provoked into that deviation from my argument, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Morris: It is no argument.
    Mr. Thomas: I think that we are exaggerating the importance of this, and what I object to is that we are increasing the difficulty, making it more difficult for people to put their hands to the machinery, instead of doing everything possible to make the machinery as easily operable as possible.
    For those reasons we should reject the Amendment, which is a further example of an effort being made to hamper and obstruct the operation of the Clause.
    Mr. Ede: I apologise to my Welsh colleagues for intervening in the debate.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: We welcome my right hon. Friend's advice.
    Mr. Ede: I heard so much bad history from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) in a previous speech that I am certain that any advice which he tenders to the
    940
    House ought to be rejected straight away.
    We have two suggestions before us which are being regarded as mutually destructive when, in fact, they are not. Once we move away from the representative democracy which we in this country enjoy, we have to recognise that we are travelling over unexplored territory. We are not a democracy on the model of ancient Greece, where there was a 10 per cent. elite who were the democracy living on the 90 per cent. who were slaves.
    Mr. Thomas: We are going back to 1881.
    Mr. Ede: No doubt we were near the dark ages. On the other hand, it was little better in 1881 than in 1831. We are still very largely an experimental democracy, and I regret that the Home Secretary has tried to lure us away from parliamentary representative Government on to this basis of a referendum.
    It is desirable that this machinery should be accessible now that we have decided to establish it, and it should be reasonably equally accessible to people no matter whether they live in a crowded county borough or in a scattered, thinly populated county such as some of the Welsh counties. I recollect going to establish the first combined police force, and the chairman of the standing joint committee for Radnorshire told me that he could not contemplate this until he had consulted his electors.
    I thought that that was a most revolutionary thing for a chairman of a standing joint committee to say. He said that he wanted to consult his ratepayers; there was a telephone in his room and he could telephone the Mayor of Birmingham, for Birmingham paid half the rates of Radnorshire, and, I believe, still does.
    Mr. Bowen: Birmingham gets very good value for it.
    Mr. Ede: No doubt it does.
    I suggest that the best way to reconcile the difficulty of the county borough and the scattered counties is to say that there should be either 2 per cent. or 500, whichever is the less. I am not moving an Amendment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State has left so much to another place that this is one of the

    941
    matters which he might think over until the Bill is in Committee in another place. My suggestion would avoid the need to collect 10,000 signatures in Glamorgan and to have to struggle to get 500 in Radnorshire. It is a principle not unknown to this sort of thing in the near approaches which we have made to it in our Constitution.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) feels that that would meet his argument and that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), in the wisdom which he always exemplifies appropriately, will also find it acceptable to him. We can put people to a lot of trouble to collect the appropriate number of signatures, but in the end, in a matter of this kind, each side will put itself to the trouble, and I do not see why a lot of useless energy should be expended in merely getting the formalities commenced. I suggest that if we said 500 or 2 per cent., whichever is the less, we should leave everybody capable of feeling that they were getting their own way.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have nothing to add to the general arguments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State except to say that, having studied the Committee proceedings closely, I realise that, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, they reduced their bid from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. The spirit in which this Amendment has been put forward has, therefore, been constructive and an attempt to find a solution.
    Nevertheless, there is still a big discrepancy between the effect in Radnorshire, or some other smaller counties, and the effect in Glamorgan. A vital point made by my right hon. Friend is that these are not just names to be collected; they must be collected from people on the local register of electors, according to the Second Schedule, and that makes the provisions difficult for Glamorgan. I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Amendment was moved by a Member for a Glamorgan constituency who should know the difficulties in the county.
    Mr. Butler: I have looked into the matter carefully. I have some knowledge of electoral procedure and I think that this proposal might lead to the very difficulty of hawking round which the right hon. Gentleman feared. It might have some of the undesirable results which he would so much dislike.
    I would point out to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has much experience of these matters, that in intervening in a Welsh debate we are on a footing of equality. If it is of assistance to the House, before the Bill goes to another place I am ready to examine the formula put forward by the right hon. Member for South Shields. I think that it would be workable. I cannot give a definite pledge until I have examined it further, because I heard it for the first time only a moment ago. It struck my mind because some such suggestion had already been in my thoughts in listening to the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman and I can stick together as we did in the past on the Education Act, perhaps I may be allowed to look at his proposal. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved—
    Mr. Morris: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his approach to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr Ede) with the Minister of State's statement that this Amendment would make it too easy for Radnorshire?
    Mr. Butler: In the short time at my disposal I cannot reconcile all these difficulties, but the right hon. Member for South Shields has made a constructive suggestion and in the course of the Bill we have attempted to meet constructive suggestions. I cannot accept the Amendment, but it is reasonable that I should consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I must put one or two points to the Home Secretary before he finalises his decision on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend for South Shields (Mr. Ede). That suggestion would go below the figure proposed by the Government and in that sense is doubly inacceptable to those who support the Amendment, and to

    943
    the Minister of State, judging from the content of his reply to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    The Minister of State, who, I think, is genuinely interested in making these polls work—they have been wished on him by another Minister, and we have every sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, who has to dandle this "baby"—advanced arguments in refuting the Amendment which we find unacceptable. For instance, he said that the numbers might be more difficult to obtain because the areas of population are larger. That does not follow, because the proportion of signatures necessary in an area would be few only in relation to a small population. It need not be any more difficult to collect what is a large figure in a densely populated county than to collect a few signatures in a sparsely populated area.
    I must quote a precedent which was established by the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, and here I think that we are on firm ground. Section 113 (1, c) of that Act provides that no temperance poll can be held
    "unless (c) it is signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area."
    The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) thought that 2 per cent. was too large a percentage. But here we have a Statute providing for 10 per cent. of the electorate to sign. So far as I have been able to discover from my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, no difficulty has arisen from the requirement of 10 per cent.
    The Minister also said that it is not easy to secure the signatures because the form of requisition makes certain not inconsiderable demands. If we compare the form of requisition paper set out in the Second Schedule of the Bill with the requisition paper set out in the Ninth Schedule of the Scottish Act we find that the same requirements are made in both cases. The requisition papers require in four columns the signature, name, address and number on the register. So what difficulties arising from the intricacies of the requisition paper could possibly be encountered in Wales which have not arisen in Scotland?
    Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies have told me that no difficulty
    944
    has arisen on that score, so I urge the Home Secretary, following his recent intervention, to look at this again. It is a sliding scale requiring that the highly populated counties shall proportionately have a poll only if the same percentage of the requisition is obtained there as is obtained in the sparsely populated counties.
    Radnor is the solitary and extreme exception which proves the rule. The proposals which we have made would work extremely well. The case of Radnor means that fewer signatures would be required than is proposed by the Government. That shows how the proportional method would relieve a very small county of what might be a burden and impose on more highly populated counties what is a reasonable burden of proof that a poll is necessary.
    Mr. C. Hughes: I think it important that we should be absolutely clear about what the Home Secretary is to consider. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman will consider a suggestion that the formula should be based on a maximum of 500 signatures, or 2 per cent., whichever is the lesser. That does not meet any of the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends who support the Amendment. If it be the case, I hope that my hon. Friend will take this Amendment to a Division.
    The expenditure in different counties and boroughs will be different. In Anglesey, Montgomery, Radnor, or Merioneth 500 signatures may be sufficient, because the expenditure involved in the poll will be reasonably similar in all those counties. But the expenditure in the counties of Glamorgan, Cardiff, Swansea or Carmarthen, or one of the bigger counties, would be infinitely greater; and by expenditure is meant public as well as private expenditure. Surely we are entitled to ask that the proportion of signatures on the requisition should be greater in proportion to the amount of money spent and time and energy consumed. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider those points.
    I have not consulted my hon. Friends on the matter but I should think that 1 per cent. would be preferable to the figure of 500, or to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
    Question put, That "five hundred" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 75.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES

    [6.38 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Goodhart, Philip

    Partridge, E.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Gower, Raymond

    Peart, Frederick

    Allason, James

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Peel, John

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Green, Alan

    Percival, Ian

    Balniel, Lord

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Peyton, John

    Barber, Anthony

    Gurden, Harold

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Barter, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pott, Percivall

    Batsford, Brian

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Hay, John

    Pym, Francis

    Bell, Ronald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Hiley, Joseph

    Rees, Hugh

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Roots, William

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Bossom, Clive

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Russell, Ronald

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Box, Donald

    Holland, Philip

    Shaw, M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hollingworth, John

    Shepherd, William

    Brewis, John

    Hornby, R. P.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Smithers, Peter

    Bryan, Paul

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Buck, Antony

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Speir, Rupert

    Bullard, Denys

    Jackson, John

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Bullus, Wing commander Eric

    James, David

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Callaghan, James

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerby Capt. Henry

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Tapsell, Peter

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Kirk, Peter

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Chichester-Clarke, R.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Teeling, William

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Lindsay, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Cole, Norman

    Litchfield, Capt-John

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Collard, Richard

    Longbottom, Charles

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Cooke, Robert

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Corfield, F. V.

    MacArthur, Ian.

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Costain, A. P.

    McLaren, Martin

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Coulson, J. M.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Critchley, Julian

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Turner, Colin

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Cunningham, Knox

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Curran, Charles

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Marten, Neil

    Vlokers, Miss Joan

    Dance, James

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Mawby, Ray

    Waider, David

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walker, Peter

    Digny, Simon Wingfleld

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wall, Patrick

    Drayson, G. B.

    Mills, Stratton

    Ward, Dame Irene

    du Cann, Edward

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Watts, James

    Duncan, Sir James

    Morrison, John

    Webster, David

    Duthle, Sir William

    Mort, D. L.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Eden, John

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Whitelaw, William

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Noble, Michael

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Farr, John

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

    Wise, A. R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gammans, Lady

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Gardner, Edward

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Pargiter, G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Mr. Gibson-Watt.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Awbery, Stan

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Randall, Harry

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hannan, William

    Ross, William

    Boyden, James

    Hayman, F. H.

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Short, Edward

    Cliffe, Michael

    Holman, Percy

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Holt, Arthur

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Stones, William

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Oavies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Wade, Donald

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Dodds, Norman

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Willey, Frederick

    Fletcher, Eric

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Forman, J. C.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

    Moody, A. S.

    Woof, Robert

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moyle, Arthur

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Grey, Charles

    Owen, Will

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grimond, J.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Mr. Bowen and Mr. John Morris.

    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, at the end to insert:
    Provided that if polling day at a general election for Parliament falls within the eight weeks after the end of the said period the date for the poll under this section may be more than six, but not more than twelve, weeks after the end of it, and if Parliament is dissolved after the date has been fixed by a direction under this subsection, the Secretary of State may revoke that direction and give a new direction fixing a later date.
    I move this Amendment to meet a point that was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill. Should a General Election intervene during the arrangements for a poll, the Committee felt that some difficulty would arise. The Amendment says that if a General Election is held during the eight weeks following the conclusion of the period allowed for a requisition, then the period allowed for the poll shall be extended from six weeks to twelve weeks to make sure that the dates of the General Election and of the poll under Clause 6 do not coincide. It also makes allowance for the possibility that the General Election might intervene after a date had been fixed for a local poll, in which case the new date is fixed.
    The next Amendment, in page 12, line 21 goes with this Amendment and allows for the returning officer to issue a new notice in such circumstances.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: On behalf of my hon. Friends and I, I express our thanks to the Minister. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this point was raised during the Committee stage. The Amendment
    948
    covers that point and we are obliged to him for tabling it.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I wish to support the Amendment. I am interested to see that hon. Members raised this question, for I recall that in the municipal elections of 1955, which were a fortnight away from the General Election, it was hard to make people understand that the campaigns for the two elections were being conducted at the same time.
    I realise how embarrassing it would be to some people if the campaign on local option were conducted at the same time as a General Election. For instance, no hon. Member was returned to this House declaring himself in favour of Sunday opening in Wales, and if we had this local option campaign taking place within two or three weeks of a General Election it would become the all-absorbing issue—particularly in North Wales, but I believe, also in South Wales.
    I certainly would not fear if that were done. However, there are those more timid people who would not like to have the question of Sunday opening caught up with the General Election, with people voting on that one issue, still in the General Election, under the passion that is roused by it. I understand that this would cause difficulty in some of the South Wales valleys as well as in North Wales. The Minister is perhaps protecting some of the people there from having to fight a General Election on this issue, so I support him.
    Mr. T. W. Jones: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that we will make this a General Election issue whenever it arises—even years after.
    Mr. Ede: The Minister of State said that the Secretary of State "shall" but the phrase in the Amendment is,
    "…the Secretary of State may…"
    I do not think that this is one of the occasions when it would be held that, of necessity, the word "may" meant "shall". It would be at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether he revoked the direction and gave a new one.
    Mr. Vosper: I think that there could be an occasion on which, although the dates did appear to coincide, there was not an absolute necessity for the Secretary of State to revoke the direction, but it is certainly the intention, despite what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) says, that the two elections shall not coincide. If there is anything in what the right hon. Gentleman says I will certainly have it put right, but I think that the words in the Amendment are correct.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I can quite understand the Government's anxiety here, particularly having regard to their miserable exhibition in South Wales at General Elections. As one representing a constituency in the heart of industrial South Wales, I would welcome this being an issue at a General Election. The Government, therefore, need not think that they are protecting us; we are, and as long as this Government are in power we will be. Were this an issue at a General Election, I am fairly certain that, knowing my attitude to Clause 6, and to the Bill in general, the majority of the licensees in my constituency would be voting for the present position.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 21, at end insert:
    "and if the date for the poll is afterwards altered under the proviso to subsection (3) above shall again give public notice accordingly".—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, at the end to insert:
    Provided that such public notice shall include a clear definition of the term "licensed premises" within the meaning of this Act.
    950
    This matter was discussed at some length in Committee. I would remind the House that once this Bill becomes an Act, the machinery starts working. With the Royal Assent, the clock starts ticking, and in due course there will be a poll—and I believe that if the plans of the Government are carried out, there will be a poll this year. The question that will be put to the electors in these 17 areas—13 administrative county areas and four county boroughs is: are you for or against the Sunday opening of licensed premises? We believe that this proposed wording should be included because by the Bill we have substantially altered what is meant by "licensed premises", and this is very relevant to this issue in Wales.
    Up to the present, the whole of this controversy in Wales has been conducted on the basis that what is at issue is whether the public houses should be allowed to be open on Sundays for the sale of intoxicating liquor, or, to put it in familiar terms: should the "pubs" be open? It would be fair to say that the bulk of people in Wales have so far thought of that as the issue, but it is only a small part of the issue.
    Part I of the Bill applies to the whole of England and Wales, including Monmouthshire, and creates two new licences. First, there is the restaurant licence, which introduces important new features. The restaurant proprietors in the 13 counties and four county boroughs will be entitled to a licence to sell intoxicating liquors with meals, and will be entitled to that licence as of right, provided that they conform with certain conditions in the Bill—and no one would claim that the conditions were very onerous. Even the definition of a table is very wide. Therefore, if their owners so wish, thousands of restaurants in Wales will have become licensed premises before this poll takes place.
    Secondly, there are the guest houses, which will also be entitled to licences as of right, subject to certain conditions. But, for the first time, the justices cannot withhold a licence on the ground that there is no public need. That ground has gone; the Government have wiped it out. It is very important that this should be understood by all those taking part in the poll. It is important that

    951
    we should make this known to our constituents, but there is also an obligation on the Government.
    We suggested in Committee that the ballot papers should contain a definition of "licensed premises", but it was urged that it would make the paper long and confusing, so we did not press it. On the other hand, one provision is that there must be a public notice, and we say that that notice should very clearly state, "On such-and-such a date in Carmarthen"—to take my own constituency, if I may—"you will be entitled to vote, and the question that will be put to you is: are you in favour of or against Sunday opening of licensed premises? The term 'licensed premises' includes public houses, restaurants and guest houses. Therefore, when you vote, do not think that you are voting only for the little inn around the corner".
    So important is it to show the controversy and propaganda which there has been about the Sunday opening of public houses that I wish to quote from the manifesto of those who are for Sunday opening entitled, "A survey: The Sunday Opening Question", issued by the Sunday Opening Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. I quote from this document simply to illustrate how desirable it is that this matter should be made clear:
    "The inability of the licensed house, due to Sunday closing, to compete on equal terms with clubs is intensfied by the disproportionate amount of trade which occurs at weekends when most people are at leisure. From searching inquiries made, this reveals that the weakened economy retards the ability to modernise and maintain the amenities that can be offered to the public and stimulates to a somewhat higher rate than in England the decline in the number of licensed houses in Wales and Monmouthshire. The continuation of this trend could mean, ultimately, the disappearance of the inn and all it stands for, especially in the more isolated districts of Wales, for both the inhabitants and the traveller alike."
    7.0 p.m.
    We must not think that all the licensees will be voting for this. Most of them have worked in industry. We have a strong tradition: we do not like working on Sundays. My hon. Friends who are miners, like myself, make a distinction between Sunday and Saturday. We say, "If we work on Sunday mornings, we are entitled to double
    952
    time. If working on Sunday means nothing, then tear up our agreements, because there is no justification for them".
    This proposal will mean something to the licensee, too. He likes to have his Sundays free. He is being induced to support it on the ground that, if he has the right to open on Sundays, he will be able better to compete with his rival the club. That is the argument. But it is not only the club which will be his rival. Joe's cafe and "Gwalia View" will be his rival, too. The licensed victuallers do not like the proposal. The brewers do not mind it, because they will sell the beer in any case.
    I want to make it clear to the licence holder that he has been led up the garden. He has been led to support a movement which gave him to believe that this proposal will enable him to compete on equal terms with the only rival which he has now, the club. But the Government have given him many other rivals, and he will be squeezed out.
    In fairness to the licensee, and to everyone else, I want the constituents of Barry, Cardiff, Swansea and every town to know what he is voting for, whether for or against. Here, I speak only for myself. I regard it as my duty to make clear to my constituents what they are voting for. I believe that the Government have an obligation to make it clear to them.
    We have already made two attempts to get our suggestion accepted. This is the third attempt. The Government should accept that the public notice should contain a clear definition of what "licensed premises" means so that the people who vote either for or against the Sunday opening of licensed premises know what they are voting on.
    Mr. C. Hughes: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said. I am sure that there is one thing on which Members on both sides of the House who know Wales would agree. The Bill is capable of bringing about great changes in the Principality. There is not a shadow of doubt about that.
    In the industrial South the changes may not be as obvious as in the rural areas, but in the villages of mid-Wales and South Wales and in the rural areas of North Wales the opening of licensed

    953
    premises on Sundays will be a major change. At present, they open on Saturday evenings. Unfortunately, in my view—I hope that I am not bigoted—far too many young people go into public houses on Saturday evenings and literally waste their money. They do not go there merely for convivial companionship—
    Mr. Speaker: The activities of young people are a little remote from the contents of the public notice which we are debating.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing me back on to the rails. I was dealing with the question of change.
    The opening of licensed premises in Wales on Sundays would constitute an enormous change in the pattern of living in Wales. When the Bill was foreshadowed and published, the general impression of people in the Principality was that it would mean that, if a majority in favour of it was obtained in the polls, public houses would open on Sundays. I am convinced that that impression still prevails in the minds of a large number of people.
    The Bill, however, involves a much wider extension than that. As my right hon. Friend has said, this proposal will extend to cafés, boarding houses and restaurants. The villages and small towns in the rural areas of Wales will have not only the Sunday opening of public houses, but the cafés in competition. As my right hon. Friend said, this is something that the licensed victuallers did not expect. I believe that such a change is involved that it is only right that the Government should, when the public notices are being drafted, make it perfectly clear what "licensed premises" means so that when the poll comes the people of Wales will be clear what they are voting on. It should be made clear that, if they vote for Sunday opening, they are voting for the opening of public houses, cafés which can sell drinks with meals, guest houses and restaurants. This is an enormous extension. A far larger number of premises will be open for the sale of intoxicating liquor than was ever contemplated by the Welsh people. I warmly support the Amendment.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I regard the Amendment as one of the most important of the Amendments which have been tabled. I believe that the people of Wales have been completely misled by the astonishing campaign which the licensed victuallers have been conducting over the past few months and even longer. It may well be that the licensed victuallers in Wales have acted in ignorance in the campaign which they have conducted because they did not know what was meant by the term "licensed premises". They have been organising meetings at which my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) and Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) have been in attendance.
    At a meeting in Cardiff, the chairman, thinking that it was a question of Sunday opening for public houses and that "licensed premises" was a limited term, in the presence of my hon. Friends described all other Welsh Members of Parliament as being mealy-mouthed and hypocrites who were afraid to speak out on this question. Those of us who hold strong views in opposition to Sunday opening have been subjected to a campaign of vilification and abuse which, I believe, is unworthy of those campaigning for Sunday opening.
    If this Amendment is accepted, it will at least reveal to the people of the Principality that the issues which are at stake are far bigger and far more radical than have been presented by those of my hon. Friends who made it look as if it was an attack on clubs, and working men's clubs in particular. There have been such unfair misrepresentations throughout the Principality by people who ought to know better that I hope the Minister will take the opportunity tonight of being definite in explaining what is involved.
    So that the Minister shall understand what this definition means to us, may I remind him and the House that many of the Welsh people have a particular regard for Sunday? I know that there are hon. Members who pour scorn on Sabbatarians, and who regard Sabbatarian as a dirty word or as a term of contempt and ridicule. I was nurtured in a home in a valley in which regard for Sunday was an important part of life, and I believe that in Wales our Sunday has helped to fashion the national character.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from the contents of this notice, which makes no distinction between the Sabbath and weekdays, but refers only to licensed premises.
    Mr. Thomas: With every respect to you, Sir, I am asking for a definition of those licensed premises which are to be opened on Sundays, not Saturday. With great respect, therefore, I plead that I have a right to say that this is a different day, and a day with a special connotation. I leave the matter there.
    The scope of the Amendment will make it clear that we shall multiply the competitors with clubs and "pubs" on an enormous scale. We shall also create a very unhealthy and undesirable element in the community. I use strong words, and I will justify them. I can think of cafés in which a meal is served and in which, as the Minister said last night, as long as the proprietors state that they are willing to serve lunches and dinners, it does not matter whether the customers bother to take them.
    We all know the sort of places which, in the ports of the country, can be created by the new licence, which I want defined in this Bill and in this Clause, as a result of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I know places that are continually under police surveillance because of what goes on in cafes, and now we are to give them the right automatically to have a drinking licence, which they have not got at present. The Welsh people will be asked to vote for these places to be open on Sundays, as well as the more established hotels in the cities and the public houses in the smaller communities.
    I ask the Minister to make it clear by accepting this Amendment that when the Welsh people are asked to cast a vote on local option, they will be deciding what sort of a Wales they want and what sort of a city we in Cardiff want. I want to know what Cardiff is to be like within the terms, which I hope the Minister will define for us tonight, of what our people will be asked to vote upon.
    7.15 p.m.
    I agree that there are people who do not read the newspapers, except particular parts of them, and there are people who will not know what issues are involved unless, all over the community,
    956
    a clear definition is given of what is involved when we have local option. I want the Minister to make it clear whether he is giving an opportunity for guest houses in Barry and Porthcawl to be opened and those in Barmouth to be closed, as far as drinking is concerned on Sundays. Is this what is involved in the definition? Will he make it clear—because if there is a doubt here, how much more doubt will there be in the Principality unless it is defined in the notices?—that he really means that he is asking people to decide that they can have a drink with their meals in Swansea, but not in Llanelly? Is this what is involved? Does this mean the restaurants as well?
    I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming about this matter, because it is a matter of major importance to us to see that nobody will vote in ignorance but that everyone will know exactly what is involved when they put their crosses upon the paper.
    Mr. Idwal Jones: I must confess that, on first reading this Bill, it had a very frightening effect upon me, especially because of the new meaning of the term "licensed premises". I support my hon. Friends who have already spoken, and I agree that the people who will be asked to vote on these occasions should know exactly what they are voting for. The object of the poll will be to ascertain the voice of the people, and in calling the people to the ballot boxes to register their voices, we should make sure that they know exactly what they are voicing their opinions about.
    Hitherto, "licensed premises" has meant a particular type of building. The term has meant a public house or an inn. If one asks the ordinary man in the street in Wales or elsewhere what is the meaning of "licensed premises", he will tell us that it means a public house. When this new Licensing Bill was introduced, the impression we had at the time was that there was a danger of opening public houses in Wales on Sundays. This Measure has extended the meaning of the term "licensed premises" considerably, and it is very doubtful whether the ordinary rank and file of the electors in Wales appreciate the extent to which its meaning has been extended. Today, it means premises licensed as restaurants and residential premises as well. This has been

    957
    a major change, and it is frightening to me, who has never seen a public house open in Wales on a Sunday throughout my lifetime, to think that I shall, before twelve months have passed, see restaurants open with licences to sell beer on Sundays.
    When people are called upon to register their opinions, they should be clearly informed, and officially informed by the Government, exactly what they are voting upon. This is a very fair Amendment, in which we are not asking too much of the Government. The Government have resisted two of our earlier Amendments, although we made a fair case for them, and I suggest that if the Government resist this Amendment, I shall have to come to the conclusion that they do not wish to help the Principality of Wales.
    Mr. Bowen: In my view, this is an eminently reasonable Amendment. Its sole object is to try to ensure that when people cast their votes at the poll, they know precisely what they are voting for. I should have thought that whatever one's view about Sunday opening and in relation to the holding of a poll, everybody in the House of Commons would be in favour of doing his utmost to ensure that when people cast their votes, they know precisely the issues to which the poll is directed.
    Nobody could pretend that for the present, there is no danger of confusion. I wonder how many hon. Members, if asked to give the connotation of the phrase "licensed premises" in the 1953 Act, could give a correct answer. I very much doubt whether more than a handful could give a correct answer concerning the existing law. When one adds the complications which arise by virtue of Part I of the Bill, I am certain that, unless a great deal more information is given to the public in Wales, they will not have even the vaguest idea of what premises are covered by the phrase "licensed premises" when the poll is held.
    For example, how many people will know whether the phrase relates to any club or to off-licences, to restaurants or boarding houses, to the old-fashioned inn or to the public house? The people are entitled to know this. Any reasonable step which can properly be taken to enlighten
    958
    them on these matters should be taken.
    It will be no good if all that the public notice contains is a definition in technical terms which is merely the substitution of one technical phrase for another. If the definition from Section 165 of the 1953 Act is included in the notice, I doubt whether any member of the public will be any more enlightened as to the scope of the phrase than he is merely by the phrase itself. The Section 165 definition is "premises in respect of which a justices' licence or certificate is in force. How that would help persons who cast their vote to know in respect of what they were casting their vote, I fail to see.
    I should like an indication to be given, not in technical terms, of whether the phrase covers hotels, inns, boarding houses, restaurants or eating establishments with a restaurant licence. If this were done, we should be taking steps to ensure that people who cast their vote know what they were voting for. If the poll is to mean anything, we should take all possible steps to ensure that the issues are put before those who participate in it.
    Mr. Vosper: I was glad that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) referred to the definition of "licensed premises" in Section 165 of the 1953 Act, because that gives an indication of the complexity of the problem. Most certainly, if that definition was put on the notice or ballot paper, the electors in Wales would be far more confused than they are already alleged to be.
    It was pressed upon me in Committee that a definition should be included on the ballot paper or requisition form, but I took the view, to which I still hold, that any attempt to spell out the term "licensed premises" would add to the confusion rather than make for clarity. Certainly, the hon and learned Member for Cardigan shares that view if the notice were to follow the terms of the definition of Section 165 of the 1953 Act. That definition would be a little different from the definition of today.
    The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) thought that the Bill created all sorts of different licensed premises. Restaurants, off-licences and residential premises exist under the

    959
    existing definition. Therefore, that complicated form of definition would still be the, sort of wording which would have to be placed on any document relating to the poll.
    I should have thought that the electors of Wales were sufficiently aware of this issue and of the term "licensed premises"—although I know that the hon. Member for Wrexham disagrees with me—to understand the term "licensed premises" which is used in Section 111 of the 1953 Act, to which the Clause is directed. It is not, there-fore, a new issue, but is an old one.
    What hon. Members opposite want me to do is to list the type of licensed premises which are covered by that term. That would be an impossible undertaking without getting involved in the sort of legal definition that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan does not want. Therefore, concerning definition, one should rest upon the well-known term "licensed premises".
    The desire of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is for the clerk to the county or county borough council in his public notice to spell out the term, presumably "licensed premises", in detail. Subsection (4) simply requires the clerk to give public notice in a manner that he thinks sufficient. Therefore, discretion is given to the clerk how to publish the notice. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to give guidance to the clerks as to what they should include in the notice, so that they have a standard form, I should be prepared to consider the point. I would not, however, go so far as to suggest that clerks to county councils must insert in their notices all the details which hon. Members opposite have in mind in respect of the Amendment. Therefore, I must continue to resist the Amendment on the ground that it would make for confusion and not for clarity.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Minister has resisted the Amendment on the narrow ground that if it were accepted in its present form and if the returning officer or the clerk of the county council were required merely to give a definition of the term "licensed premises" that would lead to confussion. In resisting it on that narrow ground, the Minister has not done justice
    960
    to the arguments with which the Amendment was supported.
    My only ray of hope from the Minister's speech was that he would be prepared to consider giving guidance to the clerks of the county councils in Wales about the terms in which the public notice should be issued. That is a matter which is worth pursuing, for this reason. The existing subsection (4) is most unsatisfactory. It gives complete discretion to the clerk of the county council to decide as he thinks fit how and what notice shall be given. Unless the Amendment or something like it is accepted, it will be essential for the Minister to go much further than he has said. He should give the House an assurance that the appropriate authorities in Wales will be required by direction and guidance from the Home Office to make abundantly clear to the electors in Wales the issues that are raised in the vote about local option.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have pointed out, the real issue is that, in introducing this novel procedure for polls to decide local option in Wales, it is important that Parliament should make abundantly clear that the electors know precisely what they are voting about. I go further than my right hon. Friend. It is important that the electors should know by clear terms in the public notice that if they vote for Sunday opening, they are voting not merely for Sunday opening in "pubs" or Sunday opening of restaurants, but are also voting for the whole of the English system of licensed premises, which is being varied considerably by the Bill.
    7.30 p.m.
    Section 111 of the Licensing Act, which deals with Wales, is a curious one, and the operative part of Clause 6 is that it should no longer apply. The Section provides that there shall be no permitted hours on Sunday in licensed premises in Wales and Monmouthshire, and that is all. It may well be that there are some voters in Welsh constituencies who may think it right that there should be some permitted hours of opening on Sundays for public houses, but not the full licensing system that is applicable to England and is being considerably changed by this Bill.

    961
    Apart from the matters to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly referred, I believe that it is essential that the electors in Wales should know that, under the Government's proposals, not only will there be this clutter of licensed restaurants but that other substantive changes in the licensing laws on Sunday opening are being made. For example, the distinctions that now exist in the hours of opening on Sunday mornings are being abolished. The provisions with regard to occasional licences are being extended. In future in England, late restaurants and night clubs will be allowed to be open not until 2 a.m. but until 3 a.m.—and not only on weekdays but also on Sunday mornings.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not succeeding in following the hon. Member in relating this to a clear definition of the term "licensed premises" in a notice.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am submitting that the public notice should include, as part of the definition of the term "licensed premises", not merely the particular premises which are governed by the Bill but also the provision with regard to hours during which they can be open.
    Mr. Speaker: That matter is on another Amendment. At the moment we are confined to this one.
    Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I had prefaced my remarks by saying that the Minister had indicated that he would be willing to consider giving an instruction or direction with regard to the contents of the public notice.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member was discussing a public notice to be issued by the Minister I apologise. I should not have stopped him.
    Mr. Fletcher: Naturally, I will do my best in accordance with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to observe that the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave for resisting this Amendment was that he was prepared to consider sympathetically the desirability of giving some instruction to the clerks of the county councils about the contents of the public notice. I was urging that that was something which should be pursued.
    962
    I do not know whether that would meet the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly or not, but I hope that the Minister will pursue that line and bear in mind the necessity, in- giving such instructions, that the public notice should make it perfectly clear, not only what licensed premises will be affected by a vote in favour, but also the extent to which the permitted hours now obtaining in England will, as a result, operate in Wales.
    All we are concerned about, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, is that the issues should be fully and clearly put before the electors in an official public document. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment, I hope that he will go further than he did just now in accepting the responsibility for giving official guidance to the clerks of the county councils in that respect, rather than that the form of the notice should be left, as the Bill stands, to the mere whim and discretion of each of the clerks in each of the local authorities.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I must tell the Minister that I and the people in my constituency will be most upset by his refusal to tell us clearly, in words that they and I can understand, what we will be voting about. I shall not repeat what has already been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the idea which is being deliberately broadcast in South Wales, that this is merely a Bill for Sunday opening of public houses—or "pubs", as the shortened term is. But when I report to my constituents that the Government have absolutely refused to define what licensed premises are, then this Bill will be more disreputable in their eyes than it is at present.
    We had the same trouble on Second Reading about what the words "meal" or "meals" might mean. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) asking the Home Secretary to tell us what the word "meal" meant. The right hon. Gentleman replied in words to the effect, "Not on your life am I going to attempt to define it."
    The business of a Government who present any Bill of such immense importance as this one is to make it clear and not beat about the bush. They should

    963
    refrain from laying themselves wide open to charges of dishonesty and of being unconscionable in matters of this kind. I shall have to report to my constituents, who are very much exercised about this Bill. The Minister should think again.
    What is the use of leaving it to the clerks of county councils? They will have as many different opinions about many parts of the Bill as have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. The guidance should come from the Government, and should be abundantly clear. The Government should be responsible for the consequences of their own doings. If that is not done, I shall have to accuse the Government once again of being deliberately dishonest in refusing to tell the truth to our people.
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I am a little disturbed by the Minister of State's reply. I fail to follow his difficulty in meeting the Amendment. Clause 6 (4) reads:
    "On receipt of a requisition for a poll under this section the clerk of the county council or town clerk shall…give public notice…in such manner as he thinks sufficient of the holding of the poll."
    As the Bill stands, all that the clerk has to do is give notice of the holding of the poll. He does not have to give any notice at all of what the poll involves. It can be done simply by saying that the poll will be held in accordance with this Clause. That will be wholly inadequate. This will be a popular poll. Everyone will want to know whether he should vote or not. Therefore, the matter should be spelt out in perfectly simple words which every person can fully understand. There is no provision in the Bill, however, for anything of the sort being done.
    As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we might have a clerk in one place taking one view and another clerk taking a different view entirely and giving a different lot of particulars in a neighbouring area; and every single one of the particulars might completely fail to bring home to a substantial number of electors what they were voting about. It does not do to give notice merely by reference to the Bill or to terms which people cannot understand.
    964
    It would be perfectly open for the clerk of the council, in the exercise of his discretion, simply to say that a poll would be held in accordance with Section 6 (4) of the 1961 Act. That would be a perfectly ridiculous and inadequate notice. I hope that the Minister of State will agree that this is inadequate and that something ought to be done, even if the Amendment is not accepted, to ensure that a minimum amount of information is given in every area to bring home to the people the real issues arising out of the Bill.
    I appreciate that the first difficulty is that of defining what comes within the new licensed premises referred to in Part I of the Bill. The two categories of premises involved—and I do not deal with the cases where they overlap—are those referred to in Clause 1 (2, a) and Clause 1 (3, a). Both those subsections set out quite clearly the descriptions of these premises. If these descriptions were put in the notice in their rather legalistic language it would at any rate bring home to the people what the two categories are.
    But I do not suggest that the Minister should even go as far as that, because in the Bill he has as a heading for Part I a reference to "Restaurants and Guest Houses". Those are his own words and his description of what he means by Part I. Those words will bring home to people who have to go to the poll more dearly than legalistic descriptions in subsections (2, a) and (3, a) what kind of premises are involved under the Bill.
    The Minister could easily get over the difficulty which he has raised about Part I by simply referring to restaurants and guest houses as defined in Part I. This would bring home perfectly clearly to the electors that they are voting not only on pubs but on guest houses and restaurants.
    Mr. Ross: I foresee a difficulty here. Clause 6 comes into force with the passing of the Bill. But Clause 1 does not. It has to await a day appointed by the Secretary of State. If we consider a time in relation to the referendum on local option and the timetable in relation to the day when justices will meet to determine the licences, it may well be that the condition of the licensed premises at the point of the first election will be entirely different, since it must

    965
    be held within the first two months of the passing of the Act and there will not be one of the new premises in existence at that time.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: My hon. Friend is simply saying that in relation to this point the Bill is nonsense, but I am dealing with the Minister's own objections to the difficulty of defining what is included in Part I. I go back, therefore, to that point and ask the Minister whether he will not meet my hon. Friends to the extent of saying that he will introduce an Amendment to the Bill to provide that every clerk of a council shall give in his public notice under Clause 6 (4) a clear indication of the licensed premises in respect of which people are voting, including restaurants and guest houses as defined in Part I. This would probably go some way to meet my hon. Friends' objections. I should be glad to know what objection there is to proceeding on these lines.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has made a helpful speech. His first point, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) to which I previously replied, was that perhaps there should be more guidance to clerks of county councils and county boroughs and about the issue of public notices. If we were to give that guidance, it should be some standard notice common to all local authorities in Wales. I will go as far as to say that I will consider that favourably. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
    The second point is more difficult. I am not convinced yet about its wisdom. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester North-East referred to bringing in restaurants and guest houses, in other words, Part I licences under the Bill, but that is only the beginning of the story. We have to consider off-licence premises, special hour certificate premises, a new category introduced last night by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), supper hour certificates, and the rest.
    The objection of hon. Members opposite would not be met by a simple reference to Part I restaurants and guest houses under the Bill. It is very much
    966
    simpler in any definition in any public notice or in a ballot notice or in a requisition form to stick to the well-known term "licensed premises", but I will consider what has been said on the second point and I am favourably disposed to do something about the first point.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I should like to pick up the point which the Minister made about reconsidering this matter in the light of what has been said today and, in particular, what was said so clearly and ably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). We would very much like to accept the Minister's assurance that he will look at this point, because we lay very great store by there being a clear definition of the issues to be decided by people who take part in these polls. Enough has been said to show that these polls, innovations as they are, are likely to lead at the best and with the greatest safeguards into difficulty and danger, but above all there is the clear difficulty of putting to the voters exactly what they are called upon to vote for or against.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) put the matter in a nutshell when he said that it was not enough merely to substitute for the phrase "licensed premises" another legal phrase which might be quoted from the 1953 Act. That would not do the trick. To that extent we agree with the Minister that confusion would be worse confounded, but that is not the alternative.
    In particular, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East put very clearly what we tried to persuade the Minister to do in Committee. This was not to argue unduly that there must be a legalistic phraseology in a purely definitive phrase. Once we accept the legal term "licensed premises" that can be followed with a non-legal phrase, so far as it is descriptive, beginning with the word "including" because, if I may be Irish for a moment, "including" is not exclusive.
    Can we have the question put, "Are you for or against the opening of licensed premises?", including a simple and short list giving the principal kinds of licensed premises involved and which have been added to as a result of the

    967
    Bill. That is another argument why there should be a list.
    I cannot see that the canons of legality would be rocked to their foundation if we added at the end of such a list the very useful and inoffensive words "et cetera". If the Minister can reinforce his assurance that his mind is moving in the sense in which this debate has proceeded, and that he will endeavour to include in the official announcement the kind of definiton that we have urged, I and, I think, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be glad to co-operate with him in facilitating this part of the Bill. I thought that he was a little too cautious in the assurance that he gave and I hope that he will feel able to reinforce it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I wonder whether, by leave of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) suggests. We dealt with this matter in Committee, when the Minister was completely unco-operative. Now we have had a long debate on a somewhat different Amendment, which avoids the difficulties which he advanced on that occasion, and, at the end of the discussion, he has given a partial indication that he might be willing to do something.
    The Amendment is perfectly straightforward. It is not in absolute terms. It simply asks the Minister to write into this subsection that a clear indication must be given as to what licensed premises-are involved. It is not a long list. It is perfectly straightforward, but there are many people in Wales who live in country districts and who do not read newspapers. They do not know how much about what goes on in this place.
    I am often astonished that intellectual people living in London have not the faintest knowledge about the Bill. They have not taken much notice of it. If that is so, it is obvious that many people in Wales will not really know of this change in the law, opening on Sundays, for example, until 9.30 p.m. and, in some areas, in restaurants until 3 a.m. on Sunday. They will not have the faintest idea of what is involved. The Minister and all of us are inclined to forget that a man would be getting on for 90 to know what it was to live in the days
    968
    of Sunday opening in Wales. It has not been going on in Wales for eighty years. Only those who were aged 5 to 10 at that distant date will realise what Sunday opening was like in Wales. Therefore, this is something quite new.
    I am sorry to think, but it is probably a correct assumption, that this Measure and procedure will last for a long time. While we are doing this we might as well do it properly. Surely the Minister can have no objection to having it laid down quite definitely what people are doing when they go to vote. The Schedule is relatively vague.
    The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting us. Why should he not go a little further? I am sorry if he thinks that we do not trust him, but we have reason, in the light of what has happened and the history of matters previously discussed, to realise that he is doing it very reluctantly and he has not given a wholehearted indication even now. If he will respond to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon and tell us exactly what he proposes to do, I think that some of us will be satisfied and will not suggest that the House should divide on this Amendment.
    Mr. Vosper: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, if he will look at the Notice Paper he will see many Amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend to meet points made by him and his hon. Friends in Committee. We have not met those points which we thought were unreasonable, or which would not improve the legislation.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should not like to do an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with this particular Amendment, not with others.
    Mr. Vosper: There is no difference between us here. We both have the same object in mind, that the intention of this Clause should be fully understood by the people who have to vote. I still doubt whether, even if we limit consideration, as we are, to the notice published by the clerks to the county boroughs, and were to spell out the terms "licensed premises", that would add to the clarity. I will consider favourably, first, whether there should be some form of standardised notice for

    969
    clerks instead of leaving it to their discretion, and, secondly, I should like to see how it looks in the light of the various suggestions proposed by hon. Members. It may well be that "licensed premises" will, after consideration, remain the best available words. That is far as I am able to go, and I hope that it meets the wishes of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts).
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I hope that the Minister will go somewhat further. For example, will he consider favourably the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) that there should be a simple description of the premises included in the Bill? We want people to know that this affects "pubs," restaurants and guest houses. At the moment, they may think that it affects only "pubs."
    If we do not get this assurance from the Minister we shall have to get at it through the county council clerks. Wales is a democratic country. We will be perfectly fair about this. If we wanted to gerrymander we would not bother him, but go to the place where we have fax more influence. We do not want to do that. We ask him to leave this entirely to the discretion of the county councils.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this plea is coming from this side of the House which has the overwhelming support of the majority of people in Wales. We want to be fair to everyone and that is why I should like him to say that he will look at the suggestion. I hope that it is not improper to say that it may be possible in another place—we have some friends there—to table an Amendment in the form presented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East. I hope that he will look at that, too.
    I do not want to vote unnecessarily so I will leave the matter where it is at the moment in the hope that the Minister will consider it.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Perhaps I may be able to come to the aid of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member has already spoken on this Amendment.
    Mr. Thomas: No. Sir. That is the tragedy about speaking too often.
    I have no objection to the information being given in English and in Welsh. I appreciate the Minister's dilemma and I think that my legal hon. Friends will agree that if the information is presented in legal jargon there will be confusion. People must be made aware what the situation is, because in Wales this is regarded as a matter merely of Sunday opening. Welsh people do not appreciate that the Bill affects other types of licences.
    Even hon. Members are not fully acquainted with all the kinds of licences with which the Bill deals and I am sure that a Gallup poll among my hon. Friends now present would reveal that not all of them could enumerate the number and types of categories of the various licences for which the Bill provides. Legalistic jargon with references to Sections and subsections is not what is required, and it should not be beyond the ability of the Home Office to find a clear and simple form of wording.
    The Minister has made an important concession by agreeing that the notice shall be standardised. What my hon. Friends want is that the people of Wales, who are obsessed with the question of Sunday opening, should appreciate that the Bill also affects restaurants and the respectable boarding houses in North Wales and other types of premises.
    I think that it would be inadvisable to have the general statement about the Bill's implications printed on the ballot paper, or on the back of the ballot paper, for the ballot paper should be as simple as possible, but the general notice, which is usually published outside the chapels in Wales and on public hoardings, should be in such terms that the people of Wales generally will be fully aware of what is involved. I want that for the personal reason that when the ballot has taken place, and several counties have decided in favour of Sunday opening, I do not want anybody to be able to say that the people have voted for something that they have not understood.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26 to leave out from "councillors" to "and" in line 28.
    This and a series of other Amendments are designed to introduce postal voting on the lines of local government elections. This provision was omitted from the Bill as presented to the House on the ground that it might add to confusion, but I was pressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to do something about it, and on this occasion I have been able to respond. I apologise for the length of the various Amendments, but they do no more than re-introduce the relevant provisions of the 1949 Act which relate to postal voting and which were omitted from Clause 6 and the Second Schedule. The only alterations are in respect of candidatures, which do not feature in these polls.
    I think that the House will find that, apart from that, we are adhering to the normal procedure for postal voting in local government elections, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am grateful to the Minister. We were disturbed when the Bill was presented to find that there were no provisions for postal votes in these very important polls. The Minister has met our case very generously. We are very grateful to him and we shall support the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 12, line 32 to leave out from the beginning to "when" in line 36.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It may be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment to page 45, line 15, at the end to insert:
    5.—(1) In a county the county returning officer, and in a county borough divided into wards the mayor, may make arrangements for the votes to be counted not by electoral areas, but for the county or county borough as a whole or by such divisions of it as he thinks most convenient, and where arrangements are so made, the counting for the county or county borough as a whole or for each division of it, as the case may be, shall be carried out as it would be if that were the electoral area for which an election were being held:
    Provided that where arrangements are so made in relation to a county borough the
    972
    mayor shall act as returning officer in relation to the counting of the votes, but shall have the like powers in relation to the appointment of deputies as a county returning officer has.
    (2) Where the votes are counted otherwise than for the county or county borough as a whole, then on the completion of the counting or any recount for an electoral area or other division the person acting as returning officer for the purpose (if he is not the county returning officer or mayor) shall forthwith notify the county returning officer or mayor of the number of votes counted on either side, but no other step shall be taken (except proper steps for the security of the ballot papers and other documents) unless or until it is ascertained that there is not to be a recount or further recount.
    (3) Where it appears to the county returning officer or mayor, on the completion of the counting for the whole county or county borough, that the number of votes counted does not show a majority of more than one hundred for either side, he shall cause the votes to be re-counted and, if the decision on the poll according to the recount would differ from the decision according to the original count, to be again re-counted, and the recount or, if there is one, second recount shall be treated as determining the number of votes cast on either side.
    (4) The number of votes cast on either side shall in a county be notified by the county returning officer to the chairman of the county council.
    Mr. Vosper: This Amendment relates to the arrangements for a recount. In the proposals originally submitted to the House no provision for a recount was made. A recount is the prerogative of a candidate in a Parliamentary or local government election and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) pressed me to make some provision. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) suggested that I should take the advice of the clerks of one or two of the authorities in Wales which would have to administer these provisions. I accepted this advice and invited three of them to come to discuss Clause 6. One was unable to come, but the other two did and I am grateful for their helpful advice. This series of Amendments was framed after discussion with them.
    They agreed that a recount would be a very difficult undertaking, for the reasons which I gave in Committee, so long as the count was as dispersed as it could be in some of the larger counties. They suggested to my advisers that it should be possible to have the count more centralised than was originally provided. We have accepted their advice.
    The Amendments do three things. They make it possible for the count in

    973
    Carmarthen, for example, to be held on a county basis, or if thought fit, on a more concentrated basis than was originally provided for. Secondly, if the county decides to count on a dispersed electorate basis, provision is made to freeze the count, at a certain stage in case a recount is necessary. Thirdly, they provide for a recount if the majority is 100 or fewer and, if necessary, for a further recount if the first recount differs from the original count. I appreciate that there is a limit of two recounts or three counts in all, but that should be adequate and would certainly provide a majority of two to one if the eventuality arose. The Amendments place an additional burden on the clerks of the local authorities, but they are willing to accept it. The Amendment will help with the administration of the Clause and meet the case which the hon. Member for Caernarvon had in mind.
    Mr. G. Roberts: I rise warmly to thank the Minister for having made this concession. The Standing Committee did a rather good job of closely examining the Schedule as it then stood and both parties contributed to its improvement, while the Minister showed himself well aware of the difficulties involved in this novel method of ascertaining public opinion. All the major matters which we raised have been met in the spirit and by the action which we expected. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I am very glad to thank the Minister most heartily for the way in which he has met us.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 10, after "an", insert "ordinary".
    In line 12, at beginning insert:
    (i) section forty-seven, section forty-eight except subsections (1) and (4), and in section fifty-two subsection (1) except paragraph (a) and subsection (5) (which relate to personation, plural voting and other frauds in connection with voting) shall apply.
    In line 19, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 22 and insert:
    "(which relates to the obligations of candidates and their agents)".
    In line 25, leave out from "practices)" to "shall" in line 28.
    In line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
    (iii) sections one hundred and forty-six to one hundred and forty-eight and one hundred
    974
    and fifty-one shall apply so far as they relate to offences under any provision above-mentioned prosecuted on indictment or in a magistrates' court.—[Mr. Vosper.]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I beg to move, in page 13, line 44, at the end to insert:
    (9) If with intent to influence persons to give or refrain from giving their votes at a poll under this section, any person after the end of the period allowed for delivering requisition papers, publishes an advertisement in a newspaper or other periodical or procures an advertisement to be so published, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice, and sections one hundred and forty-seven and one hundred and fifty-one of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, shall apply so far as they relate to offences prosecuted in a magistrates' court:
    Provided that the court before whom a person is convicted under this subsection may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by virtue of section one hundred and fifty-one.
    When this Clause was discussed in Committee there was a full and very interesting discussion—as one reads it: I am afraid that was one of the sittings which I missed—on an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to prohibit, subsequent to the public notice of a poll, any expenditure on newspaper, television or poster advertising. There was a general discussion then on the question of propaganda at the poll, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not possible in a poll of this sort to adopt the method of a Parliamentary election and set a limit on the total expenditure, because there are several thousands of people who may be interested on either side of the issue. He, therefore, thought the right way was to try to impose some limit on the various means of advertising which would strike a reasonable balance and also carry out the sort of purposes which Parliament had in mind in imposing a total on the sums which could be laid out at a Parliamentary election. He undertook, having discussed the matter, to give it further thought. He dealt at the time with television advertising and, I think, satisfied the Committee that that was really no issue in view of the terms of the Television Act.
    Hon. Members will see that in the Amendment we have limited ourselves to publication of advertisements
    "in a newspaper or other periodical…."

    975
    I note that there is no Amendment to deal with television advertising. I take it that hon. Members were satisfied with that, and will not wish me to deal further with it.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May we get this clearly on the record? The Solicitor-General gives us an assurance that Independent Television's part in the poll, whatever that part may be, if any, is governed by Act of Parliament, and that the B.B.C. will observe the rules of fair play? I mention it only so that we may get it on the record in this House as well as on the record in the Standing Committee.
    The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is exactly as I understand it. The Independent Television Authority is proscribed from taking any part in controversial matters during elections. The B.B.C. is bound to observe impartiality. Independent Television will not put on—as I understand it—anything which might influence one of these polls. The B.B.C. one will simply leave to its accustomed impartiality if it decides to intervene, though I have no reason to think that it will do so.
    What we are concerned with is other types of advertising. I do not know whether it is proper to mention now the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to this Amendment and to say why we have drawn the line where we have.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. Roberts: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to our Amendment to the Amendment—after "published" to insert:
    "or displays a poster or procures a poster to be so displayed"?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes. I think that it would probably be convenient if I mentioned poster advertising.
    There again, the matter was discussed in Standing Committee, and I think that the point was very cogently put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) who posed this question: if we are to prohibit poster advertising, how do we draw the line short of leaflets, and if we are to prohibit leaflets how do we draw the line short of public meetings designed to influence opinion? He mentioned
    976
    specifically public meetings which centred round places of worship which in some ways sought to influence the decision of the electors.
    It is, of course, extraordinarily difficult and a matter of judgment where one draws the line fairly.
    Mr. Ross: I am wondering whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has thought of what we do in Scotland. What about licensed premises being open on the day of the poll? When such a poll is taken in Scotland licensed premises have to close till after the poll.
    The Solicitor-General: I must say that that was one of the points which was not drawn to our attention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly undertake to consider that before the Bill is considered in another place. I do not think that it is strictly relevant to this Amendment, because here we are concerned with means of advertising.
    As I say, we have to decide where to draw the line. It seems quite impossible to prohibit posters, on logic, and yet allow leaflet advertising, or to allow leaflet advertising and to prohibit public meetings. There is also this consideration which we had in mind, that prohibition of poster advertising would be extraordinarily difficult to enforce. One must consider also not only the logic but the enforceability of the provisions which we write in to control a poll of this sort, particularly the position of posters which may be put up before announcement of the poll. I know from the Amendment to the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be satisfied that we have gone the whole way, but I hope that he will be satisfied that we have gone a considerable way to meet his view.
    Mr. G. Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman always presents his case in a reasonable and attractive manner. He has just addressed us in such a way that I would gladly buy him a soft drink when he comes to Wales, and I hope that he will get accustomed to them. Maybe he is already.
    However, I believe that he has made a very important statement to us. I was so glad to hear that the television authorities are going to behave honourably in this matter. It would have been quite wrong if big business had been able to

    977
    pay its thousands of pounds to use television to influence an election where the little people have not the reasources to advance their point of view. I believe that the Minister has given us a good deal by giving this assurance about I.T.V. in which he said that I.T.V. is not allowed to take part in an election. I assume that he also meant a referendum.
    The Solicitor-General: I was using a form of shorthand. The words of the Television Act are more specific. They prohibit any advertisement
    "which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature",
    or any advertisement
    "which is directed towards any religious or political end".
    I am prepared to advise the House that that is a sufficient safeguard.
    Mr. Thomas: After hearing those words I am satisfied. I know the people in charge of commercial television, at least in South Wales, and I have every faith that they will honourably abide by that definition. Of course, everybody has a great deal of faith in the judgment and impartiality of the B.B.C. All I hope is that they do not have any debates on the question but simply avoid it and leave it to the good sense and judgment of the Welsh people.
    I turn to the question of our newspapers. In these days when advertising is so expensive it is important that the trade should not be able to buy advertisements which the temperance people could not possibly buy on the same scale. As far as possible it looks as if conditions are being laid down for a fair test to be taken.
    We cannot prohibit public meetings, especially in Wales. If there were a prohibition it would be regarded as a challenge. I can well imagine the protests in Carmarthen, led by my noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I can imagine a torchlight procession in North Wales. In South Wales we should not be treating the matter lightly if the House told us that we could not hold public meetings to discuss this question before the referendum. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths)—at all events, he is growing more learned all the time—
    978
    has given a great lead to Wales from Cory Hall, which is of hallowed memory to our people in the Principality.
    It will be open to the licensed trade and to those who are opposed to Sunday opening to call their meetings, to address the people and to seek to persuade them, without feeling that big money is buying its way, as we saw too often in the polls which were undertaken in respect of Sunday cinemas. I saw that in Cardiff and others saw it elsewhere. We saw how the trade, realising how much money is at stake, will spend an enormous amount to get its way at the poll.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: And at the General Election.
    Mr. Thomas: Of course, but I am trying to be as kind as I can at the moment. This is a very important Amendment and I am glad that it has been put down. It has gone a long way to meet our wishes. I do not like the idea of local option at all, but I will not develop that point and test your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If we are to have it, then I believe that these conditions are far more attractive than at one stage I feared.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "published" to insert:
    "or displays a poster or procures a poster to be so displayed".
    The whole question of advertisements was considered fully in Committee and there was a strong consensus of opinion that, whatever the views of hon. Members on either side of the Committee, hon. Members wanted a fair poll, free from undue influence, a fair field and no favours. Hon. Members were anxious to ensure that the poll should not be unduly influenced by advertising. As a result, the Minister of State undertook to look into the whole matter, and we welcome the concession which the Government have made, which is a great step forward and will be of great help.
    But it will mean that the interests which are denied the opportunity of advertising on television and in the newspapers will throw all their resources

    979
    and all the weight of their power into advertisement by poster. This is the one powerful instrument still left in their hands. Our Amendment to the proposed Amendment therefore seeks to impose the same penalties as are imposed in the Government's Amendment to any person displaying a poster or procuring
    "a poster to be so displayed".
    Posters are a very powerful insrument of propaganda. If they were not, the brewing industry would not spend so much or take such vast hoardings in the country for advertising. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, there is big money in this and there are big profits to be made. This is a splendid opportunity. They already have the hoardings; the machinery is there. They do not have to rush around the country, as the other side would have to do, scraping their pennies to find space. The space is there and the agencies are there. All they have to do is to press the button and they can get their posters up.
    In this referendum, therefore, we may well be faced with large posters making direct appeals to the electors to vote in the referendum. We may read, "Beer is good for you on Sunday" or "Always on Sunday". These may be very attractive slogans. There is no doubt that if such advertising were allowed it would make the test extremely unequal by weighting the contest in favour of the brewing industry. The brewers have the resources and the sites. During Committee someone referred to the Lord's Day Observance Society, which has some posters, but it is fantastic to compare the resources of the brewing industry with those of the Lord's Day Observance Society. One has only to consider the very meagre sums which the society spent in the polls for cinema opening which took place some time ago. The argument simply cannot stand.
    Is it not wiser to allow the argument for and against to preceed on a rational basis? What do the supporters of the opening of the public houses fear? Surely, if their case is good, they do not want the advantageous aid of Colman, Prentis and Varley, as the Government apparently do.
    The Minister spoke about technical difficulties, and he asked where one
    980
    would draw the line. Does one draw the line at leaflets? Again, to introduce that is to try to make the impossible comparison between the propaganda value of vast hoardings and of leaflets. We will give the brewers their leaflets. We should not worry about that. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, no one will try to prevent public meetings in Wales. It is just not possible. Anyone trying to do that would have to bring about a revolution. Nobody has ever tried it and nobody ever will, certainly not with any success.
    The Solicitor-General spoke about enforcement. He knows very well that, if the Government want to do what we suggest, they can easily find ways and means to enforce it. It is no good his telling us that it is beyond the wit of the Government to find ways and means. They can find a form of words. It is certainly not beyond the wit of the Home Secretary to find words to extricate himself from any predicament or difficulty.
    The Solicitor-General is less than fair with the House when he advances the argument about technical difficulties. He has made concessions for which we are grateful. They are important concessions which we do not in any way minimise. Nevertheless, while there is this large gap left, the whole campaign will be weighted in favour of the brewing industry. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the matter.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wise: For my benefit as well as for the benefit of the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), I want to try to clear up one or two somewhat complicated points in the Amendment. First, where does advertising for a local option begin and legitimate advertising end?
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I think the answer is quite simple and clear—from the date on which the public notice of the poll appears.
    Mr. Wise: I understand that, but I am referring to the type of poster. Would it be considered boosting the campaign for extending Sunday drinking if there appeared on the hoardings the simple legend "Drink more beer"? Is that an effort to persuade people to obtain

    981
    facilities for drinking more beer? Does it become illegal as soon as the local option election has started?
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: It is a difficult point, but I think this is the answer. Is it a poster which directs its whole purpose to influencing the vote on this particular issue?
    Mr. Wise: I am grateful to the noble Lady for that, but I am sure she will see that there is here a difficult matter of definition which is not covered in the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have the point now. Will the hon. Member turn to the Government Amendment? I think it answers his question. The words are:
    "If with intent to influence…any person after the end of the period allowed for delivering requisition papers…"
    and so on. That clearly defines it, and our intention is to bring what we suggest exactly within that proposal by the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Wise: I do not doubt the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the nobly Lady, but I am pointing out that they are not easy to carry out.
    It becomes illegal after the election campaign has begun, but does a poster which was legal before it began, and which is still on the hoarding, automatically become illegal after the campaign has started?
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: This point applies to the Government Amendment, because they may put advertisements saying "Drink more beer", or whatever it is, in a newspaper. The Solicitor-General has dealt with this. The Government Amendment begins by saying:
    "If with intent to influence persons to give or refrain from giving their votes at a poll under this section…"
    We have agreed to that, and I am putting this forward not in the case of a newspaper, but in the case of a poster on a hoarding.
    Mr. Wise: I am sorry to be obstinate about this, but it is not the same thing. Advertisements appear in newspapers for a day or so. It is easy to stop them. A poster on a hoarding is there more or less permanently. There is a considerable difference between the two.
    982
    I am inclined to think that a poster saying "Drink more beer" might be illegal under the Amendment, but balanced against that there is the poster saying "Drinka pinta milka day". These legal complications exist in electoral law.
    Mr. G. Roberts: The difficulty mentioned by the hon. Gentleman cannot arise, because the Government's Amendment to which we are proposing this Amendment makes it clear that advertisements which are not directed to influencing the poll are not affected. There must be something in them which is clearly and manifestly directed to influencing the poll. Consequently, the difficulty envisaged by the hon. Gentleman cannot arise.
    Mr. Wise: I have enough confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to believe that had he thought it possible or desirable to include posters he would have done so. The only possible reason for leaving out posters was the legal complications which I am certain exist.
    I ask the hon. Lady to look again at this Amendment. It may be right in principle, but I am certain that the details are wrong.
    I thank the hon. Lady for referring to me earlier as a son of the aristocracy. Coming from a daughter of the aristocracy, I took that as a very delicate compliment.
    Mr. T. W. Jones: I am surprised, and indeed disappointed, that the Solicitor-General, who proposes to make it illegal to advertise in newspapers to influence electors, has not brought advertising by posters into the same category. The brewers, who are behind the Bill, are experts in poster display. Throughout the length and breadth of the country we read such posters as "A Double Diamond works wonders", "Beer is best", and so on. For years the brewers have been expert in poster display.
    We have not the slightest objection to these posters as such. After all, the brewers have as much right as other traders to advertise their products. We do not object to that. We may be told that "A Double Diamond works wonders" but we are not influenced to vote for Sunday opening. This is not

    983
    a temperance matter. It is a matter of principle. We are doing away with a tradition which has existed in Wales for eighty years.
    The purpose of the Minister's Amendment is to avoid corruption and bribery. But the Government have been bribed already. The brewers have bribed them. That is why this Clause is in the Bill. There are many way of bribing. If only the Minister would declare to this House—in a private sitting if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes—who are the subscribers to the coffers of the Tory Party, what information that would be! But no one outside the party officers—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is being led astray from the Amendment.
    Mr. Jones: The brewers have a vested interest in these posters—
    Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Member aware that the brewers are not particularly in favour of this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and is he aware that it is being pushed by the licensed victuallers' associations? The brewers in Wales have not pushed this Bill in any way. I was assured by one of the leading brewers in Wales that there was no need for safeguards of this kind as his brewery and the brewers in Wales will not spend any money in support of this Bill.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) take it from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that the hirelings of the brewers—the well-paid hirelings of the brewers—have been most active and most irresponsibly eloquent in the valleys of Glamorgan?
    Mr. Jones: I was about to say that such a profound observation as came from the other side of the House could emanate only from the lips of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). He must be ignorant indeed if he cannot see the circumstantial evidence to prove what I have been saying—
    Mr. Gower: Where is it?
    Mr. Jones: —not only this afternoon but during the Second Reading debate. The circumstantial evidence is there. If I am wrong, let us have a declaration
    984
    that these people do not subscribe heavily to the funds of the Tory Party—
    Mr. Gower: That has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Jones: —and now they will gain if the vote goes a certain way, and will gain tremendously. Their profits will be swollen and their dividends increased—[Interruption.]—Oh, shut up!
    Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) to make all these interruptions from a sedentary position?
    Mr. Gower: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There was an interjection from the other side of the House and I was replying.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that we had better get on with the debate.
    Mr. Jones: I was about to say that these polls have been forced on the people of Wales, willy-nilly. They never asked for them and there should be no visible trace of corruption attached to anything which happens concerning them. Because of that, I hope that we have been able to persuade the Minister that posters and leaflets—I would even include leaflets—published by either side should be declared illegal while the campaign is on, or after a date has been fixed for these polls. I hope that at least we can persuade the Government to grant this concession.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gower: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) that there are difficulties about this. For example—and I know that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) will be alive to this—if the Amendment were left in its present form, a simple notice placed outside a church or a chapel reminding the members of that church or chapel that a poll is to be held and calling on them to vote in a particular way, would be illegal.
    Mr. G. Thomas Mr. G. Thomas rose—
    Mr. Gower: I imagine that under the Amendment such a simple notice, even written in ink and placed there by an official—perhaps the secretary or one of

    985
    the members of that church or chapel, trying to promulgate a particular view—would probably be illegal.
    Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is my neighbour and is a well known member of the Baptist Church. I think he will be aware that the chapels would be only too pleased if all advertising were cut out of this campaign.
    Mr. Gower: I am suggesting something which might not be regarded by them as advertising but which, nevertheless, would probably be an infringement of the law if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is passed in its present form. The poster, or the sort of document I mentioned, would be regarded by them as the ordinary procedure they would employ in any controversy of this kind. With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Merioneth, I expressed my personal apprehensions about this to the leading brewer in South Wales some months ago. I said that I considered that it was most undesirable that there should be large-scale advertising by the brewers. There are only a few brewers in Wales and the one with whom I spoke is probably the largest.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Who?
    Mr. Gower: In South Wales, in Cardiff. He told me that, from the beginning, the brewers had had no particular interest in this Bill, but that it had been pushed by the licensed victuallers. He gave me his word, in answer to my expression of apprehension about large-scale expenditure on advertising by the brewers, that they had considered it together and that they proposed to spend no money on the promulgations of this campaign.
    Mr. C. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has been telling us that the brewer in question—the largest in Wales, he said—had no interest in this matter. Can the hon. Gentleman say, if the poll is successful from the brewer's point of view in Glamorgan, whether he would urge licensed victuallers not to open on Sundays?
    Mr. Gower: I asked the brewer the simple question connected with this Bill and these polls. I did not ask him about any subsequent conduct by him. I merely asked about the Bill and the possible danger of this Amendment. As
    986
    I have said, he gave me an assurance that the brewers in Wales, collectively, were not prepared to spend any money, as I have explained.
    If the hon. Gentleman is doubtful, he might ask why they are not prepared to spend any money. The reason is that they have done extremely well out of the business of supplying clubs with enormous quantities of liquor. These clubs open on Sundays. The brewers do this business at much less expense, for if they had to open public houses, they would have to pay a large number of managers at overtime rates.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Where?
    Mr. Gower: All over Wales, in public houses that are run by managers.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West) rose—
    Mr. Gower: At present the brewers do not have to pay these overtime rates. They supply beer in large quantities to these clubs, which provide enormous quantities of liquor to their members on Sundays. As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who is not a Welsh Member, may not be aware, there is in Wales an enormous amount of club drinking on Sundays.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is the hon. Member aware that the L.N.R. Wages Board Order is designed to ensure that for Sunday opening there is no overtime payable to managers of "pubs"?
    Mr. Gower: Even though they have to be paid only ordinary rates, it will still be more expensive than it is to supply the present enormous quantities of beer to clubs. The brewers have not been so interested in this as have the licensed victuallers who, I recognise, might conceivably spend money on this sort of publicity. They have pressed this campaign for a long time, so I am glad that my right hon. Friend has included this valuable protection in the Bill.
    While I understand the motive of the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) in wishing to extend the prohibition to posters, I think that the dangers indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend are very real. One can imagine that even the

    987
    simple pamphlet pinned on the wall of the public house by the manager will probably be an infringement.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that in Wales, as elsewhere, this will probably mean a good deal of campaigning. I imagine that that campaigning will include some distribution of leaflets, but where to draw the line between leaflets and posters is, as my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm, a very difficult matter. I can, however, remove many of the apprehensions felt by hon. Members opposite, and possibly felt on this side, too, by repeating the assurance of the head of one of the largest breweries in Wales, who is also a prominent member of his trade association in Wales, that the brewers will not spend any money on this kind of publicity.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Before the hon. Member sits down, perhaps he will allow me to say that when I spoke earlier I did an injustice to the licensed victuallers. I said that it was they who had organised the meeting at Cardiff, which my hon. Friend addressed, whereas, of course, it was the clubs of Wales who organised that meeting. I am glad of the opportunity to put that right.
    Mr. Gower: And if the hon. Gentleman has any doubt about what I have said, I will arrange for him to meet the brewer in question, who will give him a similar assurance.
    Mr. Stan Awbery: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is not only the Member for that division, but is my representative in this House. He is not, however, expressing either my opinion or that of thousands of other people in his division.
    I am glad to hear from him that the brewers are coming over to us, and do not want the "pubs" open on Sundays. I am assured by many licensed victuallers in the valley that they, too, are not anxious to have the "pubs" open on Sundays, because it will mean a seven-day week for them. Perhaps the next hon. Member to speak from the benches opposite will tell us that the licensed victuallers and the brewers are coming
    988
    over to us. If they are, why all this trouble about the referendum?
    Mr. Gower: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the licensed victuallers have pushed this campaign, and have published the pamphlet that has been produced? They have started the campaign, so why does the hon. Gentleman pretend that they are not in favour of Sunday opening, when the majority of them have pushed this campaign for a long time?
    Mr. Awbery: I have no doubt that the struggle that will take place in a very short time will be an unequal struggle financially. Democracy, about which we have heard so much, will not enter into the matter. It will be the millionaire against the pauper and the giant against the dwarf.
    About two years before the last General Election there were huge posters in my division advocating the denationalisation of certain industries. These were posted up at the expense of someone who was interested in their subject matter. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, I visualise that every public house will be made an advertising agency for the opening of public houses in Wales on Sundays. The people of Wales do not want this.
    The brewers and their associates will spend money on this, because there is profit in it. Thirty years ago we heard a great deal about the brewers putting money into the coffers of the Conservative Party because that carried with it some influence in the party. The same thing applies today. The same friends of the Conservative Party are making similar contributions, because it has an influence in the trade. I visualise that when the Bill becomes an Act the public houses will be displaying posters similar to those which we saw two years before the last election.
    If the cost of advertising is to count only so many days before the referendum takes place—say, 20 days—what will happen before the 20 days are up, and who will pay for the advertising? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government."] Of course, the Government will pay through the brewers, who will pay it out of their profits. What about the poor little dwarf, the temperance advocate who wants his children to be brought up in

    989
    a temperance atmosphere? He has not money to spend in this matter. The great financial weight of the brewing industry will be brought to bear on the temperance man who wishes to stop the brewers doing what they wish to do.
    The Minister has tried to evolve some means by which advertising can be curbed. Whatever he does, I am convinced that nothing that we in this House do would prevent the brewing industry carrying out all the advertising which it thinks necessary. I am grateful to the Minister for doing what he has done. I am only sorry that he has not greater power so that he can stop advertising altogether.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: This is the last Amendment on the Notice Paper to Clause 6 and the last opportunity that I shall have of speaking on it. We are grateful to our colleagues from England and Scotland for their forbearance. I am sure that they understand that we have had to spend so much time on this matter simply because the Government denied us the opportunity which we wanted. I hope that this will be a lesson to the Government. If they wish to conduct business properly, they had better listen to reason. If they had done what we asked on Second Reading, we should have been able to consider the matter much more fully and would not have had to tax the patience of English and Scottish Members. I am sure that they understand. I should like to say, speaking for myself and my hon. Friends who take my view, that we are very grateful to those colleagues from England and Scotland who supported us in our Amendments.
    9.0 p.m.
    I am sure that the Solicitor-General will not mind my saying that none of the Amendments which have been made would have been made were it not for the Amendments which we put down during the Committee stage. None was in the Bill, and if the Bill had gone through in the form in which it was brought before the House on Second Reading, and if the Second Schedule had been left as it was, and a poll had been taken without any of these Amendments having been made, we should have had, after that poll—I do not know what words to use, but the whole thing would have broken down. I have already referred
    990
    to the ugly scenes of which this House would have been ashamed if it had passed the Bill as it was originally.
    The Bill is very much better now. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) talked about a brewer who is against Sunday opening, but he has a very simple remedy. The Bill and the poll will not compel him to open his "pubs" on Sundays, so that if he has very strong convictions about it we shall wait to see if he keeps them closed, even if the ballot was in favour of opening. We know perfectly well that the document to which reference has been made was not produced, as far as I can gather, by the licensed victuallers. They may have been associated in it, but it was produced by some body known as the Sunday Opening Council.
    Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I had something to do, in another connection, with the question of expenditure on elections, and I have an idea of what this document costs. I know the licensed victuallers, and I can only say that I have some doubt whether they could rise to a standard of that kind, but that is by the way.
    The Minister has met us in two ways. First, we put down an Amendment in Committee to make it illegal to promote advertising and propaganda on television or in newspapers or posters. We have been met very fully by the assurance on television and broadcasting which was given in Committee. The Solicitor-General has repeated what the Minister said in Committee, and it satisfies all of us, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He has also met us on the question of newspapers, so that there are only the posters left.
    I know the difficulty, and it is to define a poster. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that we have a shrewd idea what his party spent on a poster campaign before the last election. I am not now a member of the executive of my party, but I was at the last election, and for many years before, and I know what these things cost. Indeed, we ourselves tried to have a poster campaign, and I know lots of things about it. First, most of the important sites in Wales are already in the hands of the brewing interests, not for

    991
    two days, not for a week, but for months and years. They own them.
    I wonder whether the hon. Member for Barry would agree to put this point to his brewing friends. They have the sites in Cardiff; in Llanelly and in every village and town. As from the date appointed, under the Solicitor-General's assurance, and we have accepted it, first, television will have to behave in accordance with the assurance we have been given. It will be illegal and a corrupt act, under the Act of 1949, to put an advertisement in a newspaper to try to influence the vote.
    So far, so good. There now remains the poster. It would be interesting to know what the Conservative Central Office paid for the poster, "Do not let Labour ruin it". There can be posters of that kind. The sites are there already. Whatever the difficulties about definition, is the Solicitor-General prepared to allow the poll to go forward when those who have the money are able to conduct a poster campaign conceivably costing £¼ million within six weeks?
    We have an idea what we are talking about, because we have had to try to compete but have had to give up without starting. That is why we put down the Amendment. We are realists. We have been agents, candidates or members of the executive and we have done all this. The House ought to ensure fair play and to hold the balance evenly but the balance cannot be held evenly if the poster situation is left as it is.
    What is the good of putting up a little "Wayside Pulpit" poster against the display posters on all the best sites? Coming out of Cardiff Station, one sees half a dozen of them. It would be very good if the brewers undertook to use none of those sites or posters to influence votes. That would be a test for them. But, of course, they will use them, because there is money in it and there is money in the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General has not given any undertaking that he will look at the matter again. It may be that our proposal would cut out the notice advertising the meeting. I should be quite prepared to accept that disability if I could overcome the terrifying handicap of having to fight against the public
    992
    posters. I should have been prepared to give up the Labour Party's poster saying, "A meeting will be held here this evening" if we could have stopped the Conservative Party's spending of enormous sums on its poster campaign.
    Whilst we are grateful that the Solicitor-General has met us concerning newspapers and television, I am not satisfied with what he has told us. Therefore, unless the Solicitor-General can now give us a satisfactory assurance, I feel so strongly on the matter that I am disposed to carry it to a Division and I invite my hon. Friends to support me.
    The Solicitor-General: When moving the Government Amendment which the Amendment seeks to amend, I dealt with certain of the issues that have been canvassed in the debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to the other hon. Members who have spoken for what they have said about what we have tried to do to meet the case put by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in Committee.
    The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to take credit for the fact that a great many of the Government Amendments to the Clause have been prompted by suggestions and arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in Committee. We have dealt satisfactorily with the position regarding television and newspaper advertising, which could be very potent in influencing opinion, and the sole remaining issue on which we now have to come to a determination is poster advertising.
    In deciding to draw the line where we did, we were actuated by two considerations. The first was to try to ensure that the contest to influence opinion should be a fairly balanced one. The second, and no less important, was to draw a line which was enforceable. It was for that reason, if for no other, that we did not go so far as to say that there must be no propaganda.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said that it would be quite absurd to prohibit public meetings, most of all in Wales, and I entirely agree. It is impractical. Equally, if one is not to prohibit public meetings, it is impossible to extend the prohibition to leaflets.

    993
    both on grounds of logic and on grounds of practicability. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the whole, I think that the difficulty is shown by the difference of opinion about whether leaflets should be included between the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). If one were to say that leaflets should be allowed, and draw a line between them and posters, the difficulty would be very considerable.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) asked when the prohibition on advertising would start. My hon. Friend put it specifically, and asked whether, if a poster was put up before the period allowed for delivering the requisition papers, which is the test, one would be committing an offence if one left it up.
    I personally agree with the legal advice, given by the right hon. Member for Llanelly and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), that the test in the case of newspaper advertising and poster advertising, if we make this Amendment to the Bill, will be the same. First, a line is drawn at the period at the commencement of the time allowed for delivering requisition papers. No advertising or propaganda of any sort before that date could constitute an offence.
    Secondly, after that date, in order to constitute an offence, the propaganda must be with intent to influence persons to give, or refrain from giving, their votes in a particular way at the poll. That is a question of fact to be determined by the courts, if necessary, in any particular case. I can conceive of a certain type of poster or leaflet which may have been put up before the relevant date and yet might be considered to be kept up with intent to influence persons. On the other hand, the ordinary advertisement which goes on year in year out would be extremely unlikely to be considered by the courts as being there with intent to influence persons to give their votes in a particular way in a certain poll.
    Mr. Awbery: There is nothing to prevent the brewers, knowing that the vote is to take place, spending thousands of pounds beforehand.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery). He is perfectly right on the Amendment. There is absolutely nothing to prevent either side from indulging in a poster campaign. We are concerned with a very narrow issue. It is a potential poster campaign between the commencement of the poll and the date of polling. Therefore, although I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby was right in saying that there is a distinction to be drawn between newspaper advertising which takes place on a particular day and therefore can be switched off at the relevant date and poster advertising where the poster might remain, that was not my objection on practical grounds to the Amendment. I would be prepared to say that if that were the only objection it would not be a reason for rejecting it.
    The objection is twofold. The first is the practical one of how one can enforce the prohibition of poster advertising. Newspaper advertising is easy enough. There are comparatively few people in Wales who publish newspapers, but every citizen in Wales is a potential poster of bills. Then there is the difficulty of the poster which is put up beforehand and left, and nobody knows to whom it belongs. There is that practical difficulty with posters which does not apply to public meetings and to canvassers. There is also the question of where to draw the line to keep any contest fair.
    As I said in answer to the relevant question by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, we are concerned with a very narrow interval of time, but we felt that television advertising is so powerful that it could be overwhelming during that period of time. We felt the same about newspaper advertising. With all respect to the right hon. Member for Llanelly, I cannot agree that the same applies to poster advertising, and we tried to draw the line where we felt that we held the balance fairly and ensured a reasonably fair contest while at the same time giving a chance of bringing the issues to the notice of the public.
    I hope that the right hon. Member for Llanelly will not think it an impertinence when I say that, having listened to the speeches which he and his supporters have made in the course of

    995
    the debate, it would be impossible to under-estimate the moral force which will go into the cause which he has contended and for which I know he will continue to contend. I know that he is not alone in that and therefore I cannot for a moment regard any contest that one can foresee under conditions imposed by the Bill as being unequal. Every hon. Member who listened to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Caernarvon will have been impressed by the moral force that is undoubtedly available in a horrified rejection, as I recognise it to be, of the proposals in the Bill. It is one of the reasons why I say that it seems to me that where we have drawn the line is not only reasonable but fair in all the circumstances.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not let the country know, and particularly let the brewers know, that after such and such a date the exhibiting of a poster intended to prejudice the vote one way or the other would be regarded as illegal? I put that question because we all know that posters are often obliterated not because the space is required by somebody else, but for certain other reasons. Surely, it would be common practice, according to the law, to fix a date after which the exhibiting of posters referring to the issue under discussion would be illegal.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I found the Solicitor-General's reply completely unimpressive. I thought that he spoke with his tongue in his cheek. I cannot believe that he himself believed very profoundly in the case which he put forward. He put forward two grounds against this Amendment. The first was that there would be very little contest because of the moral fervour of those opposed to the brewery interests. There may be moral fervour, but the question of money is rather different.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the Chamber during most of the debate. I raised that matter in passing. Earlier, I quoted the observations of the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) in Standing Committee, where he referred to the tremendous propaganda value of the meetings which centred on the religious communities.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Those are meetings which obviously can take place and which this Amendment does not affect at all. I was dealing with the poster campaign and addressing myself to the specific summary of the remarks which the Solicitor-General made in his speech. If he will be so good as to follow the counter-argument, I hope that I shall make my position perfectly clear to him.
    The moral fervour is one matter. The second point involved is that this would apply equally to the newspaper advertisement as to the poster advertisement. Therefore, his objection to the poster advertisement as contrasted with the newspaper advertisement collapses.
    I come to the poster advertisement. The Solicitor-General said that it would be extremely difficult to stop poster advertisements because everyone in the country could put up a poster advertisement, but our Amendment does not deal with preventing them. Our Amendment provides that newspaper advertisements, in certain circumstances, shall be an offence. Presumably, if it is made an offence, it cannot physically prevent a newspaper advertisement being made. What it does is to let people know that if an advertisement is put in in these circumstances an offence will be created. If an offence is created, subject to punishment, that, of course, will restrain people from putting in newspaper advertisements.
    Exactly the same applies to posters. It is no answer to say that a large number of people put up posters, because by this Amendment all those who do will be committing an offence, and that will act as a deterrent to them exactly as it will act as a deterrent to newspaper advertisements. Therefore, the two objections which the Solicitor-General emphasised in his summing up do not bear examination. Those were the main objections which he emphasised at the end of his speech and which he relied upon. Those two objections are utterly unpersuasive, and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote in favour of our proposal.
    Mr. Idwal Jones: I was very disappointed with the reply of the Solicitor-General and I was not convinced that his reasons were practical or even genuine.
    Visual aids are becoming more and more important in education. Indeed,

    997
    there is a generation arising which is taught more through visual aids than through reading print. Visual aids have become a medium of education, and that is our objection to posters which are a type of visual aid and a very effective type.
    The making of posters is becoming a very fine art. The wording of a poster is limited, but the design of the poster can be very effective. The poster is such that it may be said of it whoever runs may read it. One does not need to stand before the poster and study it carefully, or read and inwardly digest what it says. The poster tells its tale and carries its influence and it will become more and more important to the rising generation which is now coming from our schools.
    It is true that there will not be candidates at these polls, but there will be organisations. There is one which is primarily concerned with the moral aspect of the question and which has no financial gain to make. This organisation looks after the social and moral welfare of its people, who will dig deep into their pockets for finances. They will lose through the transaction. Then there is the other organisation, the business organisation, the licensed victuallers, the hotel proprietors, the owners of licensed restaurants and guest houses who stand to gain from the change and for whom the poll will be a business proposition.
    Business being what it is, they will be prepared to spend in the hope of gaining more. The Solicitor-General said that he was anxious to keep the balance even, but the fact remains that the dice is heavily loaded in favour of
    the trade and against the organisations in Wales which are anxious to preserve the country's moral and social standards. The trade has a pecuniary interest in this matter.
    There are specialists in poster making. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lianelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that it is a costly business. We all know of Colman, Prentis and Varley and know that they have a price, and we also know that our temperance organisations cannot afford that price while big business can. We have the ugly spectre of a major change in the social habits of a nation being determined by the sickly influence of riches and wealth. There must be a limit. If the people are to be asked to decide, let them not be influenced by subtle propaganda of apparent truths and essential falsehoods.
    It is all very well for the Minister to say that this is a difficult problem. I am not concerned with the difficulty. We did not ask for this Measure. Wales did not ask for this Measure. The Government launched the Bill and they should have considered the difficulties before deciding to do so. I am not responsible for the Bill in any way and nor are the people of my country. No important organisation in Wales asked for it. If it is bristling with difficulties, that is not our concern. It is up to the Government to solve the difficulty by making the poll fair and even between the parties.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 203.

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES

    [9.30 p.m.

    Alnsley, William

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Awbery, Stan

    Forman, J. C.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    George, LaflyMeganLtoyd (Crmrthn)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McCann, John

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Grey, Charles

    Mapp, Charles

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mason, Roy

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Grimond, J.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Milne, Edward J.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hannan, William

    Moody, A. S.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, John

    Diamond, John

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oliver, G. H.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Owen, Will

    Evans, Albert

    Holman, Percy

    Padley, W. E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Finch, Harold

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rankin, John

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Ross, William

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Wade, Donald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Whitlock, William

    Mr. Idwal Jones and Mr. Bowen.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wilkins, W. A.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Altken, W. T.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Parker, John

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Allason, James

    Gower, Raymond

    Peel, John

    Balniel, Lord

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Percival, Ian

    Barlow, Sir John

    Green, Alan

    Peyton, John

    Barter, John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Batsford, Brian

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Gurden, Harold

    Pott, Percivall

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bell, Ronald

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Pym, Francis

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Rees, Hugh

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Box, Donald

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Roots, William

    Braine, Bernard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Russell, Ronald

    Brewis, John

    Hobson, John

    Seymour, Leslie

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Shaw, M.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Holland, Philip

    Shepherd, William

    Buck, Antony

    Hollingworth, John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Bullard, Denys

    Hopkins, Alan

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Erlc

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Smithers, Peter

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Jackson, John

    Stodart, J. A.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    James, David

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Kirk, Peter

    Tapsell, Peter

    Cole, Norman

    Leavey, J. A.

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Cooke, Robert

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Teeling, William

    Cooper, A. E.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Temple, John M.

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Cordle, John

    Longbottom, Charles

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Cot-field, F. V.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Costain, A. P.

    Loveys, Waiter H.

    Turner, Colin

    Coulson, J. M.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Critchley, Julian

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Crowder, F. P.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Curran, Charles

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Currie, G. B. H.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Maddan, Martin

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Dance, James

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walder, David

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker, Peter

    Deedes, W. F.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wall, Patrick

    de Ferrantt, Basil

    Marten, Neil

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

    Webster, David

    Drayson, G. B.

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    du Cann, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Whitelaw, William

    Duncan, Sir James

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Eden, John

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mills, Stratton

    Wise, A. R.

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tvne, N.)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Farr, John

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Finlay, Graeme

    Noble, Michael

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Freeth, Denzll

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Gammans, Lady

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

    Gardner, Edward

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(OPERATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO PERMITTED HOURS.)
    Amendments made: In page 14, line 5, leave out "made at any licensing sessions".
    In line 12, leave out "made as aforesaid".—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 14, line 24, to leave out from "first" to "hours" in line 26 and to insert:
    "ten minutes after the end of any period forming part of the permitted".
    Mr. Speaker: It would probably be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), to page 14, to leave out lines 24 to 32; and the following three Amendments:
    In line 24, to leave out from "first" to "hours" in line 26 and to insert:
    "five minutes after the end of any period forming part of the permitted".
    In line 24, to leave out "quarter of an hour" and to insert "five minutes".
    In line 26, to leave out "quarter of an hour" and to insert "five minutes".
    Mr. Vosper: This Amendment relates to drinking-up time. The House will recall that the Bill as introduced proposed 15 minutes of drinking-up time both in the afternoon and in the evening. The Government are convinced that the conception of drinking-up time is logical, that there should be a period between the sale of the last drink and the consumption of the last drink, that the idea that it is possible to purchase a drink a few seconds before closing time and then drink it is wrong, and that what happens, in fact, now is that the law is not obeyed. The Government have sought, therefore, to introduce the conception of drinking-up time to provide for the period between the sale of the last drink and its consumption.
    It was argued in Committee that 15 minutes was too generous a period for this exercise. I accepted the spirit of the arguments in Committee and suggested that I should move an Amendment on Report, saying that the period would probably be reduced to 10 minutes. The Amendment that I have moved reduces from 15 minutes to 10 minutes the period of drinking-up
    1002
    time both in the afternoon and in the evening.
    I have noticed that the reaction in the Press and elsewhere to my announcement has been against making the concession. It has been said that 15 minutes' drinking-up time is the right allowance. Nevertheless, I believe that 10 minutes is a reasonable time for this exercise. I say that because I note that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) wishes to reduce the time still further to five minutes. If that were done, I think the exercise would cease to be sensible because, once again, there would be a lot of abuse, as there is in present circumstances.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me—I am an innocent in these matters—what service to temperance is achieved by compelling a man to finish his drink quickly rather than take it slowly?
    Mr. Vosper: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question.
    I stand by the declaration that 10 minutes is about the right time for the consumption of drinks purchased just before closing time. If one accepted the proposal that it should be reduced to five minutes, what we are trying to achieve would be rendered useless. I suggest that we should stick to the 10 minutes proposed in the Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have said that the Amendment in my name, in page 14, to leave out lines 24 to 32, should be discussed now. I shall state the reasons actuating me in putting it down. We have several alternatives—15 minutes, 10 minutes, five minutes and no time at all. The Amendment to leave out lines 24 to 32 would remove any provisions for drinking-up time at all.
    I put the Amendment down because it seemed to me that the view of some licensees, and particularly of a manager in my constituency who feels strongly on the matter, should at least be before the House for consideration when we came to a conclusion in this debate. That view was advanced during the Committee stage, but it was not exhaustively explored. The manager in question says

    1003
    that broadly speaking it makes no difference whether one has drinking-up time or whether one does not. Whether one stops at half-past ten or at twenty minutes to eleven in either case there is the difficulty that some awkward customers will not have gone by the end of the permitted time, whatever it is.
    9.45 p.m.
    His contention is that at the moment the police are somewhat tolerant in this matter, and so long as they are satisfied that he is doing his best to dispose of his awkward customers they will, in practice, give him some leeway to clear his premises. He says that if we give him drinking-up time what we will really do is to put an extra burden on him. At the moment the police exercise a certain tolerance, realising his difficulties. His anxiety is that if we apply a drinking-up period the police will say: "You have the extra time. The onus is now on you to see that your customers are out by the time the drinking-up time is over".
    He will find himself confronted with the same difficulty, the difficulty which arises when one sees in the corner of a public house a plethoric-looking gentleman talking to two over-dressed ladies at a rather beer-stained table. The publican shouts "Last orders, gentlemen, please" and they automatically advance to the bar and demand more to drink. That happens automatically. They do it to cement a rather recently formed acquaintance and it makes things very difficult for the publican. I am slightly embellishing his account, but this is what he put to me—I am not embellishing it much. This is the sort of situation which arises in practice.
    He is seriously concerned. He says. "Now at half-past ten I know that I shall have a little, shall I say tacit, assistance to get people of that sort out. If you give me ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, they will be there at the end of that time, and when that time has elapsed I shall be expected to have got them out and I still will not have been able to do it." In his opinion, the desire to make things easier for the licensee is likely to have the opposite effect.
    I place those views of the manager whom I have mentioned before the House in support of my contention. The
    1004
    Committee upstairs and the House have already meditated on these matters and the more general argument about the difficulty which in any event is created for those who have to find their way home, particularly in country districts, who will find it much more difficult to get transport at twenty minutes to eleven plus the clearing up time.
    I say no more on my Amendment. Assuming that the House feels that that is not a reason which commends itself, I think that ten minutes is an appropriate period. If in principle we should have drinking-up time, let it be a time which is likely to produce the result that there is a drinking up instead of a semi-drinking up, which would be the likely result of 50 per cent. of the ten minutes, namely, five minutes.
    I submit that my Amendment is one which the House should accept. It will presumably result in the rejection of the first Amendment to line 24, and I invite the Minister to give further consideration to this before the Bill goes to another place. I prefer ten minutes to five minutes, but on the whole I put it to the House that there should be a nil period instead of any period.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the case he advanced. I was fascinated with his story of the closing moments in a public house. He seemed to speak with great knowledge.
    Sir F. Soskice: In justification for what I said, may I say that I was speaking, I will not say on instructions as I sometimes say in other circumstances, but as the result of information purveyed to me.
    Mr. Thomas: The vicarious expression of my right hon. and learned Friend obviously met with a great deal of understanding.
    Everyone wishes to be reasonable over the question of closing hours. We do not want people guzzling their drinks before they leave the licensed premises. That would be neither in their interests nor in the public interest. I think that we are at one on this question. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why it is necessary to tack extra time on to the licensed hours so as to make sure that there is drinking-up time. Why does

    1005
    not the drinking-up time start a quarter of an hour before closing time? That is logical. This is just another 10-minute extension. It is an open invitation to the kind of people referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend to order extra drinks, believing that they have 10 minutes more in which to drink them.
    The Minister could meet his purpose and the purpose of us all, which is to stop people behaving in a less worthy way than they ought by rushing with their drinks in the last few minutes—and he could meet my view and the view of people who think like me—by saying that from a quarter past ten, if closing time is 10.30 p.m., no more drinks will be served. There would be no hardship about that. I consider that a quarter-of-an-hour is a reasonable time so long as it is before closing time. If it is after closing time I should come much nearer to "zero". But I consider that this proposal is a backdoor way of adding ten minutes to the licensed hours for drinking.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Surely it is shortening the time.
    Mr. Thomas: If my hon. Friend wishes to get up to speak, he has two legs on which to stand.
    I hope that the Minister will listen to the appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend, if he will not listen to me. Last night we found the Minister amenable about this hour, when he started to make concessions to the wrong people. Tonight, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that there is a lot of good will towards him, and to those who wish to prevent hasty drinking which may lead to drunkenness and to trouble for other people, because we should remember that often cars which belong to customers are parked outside the public houses.
    The Minister ought to consider that he has been fair enough to those who support the licensed trade and has extended the facilities for them by this Measure on a tremendous scale. At least he could say to them, "You are going so much from this Measure that I have decided that the last quarter of an hour of drinking time shall be used for the reasonable clearing up of drinks which have been ordered". I hope that the Minister will look again at this question. He
    1006
    certainly does not need to increase the burden of those who have to stay in the public house to clear up, and to struggle to get the customers out. He will make their lot harder rather than easier by this proposal.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not wish to delay the House. I have taken no part in the debate so far, but it seems to me that so much and so many of the debates on the Amendments to the Bill have been almost metaphysical discussions on matters of very little material importance. I should have thought that what the Minister is proposing is eminently reasonable and ought to be accepted. It does no more than legalise the existing hours.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and I agree on most things, but I differ from him on this occasion, because when he says that the proposal amounts to extending the drinking hours by 10 minutes he has his arguments exactly the wrong way round.
    If he had his way, as he explained in his speech, my hon. Friend would be shortening the drinking hours by the last quarter-of-an-hour. He would take away from the existing law the right to order a drink in the last 15 minutes. The law states that the statutory closing time is up to a fixed time and, according to the arguments of my hon. Friend, in the last 15 minutes of that time no one would be able to order a fresh drink.
    I understand his purpose and I can also understand, from his point of view, why he considers that to be a reasonable proposal. But I must inform my hon. Friend that his proposal is standing logic and language on its head to say that those who do not agree with him are lengthening the drinking hours when, from his arguments, he wants to shorten them.
    Mr. G. Thomas: My hon. Friend has persuaded me. I quite agree that I want to shorten the hours and that he wants to lengthen them. That is the only difference between us.
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is mistaken. I am glad that I have persuaded him to agree that it was not right to say that his proposal was anything but a shortening of the permitted hours.

    1007
    My hon. Friend now agrees with me on this issue. It is not true to say that the difference between us is that whereas he thought before that we were not shortening the closing time—and he admits now that it was—the Government's proposal is to give a legal sanction to what has always been the practice and what, in practice, must be the actual practice.
    It would appear that the only question outstanding is whether a man should be compelled to order his drink in a shorter time or a longer time. I should have thought that the longer time he took the better. The public interest is to see that no more drink is served after the permitted hours. That is all that is involved and we are all agreed that no drinks should be ordered once the statutory limit of time has been reached. How long it takes for a man to finish the drink which he has ordered during the permitted hours is surely of no interest.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 14, line 33, to leave out from "hour" to "prohibit" in line 34 and to insert:
    "after the end of any such period".
    This Amendment meets a small drafting point to clarify the law.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES FOR PREMISES PROVIDING MUSIC AND DANCING.)
    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 17, line 23, to leave out subsection (6).
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be appropriate to allow the further Amendment, in page 17, line 23, to leave out subsections (6) and (7), to be discussed with this one.
    Mr. Fletcher: This Amendment is designed to leave out subsection 6. I can move it briefly, although it raises a matter of some importance which was discussed on Second Reading but which was not discussed during the Committee stage and was, I think, deliberately left over for consideration by the House on the Report stage.
    Subsection (6) would so change the law that in future the permitted—
    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. Vosper.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
    Mr. Fletcher: I was pointing out that as the law now stands, and as it has stood for a very long time, the permitted hours on Saturdays, particularly the extended hours that are available for late restaurants and night clubs, have been different from those available on other weekdays. Whereas justices have been able to grant licences for certain late night restaurants and clubs until 2 a.m. on weekdays, there has hitherto been a limit of midnight on Saturday nights. The reason has been the general feeling that a distinction should be drawn between Sunday and the other days of the week. If subsection (6) remains in the Bill, that long tradition will disappear.
    It was pointed out on Second Reading that before this rather startling change in the law was adopted, it ought to be discussed at length by the House. The Minister of State expressed some surprise that there was no Amendment on the subject for consideration by the Standing Committee. As hon. Members who were on the Committee will realise, its proceedings took an extremely long time and this was one of the subjects that was deliberately left over for consideration by the House.
    It is important to observe that in the Committee the hour of 2 o'clock, which has hitherto been the limit of the permitted extension for this privileged class of restaurants and clubs, was extended to 3 a.m. Certain hon. Members then suggested that there was no particular merit about 3 a.m., and that the time might equally well be 4 a.m. That being so, the question that the House now has to decide is whether it is right that these restaurants should be allowed to have licences that would enable them to remain open until 3 a.m. on Sunday mornings—which, with the extension of the half hour, would mean 3.30 a.m. on Sunday mornings.
    In approaching this subject, we have to bear in mind that a large number of people feel that it is an important pant of our national life that Sunday should

    1009
    be treated differently from other days of the week. There is no doubt at all that it gives offence in certain quarters to think that these night clubs and restaurants should have licences extending to the very early hours of Sunday morning. Now that local option is to be permitted in Wales, these provisions, if they stand in the law of England, will automatically apply in those parts of Wales which vote for local option.
    My view is that expressed by a number of hon. Members on Second Reading, namely, that no case has been made out for changing the law in this respect and that this House should have regard to the very strong feelings which obtain on this subject. Representations have been made to myself and, no doubt, to other hon. Members by the Temperance Council of Christian Churches and by other representative bodies. For the reasons given on Second Reading and subsequently, I hope that the Home Secretary will not insist on this Clause.
    Mr. G. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has drawn attention to something which will concern not thousands, but, I may say without exaggeration, millions of people. This House should not underestimate the extent to which the people of these islands are church-going and chapel-going.
    Mr. John Hall: Ten pen cent.
    Mr. Thomas: Ten per cent. of 50 million is 5 million. If the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is right in his estimate—which I have heard before, although I do not know who counted the heads—5 million people who hold the Lord's Day as a different day from others are not to be lightly brushed aside.
    Since I have been in the House it has been my privilege to take part in four debates concerning the character of Sunday. I recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was in the same Lobby as myself to protect the Sabbath day, as we call Sunday. I do not wish to argue whether it is the Sabbath day, but we wished to protect Sunday and to keep it different from the rest of the week.
    1010
    In the Bill a step is taken which will lead to the dissolution of Sunday. It is the first step on the road to making Sunday just the same as any other day of the week. I know enough of the party opposite, which, after all, is the Conservative Party, to know that it has among its numbers a large body of hon. Members who have a deep regard for Sunday. I have seen them in the Lobbies time after time on this question. There are right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House who, regardless of party politics, believe that this House ought to protect those things which help our people in the highest values and which are so essential in an affluent society like ours. We are seeing enough values being trampled underfoot, enough changes taking place in our national life, and enough temptations thrown in the teeth of out young people without this House, of all places in the land, undermining those people who are seeking to protect Sunday and the best values in our national life.
    We represent people of all shades of religious opinion and some who hold no religious convictions at all. We are a cross-section of the country. However, even those who have no religious convictions will surely realise that in our society today there is a grave danger of our undermining the forces which make both for strength of character and for high idealism.
    All this, I find, links up with the question of Sunday itself. I am sorry that the Government are pushing this proposal in this Licensing Bill. I am hoping that many hon. Members opposite will speak on this subject, because, quite apart from the question of extended hours, the fact that such an inroad is to be made into Sunday, and that the Government will be applying this proposal, which has not applied before, in the Principality of Wales in future, is something which I hope no hon. Member will feel he can treat lightly, or treat as a joke, or consider that, because of my known views about drink itself, I am putting forward a crank's view on this question.
    I am entirely confident as I speak to the House now that I have the support of millions of people outside the House in asking the Government not to make it easier for both our churches and chapels to be undermined in the witness

    1011
    that they are seeking to make, and not to say that the early hours of Sunday do not matter. Our fathers in this place protected Sunday. Our fathers in this place realised that it was a part of our duty and in the national interest to have this day that is sat apart, and I hope that the Minister of State will realise that deep feelings are aroused and great issues are involved in this Amendment. I hope that he will give a sympathetic reply.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I share the views of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on the need to preserve the essential character of Sunday, and I hope that we shall never do anything in this House which seriously detracts from that concept.
    At the same time, I am equally supporting the proposals in the Bill to allow the extension of drinking on Saturday nights in those places which operate under special hours certificates. Everybody in this community is entitled to his own view, and religious bodies are entitled to their views, but no religious body, or small section of a religious body, is entitled, as it has tried in the past, to dominate the view of the whole community.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West belongs to a Methodist society, in which I was brought up, which holds a particular view about drink which is not shared by an equal number of Catholics who are just as much a pant of the Christian Church as is the Methodist Church. There are large numbers of Jews in this country, who are certainly not heavy drinkers, who would not subscribe to the idea that drink should be curtailed in this way, and they are still an essential part of a religious body.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but what I have been trying to argue is not the question of drink but the question of the regard for Sunday as Sunday.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will deal with that point.
    If one takes the largest religious body in this country—the Anglican Church, with 20 million members, some of them more closely attached to it than others,
    1012
    I should imagine—it is true that a large number would not object to this increase in the facilities for consuming drink late on Saturday night.
    Every religious body is entitled to its specific view, but a small minority of religious opinion is not entitled to dictate to the rest of the community. In the Bill, we are not imposing upon those people any need to partake of drink. We shall not drag them into these establishments and force the offending liquor down their reluctant throats. If they want to stay outside, they may do so. If they want to go in, they may do so.
    I am surprised by the attitude of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) towards the Bill. Ever since he said that he supported it, he has done all he can to damage it. The hon. Member said that it was a grave departure from our practice by allowing drink after midnight on Saturday. The hon. Member does not know the history of these establishments. It was only after 1949 that drinking in these establishments ceased at twelve o'clock on Saturday nights. Before 1949, it was the practice for drinking to go on until 4 a.m. in these establishments in the same way as on any other night in the week. Therefore, it is not a radical departure. The radical departure was the 1949 Act, which introduced the change.
    If hon. Members like to look back to the conditions of those years, I do not think that they will find any more difficulty arising from the conduct of those places on Saturday nights. One of the reasons why I am so strongly in favour of making the change which the Bill introduces is that, despite the expenditure of a great deal of police time and money, it has proved utterly impossible efficiently to enforce the law as we know it. I say without hesitation that before the Bill was mooted, almost every establishment in London, with, perhaps, two or three exceptions, served drink after hours on a Saturday night. It is exceedingly difficult to refuse people drink when they are served it for the rest of the week.
    The hon. Member for Islington, East said that things should be different on a Sunday from any other day. The hon. Member has missed the essential point that under the Statute things are

    1013
    different on a Sunday. If he was running a late-hour establishment with a special hours certificate he would not have an entitlement to open on a Sunday. The hon. Member is saying to the trade. "You must operate a four-day week". These traders, with their high expenses, have found it exceedingly difficult to operate in conditions in which Saturday night, which ought to be their best night, is no longer a good night. The penalty of not opening on a Sunday—which, apart from Wales, is not attached to any other part of the licensed trade—is in itself a sufficiently serious penalty and we ought not to add to it by making these people wait two days without running their businesses.
    I turn to the social aspects. A night club or a late-night restaurant is something to which, except for, perhaps, a rather favoured section of the community, people do not go with regularity, but it is a place to which people go on occasions. If one has plenty of money and no work to do in the mornings, it is quite possible to go to one of these places on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday and have a special evening, but if one is a working man, whether earning £5,000 or £500 a year, and one has to be up in the morning to go to work, it is exceedingly difficult to do it on any day other than Saturday.
    Is there any reason why the ordinary man who does a job of work should be prevented from occasionally going to one of these places on the day which suits him best? He is not interfering with religious observance. I know of people who are connected with the Church who go to these places. They are Catholic people; they are certainly connected with the Church. They are not interfering with religious observance. They are going to an establishment which is well conducted.
    A visitor to such a place goes there to enjoy himself, and maybe his wife and family enjoy themselves, too. The occasion may be a birthday party or a wedding anniversary. I see no reason why those who are not so well off and have to do a job of work should be denied the opportunity on a Saturday night of enjoying themselves in the same way as more favoured people are able to do on other days of the week.
    I am convinced that, on religious grounds, there is no serious objection.
    1014
    If some hon. Members had been living 2,000 years ago, they would have been rebuking Christ. Probably the Miracle of Canae offends them. The development of the argument against drink on religious grounds is a modern development, and we should not take it too seriously. Let us content ourselves by saying that those who take the view, as Methodists do, that we should not have drink at all, or should limit it to the greatest possible extent, are entitled to their views; but they are not entitled, through this House, to dictate to the rest of the community, who, on the whole, hold a different view of what they should think. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: Yesterday I alluded to some negotiations, which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and I had when the 1949 Act was going through, which dealt with the issue before us. I paid tribute to the way in which he conducted those negotiations. I got into great difficulty over them myself, not from him but from people like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), but we who are sound Nonconformists can non-conform with one another.
    We had to deal with a situation very different from that of today. We were dealing with the aftermath of the war and the problems which had arisen over the way in which night clubs and bottle parties had been conducted in the period before the war, during it, and immediately after it. I hope that the hon. Member for Cheadle will at least pay me the tribute that I legitimately tried to do my best in the situation which then existed.
    In spite of what he has said about the present circumstances, I am quite certain that the enforcement of the law in this matter at the moment is a great deal easier than it was before we made the appropriate amendments in the 1949 Act to bring the existing conditions of affairs into being.
    I regret that this Amendment should have been put down. I am not a Sabbatarian on the lines of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, and on such occasions as the Home Secretary has been in the Lobby with my hon. Friend on this issue, I am quite sure that I have not been with them. We are

    1015
    entitled to pay respect to people who hold definite religious views. I have been in considerable trouble with my Nonconformist friends because I have been a consistent supporter of the opening of cinemas on Sundays, but I would never vote for the opening of cinemas on Good Friday afternoons.
    There are a few hours on Good Friday afternoons which do not, as far as I am concerned, contribute a special religious occasion, but to a number of very good and excellent people those hours from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock are of special solemnity. Just as, therefore, if I go into a Moslem mosque I observe the demeanour that the good Moslem shows, so I think it would be wrong to do anything that caused offence to people who hold those hours on Good Friday afternoon as an occasion during which they undergo, year by year, a special religious experience.
    I say that because I cannot be a Sabbatarian, since as I understand it the Sabbath relates to Saturday and for some reason or other the Christian Church moved this day of rest from Saturday to Sunday. I would not willingly offend anyone on Sunday who desires to go through his religious experiences and to attend his particular ceremonies, but I believe that people who feel very strongly on the matters raised by the hon. Member were prepared to make considerable concessions
    1016
    to other opinion in 1949. Because, no matter what the hon. Member for Cheadle may feel about it. I had to negotiate with them as well as with him
    I thought that the arrangements by which during the first five days of the week people could have this form of enjoyment if they so desired was reasonable and that they did not pay a very high price for it in agreeing that they would not object to there not being an extension into Sunday morning, although Sunday morning up to three or four o'clock is not a time of any religious significance to me.
    I was not brought up a Methodist. My mother believed that Methodists were not Nonconformists at all. They did not leave the Church of England; the Church of England left them, and though one should be kind to them in this world, since most of them voted Tory before nine o'clock in the morning on election days, one was not likely to meet them in the next world.
    The Amendment ought not to be inserted into the Bill because I know that it offends people who feel that it is a desecration of things in which they most earnestly believe. It does not offend me, but in a great free society like ours where we have established religious toleration after many years of trying to secure uniformity I would regret it if the Government should have no regard to what we did in 1949 in their attitude towards this Amendment.
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir Cyril Black: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will forgive me if I do not become involved in the theological aspect of the matter, although I ought to say, however, that I find myself quite unable to agree with his view as to the teaching of the Scriptures and the early Church in regard to matters of this kind. If on some suitable occasion he can find the time for the exercise, I should like to take him through some of the Scriptures dealing with this matter, when I believe that I should be able to convince him of the fallacy and the unsoundness of the opinions which he has expressed.
    Also, I do not want to get involved in the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as to the essential difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. It is perhaps sufficient for me to say on that issue that I agree with him as to the difference, and I certainly would not base any views that I would express to the House on this matter upon any analogy between the teaching affecting the Jewish Sabbath and the position with which we are confronted on this Amendment tonight.
    It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, with commendable frankness, I think, made clear at any rate one of the main reasons why he felt that the Government proposal ought to be accepted. That was that under the existing limitations under which they work, people who carry on the kind of business which is dealt with by the subsection that we are considering are finding it difficult to make enough money to cover the running expenses of their establishments and to provide themselves with a reasonable profit in addition.
    That admission, as I have said, is a frank one, and I think that the fact that my hon. Friend has made it is very greatly to his credit. But I think that we want to notice that the Government's proposal is not commended primarily on the basis of meeting a public demand or need. It is supported on the basis of providing a profit for a kind of
    1018
    establishment which, it is suggested, if this concession is not forthcoming will not be able to continue to operate profitably. So what we are considering at this moment is the choice between a reasonable observance of Sunday on the one hand and the profits of a very limited number of business people on the other, or, to put it more simply, the age-long choice between God and Mammon.
    I am in favour of the Amendment—
    Mr. Shepherd: Before my hon. Friend builds up a case on that false premise, might I point out that I did not say that I was supporting this proposal because these people were not making a profit? What I said was that it had proved since 1949 impossible officially to enforce the provisions relating to Saturday nights and that these premises continued to be profitable by not observing the law in general, and that it was that situation that caused me to take the view that the law ought to be suitably changed.
    Sir C. Black: So the argument now is that here are proprietors who have been failing to observe the law by which they have been bound in the past, that it has been difficult to enforce the law against them, and that we should condone their former misdeeds by now making legal what has in the past been illegal. The further down the road my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle goes the more unconvincing become his arguments and the more he confirms me in the view that the case he has addressed to the House is one which we ought without hesitation to reject.
    I am in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for the very simple reason that I am, in general and in particular, against further commercialisation of Sunday, which in my view has already gone much too far in the present century. I know that is has been argued and that it will be argued again in the course of this discussion that this is only a small matter, that we are dealing here with only a small further encroachment, that it is does not really matter if certain establishments which now have to close at midnight on Saturday are to be allowed to be open till 2 o'clock on Sunday mornings in the future.
    Mr. G. Thomas: 3 o'clock.
    Sir C. Black: Till 3 o'clock on Sunday mornings in the future.
    But, of course, every encroachment upon Sunday during this century has taken that precise form and has been justified by that precise argument. We have seen in the past sixty years a radical change, and, in my submission, a change for the worse, in the general regard of the people of this country for Sunday as a day of rest and worship, and that disregard has had its effects upon very many aspects of our national life, effects which are only too evident in the life of our people today. Of course, we recognise that that radical change which has taken place over the past sixty years has not taken place as the result of any one important or drastic alteration in the law. It has taken place as a result of the progressive and almost continuous whittling down of the laws dealing with Sunday observance until we have lost a great many of the safeguards which existed sixty years ago against trading and business activities and commercialisation of Sunday.
    It would be a mistake for the House to underestimate the extent of religious feeling on this matter. One of my right hon. Friends suggested that the number of people who regularly attended church and chapel in this country was about 10 per cent. of the population. That statement has been made from time to time by various people, but I would venture to think that it is probably an underestimate of the true position. Sunday worship, of course, varies very much from place to place and in one part of the country compared with another, but even if we assume that the regular church and chapel goers of this country approximate to only 10 per cent. of the total population, if we include the children and young people who attend Sunday school, which is their form of Sunday worship, the percentage must be much higher than 10 per cent. of the whole population.
    It would be a very great mistake to believe that feeling in regard to and in favour of Sunday observance is merely confined to 10 per cent. of the population because there are many other people who do not regularly attend church or chapel but nevertheless have a deeply ingrained and sincerely held belief that Sunday is a special day
    1020
    and a different day and a day which people desecrate for secular purposes at their own peril and to their own detriment. I am quite certain that there is a very strong and a widely held measure of opinion in this country in favour of maintaining at any rate those safeguards in regard to Sunday which still exist in the law.
    If one sets aside for the moment the religious argument there is, of course, also a strong social argument here. This is a point which is so often overlooked by those who argue in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle did.
    Those of us who are seeking to maintain the legal safeguards in regard to Sunday are always branded, and very unfairly and inaccurately branded, as the enemies of freedom, the minority who are trying to impose their own views and their own way of life on the majority. But exactly the reverse is the case. What my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle wants to do is to compel a number of people employed in these establishments, who at present axe able to leave their work and to return to their homes at midnight on Saturday, to work until 3 a.m. on Sunday, whether they wish to do so or not, in order to minister to the appetites and the desires of the selfish minority. We are concerned to preserve the freedom of those people to leave their employment at midnight on Saturday, which is a late enough hour for them to be expected to work, and to spend the hours after midnight in their beds as the great majority of people want to spend the hours between midnight and 3 a.m. in bed.
    Mr. Shepherd: Here again, my hon. Friend is in error. These places have to be kept open to give a service to the customers, but they do bad business in the early hours of Sunday morning and the staff would be much more pleased to receive tips on substantial sums spent than to stay there receiving derisory tips.
    Mr. John Parker: It could also be said that they could find other jobs if they had a conscientious objection to working in these places.
    Sir C. Black: The more my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle develops his argument, the weaker his case becomes. If we accept that business is bad and is reducing between midnight on

    1021
    Saturday and 3 a.m. on Sunday, and will be much better if this relaxation of the law is permitted, then we must accept that in order to cater for the larger volume of business more people will be compelled to work these hours—and those people who are compelled to work in the conditions which my hon. Friend seeks to impose are having their freedom taken away from them to leave their work at midnight on Saturday and are compelled to remain at work until 3 a.m. on Sunday.
    I said earlier that during this century we have seen a great decline in Sunday observance and that with that decline in Sunday observance we have also seen a decline in the religious faith and practices and beliefs of the people, because in a measure the two things go together. A very great opponent of the Christian religion said in effect that if you want to destroy Christianity you must first of all destroy the Christian Sunday.
    There are people—and their number tends to grow—who are anxious to destroy Christianity, and they recognise only too well that one of the essential steps is that by degrees they should first destroy the Christian Sunday. In existing conditions anything which has the effect of lessening the regard which people have for Sunday as a day set apart for rest and worship and a day which strengthens the Christian faith and Christian practice of the nation is something which the House should reject. For those reasons I hope that the House will decide, if need be by a Division, to support the Amendment.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading. The words that my right hon. Friend used on that occasion, in referring to this proposal, were that he would await the reactions of hon. Members. In spite of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), I cannot say that the reaction of hon. Members to this proposal are strongly opposed to the suggestion that special hours certificates could extend to Sunday morning. As the hon. Member for Islington, East made clear, no Amendment was tabled to this effect in Committee, though that was, I understand, the result of inadvertence. Nevertheless,
    1022
    there was a debate on the matter, but neither then nor on this occasion, or in the representations which one receives on a Bill of this nature, have I been convinced that the House is in general support of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. That does not mean that I have any less respect for the Sabbath than he has.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), whose views we all respect, argued as if this was a proposal to introduce special hours certificates on Sunday itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made quite clear, these special hours certificates cannot operate on a Sunday and there is no suggestion that they should. That day is closed to this form of entertainment.
    I appreciate, of course, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West had in mind the early hours of Sunday morning. I think it is a matter of opinion whether the early hours of Sunday morning are a time when an offence against the spirit of Sunday observance could be committed. I think most of us would take the view that, if a special hours certificate were allowed to extend into the early hours of Sunday morning, that would not be an offence against the spirit of Sunday observance. I appreciate that there are those who do not take that view.
    We must face the fact that Saturday night is a popular night for a night out—a view which is shared by hon. Members of the House. It is the traditional night on which people celebrate, often on private occasions or at private dances into the early hours of Sunday morning. What is proposed is that in this limited class of establishment the same facilities for people to celebrate and enjoy themselves on a Saturday night shall not be curtailed at midnight, as they are at the moment.
    I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that my right hon. Friend and I are not concerned with the profit motives of these places. I have no knowledge of those matters, but I have plenty of evidence that there is a widespread demand for the extension of these facilities. One knows from the public representations we have had that there has been strong pressure for this particular extension from the British Travel and Holiday

    1023
    Association, from the British Hotels and Restaurants Association and from the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Union.
    I have no doubt that in introducing this proposal we are providing for something for which there is a demand. If we can do that without offending against the spirit of Sunday observance, then we shall, I think, do something which the House would wish to support. Certainly, in the light of the discussions on the Bill, the Government see no reason to depart from their decision to introduce these proposals. Indeed, they have introduced a further Amendment to clear up any doubt about the Bill as at present drafted.
    The issue of special hours certificates depends upon the issue of a music and dancing licence. A music and dancing licence must be in force before liquor can be sold in one of these establishments. If the dancing ends, then the sale of liquor must end. It is understood to be a condition of the 1780 Sunday Observance Act that a music and dancing licence shall not normally be issued for after midnight on the Saturday. Therefore, because of that condition, there is some uncertainty in the Bill as drafted. It would be perfectly permissible, as the Bill stands, without Amendment, for a special hours certificate to be granted to clubs, but in respect of public places of entertainment—which feature in these proposals—the Bill as drafted might be imperfect. The Government have introduced the other Amendment in page 17, line 40, to add a new subsection (8), in order to remove doubt.
    I should make clear that it would still be possible under that Amendment for a local authority to make it a condition of a music and dancing licence that dancing should stop at midnight on the Saturday, in which case the sale of liquor would have to stop. That power would remain with the local authority.
    As the Bill stands, local authorities feel that they will not be able to operate these provisions without contravening most of the conditions of the 1780 Act. That is the reason for the Government Amendment. I think that it must go with the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Islington, East has argued, and which the Government advise the House to reject.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Yesterday my right hon. Friend was good enough to say that he would look at the suggestion put forward by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) about extending this throughout the country. I presume, therefore, that when he makes the requisite Amendment to bring that into effect it will cover this day.
    Mr. Vosper: My noble Friend's rather novel idea is somewhat complicated and will require further expert drafting, but we will have regard to that point.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not intend to keep the House for long, because every-think that can be said on both sides has been said. Nothing that those who oppose this idea can do will change the mind of the Government. Although this matter was dealt with at some length in Committee upstairs and the Minister was left in no doubt of the view which many of us held, by sheer inadvertence an Amendment along the lines of this Amendment was not moved. Perhaps because of that we should feel that we did not carry out the duty imposed on us by those for whom we speak but whether we moved an Amendment or not the Minister had made up his mind and nothing we could have said or done would have changed it.
    On more than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is doing this not because the Government want to do it but because there is a demand for it. I do not know where that demand comes from. I know that one or two hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), are in favour of this proposal, but there are thousands of people—in fact, I should not be surprised if there are millions of people—who do not want the liberalising measures which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is offering them in this Bill. The Temperance Council of the Christian Churches strongly holds that view.
    I realise that it is no use speaking for too long, but the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, and those who think along the same lines, consider that we are entering a realm which in many ways is new to the temperament and atmosphere of the people in this country. Some of us realise that a large number of people want to sit up late at

    1025
    night and into the early hours of the morning to enjoy intoxicating liquor.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: We do not want to sit up all night tonight.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We think that Saturday night is different from other nights, and that those who enjoy themselves on ordinary evenings should realise that once Sunday morning starts things are different.
    One reason why we felt that the Government should not accede to this request was that when these provisions are put into operation all over the country parties will be breaking up, and restaurants
    closing, at three o'clock in the morning, and on a Sunday morning at that, with the resultant noise of the slamming of car doors which causes so much annoyance. We felt that this should not be tolerated in a Christian country. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends who think as I do will carry this matter to a Division. We realise that we shall be beaten, but we think that we should register our protest in the division lobbies.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 45.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES

    [10.55 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Green, Alan

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Allason, James

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Pott, Percivall

    Barter, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Pym, Francis

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bossom, Clive

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Roots, William

    Box, Donald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Russell, Ronald

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hendry, Forbes

    Seymour, Leslie

    Brewis, John

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Shaw, M.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Shepherd, William

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Buck, Antony

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Bullard, Denys

    Holland, Philip

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hollingworth, John

    Smithers, Peter

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jackson, John

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Stodart, J. A.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Cole, Norman

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Tapsell, Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Teeling, William

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Costain, A. P.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Critchley, Julian

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Turner, Colin

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Maddan, Martin

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Curran, Charles

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Marten, Neil

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Deedes, W. F.

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Mawby, Ray

    Walder, David

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walker, Peter

    du Cann, Edward

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wall, Patrick

    Duncan, Sir James

    Mills, Stratton

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Watts, James

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Noble, Michael

    Webster, David

    Fisher, Nigel

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Orr Capt. L. P. S.

    Whitelaw, William

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gammans, Lady

    Parker, John

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Gardner, Edward

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Peart, Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cmdr. R.

    Peel, John

    Mr. Finlay and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

    NOES

    Awbery, Stan

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Moody, A. S.

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Owen, Will

    Cordle, John

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hannan, William

    Ross, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Davies, Ifor (Cower)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Hobson, John

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Holman, Percy

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Evans, Albert

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Farr, John

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Whitlock, William

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Finch, Harold

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Fletcher, Eric

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mapp, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

    Milne, Edward J.

    Sir Cyril Black and

    Mr. George Thomas.

    Amendment made: In page 17, line 40, at end insert:
    (8) Where a special hours certificate is in force for any premises or part of premises on a Saturday, nothing in the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, shall apply by reason of the provision of music and dancing there before the time to which the permitted hours on that Saturday may extend by virtue of this section.—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 9.—(SEASONAL LICENCES.)
    Amendments made: In page 17, line 45, leave out "made at any licensing sessions".
    In page 18, line 7, leave out "made as aforesaid".—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
    That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
    I believe that this Motion would now be acceptable to the House. We have been discussing this rather curious Measure and I find myself in great difficulty about it because no one in Oldham wants it. Everyone is against it there, except possibly myself. As all my constituents are opposed to it, I have promised them that I shall vote against it, and nothing but another speech by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) would turn me from that purpose.
    We are embarking, indeed we have embarked, on a week of Parliamentary business which menaces all of us. We have the Finance Bill tomorrow and on Thursday, and we shall be considering matters on which most of us are very deeply concerned. We are to have a series of Bills on Friday in respect of which most of us have had a great deal of correspondence. We have been trying, rather humbly and unhappily, in these last two days to find what has
    happened to this Bill which has been subjected to Amendments of such importance and such volume as to provide every hon. Member with what one might think an unnecessary amount of homework.
    Most of us when we came here yesterday had to embark on a new study of the whole of this Measure and the Amendments in order to familiarise ourselves with what was now in the mind of the Government. We have reached a stage when some Amendments have been accepted and some have been reasonably discussed, and it might be that the Government may want to consider the position in the light of the debate over the last two days. Speaking perfectly seriously and not in any political sense, it is abundantly obvious that the Government cannot get Third Reading tonight. If they insist on getting Third Reading tonight they will either do so over the sleeping bodies of a minority of hon. Members and in a manner which would do them little credit, or they will get it after a long, miserable all-night sitting.
    In those circumstances, I should have thought this was the moment at which we might seriously consider the question of adjourning.
    "The curfew of departing day"
    has long since tolled. If the Leader of the House wishes to make a statement I shall be glad to give way to him, because I always like to see him on his feet and I shall welcome his intervention.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) took part in the early part of our deliberations and drew our attention to some important points of redrafting of the confirmation procedure which was virtually agreed should be done in Committee. He was

    1029
    a great help to us on that occasion. It is those Amendments which now occupy a great deal of the Notice Paper.
    If we look at the Notice Paper we find an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—in page 24, line 44, at beginning insert:
    (1) A justice having an interest in the profits of any premises shall not be thereby disqualified under subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, or otherwise from acting under that Act or this Act, if he would not fall to be treated as having such an interest but for the fact that he has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body having an interest in those profits, and if his beneficial interest in the shares of the company or body does not extend to shares of a total in actual value greater than two hundred and fifty pounds.
    That needs attention, and there are one or two other points of some interest to consider, including an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), apart from many others which are consequential, which can, I think, be dealt with by reasonable co-operation of the House.
    I should like to meet the hon. Member and the House on the question of Third Reading. I think that before we have Third Reading it might be convenient if the Bill were reprinted. We would then be able to see what has happened and perhaps to discuss some of the issues which were raised earlier today, including, although we had six hours on them, points raised by hon. and right hon. Members representing the Principality. If we take the House into our confidence in that way, which I hope will be regarded as reasonable, I think there is still a little life left in the House and that we could make a little progress on Report. But in deference to what has been said, and I hope in deference to the point put to me privately by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Soskice) and his hon. Friends, I think we should be meeting the wishes of the House if, at some inconvenience to the Government, we did not proceed with Third Reading tonight but looked at the Measure again.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He has put the case very clearly, and all that the Home Secretary has said only underlines and emphasises what was said by my hon. Friend. It is quite obvious that if we take the rest
    1030
    of the Amendments on Report we shall be here for a number of hours yet. It is true that some of the Amendments are consequential, but those of us who are interested on this side will wish to have an explanation on practically all of them, and that will take time. We shall want to discuss at such length as we are able the Amendments down in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. That means that, whether we take Third Reading tonight or not, we shall be here for a good many hours, and if hon. Members have to be kept here very much longer they may as well stay all night because the train service will have stopped. As has been pointed out, we have a heavy two days ahead on the Finance Bill, and there is some talk that we may be sitting for one whole night, or perhaps two. It would be a pity if we had to sit for three whole nights.
    There is no hurry about this Bill. I can bear out that the Bill, whether it passes into law this Session or not, is of no consequence. It is quite immaterial whether we finish Report tonight or not. The Order Paper has been littered for days with Amendments by the Home Secretary, who apparently on Second Reading could not make up his mind what sort of Bill he wanted. We have done our best in Committee to improve it, and there is no reason why hon. Members on the other side of the House any more than on this should be kept up night after night because the Government are so incompetent.
    If the Home Secretary thinks that we are going to get through Report in another half an hour, he is grossly mistaken, and he would be wise to accept the suggestion and allow the debate to be adjourned so that we can take a fresh look at it on another occasion.
    Major Sir Frank Markham: The House will not expect me to agree with some of the remarks that have just been made, but I am one of those who thinks that this Bill would benefit, certainly as regards Part III, by more consideration than we as back benchers have been able to give it over the last few days. There have been such grave and important changes made in Part III, which deals with clubs, that I for one would welcome more breathing space before we come to them. Therefore, I would suggest that we go as far as

    1031
    Clause 15—that is, finish Part II—which the Opposition might think was reasonable, and then come back with fresh minds and fresh contacts with our constituents for the remainder and for Third Reading.
    Mr. Fletcher: Might I just add that I think everyone who has served in Committee is conscious of the fact that a great deal of painstaking and constructive work was done to improve the Bill as it passed on Second Reading. The Home Secretary went out of his way on Second Reading to invite detailed, constructive comment and criticism, which was made from both sides. As a result a great many Amendments have been made. The Government reserved their decision during Committee until Report, and throughout our deliberations it has been the desire of the Home Secretary to meet the wishes of the House.
    11.15 p.m.
    We were all unduly optimistic in expecting the Report stage to be completed in two days. After all, the Committee stage occupied 25 sittings, and it was the Home Secretary's original intention that Clause 6 should be completed by last night and the rest of the Bill taken today. It proved impossible yesterday to get beyond Clause 5. It happens that Clause 6, which was of particular interest to Welsh Members, occupied the first six hours of today.
    As the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) has pointed out, Part III of the Bill is of the greatest possible interest. It contains novel features, and a great many matters arise about clubs which were left over from the Committee stage. There are a number of Amendments on the Order Paper. They need careful consideration.
    It would be a great mistake if we attempted to hurry through the Amendments to Part III tonight, and I suggest to the Home Secretary that the interests of the public and the House would be served if we could adjourn at the end of Part II, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham. The right hon. Gentleman would not be losing any Parliamentary time. By adopting this proposal we should then be able to complete Part III and the Third Reading in a reasonable time on a later occasion.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I rise to join my appeal to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). This is not an unimportant Measure. Both sides in the controversy agree that this is one of the major Measures of this Parliament. It would be unreasonable to expect those of us who have opposed the main features of the Bill to curtail our criticism because of the time. It would be an injustice to the House and a denial of democracy to expect us to hurry up matters simply because the clock was defeating us.
    It is clear that if we continue with the Report stage tonight we cannot complete it much before four o'clock or five o'clock tomorrow morning, and no one on either side of the House, bearing in mind that we were late last night and that we are almost certain, I understand, to go all night tomorrow, can claim that we shall be doing justice to this important Measure if we sit so late.
    Now, from the benches opposite, has come a reasonable compromise suggestion. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) has suggested that we finish Part II, and then deal later with the important Part III, which will bring in to take part in our debates a large number of hon. Members who have not taken part so far. They will want to speak on behalf of the clubs, and they will have a better opportunity on a later occasion.
    The Leader of the House, who usually has a flair for sensing the feeling of the House, would be falling below his usual form if the failed to realise that we have reached a turning point and that there is a general feeling that we should go home and be refreshed for our labours tomorrow.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that the Bill naturally falls into three parts. We are well on our way through Part II and should be able to complete that within a reasonable time if we go on now. When we get to Part III we are dealing with what is, in a sense, the most important part of the Bill, the part relating to clubs.
    I am sure that the Home Secretary has it in mind that there are several matters raised by Amendments on the

    1033
    Order Paper which are bound to give rise to debate. The question is whether we are to give them proper consideration tonight or whether we should adjourn so that we can approach them afresh on some future occasion.
    The right hon. Gentleman is well on his way through his Bill. It is a most important one, and we were, after all, debating it till the early hours this morning. There was a not very agreeable ending to our debate this morning when a very important change was made which gave rise to some feeling.
    What is suggested here—and there is a considerable measure of agreement on both sides of the House—is that it would be reasonable now to say that if we get to the end of Clause 15 and, in other words, complete the second part of the Bill—
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Clause 18.
    Sir F. Soskice: —Clause 18—we could then properly adjourn and return to this matter afresh. I will not repeat what has already been said, but we know that we shall have a very late sitting tomorrow and possibly the day after.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that a reasonable course has been proposed. I think that all hon. Members have reached the stage—at any rate, in this I speak for a great many of my hon. Friends—when they really are tired and want a little rest before they address themselves to the rest of the Bill.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: From my experience of the House I would not find the pressure tonight very great from the point of view of sheer physical effort, but I pay attention to the sense of what has been expressed. While it would be quite possible for the Government to insist on going on to the end of the Report stage, which would take several hours, I think that we had better pay attention to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has said and what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said.
    I would differ from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), and think that we should at least get to the end of Clause 18. There are not many Amendments on the Notice Paper in relation to
    1034
    Clauses 16–18. That would bring us to the beginning of Part III and leave that to be started on another occasion.
    I should also like to accept what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, namely that we could get the rest of the Bill in a reasonable time. I do not think it is reasonable to have quite such protracted debates on Report stage on smaller points as we have had today. I hope that we may concentrate on the major issues on the next occasion and try to treat the matter as much as a Report stage as possible. There were special reasons today, but I think that there will probably not be such strong reasons an another occasion, except when we concentrate on certain major issues which may well arise on the part dealing with clubs.
    In the circumstances, I would agree with the sense of what has been said, that we should go to the end of Clause 18 tonight and start on Part III on the next occasion.
    Mr. Hale: In those circumstances, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very courteous way in which he has received the Motion, which I beg to ask leave to withdraw.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11.—(DURATION OF LICENCES, AND RELATED PROVISIONS AS TO REMOVAL AND TRANSFER.)
    Amendments made: In page 19, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
    In page 20, line 14, leave out from "granted)" to end of line 28.
    In page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
    In line 9, leave out from "1953" to "shall" in line 10.
    In page 21, leave out lines 18 to 32.—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 12.—(POWER TO EXTEND EXISTING ON-LICENCE TO ADDITIONAL TYPES OF LIQUOR.)
    Amendments made: In page 21, line 33, leave out "made at any licensing sessions".
    In page 22, line 6, leave out from "licence" to end of line 10.—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 13.—(PROVISIONAL LICENCES.)
    Amendments made: In page 22, line 21, leave out from "application" to "by" in line 22.
    In line 35, leave out "they and the confirming authority".
    In line 39, leave out from "application" to end of line 44 and insert:
    "shall become ineffective unless affirmed under subsection (3) below in pursuance of an application made at a licensing sessions held within the twelve months following the date of the grant (or, where there is an appeal, the date the appeal is disposed of)".
    In line 47, leave out from "affirmed" to "for" in line 5 on page 23 and insert:
    "and shall give notice of the application and deposit plans, as if he were applying (otherwise than under subsection (2) above)".
    In page 23, line 21, at end insert:
    (5) There shall be an appeal to quarter sessions against any refusal of licensing justices to declare a provisional grant final, or to affirm a provisional grant, or to give their consent under subsection (1) above, as in the case of a refusal to make the grant.
    In line 31, leave out from "with" to "the" in line 33.—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 14.—(PROTECTION ORDERS.)
    Amendment made: In page 24, line 18, after "the", insert "renewal or".—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 15.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AS TO GRANT OF LICENCES, PROCEEDINGS AND FEES.)
    Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move, in page 24, line 44, at the beginning to insert:
    (1) A justice having an interest in the profits of any premises shall not be thereby disqualified under subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, or otherwise from acting under that Act or this Act, if he would not fall to be treated as having such an interest but for the fact that he has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body having an interest in those profits, and if his beneficial interest in the shares of the company or body does not extend to shares of a total in actual value greater than two hundred and fifty pounds.
    This subsection is to take the place of the original Clause 13 (1) which was in the Bill as presented to the Committee before amendment. I notice that in the argument on the Clause there was a measure of opposition by both sides of the Committee. Rather than test it by a
    1036
    Division, the Minister agreed to delete that subsection with a view to having a look at it again. The original subsection allowed a justice to sit on the bench and adjudicate on a matter provided he had not a total of shares of more than £500 value.
    This Amendment is to try to meet the opposition which was raised by cut-ting that value to an actual value of £250. I recognise that the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark), Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) were worried about the large amount of £500. I am hoping that now that I have out it to £250 I may be meeting them half way. Had the original subsection—Clause 13 (1)—been fully explained in Committee I think the opposition would not have been as great as it was, but it was not fully dealt with, and therefore I should like to take this opportunity—very briefly, because of the lateness of the hour—to explain how acute the position is in Barnsley, and the difficulties arising in 12 other towns, which have prompted me to sponsor this new subsection.
    Early in 1959 the Barnsley British Co-operative Society applied for a new off-licence to retail spirits and the application was opposed by the Licensed Victuallers Association and by the Off-Licence Holders Protection Society. Opposition was based on the fact that every member of the bench was a co-operator. Indeed, every magistrate in Barnsley is a co-operator. Anyway, their objection was upheld and there was a long legal battle which went to the divisional court and then to the Court of Appeal. I shall not go into all the details, but the conclusion was that the society won its off-licence on the merits of the case. The divisional court and the Court of Appeal found that the pecuniary interest was so small that it had not swayed the magistrates' opinions at all. The licence was granted.
    However, in view of the law as it now stands and because co-operators do have a pecuniary interest, it was impossible for them in future to adjudicate on these matters when sitting on the bench. Consequently, we have no bench in Barnsley to grant the annual renewal of licences for a31 the society's off-licence shops. Six members of the society have recently had temporarily and voluntarily to give

    1037
    up their membership of the society in order that we could have a bench there. Obviously, as all Members of the House will appreciate, this has been a tremendous wrench to many of them. These are usually men who have served a long time in public life before becoming magistrates. They have been members of the co-operative movement and society for many years. They have therefore sacrificed much to form this bench.
    11.30 p.m.
    They were aware of the original subsection 13 (1) of the Bill to rectify the anomaly, but that has been deleted. It the House does not accept at least the principle of my Amendment these six will rejoin the society and there will be no bench for Barnsley Co-operative Society matters in the future. If they are debarred from joining the society, this will place a restriction on the freedom of magistrates and will discriminate against every member of the society in the town.
    Hon. Members should know how large is the Barnsley British Co-operative Society. It has 140,000 members, although the population of the town is only 76,000, which means that the membership ranges far beyond the county borough boundaries. The society's annual turnover is £12½million and it has at least 50 per cent. of the town's total grocery trade. We estimate that 99 homes out of every 100 in Barnsley and district contains a co-operator.
    This is very much not a political question. The chairman of the Barnsley and District Conservative Party is a magistrate and a co-operator. He is not one of the six who have resigned their membership of the society to continue on the bench. If this anomaly is not removed, it will still be possible for the six members to rejoin the society for the major part of the year and, when the annual renewal of off-licences arises, to resign from the society and join the bench. After the licences have been granted they can rejoin the society. This makes a mockery of the law, and, because of this situation, we want the House to accept the principle of the Amendment.
    The Minister's Department is fully aware of the problem, for we have had shoals of correspondence and there have been many deputations. Because he recognised the legal entanglement the
    1038
    Minister tried originally in the Bill to find a way round it. If hon. Members suggest that we should try to find some non-co-operators as justices of the peace, I point out that apart from the obvious discrimination, this would shatter the principle of selecting magistrates on merit. It would be hard in Barnsley and district to find any who are not co-operators.
    This is not an isolated case. Twelve other towns have already indicated that they are getting into the same difficulty. They are Birmingham, Lincoln, Rugby, Bury, part of Nottingham—and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) who led the protest in Committee is present—Kettering, Preston, Wigan, Scunthorpe, Haltwhistle, Peterborough and St. Helens. Some of them have only just a quorum left. One has three magistrates who can still adjudicate but two of them are private traders and it might be said that they might have a bias.
    The idea embodied in the Amendment is not new but is copied from that used in local government by which councillors can speak and vote on matters in which they have an interest provided that it is not more than £500 in shares. We are trying to solve the problem by copying that to a lesser degree. Because of the Clause originally in the Bill, I realise that the Government recognise the seriousness of the position. They have wrestled with the problem during the past twelve months in an effort to help.
    In view of the fact that our Amendment is a watered-down version of the original intention, I hope that it will receive support from the Government. I understand that we could not have comprehensive legislation to cover this anomaly within the next two years. By that time, of course, we shall have had this mockery of the law in Barnsley continued still further, and it will be bound to spread unless the law is amended. Moreover, even in some of the other twelve towns there will be developing difficulty of the kind we have in Barnsley.
    This is not purely a co-operative matter. Many other enterprises or even some sections of private industry might be involved. Because the difficulty is acute in my town, and because many

    1039
    other towns will be affected before very long, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to come some way towards accepting the principle embodied in the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: This Amendment raises very important issues and principles. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has put very persuasively and forcefully the weighty considerations on the one side. There is the fact that at present it is only by an artificiality that one can assemble a bench in Barnsley which can adjudicate on any matter where the Co-operative Society is concerned.
    The artificiality is such that it really strikes at the base of the opposing principle, which we have rightly insisted upon, that our benches at all levels should not only be unbiassed but should be seen to be unbiassed. The real objection to the proposal that the Government made originally, and that the hon. Member makes now, arises from the danger that an objector may not feel that he has a really unbiassed bench adjudicating on his application.
    It is said, "Why not send the application, whatever it may be, to a neighbouring bench of magistrates?" Against that there is the argument that the best people to determine a local issue are a local bench of magistrates—another principle deeply established in our system of local lay magistracy.
    Against the view of the rigorists, that no one in respect of whom there might be even the remotest appearance of bias should sit on a bench in these circumstances, there is to be set the fact that the Barnsley justices' case was considered by the divisional court and by the Court of Appeal, the finding being—I do not suppose that anyone would wish to quarrel with it—that there had been no bias in fact. Further, it could be asked—What could be more artificial than what has happened in Barnsley? Six of the justices have resigned in order to provide a bench of magistrates not all of whom, if I may put it in this way, are tainted with co-operation. It is to provide at any rate a forum which can judge on matters concerning the co-operative society. But on the other hand, surely any litigant before that bench will know that they have been life-long members of
    1040
    the co-operative society and have resigned from it that they can at any time rejoin, and that it must be in their hearts to rejoin.
    Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the point of view of the rigorists, although I respect it, when measured against the reality of the situation may not have quite the force that at first sight appears to be the case.
    When we discussed this matter in Committee upstairs it was on a proposal by the Government to deal with this problem, which is not, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, confined to Barnsley. It is a potential danger in other parts of the country. The Government proposal was that a justice should not be disqualified if his financial interest did not extend to shares of a total nominal value of more than £500, or more than one-hundredth in nominal value of the issued share capital.
    It was rightly pointed out that a nominal value of £500, which was already a very considerable sum, could represent an actual value of very much more. Because of the views expressed in Committee upstairs, my right hon. Friend accepted the Amendment to delete the provision, so that the matter could be reconsidered.
    The hon. Gentleman now proposes an alternative approach, an actual value of £250. I have two objections to that. The first is on the amount. I think that £250 is very considerably too high. It is a sufficient stake for an objector to have a genuine feeling, an understandable feeling, a reasonable feeling, that the bench has a financial stake in the matter on which it is adjudicating.
    Secondly, I do not think that the actual value is a feasible test. One knows that there are three alternative methods of getting at the value of shares for Estate Duty purposes. I do not think that anyone has found any of them very satisfactory. One has only to think of a justice buying his newspaper as he goes towards the court and finding that the premises in which he has a small number of shares, say 200, have been the subject of a take-over bid and that his shares have suddenly shot up to double their value. Therefore, for that reason it seems that actual value is not the right approach.

    1041
    I still think that, if we are to deal with this, the best way to approach it is by a nominal value of some very small amount, say £25. I know that the rigorist, even if he brushes aside the argument that I ventured to put forward about the artificiality of the present position, will say that there should be no interest at all. But I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment so that we can reconsider it before the matter goes to another place.
    At present the inclination of my right hon. Friend is to go some way to trying to meet the hon. Gentleman's problem. I have suggested one possible way, which is to have a very low nominal value. In any event, anything that we do on these lines will have to be the subject of an Amendment in another place. It will have to come back to this House for reconsideration, so that in accepting that course the House would not be coming to any final decision.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have talked this matter over with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I understood that he had been in touch with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that in all probability the amount which he had inserted in the Amendment would be acceptable to the Government, particularly as it is only half—it might be less than half—of the amount originally in the Clause.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) will bear me out when I say that we have not discussed the matter of the amount at all.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not want to give the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the Clause as drafted, or the Amendment. I said what I did as a preface to the rest of what I have to say, namely, that in the original draft the Government made the amount nominally £500, which is considerably more than my hon. Friend has put in the Amendment. I do not know whether we shall ever reach finality about this. It is, however, obvious that we shall have to do something.
    As I said during the Committee stage discussions, the co-operative society is in a different position from an ordinary
    1042
    company or other organisation, and it might be possible to deal with the Society in some acceptable way which would avoid the difficulties indicated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But £25, the amount he suggested, might be subjected to a take-over bid, particularly as he would make £25 nominal in amount and not actual money value, and the figure might be a great deal higher. We should then run into the difficulties which were foreseen when we discussed this matter in the Committee.
    The Solicitor-General: I should make it clear that I think that there would have to be in addition a proportion of the total nominal value fixed, so that there could not be £25 in a £25 company.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is an additional reason for my suggesting that perhaps my hon. Friend would be well advised to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter will be attended to in another place in a manner satisfactory to those whom my hon. Friend represents and to the Government, and to all who wish to see justice done. As my hon. Friend said, at is not only the co-operative society which would be in difficulties but other people also, and we might as well settle this problem.
    Sir C. Black: I will not deploy the arguments on this matter which were deployed during the Committee stage discussions by some of my hon. Friends and myself and which led to the decision at which the Committee arrived. However, in view of what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, I should like to make it clear that this is not a matter which is influenced in my mind by the amount of the interest. That was not the point. The point was, would a person who was opposing an application by the co-operative society feel that he was getting a square deal, and that justice was being done, if he knew that all the justices, even though it were only to a small extent, were financially interested in the matter on which they were having to adjudicate? I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I want to make it clear that for my part—and, I think, my view is shared by some of my hon. Friends—when this matter comes before us again I would not be

    1043
    influenced by the amount of the investment. To my mind, there is a principle here which is unaffected by the amount of the interest.
    Sir F. Soskice: Whatever our views, we would all agree that there is a serious problem. The Solicitor-General put it admirably. One has in mind the consideration to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has again referred, but, at the same time, there are the practical difficulties which make it difficult to give full effect to the principle of rigour to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
    As a person who has considered this sort of problem, it seems to me that what the Solicitor-General proposes is the right approach. He mentioned a nominal figure of £25. One wants to strike a figure which is neither so high that it may give rise to legitimate apprehension on the part of objectors, on the one side, nor so low as, in effect, to deprive it of all result. If we put it below a certain level, we still may disqualify a large number of justices, if not all of them. I know that if the Solicitor-General feels able to pursue further the course which he has suggested, he will carefully consider the necessity of trying to find the right mean.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who moved the Amendment and who has done us all a service in bringing it forward, will ask the permission of the House to withdraw it in view of what the Solicitor-General has said. We are faced with a problem, and what has come from the Government Bench is the only practical approach to an efficacious solution.
    Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: In Committee, I said that it was my instinct to leave matters as they were unless I could find out a good deal more than we knew at that time and get my mind cleared. Since then, I have done so, and I support the principle of the Amendment.
    In Committee, I declared that I was an interested party in that I am one of those magistrates who are debarred from being a licensing justice because of a technicality, the financial value of which is infinitesimal. If the Amendment or something like it is passed. I
    1044
    shall still be so disqualified, and I think that probably that must be right.
    Mr. Mason: In view of the assurances given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Objection being taken, the debate continues.
    Mr. John Hobson: I greatly welcome the approach of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am sure that it is necessary to have a small minimal figure which no one could consider would influence anybody in exercising his judicial office. The main principle is not whether it is £25 or any other figure of nominal value, but that it should be a tiny proportion of the total issued share capital. That is the important thing. Nobody could suppose that if a person has an interest of less than one-hundredth part of the capital of a company, the result of an application would very much affect his interest in the company.
    I therefore ask the Solicitor-General if he will consider as the guiding principle the proportion rather than the amount. Apart from co-operatives, there is the question of unit trusts, which I ask him to consider. Someone may have a large block of units in a trust which bought a large proportion of brewery shares. The managers of the trust might have bought shares in a brewery without the knowledge of the holder of the units in the trust. He might be disqualified without having the faintest idea that he was disqualified. I do not know the answer to that except to say that shares in a unit trust should not be considered.
    Mr. John Farr: I disagree with the Amendment. I disagree with it because I disagree with the whole principle. It is not to me a matter of the amount, whether it is 6d., 6s. or £600, which a person has in the Barnsley Co-operative Society or any other co-operative society, but the fact that someone can go to the court and say, "How can justice be done? The bench has an interest in the matter."
    I do not want to be destructive, but constructive. For that reason I make two small suggestions. The first may not

    1045
    meet with much approval. Could not stipendiary magistrates be used in Barnsley or in other courts where this question came up? If that is impracticable and if Barnsley is an exception—I know Nottingham very well and I assure hon. Members that Nottingham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) will confirm, never has and never will have difficulty in finding a number of estimable people who are not co-operators to serve on the bench—would it be possible to help Barnsley if the Home Office took powers to grant a special dispensation in Barnsley or some other city which had a similar problem and for this Amendment to be adopted for a specific case?
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: As I have indicated before, I am not at all happy about this matter. I have been very quiet today, but not at all stages of the Bill. Generally in discussions on it I have not found myself near agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). Although we sit on the same side of the House, in a way we have been on opposite sides in discussion on this Bill, but I am in full agreement with what he has said on this question.
    I do not mind one bit what the amount involved is. I am not impressed with what the Solicitor-General said about a twenty-fifth part. It is a question of whether one has a direct interest. I have never heard anything so ridiculous as to suggest that Barnsley cannot do anything about this question because all the (magistrates are co-operators. What on earth is Barnsley doing electing all co-operators as magistrates? It should arrange its affairs on a sounder basis than that.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that my hon. Friend does not appreciate the difficulty of the situation. I understand that all the Barnsley justices, not only the licensing justices, but all the justices, are co-operators. They are not, of course, as my hon. Friend suggested, elected. They are appointed because they are thought to be the best people for appointment to the bench.
    Mr. Hirst: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend does not take me for a fool. I know a good deal about how justices are appointed. I do not propose
    1046
    to go into the details now. What I said before stands. There is no need whatever for all the justices of the peace to be co-operators whereby they are debarred in effect from judging these matters. I am not prepared to compromise in this matter in the slightest. I shall oppose it at every stage.
    12 m.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I did not want to intervene, because I felt that most of us had the sense of the Solicitor-General and were prepared to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn so that the matter may be looked at again in the light of the discussion that occurred earlier this evening. As some hon. Members have said, some important points of principle have arisen, and our difficulty at this time is that if we are to have a fully-fledged debate it could last a good time, whereas most of us are anxious that the debate should be terminated and the question looked at again so that some accommodation can be made.
    Hon. Members opposite made a great deal of the point whether or not a person has an interest, and how much the interest is. But I think that, with a joint stock company and a friendly society under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, there is surely a vast difference between whether a share has a changing value and whether it can be the subject of capital appreciation and take-over bids, compared with a share which retains its nominal value and receives only a fixed interest.
    Many organisations have contributed to the voluntary services in the community and in public life—the co-operative movement, as well as others. We are seeking in a democratic society to get more people to do voluntary service—to sit on benches and to take part in work on committees and welfare organisations and societies. What has happened here on a small point within the Bill is a discouragement for people so to do.
    The co-operative society of which I am a member has 1,300,000 members. The position will be extremely difficult, when we remember that there are 13 million members of co-operative societies out of a population of 52 million—or one in four. As the societies grow we might reach the stage where it

    1047
    is impossible to find people of good will to serve on benches who are not in touch in some way with a co-operative society.
    There is also the point made by the Solicitor-General of the right amount of interest. With the co-operative movement the dividend on a share accumulates instead of being drawn out, and this speedily comes to £25. I hope that if this point is looked at again the Solicitor-General will bear in mind that, in the present affluent society, perhaps £25 is a bit low.
    Hon. Members opposite have also raised the point about being seen to be fair and unbiassed. This question does not really arise in a non-profit making society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, whereas it might arise under a joint stock company or private concern registered under ordinary profit-making techniques. Barnsley has been quoted, but it is not only there or in the twelve other towns that this occurs or where there are cases of difficulty. If the House wishes to give leave for this Amendment to be withdrawn, I hope that that course will be pursued.
    Mr. William Clark: I was responsible in Committee for moving the Amendment to delete this Clause. While I agree with the Solicitor-General that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) put a persuasive case, I would say that he put a persuasive case for Barnsley. The hon. Member mentioned twelve other towns which are, he said, near the same position, and he mentioned Nottingham. I can speak for Nottingham only, and I can assure him that Nottingham would never have any difficulty in finding magistrates for the licensing bench who did not have an interest in licensed premises. His argument that there are twelve other towns more or less in the same position as Barnsley is entirely fallacious.
    I cannot understand why, in this debate, interesting though it is, we have had the same reasons pot forward as were adduced upstairs in Committee. It was because of those reasons and the advocacy of both sides that the Committee came to the conclusion that this provision should be deleted from the Bill. I regret very much that the right
    1048
    hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has turned round in his attitude towards this, because when I moved an Amendment in Committee he was among my greatest supporters, as were his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The proposition then was very different from the one we are now considering.
    Mr. Clark: No. The proposition we are considering now is that the limitation should be £250 rather than £500, actual value. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his speech in Committee was entirely opposed in principle to people sitting on the bench and being judges and advocates in their own causes.
    Mr. Bourne-Arton: In dealing with the availability of magistrates, would my hon. Friend say also that there will never be any difficulty in getting magistrates to serve unless they are prepared to undertake never to buy a brewery share, or a share in a catering business or in a unit trust?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton), like the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, has switched round, and I regret it. I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends will still stick to, and are still consistent about, the principle that a man should not be judge and advocate in his own cause. Whilst there may be difficulty in Barnsley, I cannot see why the Bill, which affects England and Wales, should be changed for the sake of one town. Although Barnsley has a difficulty, I cannot see that it is insuperable, and that it cannot find magistrates for the licensing bench or have its licences dealt with in a neighbouring town.
    What a furore there would be if somebody here said that we must alter the Bill because the only people we could get for a licensing bench were brewers, I cannot see that the argument put by the hon. Member for Barnsley holds water when he says that all the available people in Barnsley are co-operators.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said that the Bill will go to another place and that an

    1049
    Amendment will be put down. I will oppose any Amendment that gives additional benefit to any particular section of the community. The licensing bench system has worked well for many years, and I cannot see why, at this stage, we should change the procedure. We shall look forward with interest to the Amendment that is to be put down, and will then decide upon our course of action.
    Sir D. Glover: I did not intend to intervene in the discussion, but if anything has come out of it, it is that the Home Secretary can produce a Bill in the next Session to modernise the system under which magistrates are appointed, because it is utter nonsense to say that in a great town like Barnsley one cannot find magistrates who are not members of co-operative societies.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend must realise the implications of what he is saying—that if the best available man for appointment to the bench, is selected, he shall nevertheless be disqualified because he has an investment in a co-operative society.
    Sir D. Glover: If my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to continue my argument, I have no doubt that—as he knows, magistrates are appointed and not elected—if Mr. A is known as an outstanding man for the appointment and realises that if he is given the appointment he will have to deal with the question of licences for a co-operative society and that he holds £100 worth of shares in the co-operative society, there is nothing in the world to prevent him from selling his holding and thereby removing the interest which he has in that organisation, just as every Minister of the Crown has to resign his directorships when appointed. There is no reason at all why a magistrate, who realises that he is too involved in this large organisation which appears to dominate the whole of Barnsley, and wants to be an independent individual, should not resign his small interest. He can put his money into a non-profit-making organisation and then his shares will not appreciate in value. He will not lose a great deal. On the other hand, he will gain complete freedom of action.
    Mr. Mason: But he will lose in principle.
    Sir D. Glover: He will not. I come back to what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and Shipley (Mr. Hirst). It is not what a person does; it is what the people who are in front of him think he is doing. What is important is that if a person goes before a bench of magistrates he must feel and know that the magistrates are not financially interested and are unprejudiced. Otherwise, if the case goes against him he will lower the status of the magistrates in the district by saying for months and months afterwards, "Oh, yes, I lost my case because the magistrates were prejudiced against me. They had a vested interest in turning me down."
    It is not true—the hon. Member for Barnsley knows this as well as I do—to say that it is impossible to overcome this problem. It is perfectly easy to overcome.
    Mr. Mason: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office has been struggling with this problem for twelve months to find a way out and this is the only possible immediate method of overcoming the acute situation which has arisen in Barnsley and which is gradually spreading elsewhere? Also, the hon. Gentleman must not draw a false analogy between a Minister of the Crown and a justice of the peace where one is asking public-spirited men to work for nothing in the service of the public, because a Minister of the Crown at least is well paid.
    Sir D. Glover: I am very glad that I gave way to the hon. Member for Barnsley, because I have never yet found all these public-spirited men who would turn the appointment down. In every district of which I have any knowledge people come to me and say "How do you become a justice of the peace? How are you appointed? What happens?".
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: I should like to inform the hon. Gentleman that there are hon. Members who have turned down such an appointment. Perhaps he has not had experience because the wrong kind of people have been approaching him.
    Mr. Pavitt: I am happy to tell the hon. Member that I am one of those who have turned down the appointment.
    Sir D. Glover: I always realised that the hon. Member for Willesden West (Mr. Pavitt) was a strange bird, but he is the first one that I have ever come across. In every case, of course, one can find an exception, but every hon. Member knows that people approach us, as Members of Parliament, about how justices of the peace are appointed. They want to know how people become justices of the peace. If anybody is going to tell me that we shall find difficulty in discovering good, sound and responsible citizens to take on this duty—an onerous one, I agree, but one with enormous honour in one's own district, ranking just about as high as, if not higher than, a Member of Parliament, with the letters "J.P." after their name which they will cherish—I just do not believe that we shall get people without lowering the status by saying that they may have a vested interest and that the public will accept it.
    Mr. Mason: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if we are to do as he suggests, the principle of selecting a magistrate on merit must immediately be shelved, because 140,000 people in Barnsley and district will not be included in that selection at all, and, consequently, there will be very few people from whom one can choose?
    Sir D. Glover: We are not now talking about the general bench of magistrates. We are talking about licensing magistrates. If the hon. Member's no doubt very worthy friend is a staunch co-operator in Barnsley and is offered an appointment to the licensing bench, there is no reason in this world why he should get rid of his share in the co-operative society so that he can deal with these matters as a completely independent person. I still do not believe that we bring a sense of justice into these affairs if we accept the principle that a person who is a magistrate has some sort of vested interest.
    12.15 a.m.
    Let me make the case more strongly. Today it is the co-operators. We talk glibly about £100 worth of stock in a co-operative society which is worth £100, but if we now accept that, in five years' time how are we to turn down someone who has £100 in a brewery company—
    1052
    stock which may be worth £10 a share and which may be a substantial amount in his income? If we accept the co-operator to the licensing bench, how in the world can we say that that man cannot stand or is not eligible? Thus we open the way to a flood of persons who have an interest in turning down applications, and people will have a deep feeling that justice is not being done.
    Mr. Mason: With the assurance I have received from the Solicitor-General, and on the understanding that the principle of my Amendment will certainly be seriously considered by him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 24, line 44, leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 25, line 34, at the end to insert:
    (f) a list of all new applications and for renewal of licences shall be made available for inspection at the office of the clerk to the licensing bench at least fourteen days prior to the hearing of such applications.
    All that is proposed is that a list of applicants and applications for renewal should be made available fourteen days or earlier at the office of the clerk to the licensing bench. This Amendment has a very happy parentage. The licensed victuallers, I understand, want it. It was they who brought it to my notice, and I understand that also the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches' Council thinks that it would be a good idea. I hope that with these commendations the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment without a great deal of discussion.
    Mr. Vosper: With certain reservations I am agreeable to accept the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It has respectable sponsors other than himself. I think that the Amendment should go further and extend to removals. I am a little doubtful whether it should extend to renewals because there might be some case for making available applications for renewals which must be automatically known to those who wish to object. Thirdly, I think that there is a case for

    1053
    a small fee for inspection, which is payable in these cases. Fourthly, the Amendment is technically defective. If the right hon. Gentleman is agreeable and the House, too, I will have an Amendment tabled in another place to meet the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and, of course, I accept what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 26, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and (6).—[Mr. Vosper.]

    Clause 16.—(CONSENT NOT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN ALTERATIONS TO LICENSED PREMISES.)
    Amendment made: in page 28, line 10, leave out from "and" to end of line 12 and insert:
    "Section thirty-five of that Act shall apply accordingly."—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Vosper.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

    Clause 16.—(CONSENT NOT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN ALTERATIONS TO LICENSED PREMISES.)

      ADJOURNMENT
      Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.

MALTA
  Factories
  Factories
SOUTH CAMEROONS
  Law and Order
  Law and Order
MAURITIUS
  Professor Malik (Residence Permit)
  Professor Malik (Residence Permit)
  SOCIAL WELFARE WORKERS
  SOCIAL WELFARE WORKERS
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
SCOTLAND
  Barloan Junction, Dumbarton (Improvement)
  Barloan Junction, Dumbarton (Improvement)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Forth and Clyde Canal (Closure)
  Forth and Clyde Canal (Closure)
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants
  School Buses (Fare-Paying Passengers)
  School Buses (Fare-Paying Passengers)
  Caravan Holidays, Highland Counties
  Caravan Holidays, Highland Counties
  Hospitals (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Hospitals (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Migration (Estimates)
  Migration (Estimates)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Maternity Hospital, Paisley
  Maternity Hospital, Paisley
  Dental Schools (Students)
  Dental Schools (Students)
  Shipping Services, North Isles of Orkney
  Shipping Services, North Isles of Orkney
  University, Inverness (Representations)
  University, Inverness (Representations)
  Hospital Buildings
  Hospital Buildings
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Commonwealth Officials (Conference)
  Commonwealth Officials (Conference)
  Public Works Loan Board
  Public Works Loan Board
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Estate Duty (Property Leases, Nassau)
  Estate Duty (Property Leases, Nassau)
  University Places, Scotland
  University Places, Scotland
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Soviet Union (Minister's Visit)
  Soviet Union (Minister's Visit)
  Government-Financed Factories, Sunderland (Employees)
  Government-Financed Factories, Sunderland (Employees)
  Cinemas (Closures)
  Cinemas (Closures)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
SCIENCE
  D.S.I.R. Offices, London
  D.S.I.R. Offices, London
  Hydrological Research
  Hydrological Research
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Ionising Radiations
  Ionising Radiations
  Radioactive Materials (Containers)
  Radioactive Materials (Containers)
  United Kingdom-Euratom Technical Collaboration Agreement
  United Kingdom-Euratom Technical Collaboration Agreement
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (SPAIN)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (SPAIN)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Trawlers (Icelandic Grounds)
  Fishing Trawlers (Icelandic Grounds)
HOSPITALS
  Hope Hospital, Salford (Maternity Unit)
  Hope Hospital, Salford (Maternity Unit)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Great North Road, Catterick (Advertising Signs)
  Great North Road, Catterick (Advertising Signs)
  Planning and Research Officers (Qualifications)
  Planning and Research Officers (Qualifications)

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

FUEL OIL TAX AND HOSPITAL COSTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 what is their estimate of cost to the Hospital Service of the proposed fuel oil tax, and how it is proposed that this extra expenditure should be met.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the cost of this tax to the hospital service cannot at present be accurately calculated, but it is likely to be of the order of £¾million for England and Wales. It will be met from the Exchequer as part of hospital running expenses and the Government are considering the implications for hospital budgets of this and other factors affecting costs.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, does that mean that in fact the allowances to hospitals for the maintenance costs will go up by an appropriate amount, so that the new tax will not result in a diminution of real spending for hospital services?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Government are now considering whether or not there should be a further allotment of funds, and the hospitals will be told as soon as possible. But this particular cost cannot be considered in isolation: it must be taken together with other changes in costs which have occurred.
LORD TAYLOR: Nevertheless, my Lords, will it not inflict a burden, whether considered in isolation or with other items, unless an appropriate amount is allowed for hospital budgets to cover it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it depends what the noble Lord opposite means by "burden". This estimated sum of £750,000 is a very small proportion—indeed, it is one-six hundredth—of the total allocation of monies to hospital authorities for their running costs, the total being £447 million.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that hospital budgets are run down to the nearest farthing and that, therefore, it will make a big difference?
LORD NEWTON: Did the noble Lard say that hospital budgets are running down?
LORD AMULREE: No. What I asked was whether the noble Lord did not realise that the budgets of hospitals at the present time are run down to the nearest farthing, and, therefore, if there is an increase, it will mean that something else has to be dropped.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a very small increase and, as I say, the Government are now considering whether or not there should be a further allotment of funds.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this small increase works out at 30s. per year per bed? We have to work in hospitals to 1 per cent. on accuracy of spending. This is not an unimportant matter. Secondly, will guidance be given to hospitals regarding the implications of this tax as between burning solid fuel or oil fuel in the installation of boilers they will be making for the future?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should not like to answer the second question without notice. As regards the first question, I hope that I did not suggest that it was an unimportant matter: I said merely that it was not a very big matter, taken in the context of the total allocation to hospitals to cover their running expenses.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not a simple solution to this problem be not to levy this tax on hospitals?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is not this tax burdensome on the whole community, quite apart from hospitals?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, could we have an answer to the question put by my noble friend Lady Summerskill?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend behind me, first, it does fall on all consumers of these heavy oils. With regard to the noble Lady's question, I think she will probably remember from her own experience how Government accounting works. And perhaps I should also remind your Lordships that there was until 1947 a tax on these heavy oils of 1d. a gallon—it is now 2d. a gallon—and it was taken off then, according to the thin Chancellor of the Exchequer, only because there was a severe shortage of coal and the Government wished to encourage switching over to oil.

PRESERVATION OF LANGTON GREEN
2.41 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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 what attempt, if any, has been made either by local or national authorities to prevent the suggested housing development in the village of Langton Green, Kent, being constructed in such a way as largely to destroy the charm of this historic spot.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the responsibility for considering applications for permission to develop land at Langton Green has rested entirely with the local authorities. I understand that an outline planning permission has been given for 103 houses. However, details of design and layout have still to be approved by the authorities, and my right honourable friend feels sure that they will have every regard to the character of the area when considering any proposals submitted to them.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, does he not agree that it is much more important to try to give greater consideration than is at present being given to the destruction of these beautiful and irreplaceable villages? All over the country
1072
they are being pulled down and destroyed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend that this is an important matter and that our villages are a most important heritage. But I cannot agree with him that careful consideration has not been given to this particular application and is not being given to other similar applications.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that it is open to the Minister, in important cases of this kind, to take over the application and deal with it himself, and that many areas are being ruined by leaving a decision entirely to the local authority until it is too late to intervene?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware that this lies within my right honourable friend's power. Nevertheless, it is his policy to leave matters to the local authorities when in his view, as in this case, a decision lies clearly within their competence.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, recognising the responsibility that now lies on the local authorities, is my noble friend satisfied that they have always good enough taste to exercise it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, taste, of course, is purely a matter of opinion.

MIGRATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether—

(a) they have taken cognisance of Lord Casey's recently published views on migration;

(b) they accept that the attitude of the Government is a factor of consequence in the minds of prospective migrants;

(c) they should not therefore attempt to stimulate the flow of migrants to the Commonwealth by utilising a larger proportion of the sum voted annually by Parliament under the Commonwealth Settlement Act.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have of course taken careful note of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Casey. With regard to the second,pant of my noble friend's Question, I should not like to dogmatise about the factors influencing prospective migrants. Only the individual can take the final decision. This must to a great extent depend on personal circumstances and on prevailing economic conditions, both here and in the country of settlement. There is no doubt as 'to the Government's attitude. It has, and continues to be, one of encouraging migration to other parts of the Commonwealth.
As regards the last part of my noble friend's Question, Parliament last year voted some £178,000 for oversea settlement purposes, and this sum was fully spent: the hulk of it went to the Australian assisted passage scheme, and the rest went to the various voluntary emigration societies. But the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts, under which the money is voted, expire in May, 1962. The question of their renewal is now being considered as part of a general review of the Government's emigration policy. This review will, of course, take account of the scale of expenditure voted under the Acts.
LORD BARNBY: Would the noble Duke not agree that it is a matter of concern that the total United Kingdom proportion of the immigration into the Dominions is falling so that it reduces the degree of sentiment, tradition and loyalty to the Crown. Secondly, would it not seem that some mechanics for contributing towards the cost of housing British immigrants into, for instance, Australia and New Zealand would be a small sacrifice compared with the large sums being made available to extra-Commonwealth overseas countries and also the large burden falling upon national or municipal taxpayers in the United Kingdom? Might I also remind the noble Duke, who mentioned that £178,000 was spent, that that sum is a small part of the £1½ million voted or made available by Parliament under the Acts.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend when he says that the rate of emigration to Australia is falling off. The provisional figures for last year, 1960, show that there was an increase on the previous year; and when the final figures are reached it is likely that the figures for 1960 will prove to have been higher, at something over 44,000 than for some years past. On the question of providing finance for housing our emigrants to Australia, there are both legal and other difficulties in tackling such a question. On the final question, I must point out to my noble friend that he is incorrect in saying that £1½ million was voted. The figure of £1½ million represents the ceiling of money which can be voted for assisting emigration figures by way of schemes. It is not the amount voted; it is the maximum that is legal to be voted; and in point of fact the amount voted last year was £178,000.
LORD BARNBY: In thanking the noble Duke for that reply, I perhaps inadvertently said that it applied to Australia. I thought I said it applied to the Commonwealth as a whole, because the case for Australia is not the case for Canada, which falls within the Commonwealth. Also I thought I said that Parliament "made available", not "voted".
LORD CASEY: My Lords, may I ask, in extension of what the noble Duke said, if one is right in believing that only a very small proportion of the total amount of £1½ million, which Her Majesty's Government are empowered to spend on migration, has in fact actually been spent? Might I also ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that there is a problem of housing in Australia, although migrants from all countries are treated in respect of housing on exactly the same footing as Australian citizens? Might I also ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that the Dutch and Italian authorities have initiated housing schemes in aid of their own nationals migrating to Australia, and, further, whether it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider housing schemes for their own British migrants migrating to Australia on something like the same conditions as the Dutch and Italian schemes, or in some other direction?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as I have already said, the problem of providing finance for housing of United Kingdom emigrants to Australia presents certain legal and other difficulties, the legal difficulty being that it is ultra vires the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts that money should be provided for housing of our emigrants: it does not come within the terms of the Acts. I would also say that the problems confronting the Dutch and the Italians are not the same as those which face this country. In Italy there is considerable unemployment, so it is in their interest for people to leave the country, while in Holland they have a shortage of land for their own population. I can only repeat what I have already said, that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of emigration for citizens of this country to all parts of the Commonwealth.

ROYAL MARINES MASSED BANDS' DISPLAY
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 it is intended to give a display of the massed bands of the Royal Marines on the Horse Guards Parade this year.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the last three occasions on which Beat Retreat was staged on the Horse Guards Parade were in 1950, 1958 and 1960. This event has not therefore followed a regular pattern in the past, and it is not intended to stage it this year. I am, however, considering whether the ceremony could be performed more regularly in future and I will gladly inform the noble Earl of the outcome.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was laid before the Committee. The Committee were informed that Miss M. Riddell had been appointed to
1076
succeed Miss Hoath as Superintendent of the Refreshment Department. The Report was agreed to.
2.—REVISION OF ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved the application of Establishments Circular No. 18/61, dated 24th April, 1961, providing for the revision of allowances for special duties with effect from 1st January, 1961, to members of the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applied.
3.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF

(a) The Committee considered the question of an application by a trade union to be granted representative capacity for the Hansard Reporters and agreed that the House of Lords should approach the House of Commons with a view to joint consideration of the matter by both Houses.

(b) The Committee reviewed the agreement with Messrs. H. Craig-Kelly Limited for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates and approved an increase in the rates of pay from 1st April, 1961.

4.—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Sheppard on his retirement on the 25th August, 1961.
5.—RESIGNATION OF HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Miss A. Iggulden who resigned on 6th May, 1961.
6.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Office Assistant on the Staff of the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
7.—HOUSEMAIDS
The Committee sanctioned an increase in the rate of pay of the Housemaids in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department in accordance with Establishments Circular No. 22/61 (Pay &c. of Cleaners) dated 11th May, 1961.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I do not think there are any paragraphs in it to which I need draw the special attention of your Lordships, but I need not say that if any noble Lord wishes to ask any question with reference to this Report I will do my best to answer it.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Retiring age]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): This is a drafting Amendment which achieves the original intention of Section 6 (2). The intention was that the retiring age of 72 should apply only to part-time sheriffs who are first appointed as such after the date of enactment. But every sheriff is subject to a separate appointment, and so, unless the word "appointed" is altered, the effect of the Bill would be that if one of the present part-time sheriffs moved to another part-time sheriffdom he would in fact be appointed to it after the passing of the Act and would have to retire at 72, which was not the intention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("first appointed to the office of sheriff"). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
2.52 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to amend Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. That section permits a town or county council, with the approval of
1078
the Secretary of State, to make, and I quote:
"any payment for any purpose which, in the opinion of the Council, is in the interests of the Council or of the area of the Council or any pant thereof or of the inhabitants thereof"
This Bill was born of disasters to which the Secretary of State could not approve charitable aid. For many years when there was a disaster in Scotland, the councils, if they felt so disposed, under Section 339 gave subscriptions to disaster funds promoted by other areas. But some three or four years ago a legal ruling placed an unexpectedly narrow interpretation on Section 339, to the effect that the contribution could be made by an authority to a disaster fund only if some person within the area of that authority might possibly benefit.
In 1959 we had the first of three major disasters, for all of which local funds were raised: the Auchengeich Colliery, then the loss of the Broughty Ferry Lifeboat "Mona" and then the Glasgow whisky warehouse fire. In each case local authorities all over Scotland wished to contribute, whether or not anyone in their area had been affected, and in each case, under the legal ruling, my right honourable friend had many times to refuse permission to contribute. This caused grave public concern.
This Bill provides that certain types of payment may, without further test, be regarded as being in the Council's area. This overcomes the difficulties to which I have referred. The Bill, like Section 339, which it amends, is permissive. The need for the Secretary of State's approval applies here as to the original Section 339. This is proper, because we and the local authorities realise that there must be some check on the type of body to whom the gift is made. A local authority, for example, might not know that a certain body had political affiliations.
In spite of the widening of Section 339 by this Bill the upper limit to giving is still retained as the product of a 2d. rate. Local authorities in fact hardly ever spend anything approaching this figure under this section. This limit was raised in 1947 from 1d. to 2d. and as the result of the revaluation which has now taken place a 2d. rate will in the future be worth considerably more than it is now;

1079
so this limitation has, in fact, kept pace with the decrease in value of money.
Turning to the Bill, I would point out that three types of giving for Scotland rather than for the local authority area will now be permitted, if not already permitted under other legislation or powers: under paragraph (a) to any charitable body; under paragraph (b) to such bodies as the National Trust or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; and under pargraph (c), to the disaster funds which, as I have said, highlighted the need for this Bill. The Bill has been welcomed by the local authorities; and such criticisms as have been directed at it have not been on political lines. So far as the Government are concerned we have no Amendments to make to it and, I trust your Lordships will give it a safe and easy passage. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether these extended powers are possessed by English local authorities?
LORD CRAIGTON: Subject to correction, Yes.
3.0 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said on this Bill. I have done so because of my previous connection with at least one of the disasters to which he referred. I cannot, however, say that I am satisfied that there is any legal need whatsoever for this Bill. May I quote from what was said in another place by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who perhaps did not choose his words so wisely as the noble Lord has done this afternoon? He quoted Section 339, and I think it would bear repetition here. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 29th Nov., 1960, Col. 5]:
"That section provides that a town or county council in Scotland, with my right hon. Friend's approval and subject to its spending in total not more than the product of a 2d. rate in any one year, can make "—
and now we come to the actual quotation of Section 339—
1080
"'any payment for any purpose which in the opinion of the council is in the interests of the council or of the area of the council, or any part thereof or of the inhabitants thereof'. Such payment must relate to purposes which are not competent to the local authority under any other statutory provision."
He went on to say:
"As I have said, payments under the Section require the approval of my right hon. Friend. Difficulty has arisen because my right hon. Friend has been advised that the terms of the enactment are such that he can only approve payment, which will result in a direct and tangible benefit to the area of the local authority making the payment or to its inhabitants."
My Lords, it is quite a common misapprehension in certain quarters that belief in the wisdom of local authorities started only in 1951. That is far from the case. For example, the phrase "in the interests of" is obviously one which is capable of quite different interpretations. One person could say in all sincerity that it was in the interests of the inhabitants of an area to do a particular thing, while someone else, with equal sincerity, could deny that it was in their interests. But in 1947 Parliament decided that there must be some way of determining easily what was "in the interests of" a local authority or of its inhabitants, and they decided that the test should be the expressed opinion of the council.
This applied right up to 1956, until local authorities sought to make donations for Hungarian relief, and at that time there was obtained this ruling, presumably from the then Lord Advocate. I submit to your Lordships that the legal opinion which was then expressed, and by which the Secretary of State has felt himself bound ever since, was far from being a reasonable interpretation of what Parliament said in 1947. In fact I suggest that it is a complete re-writing of the section; and my only regret is that no local authority in Scotland took this matter to the Law Courts. I can think of at least two Lords of Session who would have had great difficulty in 1956 in upholding the opinion expressed by the then Lord Advocate. It is a long time since the expression "Am I my brother's keeper?" was first used, and the follow-up question "Who is my brother?" I would suggest to your Lordships that Scots did not approve the answer given by the Scottish Office to that latter question: that if it was an

1081
Edinburgh man his brother had to live in Edinburgh; and if it was a Glasgow man his brother had to live in Glasgow, and so on. Rather, I would suggest that the Scots believe that where there is no compassion there is no civilisation—and we do think that we are a civilised country in Scotland.
Not only is the Scottish Office's interpretation an inhumane one; it does not even make common sense. I was Lord Provost of Dundee when the Broughty Ferry lifeboat disaster occurred. Broughty Ferry is part of the City of Dundee, but at one time it was a small borough in its own right. If it had continued to be a small borough in its own right the Secretary of State would have said that it was in the interests of the people in the glens of Angus that they should contribute to the Broughty Ferry Lifeboat Disaster Fund, because seven of the widows would have been ratepayers in the county of Angus. But because Broughty Ferry in years gone by had become part of the City of Dundee it was not in the interests of anybody in Angus to make such a contribution, and the Secretary of State denied them the opportunity.
I recognise just as well as does the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that, despite all that has happened since 1956, Ministers are not proposing to repudiate the foolish advice which they received in 1956, but I recognise also that they are not prepared to put the Secretary of State for Scotland in the permanent position of being accused of being hardhearted and mean, as he so frequently has been in the last five years. I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a hard man. At the risk of being misunderstood on the benches opposite, I would go so far as to say that I think he is a good Minister. I believe he would be an even better Minister if he were allowed to act on his own natural judgment. If he had been permitted to use his own judgment in the matter he would not have done what he has been compelled to do in these five years.
In the absence, therefore, of a repudiation of the 1956 doctrine, the Bill serves the merciful purpose of taking the Secretary of State out of the impossible position he is now in. It would be churlish of me in the extreme if I were to attempt to deny him this very necessary measure of relief, particularly at
1082
this time when he is being beset by educational problems caused by once again having to follow other people's decisions.
In this Bill, however, the previous position is not completely restored. No help can be given further than Scotland. I understand that that follows the English pattern, but how ridiculous can we be made to look! The fact that it is being done in England is no sound reason for a Scottish Minister inflicting that on Scotland. If a disaster were to take place in the extreme North of Scotland, under the terms of the Bill the Secretary of State would hold that it was perfectly competent for a local authority right down in the., South, on the English Border, to give assistance. But if the disaster—no matter how great, no matter how crying the need—were to take place just those few miles South of the Border, the same sympathetic authority would be told, "You cannot do it". The Secretary of State has therefore amended the situation slightly only in that he now permits people to say, "My brother lives in Scotland". In the past, Scottish authorities have contributed frequently to English funds. The Lynmouth disaster, the Gresham Colliery disaster, the Lord Mayor of London's National Flood Distress Funds, are examples which come readily to mind. But this new Bill will not permit us to do that once again. I shall probably move on Committee stage an Amendment to paragraph (c) in the new subsection (1A) to delete references to Scotland in lines 20 and 21. I believe that that would be in accord with Scottish sentiment as expressed by past actions, because I am sure that what we really believe in Scotland is that He who needs my help is my brother".
3.10 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, this its a very short and, I think, very useful Bill. Its usefulness has been stressed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who brought gout very clearly the difficulties in which local authorities have been placed in the past in not knowing for what type of disaster, for what type of fund, they were entitled to contribute. Whether Scottish funds, public money funds, should be used Ito contribute towards disasters in England is a very

1083
moot point. After all, the money is largely the ratepayers' money, and I think it is right that there should be a fixed limit as to the boundaries beyond which that money should not be spent. After all, I think all local authorities have semi-private funds, in the nature of "common good" funds. They are much restricted, but such funds can be used for various purposes. So, as I say, I think it is right that there should be a boundary.
I also think it a good plan that the Secretary of State should be required to give his approval. These applications will be purely formal, but I think it useful to have in the background, somebody in the nature of a trustee, to give or to withhold approval. The 2d. rate will produce a good deal more since the Bill was drafted and revaluation in Scotland has taken place, but I hope that my noble friend will not find it necessary to reduce this sum by a comparable amount. I think that a 2d. rate, even on the new valuation, will not lead to any serious hardship. With those words, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
3.12 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell for his welcome to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was bolder than I. He was bold enough not only to disagree with my right honourable friend's ruling and interpretation but even to refer to it as "foolish". I would remind him that, as he pointed out to your Lordships, nobody challenged my right honourable friend's ruling in the Courts, though many disagreed with it—and how right they were to do so! Clearly, as he elaborated to your Lordships, the situation was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Hence this Bill. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD HUGHES: Yes. I should like the noble Lord to explain how it was possible to challenge the ruling of the Secretary of State. So far as I can see, the only people who had an interest in challenging the Secretary of State did not have a case which they could competently place before the Court. If I could have done it in Dundee I would have taken it to the Courts. But I had
1084
not been denied: it was the burghs of Craile, Anstruther, Carnoustie and all the rest of them.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been able to do so, perhaps this Bill would not have been necessary.
The noble Lord raised the point that no help can be given South of the Border. The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, said that, after all, we are talking about the ratepayers' money. There are many other ways of giving money for good causes in England, or anywhere in the world. We had to draw the line somewhere; we draw it at the Border, where England also drew the line.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be further considered on Report.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Cliesham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are going into the final session of the Report stage of this most important Bill. I should like to raise with the Leader of the House a question which gives my noble friends on this side some anxiety. We have been getting a number of Bills in the last few years, and particularly this Session, which require a great deal of time, individual effort and attention, and then the Bills do not seem to get any further. The present most important Bill, which I think we are all anxious to see put on the Statute Book for the benefit and the improvement of the administration of the roads, will be going into its final session in the next few days. What promise is there that it is going to become law this Session?
It was before Easter that we sent down to the other place the Weights and Measures Bill, to which we had given

1085
an enormous amount of time and detail, on both sides of the House, and we have heard nothing at all about it since. If your Lordships' House is to be given these important tasks of detailed criticism and constructive proposal, and the amendment ab initio, of Bills introduced here, then we ought to have the reward of seeing something from them. As things are going this Session, and in relation to our experience, which the Leader of the House will remember so well, on the Shops Bill, we do not feel happy about the situation. Perhaps we might be given some guidance.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am not sure that I can help the noble Viscount very much. Of course I recognise the truth of what he has Said. These Bills are a considerable burden on Members of this House who give their time, without remuneration, for important legislation work; and it must necessarily be a great disappointment when anything happens to a Bill in another place. I cannot do more than say that I hope very much that if anything of this kind did happen it would always be the difficulties of another place, and not any dilatoriness on the part of this House, which led to it. I know that importance is placed on these Bills, or my colleagues would not have asked me to deal with them. I cannot tell the noble Viscount any more to-day, except that I think we must do the work which is placed before us, in good faith and believing that we are performing a public service, which I am quite sure we are. I can assure the noble Viscount of my sympathy. I have never forgotten the experience I had over the Shops Bill. It is an extremely painful one, and I certainly do not want to repeat it unduly often.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I follow that the noble and learned Viscount cannot say more this afternoon than he has done. He has referred to the disappointment that some of us feel. I would go further than that, and say "actual discouragement". Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Viscount that one cannot stand here at this Box, or anywhere else in this House, and make speeches on complicated and technical measures of this
1086
kind without doing a good deal of preparatory work at home. Many of us have spent our week-ends, week-end after week-end, working on these Bills, only to find, at the end of the day, that they make no further progress. I hope that we can hear something from the noble and learned Viscount on the next stage of this Bill as to whether it really will make progress in another place. If not, whether we like it or not, some of us may well feel that it is not worth while putting in the effort that has been put in by a large number of noble Lords in all parts of the House. The noble and learned Viscount will find that Bills will go through much more quickly, but that of course they will be much the worse for that. I hope that he can give us some encouragement.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I quite understand what he is saying. I think there is a great deal of force in it. There is only one thing with which I would not agree. I realise, of course, that the Shops Bill was not reintroduced. It was that fact which made it a particularly poignant experience for me, because I think by the time we had passed it through this House we had robbed it of a good many of its terrors and improved it a good deal. But I would not agree in principle that we are not doing a useful job of work, even when a Bill does not ultimately get through in the Session, because I think that the Bill which emerges, as I hope it will, from this House, will be, so much better than the Bill as it emerged from the departmental consideration. I do not think we ought to be discouraged about these things at all. On the contrary, I think that we have performed a useful legislative service which will not be lost.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable previous convictions of offences in Pant I or II of the First Schedule to be placed before the courts on any subsequent conviction for such an offence. Under the law of Scotland as it stands at present, you can lay before the court only previous convictions in respect of offences which are cognate—that is to

1087
say, of the same kind as, or analogous to, the offence of which the accused has been convicted. Some of the offences in Parts I and II—for example, culpable homicide in paragraph 1, and, in paragraph 12, carrying passengers on a motor cycle contrary to Section 8 of the 1960 Act—,are not cognate in the meaning of the word in Scots law, and so could not be placed before the court without further authority. This clause will enable these things to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
Cognate offences
". As respects Scotland, a conviotion since the commencement of this Act of an offence specified in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule to this Act may, if not otherwise capable of being treated as an aggravation of an offence so specified, be so treated."—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Holding on to vehicles
". In section two hundred and nineteen of the principal Act (which imposes a penalty on persons who, otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause, take or retain hold of or get on to motor vehicles or trailers while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn or carried) the words drawn or' shall be omitted and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(2) If a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think and believe that all your Lordships will agree with me that if you ride a pedal-cycle and hang on to the back of a moving vehicle, as is sometimes done, that is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The police are convinced of that fact, and I certainly agree with them. But they are having a little difficulty in obtaining convictions where there are cases of this kind, because of the wording of Section 219 of the 1960 Act, which says that an offence is committed if you take or retain hold of a moving vehicle on a road "otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause". The defence is often put in that the driver, or possibly the
1088
owner, of the vehicle has given his permission and that constitutes "lawful authority". There is some doubt, but I understand that this is a difficult line of defence to refute. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to make it quite clear that it is an offence for a cyclist to hang on to the back of a moving vehicle in any circumstances at all, whether or not the driver or owner has given his permission. I think that the Amendment is right; it does a good thing. I hope that it commends itself to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Chesham)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord one question? I could not agree more with this Amendment, but does it apply only to bicycles, or does it also apply if a person is on skis in snowy weather, which is equally dangerous? I have known it happen. Would that be covered?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may answer that question with the leave of the House, it is rather a "fast ball" that the noble Duke has bowled. But the words concerned are:
"If a person … for the purpose of being drawn",
and therefore my impression is that they would presumably apply to a person on skis. Whether the situation would become different if there were a length of rope between the vehicle and the drawee, I am not quite sure. It is a point I should have to look at; but prima facie, on the wording, I think it would apply to someone on some other form of transport than a bicycle. It would certainly apply to a bicycle.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the noble Lord look into the drafting, because to my mind the word "drawn" does not connote the meaning he wishes it to have at all.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is the wording used in the principal Act, in which it is accepted for the purpose. I will certainly look at it, but I think I am right in saying that that is the proper expression for the purpose.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on the Committee stage my noble friend Lord

1089
Derwent moved an Amendment which was designed to give greater flexibility in the operation of parking-meter schemes. We discussed it at the time and it found favour with your Lordships generally, and I asked him to withdraw it on my undertaking to put down another Amendment at this stage, because of the drafting that I felt I needed to be sure about. This is the Amendment, together with its two consequential Amendments, which are Nos. 54 and 55. I think that it does exactly what my noble friend intended, and if your Lordships approve I do not think it necessary to go into the matter in detail all over again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Charges for Parking on Highways
". For subsection (2) of section eighty-six of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(2) For each parking place there shall be prescribed an initial period or initial periods and for each initial period there shall be prescribed an amount as the charge (hereinafter referred to as "initial charge") for leaving a vehicle in the parking place for a time not exceeding the initial period; and the initial charge or, if there is more than one initial period, one of the initial charges, shall be payable on the leaving of the vehicle in the parking place.'"—(Lord Chesham,)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for having done this. It is a very difficult matter of drafting. I have been carefully through the Amendments put down and I am quite certain that they carry out what we intended. As regards the actual wording of the drafting, I am most willing to accept my noble friend's assurance that the drafting is correct. Although I put down the Amendment on Committee stage, I take no credit for having persuaded Her Majesty's Government to do this, because I was not able to be here on the day, and it was the brilliant oratory of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford which persuaded the Government to take this action. I am extremely grateful to both my noble friends.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Disqualification and penalties: Part I—Offences involving obligatory disqualification]:
3.28 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved to leave out paragraph 7. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment should be considered with No. 38, as they are part and parcel of the same thing. This Amendment was put down at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, and I also had it down. Unfortunately, I had to be abroad and could not be here, but it was moved by Lord Teynham. The Parliamentary Secretary replied, not condemning it outright, I think, but he said that he would he glad to hear what Lord Goddard had to say about it. Unfortunately, Lord Goddard was not here and the Amendment was withdrawn.
It is an Amendment I aim very keen about, because I feel that it concerns the one offence under the Bill on which we have experience of what has happened with compulsory disqualification and discretionary disqualification. Your Lordships will remember that for the offence of not having third party insurance the penalty was compulsory disqualification up to 1956, when it became discretionary. Magistrates, I can assure your Lordships, had the greatest difficulty in reconciling their minds to compulsory disqualification in a large number of cases, because the seriousness of the offence varies so considerably. It is one of the offences under the motor driving Acts which vary most in seriousness. I have spoken to a fair number of magistrates and a stipendiary magistrate and they have all told me they hoped that the Government would agree to this change of taking this paragraph out of the first Part of the Schedule and putting it in the second Part.
I know that yesterday the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House twice remarked on the increase in the percentage of the offences for which there had not been disqualification. I think that is a rather backhanded argument, because it can equally be said to show that, before the power of disqualification was discretionary, the magistrates found that they had to disqualify in a large number of cases when they did not really feel the seriousness justified disqualification. I feel that it might have been possible to classify the offence into two parts, under one of which, if it were done knowingly, it

1091
would incur compulsory disqualification, and, under the other, it would be subject to a discretionary disqualification if it were not done knowingly. But I dare say that that would have been too difficult a matter for the draftsman. I feel strongly that the magistrates should be left with a discretion to disqualify for this offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 41, leave out paragraph 7.—(Lord Swaythling.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, on the whole, I should be inclined to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. I think it is a very difficult point, because I recognise—and no one recognises it more than I do—, what a very serious matter it is for people to be driving uninsured vehicles on the road. But there is one point that I think is worth mentioning to the House: that is, that under the original Act there was a power in justices to disqualify a person from driving only a particular class of vehicle. For instance, take the case of a bus driver. He might have an excellent record as a bus driver, and might never have had an accident. Yet, one day, on holiday or when driving to his work on a motor cycle, he does something silly which perhaps deserves disqualification. It was open then to the court to disqualify him from driving only a motor cycle, and he could still have gone on earning his living driving a bus.
Now that provision has gone from the Act, and I think I know why it was taken away. It was probably taken away as a result of considerable correspondence which I had with the Ministry at one time over a very curious case in which a man who delivered goods in the country was disqualified by the justices from driving a 2 cwt. delivery van. The police naturally took some exception to this and said, "What does this mean?". But the Act said they could disqualify him from driving any class or description of vehicle. The difficulty was that, in the Act, there was a class of vehicle described but there was no such thing as a description of a vehicle, and no one knew what the position would be. Accordingly, when this case came before the court we
1092
adjourned it for the Ministry to be represented. The Ministry were represented, but could give us no assistance at all. They said only that they did not know themselves what the section meant. But the Minister told me that he was thinking of taking away that provision altogether, and it did go away.
As I say, the position now is that if you get the driver of a bus or a lorry —a man who makes his living by it, and who may have made his living by it for many years without any fault on his part —who is a thoroughly good bus driver but who goes and does something silly on a motor cycle, he will be disqualified and thrown on the streets. He will not be able to drive his bus any longer. That is one of the reasons why I think there should be a discretion in these matters.
Another point is that this matter often arises with regard to motor cyclists. The owner of a motor cycle is asked by his friend if he can borrow his motor cycle. The friend says, "I suppose it is insured?". "Oh, yes", is the reply, "it is insured". Off he goes, and meets with an accident. Then it turns out that, under the policy, the company have insured the motor cycle only so long as it is being driven by the owner, and that therefore the man is uninsured. Now who is to blame there? Both people, I suppose, could be disqualified: the man who owns the machine, because he has aided and abetted, and the man who has driven the machine, although in good faith he believed he was insured. That, again, is one of the matters that ought to be taken into account. You may say, "Yes, but special reasons can be taken into account by the justices". So they can; but a long experience of these cases—I think that in the High Court we used to have more cases under the insurance clause than under any other—has shown me that the number of special reasons that can be found by the courts is simply extraordinary and leads to a great many cases being brought up, at considerable expense to everybody concerned, to decide whether or not there is a special reason.
Very difficult questions sometimes arise. It sounds so easy to say that there is no difficulty in deciding whether a man is insured or whether he is not, but I assure you, my Lords, that there is. I have known cases which have taken a

1093
whole day before a court to decide whether or not a man is insured, whether an insurance company is on risk or whether it is not. One of the difficulties is that we always have to decide that kind of case in the absence of one of the most interested parties—namely, the insurance company—because, of course, they are not a party to the proceedings.
A further difficulty that has arisen is that often a point arises which no decent insurance company would think of taking. For instance—to give a very simple illustration—a policy always provides that the policy applies only if the driver of the car is the holder of a licence. A man who may have merely forgotten to take out his licence meets with an accident. No decent insurance company, if they are satisfied it was a mere piece of forgetful ness, would ever take that point. There are several cases of real difficulty which have arisen, in which insurance companies have come forward and said, "We should not take that point". Accordingly, some years ago the Secretary of the Home Office arranged for a meeting, at which I was present, between the chief constables and representatives of the insurers. The chief constables agreed that in difficult cases they would ask the insurance company whether or not they would take this point, and if the insurance company said, "No, we should consider we were on risk", then there was no necessity to prosecute, because the mischief that the clause was designed to prevent would not be present.
There are so many of these points that arise on insurance matters that I think it would be better if the change which was made in 1956 was allowed to remain, and it was left discretionary. I think justices are now much more inclined, and will in the future be more inclined, to disqualify in proper cases than they were. Very often they resent having to disqualify in cases where they feel that there is great: mitigation. There is enormous mitigation in many of these cases, and yet it would be very difficult to say that it was a special circumstance. Perhaps a person is genuinely mistaken, or has misunderstood his policy. Of course, it is the duty of everybody to understand his policy, and the courts have had to so hold: but, after all, people who are interested in these cases are not always lawyers. They are
1094
often young fellows of quite indifferent education, and so forth, and they may not understand all the provisions of policies, and they act in perfectly good faith. It might be a good thing that they should be brought up short and that some short period of disqualification should be given them to make them read the policy more carefully, but I submit to your Lordships that this insurance point raises so many cases, and such difficult ones, that it would be an excellent thing to leave the matter as it was after 1956, giving justices a discretion.
I know—at least, I have gathered from what the noble and learned Viscount said yesterday—that after that change in the law the number of these cases of persons driving whilst uninsured went up very heavily. I am not sure how far that may have been due to the increase in the number of vehicles or motor cycles on the road, but I myself have some doubt whether young men who buy motor cycles sit down and consider whether the compulsory clause applies or whether the discretionary clause applies. Most of them probably think that it is always discretionary: the question they always want to know is what the "Beak" is going to do. I ask your Lordships to consider carefully whether it would not be better, on the whole, to leave the matter as it is at present under the 1956 Act. After all, that was passed after the compulsory clause had been in force for a long time, It was then considered desirable to change it, and in the hope that magistrates will exercise their powers in proper cases—and I think they can be trusted to do so—I would support Lord Swaythling's Amendment.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in moving his Amendment, reminded us that, when it was moved in Committee, I persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw it, but I said I should like to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, had to say on it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was not able to be here on that day. The noble Lord also pointed out that between 1935 and 1956 for the offence of driving while uninsured it was obligatory, except where special reasons applied, to disqualify. In the

1095
1956 Act this offence was moved into the discretionary category. The noble Lord did not mention the main reason which I gave the Committee for not accepting the Amendment. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, but he did not quote the actual figures, which I think are rather impressive and alarming. In 1956, which is the last year in which this offence involved compulsory disqualification, there were 22,857 convictions. Of those, 19,000 received disqualification; the remaining 3,000 to 4,000 were not disqualified because of special reasons. In 1959, the last year for which we have available figures—only three years later—the number of offences had risen to 47,930, which is more than double the 1956 figure. If you allow for the increase in the number of cars, that figure is still very nearly double the 1956 figure.
The point I was not quite sure about was whether all the cases of possible or likely hardship which might arise if disqualification were compulsory could or could not come under the heading of special reasons. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has said, and it seems to me that, on the whole, many of them could not. Naturally, we always listen with great respect to the noble and learned Lord when he speaks on these matters, especially as he has had special experience of them. Although I do not say that I was able to agree with every single example which he gave, it seemed to me, and I think to most of your Lordships, that, on balance, he was justified in suggesting to us that, on the whole, it would be better to leave things as they are.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, the hardship point has been decided over and over again. Hardship cannot be taken into account as a special reason.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was not thinking of it as a personal hardship. I think a man ought to take proper trouble to see if he is insured. If, through some negligence, he fails to ascertain that he is insured, then he ought to incur the appropriate penalty. What I said in Committee was this: that if you do not know that you are uninsured because you have not taken the proper trouble to ascertain what your policy is about, then the law presumes that you do know. I think it is
1096
right that they should then be convicted. I also said that if you have taken reasonable care to ascertain whether or not you are insured, and have taken reasonable advice, but in spite of that you still do not know—for instance, if you have been deliberately misled—then you have a good defence. I am not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord, from what he said, would endorse that or not.
LORD GODDARD: I think I should.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: On those grounds it seemed to me that any cases of real inequity could come under special reasons, and that therefore disqualification would not be imposed. From what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said just now, I am bound to say that it seemed to me, on balance, that his advice to your Lordships ought, at least prima facie, to be accepted; and in these circumstances I think my duty is to advise your Lordships to do so now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PART II

Offences involving Discretionary Disqualification

Offence

Amendment of enactment mentioned in column 1

3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to my noble friend Lord Conesford, who withdrew his Amendment only because it referred to the wrong provision of the 1960 Act. It is concerned with the offence of causing or permitting a person to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of Section 97. The Government had already taken the view that offences in respect of this section might not necessarily involve any danger; but there was considerable support, both on Second Reading and in Committee, for the view that disqualification should be available for offences of this type. Therefore, I undertook, when my noble friend moved this Amendment in Committee, that if he would withdraw it I would put down an Amendment on Report stage giving effect to his purpose. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, at end insert—

("An offence under section 5 of the principal Act (driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the minimum age for driving motor vehicles of different classes and descriptions).

For the words from 'to a fine', in the first place where they occur, to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words ' to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'.")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for this Amendment, which exactly meets my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in Part II, to add to column 1 of paragraph 13:
"by a failure to comply with an indication given by a sign specified for the purposes of this paragraph in regulations made by the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is really part of the concessions which the Government decided to make in Part II of the First Schedule, which I was explaining rather more generally yesterday.
The reason for this Amendment is that Section 14 of the 1960 Act makes it art offence to fail to comply with the directions given by a police constable, or indications given by certain traffic signs. As the Bill is now drafted, this would have been within Part II of the Schedule, with the result that it would have counted for the purpose of the automatic disqualification. On reflection after Committee stage, we thought that this was too harsh and it is intended by this Amendment to provide that the only offences under this section for which the courts will have power to order disqualification will be offences against such traffic signs as have been specified in joint regulations made by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The only three signs which it is contemplated at present should be dealt with are the halt sign, the double white line and traffic lights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 45, col. 1, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is a much simpler one of the same sort. It will remove from Part II and insert in Part III of the Schedule offences under Section 26 of the 1960 Act, which are contraventions of traffic regulation orders, thereby ensuring that they will not count for the purpose of automatic disqualification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, leave out paragraph 15.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same, but refers to contraventions of regulations made for experimental traffic schemes in London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, leave out paragraph 16.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is also on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out paragraph 17. (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Conesford put down two Amendments, one of which I accepted and the other of which I did not, concerning the imposition of disqualification for driving or for employing a person to drive without a licence. I said that I could not accept his first Amendment but added [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 231 (No. 77), col. 206]:
"What I should be willing to do would be to put down at a later stage an Amendment which would provide that disqualification could be ordered for the offence of driving without a licence in those cases only where the person involved would have been entitled to apply for a provisional licence—that is to say, where he has not, in fact, passed the appropriate driving test."
My noble friend agreed to withdraw his Amendment on that understanding, and accordingly I have now put down the Amendment which I agreed to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—

("An offence under section 98 (3) of the principal Act (driving without licence) committed by driving a motor vehicle in a case where either no licence authorising the driving of that vehicle could have been granted to the offender or, if a provisional (but no other) licence to drive it could have been granted to him, the driving would not have complied with the conditions thereof

For the words from 'a fine', in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words ' to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds '.")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 30, to which your Lordships have just seen fit to agree. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, column 1, line 16, at end insert—
("— An offence under Section two hundred and one of the principal Act (Use of Motor Vehicles uninsured or unsecured against third-party risk)").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after paragraph 25 to insert:
". Stealing a motor vehicle. —".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that on the Committee stage I put down this Amendment, and in reply the Minister was good enough to treat it quite sympathetically, but said that he wished to have an opportunity of consulting his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In moving the Amendment I pointed out that, of all the Amendments I was moving, it was the only one that made new law. In all the other cases, I was moving to retain a right of disqualification which exists at this moment and which the Bill proposed to abolish.
The offence of stealing a motor car has not been one for which the courts could disqualify, but it is a very logical extension of the law. Before putting down this Amendment, I consulted my noble and learned friends Lord Goddard
1100
and the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice has experience of cases in which men have pleaded guilty to the more serious offence of stealing a motor vehicle in order to avoid the risk of disqualification to which they would have been liable for the lesser offence of taking without authority. There is only one small change in phraseology. In my earlier Amendment, I said "larceny of a motor vehicle". The two expressions mean precisely the same thing in English law, but "larceny of a motor vehicle" is not an appropriate expression for Scotland. That is the reason for the change. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when my noble friend moved this Amendment in Committee, I replied to all his arguments at great length, including those which he has put forward this afternoon, and I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to repeat myself. The substance of what I said was that I thought my noble friend had made out a case which ought to be considered, and that, since it would involve new law and not merely the retention of an old one, it would be right to consult the Home Secretary before finally coming to any decision on it. This I have accordingly done, and we are now prepared to accept my noble friend's Amendment. I am glad that he has altered it verbally so that it will apply to Scotland as well as to England.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the same point as my previous Amendments: it deals with lighting offences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 24, leave out paragraph 26.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, again on the same point, deals with designation orders, including provisions about one way streets. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 40, leave out paragraph 27.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Part III—Amendment of certain enactments relating to offences not involving disqualification:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 32. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 5, leave out paragraph 28.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—

(". Section 26 (7) of the principal Act (contravention of traffic regulation orthr).

For the words from 'shall be liable' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, in any other case, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—

(".Section 34 of the principal Act (con travention of traffic regulations in London Traffic Area).

In subsection (4), for the words from 'in the case of a first offence' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words `in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, fifty pounds and, in any other case, twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—

(". Section 35 (3) of the principal Act (contravention of regulations made for the purpose of experimental traffic scheme in London).

>For the words from 'not exceeding twenty pounds' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'not exceeding, in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, fifty pounds and, in any other case, twenty pounds'.").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, leave out paragraph 36.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.1 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, the next Amendment and Nos. 49 and 50 are somewhat related. On the Committee stage I put down an Amendment to paragraph 44 to change the maximum tine which was shown there from £20 to £50, because paragraphs 20, 44, 45 and 47 all relate to similar offences of not producing a licence or certificate of insumnce. It appeared to me that it was wrong to have a maximum fine of £50 for some and of £20 for others. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present on the Committee stage and my noble friend Lord Airedale moved the Amendment on my behalf, and after eloquently recommending it he withdrew it at the request of the Government. I am rather glad he did, because I prefer my Amendment of to-day which is to reduce it from a maximum of £50 to £20. I feel that they are all offences of not very grave import. The usual fine for not producing a driving licence is 20s. or 40s. and it seems to me unnecessary to put them all at a maximum of £50.

1103
I have therefore put down Amendments No. 47, 49 and 50, so that paragraphs 20, 45 and 47 may all match up with paragraph 44, and that there shall be a maximum of £20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("twenty").—(Lord Swaythling.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on these Amendments it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and the Government are rather like a couple of puppy dogs chasing each other round in a circle but failing to catch each other's tails. The noble Lord's Amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. In my reply I prevailed on him to withdraw the Amendment, but he pointed out to me afterwards that he did not think I had quite caught his point; and when I looked into it again I thought he was right in saying that. It seemed to me that the noble Lord had detected an anomaly in the fines proposed for this series of offences for not producing a licence or insurance certificate under the Bill. After consideration, therefore, we proposed to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had moved in Committee increasing these fines to a uniform figure of £50. Now, instead of being satisfied with our acceptance of his proposal, Lord Swaythling is suggesting that this offence should be subject to a maximum fine of only £20, and that the fine for a number of similar other offences should be brought down to that figure.
I do not think we want to go through the same arguments on all these Amendments, but I would suggest to your Lordships that failing after a reasonable time has been given to produce a document which is necessary to the police in order to carry out their duties and to enforce the law is a fairly serious offence, and that there ought to be a fairly large maximum fine attached to it. It is not as if you were fining a man for not having his licence with him at a time when he is asked to produce it. He is given plenty of time in which to do so.
I think it has already been pointed out to the noble Lord that the offence under Section 116 to which this particular Amendment applies occurs only where a
1104
driver who has been disqualified fails to surrender his licence to the court. It seems to us that this is comparable to the offence under subsection (4) of Clause 5, which requires the holder of a private licence issued in this country to produce his licence to the court for endorsement if he is convicted of an offence listed in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule. The maximum fine for an offence under Clause 5 is £50, and it is, therefore, in our view, appropriate that the maximum fine under Section 116 (2) of the principal Act should also be £50. I hope, in view of this, that the noble Lord will agree that our way is a better way of meeting his point, particularly since it is the manner in which he himself originally proposed to correct the anomaly which he had detected in the Bill.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I accept readily what the noble Earl has said with regard to Section 116, because it is different from the other three paragraphs in the Schedule. That is where it applies to the production of a licence by order of the court, whereas the others apply to production of a licence by order of a police constable who stops a motorist and tells him to produce it in five days. I am willing to withdraw this Amendment, but I hope the noble Earl will consider adopting my method for the other three paragraphs, which are of a different nature.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, it does seem that £50 would be excessive for these offences, because, so far as I can see, you can leave your vehicle in a dangerous position and that would cost you only £50. To go back to technical and non-technical offences, I feel that failing to produce a licence within five days is much more technical than leaving a vehicle on a dangerous corner. There may, in certain circumstances, be good reasons why you cannot produce your licence in five days, although I agree that you would probably not be fined £50. I should have thought that £20 would meet the case, in any circumstances, and I hope that the Government will accept Lord Swaythling's Amendment rather than their own suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): The noble Lord, Lord I Swaythling, has asked leave to withdraw

1105
his Amendment. Does the noble Duke object?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Not at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, was withdrawing Amend-merit No. 47. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I will put the Question.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THB EARL OF DUNDEE THB EARL OF DUNDEE moved in col. 2 of paragraph 44 to leave out "twenty" and insert "fifty". The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, suggested, perhaps rightly, that this was not entirely on all fours with the preceding Amendments, but I think it was one of the instances which moved him to suggest that the penalties provided for here were in some degree anomalous. Section 225 of the principal Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle, or a person suspected of having been a driver, shall, if so required by a police constable, produce his driving licence, so that the constable can ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue and the authority by whom it was issued. This is clearly a necessary provision for the purpose of helping the enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, that it would be possible to argue that there is a distinction between failing to produce a driving licence, details of which can be obtained from the relevant licensing authority, and failing to produce, for example, an insurance certificate, details of which cannot be readily obtained by the police constable from any other source; but I do not feel that this is really a convincing distinction, because each of these provisions is relevant to the proper enforcement of the Act, and the law cannot he properly enforced without it. We therefore feel that to maintain any difference between the maximum fine for failing to produce a driving licence anal, for example, an insurance certificate, is an anomaly
1106
which ought to be removed. Since £50 is considered to be the appropriate maximum penalty for failing to produce certificates of insurance or failing to report accidents, we think that this anomaly should be removed by having a general maximum of £50.
I would quite agree with my noble friend that it might be hard to expect a man to produce a driving licence in five days, but the question of time is not really the point. The question of time ought, in all cases, to be reasonable, and a man should never be fined at all if he fails to produce it in a time which is so short as to be unreasonable in the circumstances. The question is whether, having given what is in all cases a reasonable time to produce the driving licence, an appropriate penalty should not be imposed for an offence which, if the document were not produced, would make it impossible to enforce the law which we are trying to provide for in order to reduce the number of road accidents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("fifty").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I feel that in any prosecution under the sections concerned with paragraphs 44, 45 and 47, no court will impose a fine of more than £20, and that making the maximum £50 instead of £20 is rather an academic question and not one of practical affairs. I should much rather that the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment and accepted my other two. But I will not press it any further if he refuses to do so.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in this argument for the reason he has indicated, namely, that the imposition of a maximum penalty here of £50 is quite unrealistic. It would probably do harm to the implementation of the Road Traffic Bill as a whole. As has become evident, there is in this House a considerable body of feeling that it is desirable, if it could be so arranged, for magistrates to impose greater penalties for the greater offences where they are permitted to do so. To give them a maximum penalty of £50 for what is not a great offence from the

1107
traffic point of view seems to me to invite them to inflict penalties which are considerably below the maximum. That seems to conflict with the general attitude that the House has been adopting hitherto.
On the other hand, I feel there is another argument. It is not really appropriate that the same maximum penalty should be available to a court for failure to comply with the request of a police constable, and for an offence of failing to comply with an order of the court. I thought that the noble Earl, in speaking to the last Amendment, made the point exceedingly well—that where the infringement alleged was the infringement of an order of the court, it was justifiable to impose a considerably heavier penalty than for an infringement of a request by a police constable. I should like to adopt the noble Earl's argument in this case, and I hope that he will reconsider the Government's position and allow the lower maximum penalty in cases where no order of the court is being infringed.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Swaythling, by the noble Duke, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who has just spoken. I suppose one of the commoner instances of people being unable to produce their licences when requested by a police constable is when they have gone away for a holiday. They probably keep their driving licences in their bureaux at home, which strictly they should not do. They probably think it is safer to keep them there than to carry them about in their wallets. While they are living at home they know they can produce them within five days, if required. They go on holiday, and one of the things they forget is to take their licences out of their bureaux. They drive 200 or 300 miles and something happens, and a policeman asks them to produce their driving licence. They have to decide whether to turn round and go home to get it and spoil their holiday, or whether to take a chance of not being able to produce the licence within five days and face whatever penalty may be coming to them for that failure to produce. If the maximum fine is £20
1108
they may say to themselves, "This is a risk worth taking. The worst thing that can happen to me is that I may be fined £20". But if the worse thing that can happen is that they may be fined £50, they may decide to spoil their holiday and go back and get their licence. The net result is that they will probably be fined £2 and they will wish they had not spoilt their holiday. For those reasons, I would support what has been said by noble Lords against the Government on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I quite appreciate the point which has been made so clearly by my noble friend Lord Brentford and by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I am sorry that this series of Amendments should be slightly complicated. We have done our best to meet Lord Swaythling's desire that there should be fewer anomalies in the Bill. In view of what your Lordships have said, I think it would be right that I should not proceed with Amendment No. 48 which is now before your Lordships. I am quite willing to withdraw it, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the next two Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. For the sake of consistency (I recognise that there is a case for making an exception) I should prefer that your Lordships should not accept the next two Amendments, which again are not quite on all fours with this one.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of your Lordships, but I should say that if the noble Earl withdraws Amendment No. 48, if I get any support I shall press him to accept Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Earl withdraw it completely and unconditionally?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. I think that in these circumstances I had better ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I am trying to make the Bill as consistent and as sensible as possible, and I do not think it would be right to reduce the fine to £20 in all these three cases.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Freyberg, L.

Molson, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Amory, V.

Hampton, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hastings, L.

Peddie, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Henderson, L.

Perth, E.

Bathurst, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bridport, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Carrington, L.

Latham, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Lawson, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Chorley, L.

Limerick, E.

Salter, L.

Conesford, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Soulbury, V.

Craigton, L.

Longford, E.

Strang, L.

Digby, L.

Lucan, E.

Twining, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dundee, E.

Margesson, V.

Williams, L.

Faringdon, L.

Merthyr, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Lambert, V.

Allerton, L.

Cross, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Amulree, L.

Derwent, L.

Meston, L.

Arran, E.

Dynevor, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Atholl, D.

Falmouth, V.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Foley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brentford, V.

Fortescue, E.

Sinha, L.

Casey, L.

Glentanar, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cawley, L.

Goschen, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Citrine, L.

Gosford, E,

Swaythling, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L

Teynham, L.

Colwyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E

Waleran, L.

Colyton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 40. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 10, at end insert—

(". Section 12 (1) of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957 (contravention of Act or regulations made thereunder).

For the words from 'shall be liable' to 'twenty pounds' there shall be substituted the words 'shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'.").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 41. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, at end insert—

(". Section 5 (2) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960 (contravention of designation order).

For the words from 'to the like penalty' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, in any other case, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 29. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 13, at end insert—

(" Section eighty six.

In subsection (3), for the words the initial charge', in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge'.

In subsection (4), for the words 'the initial charge' in the first place where they occur, and in paragraph (a), and in the first place where they occur in paragraph (b), there shall be substituted the words 'an initial charge',and for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

(c) if it is proved that the time for which the vehicle has been left in the parking place is less than the initial period or, if there is more than one, less than the shortest initial period, it shall be presumed that no initial charge has been paid in respect of the vehicle, unless either the contrary is proved or an initial charge is treated under subsection (4) of the next following section as having been paid in respect of the vehicle.

In subsection (5), for the words the initial charge', in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge', and for the words the standard period' there shall be substituted the words' the initial period or, if there is more than one, the longest initial period'.

Section eighty seven.

In subsection (4), for the words the initial charge 'in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words' payment of an initial charge' and for those words in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words 'an initial charge'.

In subsection (6) for the words 'standard period' there shay be substituted the words initial period'.

1112

Section eighty seven.—cont.

In subsection (8), in paragraph (c), for the words 'standard period' there shall be substituted the words initial period 'and for the words the initial charge' there shall be substituted the words 'an initial charge'.

Section eighty eight.

In subsection (6) for the words the initial charge', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge'.")'

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, at end insert—
("Parking places

The Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, 8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 63.

In subsection (1) of section six, for the words the initial charge', in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge'.").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, This Amendment is consequential on No. 28. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 14, after ("nineteen") insert ("the words drawn or' and").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as this is the last Amendment, if it is not too wildly out of order, may I express the hope that on the next stage of the Bill there will be a Government Amendment to meet the very strong observations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Regina v. Smith reported in this morning's papers?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes before five o'clock.