Sitting of 16 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SAINT PAUL, COVENT GARDEN BILL
  Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.
  ROYAL RUSSELL SCHOOL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
PETITION

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Brockway: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, which is signed by 26,000 people, headed by Bertrand Russell. The signatures have been collected within three weeks, but are presented now as it is a matter of urgency. The Petition is addressed to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. It is the humble Petition of
  2
  persons residing in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  As the Petition is short, I will read it. It sheweth:

  1. Nuclear tests in the atmosphere are dangerous to people throughout the world, cause death and injury to many persons and cannot therefore be justified for any purpose.

  2. Tests at Christmas Island will constitute criminal acts against humanity, similar in quality to those perpetrated by the Russian Government in its recent test series, by harming untold numbers of innocent persons who have no say in or power over such acts.

  3. Continued tests in Nevada may cause injury to persons unknown and will provide an excuse for further nuclear tests by other Powers.

  Wherefore your Petitioners pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    National Assistance
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent the difference between National Assistance payments and average wages has increased or diminished since 1948; and what is his policy regarding the relationship between these in the future.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The current National Assistance scale

    3
    rates for a single householder and for a married couple are, respectively, 123 per cent. and 125 per cent. higher than the rates in July, 1948. This compares with increases of 129 per cent. from April, 1948, to October, 1961, in the average weekly earnings of adult male manual workers in the industries grouped in the Ministry of Labour's twice-yearly surveys and of 86 per cent. from July, 1948, to January, 1962, in the Index of Wage Rates. It will continue to be our aim to give to recipients of assistance a share in the rising standard of living of the community as a whole.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister agree that the drop in income on retirement is far too great and that at least until the pension reaches an adequate level every increase in pension should be accompanied by an equal increase in the National Assistance benefit; otherwise the very poorest will benefit least, as they did from the last increase?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the last point, the difficulty is that if that happened the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would then quarrel with the large number of people receiving supplements to retirement pensions. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes far beyond the original Question, the Answer to which merely shows that the percentage increase in the National Assistance Scales is substantially more than that in wage rates over the period which he selected.

    THE FOLLOWING TABLE GIVES AN ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBERS OF AUTHORISATIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF WEEKLY NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCES CURRENT AT THE END OF EACH YEAR IN THE AREA SERVED BY THE NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD'S OFFICE IN ST. HELENS, WHICH EXTENDS BEYOND THE TOWN AND SINCE THE MIDDLE OF 1955 HAS COVERED A SOMEWHAT SMALLER AREA THAN FORMERLY

    Year

    Assistance paid in supplementation of insurance benefits

    Assistance paid in supplementation of non-contributory old age pension

    Assistance to persons not receiving such pensions or benefit

    Totals

    1951

    …

    …

    3,415

    253

    1,093

    4,761

    1952

    …

    …

    4,111

    307

    1,266

    5,684

    1953

    …

    …

    4,346

    303

    1,339

    5,988

    1954

    …

    …

    4,456

    289

    1,354

    6,099

    1955

    …

    …

    3,619

    283

    1,217

    5,119

    1956

    …

    …

    3,846

    291

    1,211

    5,348

    1957

    …

    …

    4,082

    273

    1,237

    5,592

    1958

    …

    …

    3,745

    237

    1,375

    5,357

    1959

    …

    …

    4,387

    232

    1,529

    6,148

    1960

    …

    …

    4,950

    198

    1,581

    6,729

    1961

    …

    …

    4,780

    191

    1,496

    6,467

    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the phenomenal rise in the cost of living taken into account when these calculations are made and, if so, in what way?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Member had studied the Question he would have seen that it is expressed in terms of increases in the cash value of these things.
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people in the St. Helens constituency were in receipt of both National Insurance benefits and National Assistance allowance in each year since 1951 up to the latest convenient date; and what were the numbers in receipt of National Assistance only in each year since 1951 to the latest convenient date.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Spriggs: Have the recent increases in the supplementary allowance been made because of rent and rate increases?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper, but I will certainly let the hon. Member know the answer by letter.
    Following is the Answer:
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the average weekly supplement paid by the National Assistance Board to retired couples at the latest convenient period.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: At the end of 1961, 21s. 8d.
    Mr. Small: Does not this indicate that the pension is inadequate and it is time that the scale was reviewed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir; it does not indicate anything of the sort. It indicates the very wide variety of needs to be found among our older fellow-citizens which have to be met by varying payments of supplement—for example, the very considerable difference in rents between Scotland and the South.

    Fuel Allowances
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people received National Assistance grants for extra fuel in the last 12 months; what was their average weekly amount; and whether a further grant is made for those who must use smokeless fuel.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Information is not available precisely in the form requested, but it is estimated that 402,000 of the weekly National Assistance allowances current at the end of 1961 contained discretionary additions to provide for extra fuel requirements, the average amount being about 4s. 6d. a week, and the additions amounting in total to between £2¾ million and £3 million a year. I am advised that the use of smokeless fuel is not necessarily more expensive, but exceptional cases are considered on their merits.
    Mr. Allaun: Since in this very long and cold winter many pensioners have had to go without a fire for long periods and were yet unaware that they could obtain extra fuel allowances, will the Minister take some suitable step to notify them? Secondly, is he aware that 4s. 6d., the figure he gave, is nothing like the price of half a bag of smokeless fuel which in most parts of the country costs 12s. or more; yet the pensioners are forced to have it if they live in a smokeless zone? Could the right hon.
    6
    Gentleman therefore ask the Assistance Board to increase the allowance in these cases?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that any doubt as to the Assistance Board's alertness to the position is surely met by the fact that the number of these allowances paid this winter—402,000, the figure I gave—is a very big rise on the number in the previous winter—350,000. As to the adequacy of the amount, this is an average figure which, of course, takes into account the individual needs of the person concerned.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pensioners are suffering hardship today as the result of the inevitable increase in their fuel bills resulting from their being put in smoke-controlled zones? Is it clear that pensioners entitled to a supplement can draw the increased amount of their fuel bills in an increased Assistance allowance? If there is any doubt about that, will the Minister give a direction to the Board to that effect?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The position is quite clear. My Answer related to recipients of National Assistance, not to pensioners generally, but it is possible, as the very large figures I have given to the House indicate, for persons in receipt of weekly Assistance supplements to apply, and, where the circumstances are suitable, to obtain extra allowances in respect of fuel.

    Non-insured Persons
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of people over 70 who are not entitled to a retirement pension as they had no opportunity of being insured; how many of these are in receipt of National Assistance; whether he is satisfied that these people are not living in want; and whether he will investigate their position with a view to providing them with funds giving them security until their death.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I estimate that people over age 70 who are not receiving retirement pensions total some 650,000, of whom about 200,000 are receiving National Assistance, non-contributory old-age pensions, or both. I have no means of telling

    7
    how many of these persons had no opportunity of becoming insured either as voluntary contributors under the old schemes or as late-age entrants under the present National Insurance scheme. As regards the last two parts of the Question, Parliament has already made financial provision for all persons in need through the National Assistance scheme.
    Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister realise that this is a very exceptional case? About 300,000 of these people are over 80 years of age. Will the Minister take some steps to make it possible for them to have a proper allowance, because, as I understand it, very many of them are living in a state of penury? I think that this is a case in which the right hon. Gentleman might consider the matter to see what can be done generally.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in my main Answer, Parliament has already made provision through the National Assistance schemes for dealing with hardship amongst this class of case, as amongst other classes of cases, and it is clear, in the case of the very old people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, that the Assistance Board is particularly careful to see whether discretionary additions cannot be made.
    Mr. Houghton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that reply in mind when he answers Question No. 14?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will bear in mind the proper Answer to Question No. 14 when I come to Question No. 14.
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons aged between 70 and 80, and 80 and upwards, respectively, are not in receipt of old-age pensions by reason of being non-contributory to the National Health Service; and what would be the cost to the Exchequer of giving pensions to each of these two groups of persons.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir. The National Health Service is not contributory and does not pay old-age pensions. If what the hon. Member has in mind is National Insurance retirement pensions, and on the further assumption that by the Exchequer he means the National Insurance Fund, the figures are £50 million and £40 million a year for the
    8
    370,000 and 280,000 people in the two groups, partially offset by a saving of £24 million to the Exchequer in payments by the National Assistance Board.
    Mr. Thorpe: Now that the Minister has so clearly understood the information I am seeking to elucidate, are we to assume that for these two categories of age groups the Government have no plans other than to throw them on to National Assistance? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people are the real underdogs of the Welfare State? Has he no plans whatever to help them, apart from National Assistance?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The people in this category represent a wide variety of people, some of whom took a repayment of contributions as late age entrants and others of whom had the option of becoming voluntary contributors but decided not to do so. I cannot, therefore, see why one should make a distinction in the help given to them and a distinction in the help given to other unfortunate people in need through the National Assistance Board. I did not wholly like the tone of the hon. Gentleman in the use of the phrase "thrown on National Assistance", constituting, as it does, a serious reflection on the many people who quite properly exercise their right to draw National Assistance.
    Mr. Thorpe: Would the Minister not agree that when the Beveridge scheme was originally introduced it was hoped that National Assistance would be a real exception? Since so many people must now regularly draw National Assistance, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that they are doing so because their pensions are inadequate and that this was never intended when the National Assistance arrangements were set up?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: True or not, that has absolutely nothing to do with the original Question, which related, as a matter of definition, to people without National Insurance pensions.

    Pamphlet
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many copies of the official pamphlet entitled Everybody's Guide to National Insurance, dated April 1961, were printed; how many have been sold; and when a new edition will be issued.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One hundred and seventy-five thousand copies of this edition have been printed, and approximately 106,000 have been sold. I have no plans at present for a new edition.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it correct to assume that the Minister wants as many people as possible to live long enough to draw their retirement pensions? If so, will he remove from the front cover of the next issue the two smoking characters, one of whom is a teenager with a cigarette in his mouth, and add something about lung cancer and smoking?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Anticipating that supplementary question, I counted the figures on the rather amusing front of the document. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that two figures appear to be smoking, but 17 are not; and I do not think that the two who are smoking constitute any real example or inducement to others to smoke. One looks like a rather bumptious adolescent. and the other looks remarkably like a rather elderly Left-wing intellectual.

    Physically-Handicapped Persons
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much it would cost to improve the National Assistance Regulations in order to give the special scales of assistance, as applied to blind persons, to those who are severely physically handicapped.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that it is not possible to make such an estimate.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these people who are home-bound—cripples, and those with severe physical disabilities—are as greatly handicapped as those who are blind and need the same extra attention that the blind need? Could he not, in a review, look at the possibility of at least giving to these physically handicapped home-bound people some such special Assistance rates?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that it is very difficult to distinguish between degrees of hardship amongst people with serious physical disabilities of one sort or another, but I doubt whether these special scales really are as important as they were in view of the fact, as I said in answer to an earlier Question, that the Board now exercises its discretionary powers to the full; and that is probably
    10
    a more flexible method than laying down arbitrary scales for a particular disability.
    Mrs. Slater: But does not the right hon. Gentleman know that people like officers of local authorities looking after this particular section of people are themselves convinced that these extra rates are absolutely necessary? Could not the right hon. Gentleman collect some information from those doing this kind of work so that he would have knowledge of the persons to whom these rates should be applied?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that in the really serious cases these special rates would make any difference—because, by way of discretionary additions, the seriously handicapped are almost certainly receiving that sort of amount now. As regards practical experience, while I admire the work done by local authorities, I think that I can say that the National Assistance Board has more comprehensive and national experience than any other of these organisations.
    Mr. Dugdale: Why does the right hon. Gentleman take this line with regard to the handicapped and a different line with regard to the blind? Does he not realise that, in some cases, these handicapped people are as badly off as are the blind? Why cannot he give them the same consideration?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was not I who initiated the distinction between the blind and the tuberculous, with their special rates, on the one hand, and the rest; that was a distinction that was made many years ago. All I say is that in these days, when the discretion of the Board is very flexibly used, there is no need to multiply these special rates by creating new ones.

    Industrial Diseases (Dupuytrens Contracture)
    Mr. B. Taylorasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider prescribing dupuytrens contracture as an industrial disease.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: That is a very brief and unsatisfactory reply, but may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there

    11
    are quite a number of these cases—and I believe that the number is growing—most of whom cannot go back to their pre-accident work, who have no assessment for disability in the form of special hardship allowance? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider submitting this question to the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee for report, with a view to prescription?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I keep the matter of all these diseases under review, but I must say that on the present evidence this complaint does not seem to get anywhere near satisfying either of the conditions of Section 55 (2) of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946.
    Mr. Taylor: But would the right hon. Gentleman promise to refer the matter to the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee, so that we can have an up-to-date report on what is a very serious matter to those people concerned in the mining industry? In the Mansfield area, I have quite a number of people who are suffering from this disease and cannot go back to their pre-accident work?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the present state of the evidence, I do not think that it would be either appropriate or in accordance with ordinary practice to submit a disease which does not appear to come anywhere near meeting the conditions of Section 55, but if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that he would like to send to me, I shall always be very glad to consider it.

    Retirement Pensioners
    Mr. B. Taylorasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of retirement pensioners in the Mansfield area receiving supplementation from the National Assistance Board.
    Mrs. Thatcher: At the end of March, 1962, the number of National Assistance supplements to retirement pension in the area served by the National Assistance Board's office in Mansfield, which extends considerably beyond the town, was 2,995.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state, as a percentage, the number of pensioners who on retirement had earned an addition to their pensions by
    12
    delaying retirement beyond the statutory age in 1951 and 1961, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of all pensions awarded in the year to 30th June, 1961, 37 per cent. included increments; the corresponding figure for 1951 was 17 per cent.
    Mr. Ross: The Minister will remember that last week he expressed a certain measure of satisfaction that there was more or less stability in relation to the number of pensioners drawing National Assistance? Is it not surprising that despite this considerable increase in additional earnings, we still have the same number, and does not this point to an inadequacy of the present pension?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. It points to the steady improvement in the real value of the National Assistance scales.
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of retirement pensioners in Scotland who were in receipt of a weekly supplement from the National Assistance Board at the end of September and December, 1961 and March, 1962.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The number of National Assistance supplements to retirement pension in Scotland at the dates given were, respectively, 79,779, 81,062 and 81,855.
    Mrs. Cullen: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the old people on National Assistance are very much worse off than they were a year ago? The things which have come down in price in the Budget are not the sort of things that old people buy. I do not know who does the shopping for hon. Members opposite, but can they imagine an old woman going out to buy a cabbage for 1s. 6d. or a turnip for a 1s., or a tomato for 6d.? How do they expect old-age pensioners to be able to pay for these things?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The number in Scotland on National Assistance at the latest date is very considerably less than the number on National Assistance in March, 1961. As the hon. Lady is aware, the scale rates are not by any means the whole of the story. Taking an average single householder of retirement age, the average income is just over £4 and not 53s. 6d.

    Married Women Contributor
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will arrange for all married women contributors under the National Insurance scheme who are approaching retirement age to be informed when they have completed the average number of contributions to qualify for the full pension on retirement so that they may avoid paying excess contributions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arrangements are already in force whereby any married woman who inquires of her local Pensions and National Insurance office may be advised as to the earliest date on which she can expect to have completed the necessary number of contributions.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the Minister aware that, when a married woman in my constituency inquired about this, she was, unhappily, misinformed by the local office? She then brought her problem to me. I could not find the answer right away, and not until I wrote to the Ministry did we get the correct information. That, I suggest, shows that this sort of information should be given without inquiries having to be made and in a form which puts any doubt beyond question as to how a married woman in this situation stands regarding her contributions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of the particular case about which the hon. Gentleman was in correspondence with my hon. Friend. On the general issue, married women, with their option to come in or out of the scheme and their freedom from compulsion to contribute, are already in a favoured position. It is doubtful whether it would be right, considering the extra administrative costs, to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests in all cases, whether asked for or not.

    Non-Contributory Pension
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he is taking to improve the qualifying conditions and amount of the non-contributory pension for persons over 70 years of age.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer has a very important bearing on Question No. 7? These people over 70 who have been non-contributors are still conditioned to the old means test and are still on the old rate of pension, subject only to a slight improvement on the withdrawal of the tobacco concession. Will the right hon. Gentleman not now do something tangible for the remaining number of these people—only about 135,000 of them—who will not number more than 250,000 as being likely to benefit if the right hon. Gentleman improved their conditions?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. These pensions are administered on a means test by the National Assistance Board and the people concerned are, therefore, already looked after and can be more flexibly looked after—as I said when replying to Question No. 7—by the exercise of the Board's discretion. It was never intended that these pensions should continue indefinitely, and the Act provided that people who became 70 after 30th September, 1961, should not become entitled to them at all. This is, therefore, an obsolescent provision.

    Unemployment and Sickness Benefit
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the percentage of the payments from National Insurance made in respect of unemployment benefit and sickness benefit, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In 1960–61, 3·2 per cent. of the expenditure of the National Insurance Fund was in respect of unemployment benefit and 14·5 per cent. in respect of sickness benefit.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the very small proportion in these two categories, would the Minister not consider providing for them a genuine insurance scheme—separating them from the very large number of old-age pensioners? Will he bear in mind, for example, that when a man falls sick he may have no other income apart from the £2 17s. 6d. paid to him and that this may cause severe hardship? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider viewing these people separately to see what might be done for them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would be a very retrograde step from the point of view of the State scheme. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware of the large development that has taken place in employers' sick pay schemes.

    Blind Persons
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would need to be added to the present National Assistance scale rate in respect of a husband and wife, who are both blind, to regain the value that the sum had on the date of the announcement of the last increase.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: 7s. 1d.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that these unfortunate people should not have their rates decreased in terms of real value? Does he not think that in this affluent society we should be increasing these amounts in real value terms? Since they cannot receive any increments between Budgets, would it not be good idea to review their position every six months so that their rates might be adjusted, a step which would help them to enjoy a better life?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said in reply to an earlier Question that the amount paid to these singularly unfortunate people, of whom there is a limited number, is watched carefully by the National Assistance Board—not every six months, but the whole time. Any question of what is the special scale rate, particularly in a case of grave misfortune such as that which the hon. Gentleman described, is very nearly an academic point, because it is the duty of the National Assistance Board to look after these people and see that they get what they really need.
    Mr. Ross: Did the Minister say in his original reply that the loss in value was 7s. 1d.? If so, can he say what increase they got last year?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They got the same increase last year as everyone else.
    Mr. Ross: Five shillings, which means that these people are worse off now than they were eighteen months ago. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that something should be done for them as well as for the others on National Assistance?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: First of all, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures of bare scale rates. If he had listened to my earlier Answer, he would know that they are not worse off than they were eighteen months ago but that they are receiving the greatest care and solicitude from the Board.

    Retirement Pension
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state in money terms the difference between the average weekly earnings of an adult male worker and the retirement pension payable in respect of a husband and wife at the most recent available date; and if he will give the same figures for October, 1951, October, 1955, and October. 1959, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difference in October, 1961, was 214s., and the corresponding figures for 1951, 1955 and 1959 were, respectively, 116s., 158s. and 191s. These figures being, as requested, in money terms do not, of course, reflect either changes in the value of money, or the real relationships between earnings and pensions.
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, what increase would be required in the single rate of retirement pension to represent the same proportion of average earnings as it did in April, 1961.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the basis of the latest available information about current earnings, approximately 1s. 1d. for men and 9d. for women.
    Mr. Bennett: May I ask a very simple question? Is the Minister satisfied that the present rate of pension is adequate to meet present-day needs?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already told the House, the present rate of pension is better than at any time before April last year. Therefore, while with good and responsible government one can hope for progressive improvements, the pensioner is a great deal better looked after now than he has ever been before.

    Welfare Food Services
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why he expects to recover in 1962–63 £87,000

    17
    more from the health departments for welfare food services.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because it is expected that the number of milk token books to be issued in 1962–63 will be greater than in 1961–62.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with this agency work of his Department, to how many expectant mothers and children he intends to distribute these welfare foods in 1962–63? Could he say whether a proportion of this added cost to his Department is attributable to payments being made to local government officers in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland who work for his Department?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I cannot give the figures without notice. As to the second part, this is an illustration of the fact that as my Department has done more work it has to receive more pay from the Departments on whose votes these costs are borne.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the difficulty with this assessment is that his Department is so lax in getting up to date? We are dealing in mid-April with figures for 1960. Instead of giving breezy answers to Questions, would the Minister not do something to speed up the work of this Department and get the 1961 figures? Is the Minister not aware that we are having to deal with the figures for 1960, namely, 900,000 expectant mothers and 4 million children, and that we have no opportunity at all of knowing what his Department is catering for in this connection for 1961?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has a perfectly good opportunity, if he wants, of putting a Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Manuel: But the information should be available in a report.

    Budget Proposals
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he proposes to take to insulate those on National Insurance benefits from the increased costs consequent on the Budget proposals.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The effect on retail prices of these proposals is not likely to be substantial, and the people to whom the hon. Lady refers are among the main beneficiaries of my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to check inflation.
    Mrs. Cullen: Does not the Minister think that there is only one solution to this problem, namely, an increase in the National Assistance scales?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady has asked me a Question about the effects of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, and I have answered it.
    Mr. Houghton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a forward promise to the old-age pensioners? Will it be before or after Schedule A tax is abolished?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Any promise made from these benches would carry far more weight with pensioners—
    Mr. Manuel: No.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:—than the 10s unsuccessful bribe which the hon. Gentleman offered at the last election.
    Mr. Ross: Despite that brave speech, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the old-age pensioners are faced with increased costs of clothing, footwear and household goods, as well as their bag of sweets. In fairness the Chancellor should face this question and give the old-age pensioners an increase in their pensions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the real value of the pension is higher today than it was at any time before April, 1961. The hon. Gentleman may not like that fact, but it remains a fact.

    National Insurance Fund
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what he estimates is the average weekly disbursement from the National Insurance Fund in respect of all National Insurance benefits, allowances, grants, &c.; and by how much in aggregate this would need to be increased to give each £ sterling the value the £ sterling had in November. 1960.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £21 million and, on the basis of the Retail Prices Index, just over £1 million.
    Mr. Wainwright: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little more sympathy to all recipients in the grades which have been mentioned? Does he not think that the Government, especially as they are supposed to be a good Government, ought to apply their sympathy and make certain that every person who draws benefits under this scheme receives a far better rate of pay than he gets at present?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been progressive improvements in the real value of the benefits, and that in practical terms is far more valuable than the verbal sympathy which the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that in this affluent society these people are getting sufficient benefit under this scheme? Why do the Government keep saying that they are looking after these people, when they are neglecting this section of the population while giving great benefits to those who already have too much?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is untrue to say that the Government are neglecting this section, whose position has steadily improved over the years.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state, in respect of the contributions of employees, employers and the Exchequer, the increase of their payments into the National Insurance Fund in 1962–63 compared with 1961–62.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the latest available estimates, the figures are £15 million. £16 million and £2½ million.
    Mr. Lawson: Does this not continue the process whereby the cost of paying mainly for the retirement pension is being put on to the contributor? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that in the previous year something like £152 million went on to the contributor, employer and employee? This process would seem to be continuing, and the Exchequer is getting away more and more from meeting this large liability.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is not so. The greater part of the increase in the payments by employers and employees is merely due to the fact that there is a certain time lag in the payment of graduated contributions, which means that in the first year a less amount than a full year's due is paid. In subsequent years, of course, that does not follow. I think it is that which misled the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Lawson: As was well brought out when we discussed the graduated pension scheme in Standing Committee, the contributors to the graduated pension scheme would never get back anything like the amount of graduated contributions which they paid. In fact, the graduated pension scheme was introduced specifically for the purpose of meeting the flat rate contributions of a large number of old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that has much to do with this Question. The fact remains that on the contributions as a whole the contributors get an extremely good bargain.

    Coal, Gas and Electricity
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action is being taken by the National Assistance Board to mitigate hardship which will arise from the projected increases in the cost of coal, gas and electricity.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no doubt that, when the time comes, the Board will, as always, take account of all these matters.
    Mr. Small: I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I hope he will keep it as a promise, because these increases will be real increases which will cause great hardship. Will the Minister fulfil his promise?
    Mr. W. Hamilton: When the Board takes into account the increases in price referred to in the Question, will it also take into account the fact that the prices of cars are coming down as a result of the Budget?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All relevant factors will be taken into account.

    Rents and Rates
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what amount of the £4 million increase in the estimated expenditure of the National Assistance Board represents projected increases in rents and rates in Scotland.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that no such figure is available.
    Mr. Manuel: This matter is causing great concern to Scottish Members on this side of the House. Will the Minister have very full consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland and keep firmly in mind that the Secretary of State has taken power under the new Housing (Scotland) Bill to increase rents to the figure which he thinks fit? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there will be an on-cost to his Department as a result of decisions by the Secretary of State in regard to rents in Scotland?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can only say that, in the vast majority of cases, the National Assistance Board, in assessing its payments, takes full account of rent and rates, and it will continue to do its duty.

    War and Industrial Disabilities
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will now abolish the upper limit of disregards under the National Assistance Act, 1948, for all payments in respect of war and industrial disabilities.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The upper limit was raised substantially in 1959.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the Minister agree that these payments for industrial injury and war injury are compensation for loss of faculty and enjoyment of life and, as such, ought to be additional to ordinary social security payments such as widows' and old-age pensions? Will he, therefore, reconsider the question as a matter of justice?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Some weight is given to that consideration in the fact that these are, as I have no doubt the hon. Lady knows, the largest of the disregards. On the other hand, the further
    22
    one takes this business of disregards the further one separates entitlement to assistance from the relief of need.

    National Health Service Contributions (Expenses)
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will supply details of how the figure of £1,619,000 to be retained in 1962–63 by his Department in respect of the collection of National Health Service contributions is made up.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figure of £1,619,000 is the proportionate share of the expenses incurred by my Department in the collection of flat-rate contributions.
    Mr. Millan: If, as the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a Question from me last week, the additional cost of collecting these contributions is, in fact, very small, why should the National Health Service be deprived of this quite substantial sum of money?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because it seems reasonable to allocate the cost of collection in proportion with the amounts collected, whether for the National Health Service, on the one hand, or for Industrial Injuries and National Insurance, on the other.
    Mr. Ross: Was there any increase of costs at all to the Minister's Department when the last increase in relation to the National Health Service contribution was made?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A very small one, if any. As I think the hon. Gentleman understands, the point is that when a large sum of money is being collected the fair thing to do is to allocate the cost in proportion to the amount collected.

    Sweets
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce a system of sweet coupons for retirement pensioners to enable them to buy sweets at pre-Budget prices.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister appreciate that most of us on this side would prefer to see a really adequate

    23
    pension rather than devices like tobacco and sweet coupons, but, so long as the pension is so low, does he not recognise that he has an obligation to do something about the loss to pensioners who have to balance their budgets down to the last penny and who often rely on a modest bag of sweets as about the only pleasure in life that they can afford?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I share the hon. Gentleman's dislike of benefits in kind. On the other hand, one must put this in proportion. The pensioner households survey indicates that the pensioner household's consumption of sweets is about 7½d. worth a week, and the tax is at the level of 15 per cent.
    Mr. Lipton: Has the Minister come to the conclusion that his retirement pensioners will benefit more from the impending Surtax concession than they will suffer from the extra they will have to pay for sweets?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They will certainly benefit very considerably from my right hon. and learned Friend's firm front against inflation.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the Ministry puts no reliance on sampling techniques, why does the right hon. Gentleman rely on a sampling technique to find out how old-age pensioners spend their money on foodstuffs? Is he aware that only 1,200 people were sampled out of about 5 million or 6 million old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The surveys conducted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour are carried out completely objectively and with professional skill and expertise. They are very different from the one the hon. Gentleman was seeking to rely on last week.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Fuel and Power Industries
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the existence of approximately 20 million tons of stocks of small coal suitable for use only by the electricity industry, and in view of the consumption by that industry of several million tons of imported oil, he will use his statutory powers to achieve closer co-ordination of the policies of the power industries.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): No, Sir. The consumption of coal in power stations was 19 per cent. higher in the first quarter of this year than in that of last year, and their use of oil was 2 per cent. lower.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, whatever satisfaction he might derive from those figures, the fact remains that the Coal Board has about £80 million worth of capital tied up in the form of this small coal and that the only possible purchaser in this country which can use it is the electricity industry? Is it not an extremely absurd policy that the Minister, as the co-ordinator of the nation's fuel policies, should allow the electricity industry to use foreign exchange to bring in imported oil and at the same time increase the difficulties of the National Coal Board in tying up so much of its capital in this commodity?
    Mr. Wood: The success of the coordination is amply shown by the considerable increase in the use of coal in power stations which has taken place this year and in the likely increase in use in power stations throughout the country in the years ahead.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the reserve stocks of power station coal have been reduced by as much as 40 per cent. in the last twelve months, and is not that an admirable reflection of my right hon. Friend's objective policies in this regard?
    Mr. Wood: I am very grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say whether there is any prospect in the next twelve months of the electricity industry taking more of this available stock of small coal from the Coal Board?
    Mr. Wood: I think that the electricity industry's consumption of coal is likely to continue to increase in the months and years ahead.

    Pipe-lines
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Power whether he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a map of the existing Government-owned system of pipe-lines.
    Mr. Wood: I do not think that it would be in the public interest to publish a map.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the routes of these pipelines are known to thousands of people in this country and, therefore, must be equally well known to any potential enemy? How are hon. Members to do their job properly when we come to consider the Pipe-lines Bill unless we are aware, as many other people are, of what the existing system of pipe-lines is in this country?
    Mr. Wood: There is a certain amount of information available. What I do not believe is that publication of a map would assist hon. Members to do their job better in the debates we have ahead of us.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what was the aggregate output in millions of ingot tons of the British steel industry in 1961; what is the estimated maximum capacity in millions of ingot tons for 1962; at what level per-centum, of maximum capacity, the industry is currently operating; what is the spare annual capacity in millions of ingot tons and value; and what steps he is taking to restore maximum capacity operations in the industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): Total output of crude steel was 22 million ingot tons in 1961; maximum capacity in 1962 is estimated at 28 million ingot tons. The industry is currently operating at about 77 per cent. of maximum capacity. Spare capacity amounts to about 7 million ingot tons. In theory this could produce finished products worth about £280 million if the demand were there: in practice the optimum level for the industry's operations is well below its theoretical maximum capacity. Production should rise when the current rundown of consumers' stocks comes to an end, but basically the fortunes of the industry will depend upon the state of the economy and of world trade in general.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is not this ample support for my earlier statement that deflation since last July has proceeded much too far? Can we really contemplate a
    26
    state of affairs in which something of the order of £250 million worth of steel capacity annually remains standing and unused? Will my hon. Friend represent these figures urgently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. George: I ask my hon. Friend not to be deceived by the figure of £280 million. That was for maximum capacity. In fact, the industry, even at boom times, has not operated at maximum capacity. The industry's view is that 90 per cent. is optimum capacity. On this basis, spare capacity amounts to about 4½ million ingot tons, which could produce £180 million worth of steel, instead of 7 million ingot tons.
    Dr. King: Cannot the Minister take a leaf out of President Kennedy's book and get the steel barons to charge less and produce more steel instead of producing less and charging more?
    Mr. George: My right hon. Friend is confident that the steel industry is an efficiently managed industry and is well able to meet any upsurge in the economy which we expect in the near future.
    Mr. Nabarro: Whether the figure is £180 million or £280 million, or whether it is the mean of those two figures, would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a huge sum of money, representing lost production which we should be productively employing?
    Mr. George: It is absolutely true that the position of steel at the moment is at a low ebb. What my right hon. Friend is concerned about is that this industry should be ready, as it will be, to take advantage of any upsurge in the economy.
    Mr. Callaghan: How far is this industry contributing to exports and how far can it contribute to extra exports? Or does the Parliamentary Secretary take the view that there is no margin for exports in this sphere? Is it not the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we cannot have home expansion until exports increase? Will the Parliamentary Secretary represent the position to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him what he proposes to do to stimulate exports of steel?
    Mr. George: That is a totally different question. The industry does, of course, contribute to exports. I am prepared to answer a question asking for the tonnage exported if the hon. Gentleman tables one. I repeat that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this industry is in a position to meet any upsurge of demand, national or international.
    Mr. Callaghan—
    The Speaker: Order. We should get on. We have spent rather a long time on this Question.

    Steel Works, Shotton
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power why he did not exercise his powers under Section 5 (4) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, in respect of the steel works at Shotton, in view of the fact that the capital cost of this plant was £3·5 million, that it occupies 200,000 square feet of factory space, that it has an annual capacity of 100,000 tons, was recently completed, and has never been used.
    Mr. George: The Iron and Steel Board is satisfied that there is ample capacity at other pipe plants in Great Britain to meet the foreseeable demand for products within the range of the Shotton plant.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it sensible for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to sanction and authorise the building of a complicated plant of this kind, worth £3½ million, only to find on its completion that it is surplus, stands idle for a few months and is then sold to an overseas nation? Is not that a disastrous policy?
    Mr. George: My right hon. Friend did not authorise, and was not required to authorise, the construction of this plant.
    Mr. Nabarro: Who authorised it, then?
    Mr. George: The plant was constructed by free enterprise, and it represents the best traditions of free enterprise. This company forecast a demand for its products in the international field. It decided not to await the arrival of that demand but to provide for it in advance. It might have
    28
    made a profit, it might have made a loss, but it risked its own money. In the end, the demand which it thought would materialise did not come, and it made a loss. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would be delighted to see that this industry is prepared to take great risks with its own money.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we on this side are very disappointed that he did not respond to the excellent suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster? This is the first time, to my knowledge, that the hon. Gentleman has advocated the nationalisation of part of an industry, which is what would happen if these statutory powers were exercised. Since the steel industry is running so much under capacity, and since a fair number of works are totally idle, like the Shotton works, would not it be better if the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary said how private enterprise really works in this industry and not merely exercised their powers under Section 5 (4) but proceeded to give the whole lot back to public enterprise so that it might get on with the job?
    Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that we have passed on to Question No. 37.
    Mr. Fraser: This Question deals with Section 5 (4).
    Mr. George: The initial part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question referred to Question No. 36.
    Mr. Fraser: No.
    Mr. George: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster is greatly enlightened by the information which I have given.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that the view which he has expressed is the view of the Government as a whole, namely, that to spend £3½ million under private enterprise is a test of the advantage of private enterprise, even if the money is completely wasted?
    Mr. George: Private enterprise is facing its test. It does not only back certainties. It is ready to accept a challenge and to work on a forecast. If it

    29
    makes a profit, well and good: if it makes a loss, it takes it in the same spirit.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the annual capital investment programme of the British iron and steel industry is authorised each year under the statutes by the Iron and Steel Federation and finally by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power? In those circumstances, how can my hon. Friend disclaim all responsibility for this state of affairs?
    Mr. George: My right hon. Friend would not try to disclaim responsibility for this state of affairs. He does not think there is anything wrong with the state of affairs covered in the Question. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman said that there was."] I did not say that there was anything wrong at all. Free enterprise in this country must always be prepared to take a chance, as this company did. There is nothing wrong with this state of affairs.
    May I try to clarify my hon. Friend's mind? The Iron and Steel Board can refuse consent to a development proposal only if it appears that it would seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of the steel industry. In 1957, when it was decided that this plant should be erected, it seemed to be a good and worth-while proposition.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the miserable and inadequate answers given by him prove conclusively the lack of policy on the part of the Government to expand exports and to bring about a healthy climate in the steel industry? Is he aware that not only the men but the management are completely fed up and have lost faith with the Government? The sooner they get out the better.
    Mr. George: On the contrary. The purpose of building this plant and risking £3½ million was to provide for exports which were anticipated but which, unfortunately, did not materialise.

    Electricity Council (Advances)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power what sum he has so far advanced to the Electricity Council in the year 1961–62, or proposes to advance before the end of the financial year, as compared with the £178 million he advanced in 1960–61.
    Mr. Wood: The total of gross advances to the Electricity Council in the financial year 1961–62, under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956 (as subsequently amended), was £223 million.
    Mr. Digby: In view of the many demands on our capital resources, particularly in the public sector, is not this a very large sum, particularly as quite a large proportion of it was for building nuclear power stations which will be uneconomic for a number of years?
    Mr. Wood: It is a very large sum of investment and a great number of the British public are pressing me, for various reasons, to spend even more.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not that answer indicate that there is great benefit to be derived from nationalisation?

  COAL

    Opencast Mining
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Power whether his Department has given approval to the National Coal Board for opencast coal workings on the Goldenhill site, Stoke-on-Trent.
    Mr. George: My right hon. Friend has not yet received any application from the National Coal Board to work this site.
    Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be very firm in resisting any application, because the local authority looks upon this as a very valuable site for housing and also because it is in a district which produces some of the best coal? Therefore, we should strongly object to opencast working at this particular site?
    Mr. George: As the hon. Lady knows, any proposed workings would be subject to the Opencast Coal Act, 1958, with its important safeguards for the private citizen, agricultural interests, amenity and avoidance of nuisance. These safeguards include the holding of public inquiries in disputed cases.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Matter of Industry and Employment in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Macleod.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.31 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In introducing this Bill to amend the Scottish licensing law I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but as the Bill involves certain principles and goes into some detail, a fairly full explanation is. I think, necessary.
  First, the background. Over the past fifty years, I think that hon. Members, or at least those of us who are old enough to cover that period, will agree that there has been a very substantial change in drinking habits in Scotland, and a change without any doubt for the better. Those of us who remember certain parts of our great cities on a Saturday evening even twenty-five years ago and know them today, will not disagree with what I have said.
  But why this change for the better has come about is not easy to define. Fiscal measures, licensing laws, what one may call the general improvement in our way of life—all of these are undoubtedly involved. Perhaps the most difficult to assess is the part which licensing laws have played.
  It can be suggested that any relaxation of the licensing laws must produce more drunkenness. It can equally be argued that sensible relaxation removes the urge to concentrate one's drinking and, therefore, produces less drunkenness. Overseas, there has been a good deal of evidence that over-restrictive licensing laws can have very harmful results. Elsewhere overseas, lack of control has produced equally alarming results. At home, while the great majority of people impose their own self-discipline, the evidence is that control of a fairly positive kind is still necessary. The question for judgment is how much control and of what kind.
  In coming to decisions on a matter of this kind, I am quite certain that it is right to have regard, so far as that is
  32
  practicable, to what seems to be the public attitude to drink in Scotland. I think that it is fair to say that, whereas everyone would agree that things have changed for the better, drink still remains a cause of unease and anxiety among large sections of public opinion.
  A main objective must undoubtedly be, so far as legislation can help, to try to encourage what one can reasonably call sensible habits in drinking. Existing legislation dates back for a considerable period—to the Licensing Act, 1921, and, so far as Scottish legislation is concerned, to the Licensing Act, 1903, and the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913. The 1959 Act was purely a consolidation Measure.
  It has become very clear that the present law is in some respects outdated and no longer in line with modern needs. The most glaring anomaly of all is, of course, the situation on Sundays, with its qualified but none the less 24-hour drinking possibilities, not available to local people, resulting from the now notorious bona fide traveller provision. I have yet to find anyone—hotel keepers, members of the trade, police, magistrates, local authorities, members of the public—who would defend the present position on Sundays. Certainly, no one has come forward to do so, and small wonder, because the present position is quite absurd.
  For that and for other reasons, the Government decided that legislation was desirable and that it would be most helpful to us and to Parliament if a committee of inquiry were to examine those parts of the law which most clearly required reconsideration. I therefore set up a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Guest, with four terms of reference. The four questions I asked the Committee to examine were, briefly, Sunday drinking, permitted hours, the constitution of licensing courts and courts of appeal, and the situation regarding licensed premises in the areas of new housing development and redevelopment. As the first two questions were urgent ones, I ask the Committee to concentrate on these and it is these two heads of its remit which are dealt with in its first Report.
  I should make it clear that the Bill is not intended to be a comprehensive revision of the Scottish licensing laws.

  33
  Lord Guest's Committee is at present engaged in the consideration of the remaining parts of the remit. Its conclusions, particularly on the question of the constitution of licensing courts and courts of appeal, matters of far reaching importance, may well have a substantial effect on many aspects of the law.
  Until the Committee has made its second report, it would clearly be inappropriate to contemplate any general revision. The matters dealt with in the Bill are, however, matters which, in the opinion of the Government, should not be left until the publication of that second report and the completion of the consultations which will be necessary after we have received that report.
  I should, at this stage, like to pay interim tribute to Lord Guest and to the members of his Committee for the most valuable work which they have done in preparing their first Report. They have taken great pains to ensure that they received evidence from all the sources which had any view to express on their remit. Anyone who has studied the Report will, I am sure, agree that it is an admirable and dispassionate survey of a complex and potentially controversial subject.
  Before I turn to a more detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill, I should like to deal, first, with what was clearly the most urgent problem with which we had to deal and also the most substantial decision that the Government had to take in drafting the Bill which is now before the House. I refer, of course, to Sunday drinking.
  The Government have no doubt that the present law regarding the sale of liquor on Sundays in Scotland cannot be justified and must be amended, as I said earlier. Here is the present legal position. The permitted hours system does not apply to Sunday. Public houses are closed; hotels can supply residents, but not the ordinary public. But the law provides for the supply of liquor in hotels without any limitation as to hours,
  "for the accommodation of … travellers".
  Whatever its original justification, the ease and frequency of modem travel has made a nonsense of this provision. It has been suggested that, so easy is it to overcome the prohibition on sale of
  34
  drink to the general public, it is not the case that there are no permitted hours on Sunday, but that there are 24 permitted hours. All country hotel keepers have experience of the "traveller" who descends on them and seeks "accommodation" from very early morning until late at night.
  If, however, we repeal the "traveller" provision, what are we to put in its place? This was the main problem with which the Guest Committee had to deal. It considered the possibility of putting nothing in its place—of leaving hotel residents as the only people who could buy a drink on Sundays. It rejected that possibility as unacceptable, and the Government certainly agree with the Committee.
  The Committee also rejected a proposal that, as in some parts of the country during the last war, the supply of liquor should be confined to liquor with meals. It recommended the introduction of the same principle of permitted hours for drinking on Sundays in Scotland as we already have on weekdays.
  Hon. Members will not underestimate the radical nature of this change. It was the Forbes-Mackenzie Act of 1853, introduced in a context of excessive Sunday drinking, which prohibited the sale of liquor to local inhabitants on Sundays. One hundred and nine years have passed since that Act and it is only in relatively recent years that the ease of modern travel has shown its deficiencies. The ease of modern travel has changed public habits and the Government do not doubt that the introduction of Sunday permitted hours its the right provision to replace the "traveller" provision.
  We come now to the crux of the question, permitted hours for which classes of premises? This question caused the Guest Committee much careful and anxious thought and its recommendation was that we should go the whole way and have permitted hours for all types of licensed premises, hotels, public houses and restaurants, which supply liquor for consumption on the premises. It is here that the Government have felt it necessary to depart from the Committee's recommendations.
  Since the publication of the first Guest Report this is the only one of its recommendations which has given rise to substantial opposition. I do not wish to

  35
  give undue weight to this, for the decision to depart from the Committee's recommendation was essentially a decision taken by the Government on the merits of the arguments, but after the publication of the Guest Report the general consensus of opinion of those who have expressed views to me has been overwhelmingly against the Sunday opening of public houses.
  Nor, since the Bill was published, has my experience been different. I know that the opposition has been mainly from organised bodies and that it is easier for organised bodies than the unorganised public to express a view, but, none the less, if the Government's decision had not been acceptable to unorganised public opinion, by now the public would have had plenty of opportunity to tell us so. It is of some significance that since the publication of the Bill I have had fewer than half a dozen letters opposing this decision of the Government, and in conversations with a big diversity of Scots the reaction has been precisely the same.
  It must be a matter of speculation why the public has reacted—or not reacted—in this way. Religious considerations, an innate disquiet about drink—who can say precisely? But I feel that a main factor has been the widely held view that the Scottish Sunday is a day apart, a day of rest and quiet, and that this position should not be upset. This itself lends significance to the expressed view of the publicans—and they were among the objectors to the Sunday opening of "pubs"—that there was not such public demand for liquor on Sunday as would justify such a step.
  The Church of Scotland, and the other religious bodies which joined the Church in representations, expressed the view that the fact that there were so few alternative recreational facilities for young people on Sundays made it undesirable that there should be any widespread opening of licensed premises. This was undoubtedly a major consideration.
  On the other hand, I took careful account of the arguments in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Guest Committee's Report that the opening of public houses was necessary because hotels and restaurants were not necessarily well distri-
  36
  buted for supply to local inhabitants. Sunday opening for hotels and restaurants only will result in some inequality of supply and will result in some travel, but travelling is inherent in licensing control: we do not all live next door to a "pub"
  The opposite danger is excessive provision of points of supply, particularly on a day when in Scotland few recreational facilities are available, and this might in itself create a new demand for drink which I do not think anybody wants to encourage. Having taken all these factors into account the Government decided that the opening of hotels and restaurants, but not of public houses, provided the best practicable solution to the present problem, and this is the provision which is made in the Bill.
  It may help if I restate the position in another way. It is the Government's view that, even after taking account of their distribution, the 2,000 licensed hotels in Scotland are sufficient to meet the demand for the supply of liquor on Sundays; the opening of the 4,000 or so public houses as well would be over-provision for this need.
  Turning now to the contents of the Bill, Clauses 1 and 2 derive from Recommendation (33) of the Guest Report, that there should be a new type of certificate restricted to drinks with meals. Under the present law, hotels and restaurants which wish to supply drinks with meals can do so only under the authority of a full hotel or public house certificate, but such a certificate authorises also the supply of drinks to the public without a meal—what might be described as "bar drinking". This leads to a considerable amount of difficulty. We would all agree, I think, that, of the ways in which drink may be consumed, its consumption with meals is comparatively beneficial and should be encouraged at the expense of bar drinking. The word "comparatively" was carefully chosen.
  However, since the only suitable existing forms of certificate authorise drinks without meals the licensing court, when application is made to it by an applicant who wishes to provide drinks with meals, is in a difficult situation. The court may well come to the conclusion that there is no objection to an additional licensed

  37
  restaurant in the area, but it may feel obliged to refuse the certificate, not because it thinks it wrong to provide additional facilities for drinks with meals, but because the public house facilities in the area are already adequate. Accordingly, the present law does militate against consumption with meals.
  Clauses 1 and 2, therefore, provide for two new types of certificate, a restaurant certificate authorising only the supply of drinks with meals, and a restricted hotel certificate, which the House will see recommended in paragraph 118 of the Report, authorising only the supply of drinks for residents, and drinks with meals. As in the case of other licensing certificates, grant or refusal of a certificate is in the entire discretion of the licensing court.
  In accordance with the main purpose of the new certificates, the authority is limited to supply for consumption on the premises and off-sales are prohibited. The only exception to this, and it is a reasonable one and one which will be of value to tourism, is that under the restricted hotel certificate the resident who is given a picnic lunch may be provided with drinks to take out with that lunch.
  Clauses 3 and 4 are the most important provisions in the Bill. Clause 3 contains a number of important modifications to the permitted hours system itself. Subsection (1) exempts off-sale premises from the permitted hours. This is in accordance with Recommendation (25) of the Guest Report. The Committee found that the existing permitted hours, which are primarily governed by the on-sale position, cause considerable difficulties in relation to off-sale premises which normally follow the general shopping hours pattern. The Committee also came to the conclusion that hours for off-sales need not be limited so severely as those for on-sales.
  The important thing is that off-sales should be prohibited at the end of the evening permitted hours for on-sales, so as to remove the possibility of people coming out of public houses and looking for another drink from off-sales premises at that time. Clause 3 (1) therefore exempts off-sale premises from the permitted hours system. Clause 18 sets out the hours—8 a.m. to 10 p.m.—during which off-sale premises may sell liquor.
  38
  Clause 3 (2) follows the English Licensing Act, 1961, in dealing with off-sales in hotels and public houses. The existing hotel and public house certificates authorise off-sales and there is no difference in nature between off-sales in such premises and off-sales from off-sale premises. On the other hand, as the Guest Committee saw, there are difficulties of enforcement if two sets of hours, one for off-sales and for on-sales, apply to a single set of premises. The 1961 Act found a way out of this difficulty which we have adopted, that where there is a completely separate part of the premises devoted to off-sales the certificate holder can apply to the licensing court to have this part of the premises exempted from the permitted hours, and the off-sale premises hours in Clause 18 will then apply to that part.
  Clause 3 (3) makes a number of adjustments to the permitted hours system, providing up to 10 minutes' drinking-up time at the end of permitted hours and extending the exemption of residents from the permitted hours system to guests whom the resident entertains at his own expense. I should also refer to Clause 3 (4). In our view—and this is important—the purpose of the permitted hours system is to define the hours in which drink may be sold, not when it must be sold.
  We do not think that laws intended to control the supply of drink should have the effect of obliging those who supply it to remain open regardless of need. But, perhaps arising from the common law obligation on inns to provide board and lodging, some licensing courts have tended to take the view that certificate holders must keep their premises open throughout the whole of the permitted hours. This subsection makes it clear that the hours are permitted hours, not obligatory ones.
  Clause 4 deals with the permitted hours themselves. Subsection (1, b), introduces Sunday permitted hours for hotels and restaurants, limited, in accordance with Recommendation (5) of the Guest Report, to consumption on the premises. The weekday permitted hours are provided in subsections (1, a) and (2), and subsection (2) also provides that there shall be no Sunday permitted hours in public houses. Subsection (3) repeals

  39
  all the old legislation—including the "traveller" provision—dealing with hours of sale and supply.
  It was a very strong recommendation of the Guest Committee that there should be standard hours throughout Scotland and for all types of premises, mainly licensed premises and registered clubs, to which the permitted hours system applies. The Committee, in paragraph 55, recognised that, in the case of clubs devoted to certain types of activity, this might result in a certain degree of hardship, and this is a matter at which I think we might look again at a later stage. It is certainly a matter which has been pressed upon me, and no doubt upon hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we will listen with interest to any views that may be put forward about it. But apart from these special cases which really concern outdoor clubs, the Guest Committee recommendation of uniform hours has received a very warm welcome and is implemented in the Clause.
  The weekday hours—11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.—are those recommended in the Report. The Sunday hours, as amended in another place, depart somewhat from the Report. They are slightly longer and have a later closing hour—10 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.—than the hour recommended by the Committee. But it must be borne in mind that, when the Committee made its recommendation, it was in the context of Sunday opening of public houses. Registered clubs can at present have a Sunday closing hour of 10 p.m. and it appears to the Government that a 10 p.m. closing hour on Sunday is appropriate.
  Clauses 5 and 6 deal with minor extensions to the permitted hours system. Clause 5 revises, to take account of other provisions of the Bill, the one-hour supper hour extension for drinks with meals in restaurants. Clause 6 deals with the case of public houses which contain restaurants. If we are having Sunday opening for restaurants, with a new type of certificate, the same principle should apply to restaurants in public houses as to others. The Clause provides a procedure by which, if the licensing court is satisfied that the public house contains
  40
  a restaurant, the permitted hours provided in Clause 4 may be applied to such a restaurant, with, of course, the restriction to drinks with meals only.
  Clause 8 introduces the seasonal certificate, a provision on lines recommended by the Guest Committee, which should be of real assistance in the development of tourism. To meet the case mainly of hotels in the north of Scotland, which cannot remain open economically throughout the year, it permits licensing courts, if they are satisfied that the requirements of the licensing area make it desirable, to grant a seasonal certificate operative for part of the year only.
  Before turning to the next group of Clauses, I should mention the second main source—the Guest Committee being the first—of the provisions of the Bill. This is the English Licensing Act, 1961. Although, as I have said, it would be inappropriate while the Guest Committee is still sitting to attempt a complete revision of the Scottish licensing law, and although many of the provisions of the English Act were in the field which the Guest Committee is still considering, the English Act made some changes of substance to the English licensing law in fields in which uniformity, as I think everyone would agree, is clearly desirable. Clause 9 prohibiting licensed premises on motorways and Clause 14 dealing with the sale of liqueur chocolates are examples of such provisions.
  Clauses 10 and 11 have the same source. They deal with the structure of licensed premises and are somewhat technical in form. But their purpose is to remove minor inconveniences in the way of those wishing to develop licensed premises and to improve them without weakening the licensing courts' essential controls over facilities for drinking. This will be of assistance in the development of tourism.
  Clause 12 re-enacts, with improvements, the existing law restricting the supply of liquor to young persons. The main improvement is that the prohibition of the sale of liquor to young persons is extended from liquor for consumption on the premises to liquor for consumption off the premises. The existing law assumed—appropriately enough at the time—that anyone under

  41
  18 who bought liquor for consumption off the premises was buying it on behalf of his parents and not for himself.
  But young people, particularly teenagers, now seem to have much more money to spend than ever before, and this assumption is no longer a safe one. The underlying principle is that, with the minor exception Which the House will find in subsection (4), persons under 18 should not be permitted to buy liquor for their own consumption, and the amendment proposed in this Clause is intended to achieve this.
  The next group of Clauses derives mainly from the Guest Committee's Report and deals with registered clubs. Clause 15 deals with extensions of club permitted hours for special occasions. Under the present law, if a club has a special occasion—say, a club dinner—for which it is reasonable that liquor should be supplied outside the normal permitted hours, it is necessary for the club to go to an outside caterer who can, under Section 60 of the 1959 Act, apply to the licensing court for a special permission. The effect of this is that, although the club has facilities to supply its own drink for such an occasion, it is forced to call on and to pay for the services of an outside caterer.
  The new provision enables the club itself to provide and apply for what is essentially an extension of hours for a special purpose. The grant or refusal of a special permission will remain, as in the case of a special permission for a certificate holder under Section 60. entirely within the discretion of the licensing court. The special permission will only permit the supply of liquor in the same way as it may be supplied during the permitted hours—that is, to members and their guests. There is no question of the club being able to supply the public. I am certain that this is a useful and wise change.
  Clause 16 deals with one of the most substantial recommendations of the Guest Committee. The Committee received very weighty evidence to the effect that there were clubs—a minority of all clubs, but, nevertheless, a substantial problem in themselves—which consistently broke the law both about permitted hours and in supplying liquor to the public. Clubs, unlike licensed premises, are private places, and under
  42
  the present law the police can only gain entry to them on the authority of a judicial warrant. This puts the police in an embarrassingly difficult position. It is not their desire to catch clubs out, but it is their duty to ensure that the law is obeyed and that public concern resulting from the breaking of the law is removed.
  If the police are satisfied that a club is not obeying the law it is their practice to approach the secretary and the committee to warn them, so that they can put their house in order. This procedure is often effective, but in some cases it is not. The committee may be irresponsible or—worse—it may try to put its house in order and be voted out of office by irresponsible members. In either case the result is the same, with the abuse continuing. The only thing the police can do is to start on a course of action to have the club struck off in terms of Section 175 of the 1959 Act.
  As the House will appreciate, this is a very drastic step and, apart from that, one which makes an exceptionally heavy demand on police manpower. A police raid is almost an essential preliminary in order to get evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature. To be sure that the application for a judicial warrant is justified, the police have to spend long hours of watching before they make the application. The raid itself and the subsequent court action are, of course, attended by a great deal of publicity.
  The Guest Committee's recommendation for dealing with this problem was that clubs should be subjected to the same police supervision as licensed premises, that is, that they should be open to inspection by any constable at any time. During the passage of the Bill through another place it was clearly felt that this recommendation did not take sufficient account of the fact that clubs were private places and that police inspection was an intrusion into privacy. There was also a good deal of correspondence on the subject. On the other hand, it was accepted that a provision of this kind was justified in order to assist the police in getting the law obeyed without having to take the drastic and manpower-consuming steps which they have to take under the present law.
  The Clause therefore includes two modifications on the Guest Committee

  43
  recommendation which recognise the essential difference between clubs and "pubs" without, as the chief constables have assured us, substantially impairing the purpose of the recommendation. The first restriction limits the right of entry to a police officer of the rank of inspector or above. The second limits the right in time to the permitted hours and half-an-hour on either side of them. This, I believe, is a sensible solution to what is admittedly a different and an awkward problem. The object is to meet public concern, but it is also to avoid the need to take extreme steps which no one wants to take.
  I have already dealt with Clause 18. Clause 19 modifies Recommendation (8) of the Guest Committee, that the prohibition on the sale of liquor on Sundays on short trip passenger vessels
  "might with advantage be abolished".
  This Clause permits sale on such vessels, but only during the Sunday permitted hours for hotels and restaurants.
  Clause 20 contains a provision that has caused the Government considerable difficulty. We are all aware of what has been termed the problem of the "boozing bus party", and the nuisance which it causes—the rowdy behaviour and the offences against decency. This may have grown out of the "traveller" provision, and to that extent the abolition of that provision will help. But it has now become a habit and, in many cases, the parties are quite independent of the seven-day hotels as they carry their own liquor in the bus.
  I do not think that any complete solution to the problem can be found in legislation. The fault is primarily a lack of consideration for others; a lack of thought, by a few of the many who go on trips from our towns on a Sunday, for the local inhabitants and for others who seek a quieter form of enjoyment. The Guest Committee felt—it was clearly the feeling in another place—that additional legislation could contribute towards the solution of the problem. The Guest Committee recommended that.
  "it should be an offence to carry liquor in quantity in a public service vehicle used as a contract carriage"
  that is, a hired bus.
  It is, of course, the case that much of the misbehaviour of "boozing bus
  44
  parties" already constitutes offences against the criminal law—breach of the peace, public indecency, and so on. The trouble is that these offences take place in open country and are committed by mobile parties. Thus the present law is difficult to enforce and, because of the inherent difficulties, it does not seem possible to look for any great improvement in the standard of enforcement.
  We fully sympathise with the Guest Committee in its decision to provide additional help to cope with this public nuisance. However, careful examination of the proposal of the Committee led the Government to the conclusion that it was not workable in the form in which it was proposed. I do not want to go into this matter at any great length now. It may be enough to say that, relying on the words "in quantity", it was impossible to define a satisfactory offence—if that is how one may describe an offence—in terms which would be both reasonable and enforceable. If the chief difficulty is that the present law is not enforceable, it is no remedy to place upon the Statute Book a new and equally unenforceable law.
  The present Clause, devised after a great deal of thought, does not go as far as the Guest Committee recommended. It does, however, create a clearly defined and enforceable criminal offence, namely, the carriage of liquor in hired buses in any receptacle constructed or adapted for the purpose of carrying liquor in quantity. The Government appreciate that the Clause is open to evasion, for instance, by "breaking bulk" and strewing bottles around the bus. But this type of party is primarily a habit and those who indulge in it will, to say the least, find it highly inconvenient to carry liquor in quantity in any way which does not contravene the provisions of the Clause.
  We are satisfied therefore, that the Clause will make a substantial contribution towards the breaking of this habit.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Will those who travel on these buses find it difficult to get round the provisions of this Clause? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these people will be able to get round the provisions merely by putting the liquor in a shooting brake which would accompany the bus? There are many also who travel

  45
  by motor car, and the cars or the shooting brake could be loaded to the roof with crates.
  Mr. Maclay: I fully accept that this is a matter which is full of difficulties. But I think that we have produced a clearly defined offence against which action may be taken. It will certainly do a good deal to discourage that which we all want to discourage.
  I have covered the major provisions of the Bill in some detail and I will now try to summarise. It would have been easy to ignore the nonsenses which the passage of time has revealed, and in some cases caused, in our Scottish law relating to drinking, no matter how appropriate those laws might have been at the times at which they were enacted. But we decided that we could not ignore them any longer.
  The provisions in the Bill will get rid of the law which prevents a local inhabitant from buying himself a drink in his own locality on a Sunday although a stranger is permitted to do so. They limit the hours during which drink may be supplied on a Sunday, and that is something which, I believe, will be to the great relief of everyone. They introduce a new type of certificate, the restaurant certificate, which will be of value to a very useful kind of restaurant.
  They make off-sales possible at hours of the day when many people find it convenient to make their purchases. It is absurd that a man should not be able to buy a bottle of sherry which his wife has asked him to bring home on the occasion of a visit from his mother-in-law at the only moment when he can get away from his job for 10 minutes.
  The provisions in the Bill will make for a sensible easing of the position in relation to clubs by allowing for application by club officials for special permission on the occasion of the club dinner, and so on. The Measure provides for seasonal certificates—a new provision which will be of substantial value to hotels and restaurants—catering for the tourist trade, particularly in the North of Scotland. It makes clear that permitted hours are not obligatory hours, which is a very important and necessary clarification. I hope that the ordinary citizen, the traveller, and the person who does not wish to travel, the
  46
  tourist, and the tourist industry, will find that it serves a very useful purpose. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: First, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland for his explanation of the Bill. Perhaps I may join with him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in thanking Lord Guest and his Committee for presenting an interim Report.
  May I say that I do not believe, and I have never understood, why it should be that if a mother-in-law should arrive at eight o'clock in the morning it should be necessary for her son-in-law to be able to go out and buy a bottle of sherry—unless, of course, it is proposed to use the bottle of sherry to knock out the mother-in-law and keep her silent for the rest of the day. It was noble of the Secretary of State to give that explanation for having licensed premises open from eight o'clock in the morning to ten o'clock at night.
  Mr. Maclay: I am all in favour of visits from mothers-in-law. But they do sometimes arrive at unexpected times, and that is where the trouble often arises—to get the bottle in time.
  Mr. Hoy: Whatever the right hon Gentleman says, there is no doubt about how he wants to treat his mother-in-law when she arrives.
  We agree that the Scottish licensing laws were in such a state that they had to be brought up to date. Indeed, this has been pressed for from this side of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his consolidation Bill, in 1959, I remember the vehement protest made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been very lax in his duties. Because of the slack way in which the law was being administered, my hon. Friend thought that it ought to have been brought up to date, and that rather than introduce his consolidation Bill the right hon. Gentleman ought to have introduced a comprehensive Measure.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, even this Bill is not comprehensive. It deals with only certain points affecting licensing in Scotland. Perhaps I should

  47
  make it clear at the outset that I am expressing my own opinions this afternoon. My right hon. and hon. Friends are free to speak and vote as they desire. I know that the Government will not be prepared to extend this freedom to hon. Gentlemen opposite, although for the life of me I cannot understand why, because the Bill has nothing to do with party politics as such, and I would have thought that on an occasion such as this it would not be a bad thing if all hon. Members were able to speak freely.
  Having said that, I think that I ought to make clear, also—and here I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that, despite the proposals in the Bill, it is a little difficult to understand why it has been given priority over so many other things that need to foe done for Scotland. The House will remember that we have had to guillotine the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which affects thousands of people more acutely than the proposals in this Bill, and when we think of Scotland's industrial record at the moment, and remember that thousands of men in all walks of life are losing their jobs, we feel strongly that the time of the House and the Standing Committee which will consider the Bill in detail might have been better spent in dealing with this more urgent problem.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, four items were referred to Lord Guest and his Committee: the sale and supply of excisable liquor on Sundays; hours on weekdays; the constitution of licensing courts; and arrangements for the granting of certificates. The first of those is undoubtedly the most pressing problem, because we have had considerable trouble in Scotland about the drinking arrangements for, or drinking habits of, some people. We have had complaints from all over Scotland about the conduct of the bona fide traveller, and I know that some of my hon. Friends feel that the provisions of the Bill do not go far enough to eradicate what they consider to be a scandal in respect of Sunday drinking in Scotland.
  We know that the present practice causes considerable disturbance in the countryside and in areas adjacent to large towns, and if the Bill does any-
  48
  thing to alleviate the abuse to which the people in these areas are subjected it will be welcomed by the House and by the people in those areas.
  The Guest Committee recommended that not only hotels but public houses should be open on Sundays, and this recommendation became the No. 1 talking point in Scotland. I do not believe that the Scottish people as a whole want public houses to be open on Sundays. However one looks at it, there is a feeling in Scotland that whatever else happens public houses should not be opened on Sundays. Even those who frequent "pubs" from Monday to Saturday object to them being opened on a Sunday. It was to meet this feeling, and against the recommendation of the Guest Committee, that the Government came to their decision not to permit Sunday opening.
  This proposal brought about a lot of strange unions. For instance, we find that the publicans joined the Church, and as has been truly said, "What these two parties have brought together, let not the Secretary of State for Scotland put asunder". This must be the first time in our history that the Church has united with the publicans to keep the "pubs" closed.
  The decision to keep the "pubs" closed on Sundays having been made in another place, this point will not come before the House or the Committee upstairs. Of course, it is open to an hon. Member to table an Amendment asking that "pubs" should be opened on Sundays, but unless this is done the decision to keep them closed has not only been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but has been promulgated in another place. I think that it was wittily described in the Economist as a "hauf an' hauf". This expression is perhaps better known in Scotland than it is to our English colleagues, but it seems to sum up admirably the decision that has been reached.
  Many reasons have been given for not extending Sunday opening to public houses in Scotland. I think that one of the main reasons is that a considerable number of them, because of their condition, should not be open on a Sunday, or, for that matter, on any other day. However, I must in fairness say that

  49
  over the years there has been a tremendous improvement in the standard of public houses in Scotland.
  There has been a tremendous improvement over the conditions described in a very forthright speech, made in Committee a year or two ago, by a late colleague who represented West Lothian. Many changes have been made, but far too many operate unfairly, especially in relation to serving meals on Sundays. This defect was partly responsible for the decision being made. It was said that if public houses were opened on Sundays they might attract too many young people who have very little else to do. If the Secretary of State agrees with that, it is an indictment of the Government and society, in that alternative entertainments have not been provided for young people on Sundays or, for that matter, on other days of the week. If the effect of the Committee's recommendation has been to make clear to the Government the necessity for providing such alternative entertainment, its efforts will have been well worth while.
  The question of "boozing bus parties", as they have been so aptly described, is another very difficult problem. It if can be cured Scottish people in general will be happy. Surely nothing can be worse than to see these buses trundling along our streets, supposedly taking the occupants on an outing in the pleasant countryside, and loaded up with drink. Not even a publican would want to encourage that. It is appalling that because of the bad behaviour of a very small section of the population restrictive measures must be taken.
  I do not want to deal with all the points which are likely to arise in Committee, but I understand that in future these buses will have to be no more than 6-pint buses; in other words, a bus will be allowed to take no more than 6 pints of alcohol aboard. I do not see how this provision will work. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton has mentioned one difficulty. Furthermore, as far as I can see there is no limit to the amount of drink that any person going on the outing can take on board the bus with him. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to limit this. The only thing that the Bill does is to tell the bus owner that he must not provide more than 6 pints of alcohol. I
  50
  therefore look forward to listening to some very interesting arguments on this problem in Committee. I look forward, for example, to the Lord Advocate explaining how he proposes to enforce this law.
  If we are to protect young persons by providing increased facilities in respect of other occupations than drinking it is right that the Bill should prohibit the employment in licensed clubs of persons under the age of 18. All hon. Members will welcome this provision.
  The question of the police inspection of clubs will cause some difficulty in Committee. Some people argue that the police ought to have the right of inspection. We know that some clubs—especially in London—require almost daily inspection, in order to protect citizens against their activities.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Nightly inspection.
  Mr. Hoy: Nightly inspection, if my hon. Friend prefers that.
  It is always true that when legislation is introduced to deal with certain offenders other people who do not wish to cause offence have to suffer. On the other hand, if clubs have no cause to fear police inspection, no harm will be done. The Secretary of State accepted an Amendment in another place limiting the categories of police officer who have the right to inspect at any time during the permitted hours to inspectors and above. I wonder whether this is necessary. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends regard a police N.C.O. as quite efficient at this sort of job, in which case we could allow police officers from the rank of sergeant upwards to inspect. I am not objecting to the provision; I merely point out that this is another matter that may have to be considered in Committee.
  We agree in general that people's privacy should be respected, but if we wish to limit the activities of undesirable clubs it will be difficult to deal with different clubs in different ways. The Secretary of State referred to residential clubs. If he intends to treat those clubs differently from working men's clubs he will be heading for trouble. The right of inspection should be limited as much as possible. We merely wish to ensure that clubs maintain a good standard.

  51
  The right hon. Gentleman will run into trouble if he thinks he can limit the hours during which on-sales establishments operate and, at the same time, allow all the licensed grocers and wine merchants to operate from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. He has said that he is imposing a ten o'clock limit upon the sale of liquor by licensed grocers to prevent a man leaving a public house at closing time and still being able to obtain a drink at the grocer's. What will he do at the other end of the day? How will he prevent such a man from getting a drink at the grocer's at eight o'clock in the morning? This point will have to be examined carefully in Committee. Another difficulty will arise in connection with licensed premises which have both off-sales and on-sales departments. Very little structural alterations may be required to provide two licences in certain shops.
  The Bill aims at eradicating some of the worst features of Sunday drinking in Scotland. As such, we welcome it. We cannot say that we are enthusiastic about it, but anything that goes some way along the road to providing better conditions in Scotland on Sundays will receive a welcome from us, limited as it may be.
  4.29 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I, too, welcome the Bill. I congratulate Lord Guest and his Committee on the way in which they have produced their interim Report, and I shall welcome their further report dealing with licensing courts and who should be the people to grant licences. If there is a change, I hope that the same people will be responsible for licensing offices.
  This was a subject on which there was a good deal of argument in Committee on the Betting and Gaming Bill and I supported, or he supported me—I forget which way round it was—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes)—on this issue. I hope that in future the licensing people will deal not only with the licensing of drink, but with the licensing of betting.
  I support the Bill in general and I hope that in Committee I shall be as free to speak as hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Bence: And vote.
  Sir J. Duncan: Wait for it. It is not usual for Government supporters to vote against the Government and one naturally has a loyalty to the Government's point of view.
  But, as the hon. Member for Leith said, this is not a party Bill and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to improve it in certain respects and to act as a sort of Scottish Council of State. I hope that the Government will bend enough to accept the Committee's views and that we shall not have the Whips telling us that if we vote against the Government, something may happen to us—although we all know that nothing ever can.
  My plea today is for a constructive approach without party or religious or other bias, so that when the Bill comes back to the House on Report it will have been improved in certain respects. My approach to the Bill is like that of the Guest Committee, which said:
  "We have endeavoured throughout our deliberations to bear in mind the need to ensure that the law of those aspects of licensing which we are charged to consider is in keeping with the requirements of the time."
  I hope that the requirements of the time will be the guiding spirit for the Committee.
  There are several Committee points and I do not want to mention many of them, but there are other matters which are slightly more than Committee points. First, I entirely accept the principle of standard hours throughout Scotland. Everyone with whom I have discussed the Bill has accepted that and I think that that is a principle to which we should stick whatever hours are finally decided. However, like all hon. Members, I have received representations from my own area. This is an important matter in my part of Scotland and all along the North-East Coast people appear to want weekday hours to be 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. instead of 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., with the evening hours 5 p.m. to 10 pm.
  The argument is that with the extra 10 minutes for drinking up, plus 20 minutes or half an hour to clear up the bar after the public has left, there is not sufficient time for the publican or barman to have a rest, go to a football match, or whatever it may be, before he

  53
  has to return to be ready for the evening opening. On the other hand, there are reasons why it would be in the interests of the public and of tourists to be able to drink until 3 p.m. Perhaps the answer to the problem is the provision permitting the publican to close at 2 p.m. when he likes, under Clause 3 (4) of the Bill.
  I am delighted to know that at long last we are to get rid of the "bona fide traveller" problem in Sunday drinking. But the evening hours on a Sunday make for some argument in Committee. The present hours are 6.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and it seems to me that many people will often find the hour of 6.30 to be too late. I would not mind extending those hours slightly. We would not be extending them over what they now are, because the bona fide traveller can now drink for 24 hours on a Sunday.
  My right hon. Friend referred to sports clubs. I will not say much about those other than commenting that the hon. Member for Leith misinterpreted what my right hon. Friend said about differentiating between one set of clubs and another. What my right hon. Friend said was in connection with Sunday hours for sports clubs. Members of golf clubs, tennis clubs, rugger clubs, and so on, cannot play their game much after four o'clock on a winter Sunday because it then gets dark, and what they want to be able to do is to have a drink before going home for their tea. This is the sort of matter which will be raised in Committee and I hope that we shall have a solution to this problem. Indeed, I hope that the Government themselves will suggest a solution, even though it would be a break in the principle of standard hours to which I wish to adhere.
  I support the principle in the Bill that there should be inspection of clubs. I was prepared to support the original proposal in the Bill as introduced in another place—that any policeman should have the right of inspection during certain hours. However, I think that their Lordships went too far in confining the right to inspectors, because in some areas there are not enough inspectors to go round. On that ground of practicality alone it would be advisable to amend the word "inspector" to "sergeant". I do not think that any-
  54
  body would object to that, and I hope that the Government will agree.
  After all, there is a good deal to be said for the inspection of clubs. The number of clubs in Scotland has increased enormously. It was 884 in 1949 and 4,177 in 1959 and is still increasing. The average well-run club will probably never see a policeman inside its premises. The police do not act by going in and finding out. They know from the outside what sort of club it is. The ordinary well-run club will never see a policeman, but in the interests of order and decency and the prevention of crime, especially juvenile crime, there is a case for the inspection of certain clubs. I hope that this suggested alteration will meet the requirements of both sides of the House.
  Representations have been made to us, and I expect to hon. Members opposite, that there should be a limitation on the number of special permissions. I do not agree. I have discussed this with two chief constables and I believe that they have the right answer. Clubs will now have the right to sell drink on special occasions and will not have to obtain it from an outside caterer. The club itself will be able to apply to the magistrate and, of course, the chief constable concerned will be in the picture.If there are too many applications the occasion will cease to be "special". That is the view of the chief constables with whom I discussed this matter. They would rather have no limitation and operate the real meaning of "special permission" as they have done in the past. That would be much more satisfactory than telling the club proprietor that he may have 12 such permissions, or whatever the number may be. I hope that the view taken in the Bill will be followed, because I think that it could be worked by the magistrates, particularly with the help of the chief constables.
  I must confess that when I first read the Bill I thought that the off-sales hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. seemed rather long. I am still not convinced that it is necessary to have those long hours for off-sales. We shall have to argue that matter in Committee. I can very well see that the right hours should be the shop hours. It can be a perfect

  55
  nuisance if one lives in the country and has to go into the town to get a case of beer or a case of whisky which can be delivered legally only during licenssing hours.
  As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) knows, I have to go 15 or 20 miles into a town. If I happen to land in the town at my wine merchants out of hours I cannot get delivery of the drink I order until licensed hours. I welcome the idea of having the right to take delivery of off-sales drink during shop hours.
  There may be a case for keeping off-sales going a little later than six o'clock. I know that licensees with an on-sales and an off-sales department would like to be able to keep both departments open until the normal closing time. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that there would be a lot of off-sales after eight o'clock at night unless in the most exceptional circumstances. It may well be a subject for discussion whether those are the right hours. I do not want to commit myself at the moment, but I think that we ought to consider whether it is necessary at the end of the day to keep the off-sales department open for so long.
  Mr. John Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is very much better for a man to drink in his own home by his own fireside? If he cannot buy a drink from an off-licence during licensing hours, he is likely to go into a "pub", and probably stay there until closing time.
  Sir J. Duncan: There are all sorts of arguments about this, but I should have thought that if the off-sales department were open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. such a man would have long enough in which to buy a drink.
  I welcome the new provisions about certificates for restaurants and restricted hotel licences. This will do a great deal to help the tourist trade in Scotland, but there is one more sort of licence which may be necessary. The question of dance-halls was not mentioned by the Guest Committee. The dance-hall proprietors' association submitted a written memorandum to the Guest Committee and asked to be heard, but the association was not heard. Therefore,
  56
  there is nothing in the Report one way or the other on this matter.
  Many public houses, particularly the new ones, have dance-halls attached to them. Under the Bill they will be able to get licences so that one can drink and dance in a "pub". The dance-hall people say that, although in a "pub" one can drink and dance, in a dance-hall one should be able to dance and drink. Surely, in fairness, some sort of case could be made for that form of licence. I am told that dance-hall proprietors can apply for public house licences, but they do not want public house licences because they do not want to open in the middle of the day.
  I admit that under the Bill's provisions they need not do so, but I do not think that magistrates would be likely to give dance-hall proprietors such licences because they have to have regard, among other things, to the number of licences already existing in a district. In that case, the proprietors would be told that there were already enough licences in the district and they could not have any more. I believe that that has happened in Glasgow, although I do not think that it has happened anywhere else.
  It is suggested that there might be a third form of extra licence which would be from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. only, ten o'clock being the closing hour in the district, and the licence holder would be entirely responsible for keeping law and order. He would not be allowed a bar, but only a table licence. In that way proprietors might be able to control those who come to a dance and encourage greater sobriety in the dance-hall. The complaint by the proprietors is that at about ten o'clock at night the "pubs" empty and some of the people who have had too much to drink come from the "pubs" and create rows in the dance-halls, if they can get in.
  It would be much better to put the full responsibility on the dance-hall proprietor for seeing that there was sobriety in his place and to make him responsible for keeping law and order, to prevent people getting unruly, than having to accept those who come out of the pubs and having a row at the "pub" closing time.
  Sir Myer Galpern: Is the hon. Member suggesting that

  57
  parents would be happy in the knowledge that their teen-age daughters could go to a dance-hall where they could be plied with drink during the course of an evening's dancing?
  Sir J. Duncan: These are matters for discussion in Committee. I am putting the point of view that dance-hall proprietors have a case in justice for this to be done. Where do teen-agers get to if they do not go to dance-halls now?
  Sir M. Galpern: They go to dance-halls, but they do not get drink there.
  Sir J. Duncan: They could go to a "pub" within a hall where they can get drink.
  Sir M. Galpern: Where is that done?
  Sir J. Duncan: In Edinburgh.
  Sir M. Galpern: That is an isolated case.
  Sir J. Duncan: I wish to put this point of view. It is not necessarily acceptable, but I think it worth mentioning that representations have been made. On the ground of fairness there seems to be something in what these proprietors say.
  The main difference between the Guest Committee and the Government has been on the question of Sunday closing of "pubs". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went into that in great detail, and so did the hon. Member for Leith. I shall not go over that ground again. So far as I know, from this side of the House there would be no suggestion for opening "pubs" on Sunday, although that is not logical nor, indeed, free from class bias, because at present the position in Scotland is that there has not been Sunday drinking ever except as bona fide travellers.
  The tradition in Scotland is to have a quiet Sabbath. I think that to open the "pubs" there would be too great a change to make. We have to do this gradually. In five or ten years public opinion might have changed completely, but for the time being the Government are right not to accept the Guest Committee's recommendations on this point. I hope that the Committee dealing with the Bill will not alter that decision.
  I welcome the Bill and hope that in Committee we shall go into it in a statesmanlike, co-operative spirit. I hope that
  58
  the Bill will come back from Committee to the House as a sensible, modern, workmanlike Measure.
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: We have had an interesting discussion, and I should like to congratulate the Minister on his very clear and lucid explanation of the Bill. Indeed, I should like to congratulate him on the balanced way in which he has tackled this problem. He himself, during his childhood, probably heard many arguments over the question of drink. In the days when he was young, his father was concerned about the dreadful result of the abuse of drinking. The right hon. Gentleman's mind must go back to the change in conditions that have come about since those days. I think that his father eventually realised that it was quite impossible to impose temperance by legislation, and that has been discovered, at far greater cost, in the United States of America.
  People think of having a drink to cool themselves, but nothing had created more heat in this House than debates on temperance and drink. But even that has become much more balanced a discussion since the days when I first came into Parliament. We all of us have our own strong feelings about the abuse of drinking and some of the terrible things that have happened from that cause. In approaching this matter I think that we have to restrain ourselves by not trying to use this legislation for something that cannot be accomplished; in other words, that we do not try to impose temperance.
  What are we trying to do? We are trying to introduce legislation, accepting the fact that some people will drink whatever we think about it and are entitled to drink if they are not interfering with other people's liberties and rights. We are trying to introduce a code of public behaviour for people in this matter, particularly where there is a temptation to abuse. Viewed from that aspect, I think the Secretary of State has approached the matter in a reasonable way. I hope that when we come to decisions on details there may be contributions from hon. Members who think that the Bill can be improved in certain ways. I think, however, that we can accept in general the principle of the Bill.

  59
  I am sure that nobody, not even the publicans today, would support the idea of drunkenness. I was told that during a football match a fortnight ago all the publicans in the vicinity closed their "pubs" at the time of the match. That indicates that they are not anxious to sell drink under any conditions. They realise that it brings disrepute on the trade if they contribute to some of the things that have been happening by the sale of drink at the time of football matches.
  Mr. William Hannan: The reason that they closed the "pubs" was that they did not want spectators to come in and wreck their premises.
  Mr. Woodburn: It is a question of this behaviour not only bringing discredit on the trade, but perhaps damage to public houses. Whatever the reason, it does not suit the trade today to encourage abuse of drinking. That is only sensible. This illustrates that the publicans themselves are imposing a ban, and, therefore, there is not even disagreement with the publicans that there should be some restraint on unlimited drinking.
  The question is: how much restraint, and where should the restraint be? The proposed permitted hours seem to be rather strange hours. Why should people drink until ten o'clock on Sunday night and then perhaps have to travel by bus to Edinburgh or Glasgow—
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Or by private car.
  Mr. Woodburn:—when it is much more dangerous on the roads after ten o'clock at night? That seems very strange behaviour indeed. I think that people, by drinking at that time on Sunday nights, are offending the sense of decency in Scotland, and that the hours should be earlier both for the sake of the barmen and other people who live in these places. If there has to be a choice, I would prefer that there should be earlier hours of opening and earlier hours of closing.
  There is great difficulty in some parts of Scotland because decent people who are visiting their relatives in the villages
  60
  cannot get on to the buses owing to the misbehaviour of those who have been drinking for long hours. I think that something should be done to encourage those who have been drinking to go home earlier. They will have a better chance of being at work next morning if they do not arrive home the night before having drunk too much.
  The permitted hours which we are now trying to alter have been compulsory in Scotland for years. I remember, as a youngster, men going home with their wages going into "pubs" on their way, and that was the last that was seen of them or of their wages until the "pubs" closed. It was really to protect wives and homes that politicians of earlier days introduced these very strict regulations. Some people, unfortunately, would still be tempted to do that, but I am glad to pay tribute to the wonderful change that has taken place, in the main, in the behaviour of people. They have more self-control and do not need parental control to the extent that used to be the case.
  I have, however, always felt that there has been a kind of class distinction as a result of these restrictions. People who go into a hotel or a place of that kind are treated as gentlemen. If they go into a standing bar they are treated as if they must be guarded, protected and nursed, and as if they were a different class of people. With the growing incomes of today nearly everybody can go into hotels. Therefore, a large part of this class distinction is disappearing.
  I have had experience of trying to improve this. It is, of course, always easy for a spectator to play the game better than the people on the field. I have no personal interest in the matter except from the point of view of the amenities of the public and of good public behaviour. It has always seemed to me that there would be less drinking if the accommodation was more civilised.
  If a man who liked a glass of beer went into a restaurant with his wife, he could have his beer and his wife could have a drink of water, or whatever it was she wanted. Wives have a great civilising influence on men. When men get together in a bar without the civilising influence of their womenfolk they behave in a way which they would not otherwise do.
  Mr. Hannan: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that many men claim that they are in the "pubs" simply because of their wives?
  Mr. Woodburn: That is an additional reason for seeing that their wives are with them. It has been proved that both in animal life and in human life the female has a great civilising influence on the more violent activities of the male.
  The first thing that we have to do is to try to provide civilised accommodation for people who want to eat or drink. I still have a horror of the sawdust bar, the spittoons and the other things which still distinguish some "pubs". When we discussed this matter before, the publicans said that they could not get permission to rebuild or improve their premises. I hope, therefore, that as a result of the Bill they will be given a further incentive to make improvements in the accommodation which they provide for their clients. Their clients spend a great deal of money with them and the State gets a good deal of revenue from the sale of drink.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: My right hon. Friend is talking about the civilising influence of wives. Would he also agree that the architecture of a public house has a good deal to do with the conduct of the people who resort to it?
  Mr. Woodburn: Of course, architects come into the question of building, and no doubt if these premises are improved architects will be consulted as well.
  If we can reduce drunkenness then we shall get rid not only of the bad behaviour which results from it, but shall also reduce the number of deaths on the roads caused by people driving cars after drinking too much.
  The question of Sunday drinking has been discussed. I agree that the Secretary of State for Scotland has interpreted correctly the minds of the people of Scotland on this matter. They do not want drinking on Sunday. They want the cities, the towns and the villages to have an air of quiet on Sunday. If people want to drink on Sunday they should drink out of sight of others and not flaunt the fact in the eyes of the public, because that is a public offence. The opening of "pubs" on Sunday would be
  62
  a flaunting of this offence and would create a public disturbance, which would be quite unjustified.
  Mr. James McInnes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Bill provides for the opening of public houses on Sunday if they have a restaurant?
  Mr. Woodburn: I have been trying to make clear that the restaurant makes all the difference. Where there is a restaurant there is less over-drinking.
  This is evident to anyone who visits a place in which people are sitting with their friends having a drink and who compares it with a place which is open for no other purpose than that of drinking. In such a place a person has to have a time and motion study rate of getting down as much drink as possible before closing time. The atmosphere is quite different in England from what it is on the Continent, and if we change the atmosphere of—
  Mr. William Baxter: My right hon. Friend says that the atmosphere is quite different on the Continent. I was looking up the statistics. I understand that the number of deaths from alcoholic poisoning in France is one every half hour of the day and night, week, month and year. Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the provision of restaurants and hotels might produce the same result in Scotland?
  Mr. Woodburn: The people to whom my hon. Friend is referring are the same type of people as the methylated spirit drinkers in Scotland. They drink absinthe in France and vodka in Russia. We must not exaggerate the matter, but we must be clear that there is no method by which the law can prevent people from committing suicide whether by contracting lung cancer through smoking, or by drinking themselves to death. They will still do these things no matter what we in Parliament decide. We ought to provide proper accommodation and civilised conditions which I think would contribute towards temperance in which I am very interested. I think that earlier Sunday closing than that proposed in the Bill would make a contribution to this end.
  I believe that the public would be opposed to drinking in dance-halls,

  63
  although I agree that a restaurant can have a dance floor and that there can be drinking there. People go to dance-halls for a mixed purpose. Where people go to dance in great crowds—it is probably the crowds which cause the trouble—a mob psychology develops. The police have to deal with crowds in a different way from which they deal with only a few people. This is, again a question of atmosphere. Those who sell drink should have the responsibility placed upon them to see that their premises are properly stewarded and that people are put out when they misbehave themselves. I believe that the trade could ensure that people are not allowed to over-drink on licensed premises. That would contribute to reducing the number of accidents on the roads.
  There is the problem of the tourists. People going to Scotland from other countries find it strange to have to conform to closely restricted hours. I think that the requirements of tourists are fairly well catered for in hotels. If they are residents they can drink when they like, and, indeed, can entertain their friends. That facility is not being interfered with. Tourists come to Scotland to see the differences that exist as compared with their own country. If we were the same as the Continent there would be no point in their coming here.
  I agree, of course, that laws are interpreted in a curious way. As the Minister said, during the war people were only allowed to drink with their meals. Hector McNeil, who was a former Secretary of State for Scotland, went with his wife to a hotel in my hon. Friend's constituency and ordered a meal. He was asked what he would drink with the meal. He replied that neither he nor his wife required a drink, whereupon he was told that they could not have a meal unless they had a drink. These matters can be interpreted in different ways, but I hope that in future there will be no misunderstanding among hotel keepers.
  I do not see how grocers' off-sales fit in with the Shops Act.
  Sir J. Duncan: They are not shops.
  Mr. Woodburn: Why should grocers' shops be allowed to sell liquor all night when people are not allowed to buy
  64
  bread? Why are they allowed to be kept open for this purpose when they are not allowed to keep open for the sale of necessities?
  I cannot see the point about the desperate need to be able to obtain drink at all hours of the night. I cannot see that shops which sell drink on the premises and are selling as licensed grocers should have to shut during non-licensed hours merely because they have drink on the premises. A part of the beautiful co-operative shop in Edinburgh is shut like a prison for so many hours a day.
  Judging from my experience in dealing with this problem, I think that the Secretary of State has steered a cautious and careful line between all the extremes. Considering all the circumstances in which he has had to work, the right hon. Gentleman has, on the whole, done a good job.
  I do not see why inspection of clubs should be carried out by a high-ranking officer in uniform. This almost prevents inspection. I also see an objection to having a uniformed policeman marching in as if someone had committed a crime. Is there any reason why inspection should not be carried out by two plain clothes men?
  Sir M. Galpern: Dressed as women.
  Mr. Woodburn: I think that it would be better to have women dressed as women.
  Mr. Bence: A civilising influence.
  Mr. Woodburn: There is no reason why we should not have women inspectors. There is no need to make the occasion appear as if someone was about to be arrested by men in uniform entering a club. I see no reason why the premises should not be inspected just as a bank is inspected by men in ordinary clothes.
  Mr. William Ross: They would be called "snoopers".
  Mr. Woodburn: An inspector is called a snooper whatever he does.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Some of us wish the same rules to apply to the inspection of clubs as apply already to hotels. There is no objection whatever to that.
  Mr. Woodburn: Anyone can walk into a hotel. He does not need permission. He can walk in as an ordinary member of the public and report anything he sees. If the proprietors are not doing anything against the law, why should they be afraid? If they are breaking the law, why should they be given notice by having a uniformed officer ringing the doorbell? It would be like the case of bookies' runners. There would be someone on the watch for the police.
  I hope that in Committee my colleagues will put matters back where they were before this Lords Amendment was made to the Bill. I hope that the Bill will make a contribution towards temperance, though I do not think that we can legislate for that and make people temperate. I hope that people will learn self-discipline and I agree that the provision of facilities for youth is one of the best ways of ensuring temperance. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take the positive as well as the negative steps which are implied in the Bill.
  5.4 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) say that conditions in Scotland are much better than they were in the days of my youth, when there was excessive dirinking. I spent the first twenty-five years of my life in Glasgow. During that time the excessive drinking was dreadful. Prices of liquor were then low. I think that one of the greatest factors in bringing about the better conditions which the right hon. Gentleman described has been the high price of drink. It has had a fine effect in curtailing drinking and changing the conditions which I saw as a young man in Glasgow.
  The outstanding feature of the Bill is the extra hours that are being permitted to be kept. I wonder why there should be a bonus of 12½ per cent., for every public house, of more time to sell drinks and more time for people to get drunk. A bonus of 47 per cent. more time is to be allowed for the off-licence premises. Good gracious, this is an amazing contribution towards increasing the profits of distillers, brewers, publicans and hotel keepers.
  66
  I heard the tribute paid by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire to the very distinguished father of the Secretary of State who did so much in his day to try to bring about a more temperate society, which was much needed. I wonder why the Bill is to provide thousands of pounds a week in increased profits. It is in the extra hour that the gross profit becomes the net profit. That always happens. Once the overheads and operational costs have been covered, gross profits become net profits, and no industry in my time has had a greater bonus than the drink trade is obtaining by this Bill. I shall oppose it throughout in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. Brewis Mr. Brewis rose—
  Sir D. Robertson: No, I do not wish to give way. I shall make only a brief speech now, but I shall speak at length in Committee. I understand that the Bill is to come before the Scottish Grand Committee, so the Whips cannot keep me off that one.
  Mr. Brewis: I have been following what the hon. Member has said and I agree with a great deal of it. But would he say that increased hours of drinking necessarily increase the amount of drunkenness? I understand that in certain countries, such as Australia, where the public houses close at 6 p.m. there is a great deal more drinking in the shorter time.
  Sir D. Robertson: On the face of it, more time to drink will allow more drink to be taken, and I think that the motive in the Bill is deliberately to allow that to happen. The licensed grocer's shop is, of course, a shop. It cannot be anything else, and to allow it to keep open to sell spirit from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. is wholly wrong. I believe that people in Scotland will regard it so.
  Mr. Ian Mat-Arthur: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that not only the Government, but Lord Guest, Miss Andrew, Mr. Borland and other distinguished ladies and gentlemen who sat on the Committee on Scottish Licensing Law were got at in some way by the distillers and brewers?
  Sir D. Robertson: I made no suggestion whatsoever about the Guest Committee. The responsibility is not that

  67
  of the Guest Committee. I know that Governments like to take refuge behind committees, but I do not accept that for a moment. I am perfectly certain that the Guest Committee did its job as its members believed it should be done, but I am surprised that the Committee did not invite the fine doctors at the Creighton Memorial Hospital, in Dumfries, to give evidence. They would have been able to tell the Committee more than anyone else about the effects of excessive drinking.
  Scotland has paid a high price for excessive drinking. Let no one delude himself that that is not the case. We have lost many fine sons and daughters who have become alcoholics. Alcoholism is an insidious thing. It is not normal food and drink. Those who drink excessively find that their faculties are affected, with the result that they drink more and more and spend more and more, and bring great unhappiness to their homes. It is the women and children who suffer.
  That is why I feel very strongly about the Bill. I hope that it will emerge from the Committee a batter Bill, because it is not a good Bill now. Drinking on Sunday nights up to ten o'clock is quite wrong.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Member seems to be under the delusion that he has a pre-emptive right to be on the Committee which will consider the Bill because, he says, it is going to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not think that we would be in order in discussing the composition of a Committee while we are discussing the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: Is it not worth pointing out that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the Bill will go to the Scottish Grand Committee? It is going to the Scottish Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman may have the same differences in relation to this Bill as he had to another.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As long as we do not turn "from the subject matter of the debate, that comment is quite in order.
  Sir D. Robertson: I will not pursue that problem further, although it is an acute one.
  The Deer Bill was discussed in the House. Although there were more deer running wild in my constituency than in anybody else's I was not called to speak in the Second Reading debate, and I sat here from the beginning to the end of the debate. I was not put on the Committee which considered that Bill. Therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will understand that I am grateful to the hon. Member for informing me that I am wrong, but I do not think that he is right. I do not think that the Press and the public, quite apart from hon. Members, would stand for any further victimisation of honest minorities.
  I repeat that the fact that drink is expensive may be a very good thing. The various other points I wanted to make can all be dealt with in Committee. I look forward to the Committee. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will make this a better Bill, because it is badly in need of that treatment. The outstanding feature of it is the additional profits which the Secretary of State is attempting to hand to the drink industry.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Although I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), I want to remind him that many of us on this side are giving support to the Bill although we have been life-long advocates of temperance. I do not think that we should oppose the Bill on Second Reading, because there are some features of it of which we approve. There are some parts of it which we hope to amend.
  The drink trade is and always has been out to make the maximum profit it can, but I do not think that it has all that it would like in this Bill. If the drink trade in Scotland or in Europe could do just as it liked and have legislation exactly as it liked, something much worse than this would be produced. That is why I say that the drink trade has not got all that it would like. The Bill goes some way towards granting the laxity and freedom the trade would like, but it also contains features

  69
  which those of us who have been advocates of temperance for many years hope to be able to amend in Committee.
  I greatly regret that the Bill was introduced at this stage, because it is based on an interim Report. There is another report to come from the Guest Committee, dealing with the whole system of the licensing of licensed premises. It would have been much better to have waited for that report and then taken the two together. The whole system of licensing has much to do with the number of licences granted. I do not see why it should be treated as a separate Measure. I understand that there will be another report later dealing with the system of licensing in Scotland. This is the wrong way to go about the job.
  I am not a native of Scotland. I have made many observations about drink during the eleven years I have been there. I find the habits of drinking in Scotland rather unpleasant. I dislike them intensely. To a certain extent I take the view that, if licensed houses were better, not so much drinking would be done. However, I cannot carry that argument too far, because the evidence is that if lovely institutions of the highest architectural qualities were built it would not have much effect in decreasing the consumption of liquor. Indeed, if the premises were made too attractive the consumption of liquor might rise.
  Public houses, especially architectually beautiful ones, both in Scotland and on the Continent, often become the centres of all kinds of derogatory behaviour as well as drinking when they are all mixed up together. That is one reason why I would oppose the licensing of dance-halls, which the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) wants.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Member said that there was a case for licensing dance halls.
  Mr. Bence: I do not think that there is such a case. The hon. Member said that there was a case for licensing dance-halls, and on the ground that people take their drink outside and come into dance-halls and cause trouble.
  Mr. McInnes: No. The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) referred to the situation in Edinburgh where public houses have dance-halls. In
  70
  Glasgow, no public house has a dance-hall.
  Mr. Bence: As I understood, the hon. Member said that people took drink in public houses and when the public houses closed they went to dance-halls and caused trouble. His argument was that if people took their drink inside dance-halls there would not be such trouble. I cannot see the logic of that argument. A dance-hall proprietor would only have to instruct his barman, "That fellow has had enough. Do not sell him any more" to start a fight. The hon. Member's assumptions were quite wrong.
  The Bill contains a Clause providing that a licensing court can refuse to grant a licence for premises on special roads. There is an extraordinary licensing situation in my constituency. In the area where I live Glasgow Corporation refuses to grant any licences. I refer to the Drumchapel and Scotstoun housing estates. Because no licence is granted in Drumchapel a man has a licence to build a public house just over the border in Westerton, which is in my constituency, where nobody wants it. Local residents in Westerton have protested. The Churches have protested. However, the licensing court has licensed this public house. The only people who will use this public house will be people from Drumchapel, because Glasgow will not grant any licences in that area. I understand that there is to be a trunk road near where this public house is to operate. The licence will be in operation when the road is built.
  This is shocking. If people go on building public houses just over the borders from Glasgow to serve housing estates where Glasgow will not grant licences, I hope that when the electors have an opportunity they will vote to have them all "turfed out". If that happens, it will teach a lesson to those who are spending money on building these places in a residential area like Westerton to serve Drumchapel.
  That brings me to the subject of clubs, licensed and general. I understand that, at present, the power to grant a licence to a registered club rests with the sheriff, and not with the licensing courts. It is the sheriff who has to decide whether the premises are suitable, and he has

  71
  to be so informed. The sheriff has to decide whether he is justified in granting a licence. I am not an advocate of licensed clubs, but I like to see that everyone gets a square deal.
  In Kirkintilloch, there is a legitimate private club, but because Kirkintilloch is a "dry" area—and I have played some part in keeping it "dry"—the local magistrates refused to sign a document saying that it was a legitimate private club. To my mind, the magistrates were there usurping the functions of the sheriff. That is quite wrong, and I hope that we shall later get a change in the Scottish law that will stop the nonsense of local magistrates usurping the functions of the sheriff.
  The Bill also deals with the carrying of liquor on certain vehicles. Some years ago at least once in a debate and at least once by Parliamentary Question, I raised in the House the matter of the sale of cocktail cabinets for use in motor cars.
  Mr. MacArthur: For use in what?
  Mr. Bence: Portable cocktail cabinets.
  At that time, I mentioned the particular showroom where those articles were displayed. Within a week they were gone, but they are still being sold. It is disgraceful to permit the sale of cocktail cabinets for use in private cars.
  The Bill says that liquor cannot be carried in bulk on vehicles, but is it not possible for coaches to have two or three of these cocktail cabinets fitted? The decanter and the glasses would then be available and the passenger would merely need to bring his own bottle of whisky. The private motorist can do the same. I would stop the manufacture and sale of these cocktail cabinets for cars.
  It is very seldom that I express the wish to be a member of a Standing Committee. Over the eleven years I have been in this House I have never expressed that wish. If, unfortunately, I am selected to serve, I attend, but I hope to be placed on the Committee that will deal with this Measure, because I am concerned not only about these cocktail cabinets but about something else.
  I heard last week that a licence was granted to a company to build an hotel
  72
  as long as it also provided a car park. We have the Minister of Transport telling motorists, each Christmas and at other times, "Do not take that drink." Then we find a licensing court telling a company that it can have a licence for an hotel on the condition that it provides a car park. That seems crazy—
  Mr. McInnes: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Bence: We do not want motorists going to public houses.
  Mr. McInnes: My hon. Friend must surely recognise that to give permission to build a large hotel without indicating the desirability of providing a car park would be utter nonsense.
  Mr. Bence: My point is that we have one Department of State advising the motorist not to take alcohol when driving, and then we have this licensing court insisting that the hotel must have a large car park—
  Mr. Manuel: This is a very interesting point, but would not my hon. Friend admit that if there were no parking place at a big hotel like that there would be an added danger of vehicles being parked on the road? We have to get the vehicles off the road, or more people will be killed than might be killed if my hon. Friend had his way.
  Mr. Bence: I would much prefer that permission should not be given to build a car park with a "pub". If people want a car park, let them have it, but do not let us have a "pub" as well. I do not want to have the two together—
  Sir M. Galpern: Does my hon. Friend realise that, as a result of the Bill, hotels will "mushroom"? Four bedrooms will become an hotel, and the hotel residents will be able to invite their private friends into the hotel. As a result, the hotel resident will have so many private friends coming to see him that it will be only reasonable to take them off the road into a private car park.
  Mr. Bence: It would be far better if the motorist were to leave his vehicle at home. That is what the Minister of Transport says, and I agree with him. The place to avoid when motoring is

  73
  the public house or hotel, and that is the soundest advice that can be given—
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I have a great deal of sympathy with ray hon. Friend's views, but people stopping at an hotel very frequently stop for a meal, and they may not drink anything at all with the meal—
  Mr. MacArthur: They sometimes stop for the night.
  Mr. Bence: But the hotel I mention is not a country hotel, or even an hotel where visitors stay the night. The hotels where I have stayed the might have generally had enclosed garage space for the hotel residents. This is a case of an hotel or public house in an urban area. There are no bedrooms, and there are no residents. It could be called a "pub" or it could be called an hotel. The licence has been granted as for an hotel but, once built, it becomes a "pub". This is an urban area. What is to be built is not a country hotel, but a "pub", and there is to be attached to it a large car park. It is a piece of sheer nonsense to do that in an urban area like Glasgow—
  Sir M. Galpern: It is not the planning authority that is insisting on the car park, but the licensing authority that grants the licence.
  Mr. Bence: That is what I said.
  In my constituency we have the Boulevard Hotel. It does not provide for residents, but it has a huge car park that is often packed with cars. I have had two "near squeaks" while coming down that road. Motorists come out of that park at half-past nine or ten o'clock at night. People know that it is a very dangerous place. The licence should not have been granted, but the cars are crowded round the hotel, and the situation is very objectionable for other motorists.
  The Bill deals also with the inspection of clubs. I see no reason why two policemen cannot walk straight into a club. I am not in favour of the police going in in plain clothes, but the owners of clubs should know that any time of the day or night two police officers can walk in and see exactly what is going on. Young people should not be
  74
  employed in clubs in any capacity. It is often a temptation for youngsters to do these jobs, because in the drink trade there is a good deal of easy money and this trade will often pay more for part-time labour than other institutions. After all, the profits are easier and quicker and there is a big temptation for young people to seek jobs in clubs and public houses where they will earn the most money.
  Those with children will have experience of this and I hope, therefore, that the inspection of these places will be strict and regular to ensure that no young people are employed in them. The same argument could be applied to off-licences and I strongly object to this idea of selling liquor from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. when, according to the Acts governing shops, milk, for instance, cannot be sold except between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. That seems a travesty of social desirability.
  In my view, licensed premises should remain open from, say, 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. For those who cannot manage to get their drink within those hours, or who cannot do without it, I feel very sorry, but to say that premises may remain open from early morning until late at night for the purpose of selling liquor is totally wrong. After all, most shops cannot even sell tobacco after 8 p.m.
  Is there anything worse than seeing broken bottles—smashed wine bottles, or small whisky bottles—lying in the roads and on the pavements? We know that people have bought bottles of liquor, have drunk from them while walking along the streets, and have then thrown the empty bottles against a wall or straight on to the ground. Many motorists have had their car tyres punctured by broken glass.
  I do not necessarily believe that a man or woman should buy drink and take it home for social drinking purposes. If they are drinking socially, in the right atmosphere, then that is better than private drinking. I have never supported the view that drinking is all right if it is done privately in one's home, or with friends. If a man and woman wish to take alcoholic drink, openly and socially in the right sort of institution and surroundings, they are entitled to do so.
  Advocates of temperance, like myself, hope that drinking will decline and that

  75
  the manufacture of alcohol will become such an unprofitable business that it will no longer be manufactured for its unfortunate victims.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. F. J. P. Lilley: When the public usually think of legislation in Parliament they consider it to be a dry subject. That certainly cannot be said about today's debate.
  It is important to remember that this Measure is designed to recognise that the public's approach to the whole question of drinking has improved considerably since earlier licensing enactments were conceived. With the exception of one or two matters, I consider that the Bill succeeds in doing exactly what it is intended should be done. It was as a result of the Committee set up by my right hon. Friend, under the able chairmanship of Lord Guest, that the feelings of the country were discovered and pronounced upon.
  From that Committee's recommendations the Government could have taken certain action. They could have presented a dressed-up version of the status quo or they could have listened to the importunings of those who thought that licensing was an anachronism. In fact, they have done neither. By their acceptance of certain recommendations and their rejection of others they have acted with maturity and integrity in such a way that their proposals have met with widespread agreement.
  Licensing was conceived for the protection of the public and not for the benefit of the licensing trade or any specialised section of the community—unless it was for the benefit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, therefore, right that the facilities made available to the public for buying liquor for consumption in their own homes from licensed grocers should be extended, as the Bill proposes. It is also right, and in accordance with public temper, that there should be no Sunday opening of public houses. It is equally right that the evil of the "bona fide traveller" should be removed, and the provisions of the Bill put in its place. The Sunday permitted hours for hotels is a sensible course and will offer better opportunity for control.
  76
  This brings me to the question of buses. I understand that an Amendment moved in another place contains something about 6 pints of alcohol being allowed to be taken on a bus and that no racks shall be provided for holding bottles. I wonder if hon. Members recall being given a badge and a bottle when joining a football club? My point is that the rights of the individual will defeat the objectives of that Amendment. I suggest, however, that the animal-like behaviour of some bus users, particularly on Sundays, has accelerated the need for the Bill. No one objects to there being drinking in buses, but it is not what happens inside a bus that worries us but what goes on outside it. It is, after all, a shocking thing that decent citizens should find themselves embarrassed by the misbehaviour of others.
  I suppose that the present position is rather stupid when one considers that at between 10,000 and 60,000 feet in the air certain facilities are provided. The same applies to train travel, and certain facilities are even provided in long-distance buses. I wonder if my right hon. Friend has considered this question of Sunday bus travel from that angle, for might not much of the trouble be removed by these facilities being provided in buses? I am sure that the bus owners and operators would enjoy this privilege because they would benefit by old people taking advantage of travelling on their buses on bright summer evenings. Such a step would also remove the difficulty of bus operators attempting to keep control over their passengers, over whom they really have no control.
  Regarding clubs, I cannot understand why we in Scotland have to accept something in our legislation which the English, in their wisdom, have rejected. I refer, of course, to club visitation by the police. I am afraid that it is becoming nearer a police State than ever before. I do not see the necessity. Why should decent. respectable clubs with responsible members suffer for the sake of a few? Surely the facilities which are already available to the police are sufficient to enable them to deal with those clubs which do not behave properly. I have never heard of any difficulty experienced by the excellent gentleman who is the Chief Constable for the City

  77
  of Glasgow. To my knowledge he has never had any trouble in dealing with these places. Therefore, why introduce a police State?
  I should now like to deal with the question of club opening hours. At the moment clubs can decide at what hours they shall be open. After all, people who use a club for lunch seldom use it in the evening, and there are other clubs which are seldom used until the evening. Therefore, why should it not be left to the members to decide their own opening times? I do not think clubs compete with hotels or with public houses.
  In that connection, I should like to refer to licensed grocers. The English Measure provides that only those over 18 years of age shall be entitled to purchase licensed commodities from off-licence establishments. I wonder whether people fully understand the essential difference between an off-licence in England and a licensed grocer in Scotland. I think not. The off-licence in England sells nothing but alcohol, whereas the licensed grocer in Scotland originally sold good food and good wine, and he has become identified with the supply of those commodities.
  A woman will often get her supplies from the nearest shop which—let us face it—may be a licensed grocer. She can buy alcohol if she wishes, but she need not do so. We should not lose sight of the distinction between the Scottish licensed grocer and the English off-licence. The licensed grocer may sell to any child 14 years of age or over. Indeed, he can sell alcohol to such a child in a receptacle of not less than one reputed pint. I would not advocate the sale of such commodities to children under 14, but I do not think that the facility should be entirely abandoned. Subject to these few observations—I hope to speak later in the Committee stage if I am called—I wish to express my admiration of the Bill. I am impressed by it, and I believe the Government have taken a good line.
  I have been looking through some earlier legislation, and I came across the preamble to a licensing enactment of a less democratic age. These are the words of that preamble, which I find rather entertaining:
  "Whereas the drinking of spirituous liquor or strong waters is becoming very common
  78
  especially among the people of lower and inferior rank, the constant and excessive use thereof tends greatly to the destruction of their health, rendering them unfit for useful labour and business, debauching their morals and inciting them to perpetrate all manner of vices. The ill consequences of the excessive use of liquors are not confined to the present generation but extend to the future and tend to the Devastation and ruin of this Kingdom."
  5.55 p.m.
  Sir Myer Galpern: I make no apology for expressing the view that this Bill engenders no warm support from myself. I do not know that there has been any great demand from any section of the community in Scotland requesting an extension of drinking hours.
  As the Secretary of State has said, the purpose of the Bill, among other things, is to provide for slightly longer permitted hours on weekdays than at present. This raises a very important question. If by extending the drinking hours we are going to reduce the amount of drinking among the community, the obvious and logical course is to open the public houses for the same hours as are proposed for the licensed grocers, from eight o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. We have already had experience of these hours. I can remember as a child when public houses were open for such period. I can remember the tremendous amount of drunkenness that took place in the City of Glasgow and elsewhere.
  I should like to share wholeheartedly the views expressed by some hon. Members that there has been a noticeable difference in the drinking habits of our people, but I regret that I am unable to do so. When I have occasion to be in the Central Station in Glasgow at 10 o'clock on a Saturday night in order to catch the London train I have seen the most disgusting behaviour, the most disgusting signs of drunkenness, with people propped up in every dark corner of the railway station and bottles strewn all over the place. On one occasion when I was there with my wife I decided that it was better to turn back in case we got into trouble. The same signs of drunkenness can be seen in other parts of the City of Glasgow, and in other areas of Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) referred to an earlier enactment. He did not mention

  79
  its year; it may have been about 1720. When we consider the effects of unlimited drinking in those days, in the light of the additional knowledge that we have today of the effects upon the human mind and behaviour we should not be in the least worried at the prospect of public houses being restricted to the present opening hours.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member has been referring to the City of Glasgow, and I get rather worried when I hear how much drinking is done in Glasgow. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow is probably one of the most sober cities in Britain, as stated by the chief constable recently?
  Sir M. Galpern: Glasgow has too high a proportion of public houses to the population, in the first instance. I believe that out of 4,000 public houses in Scotland ther are 1,088 in Glasgow, and the number is rapidly growing.
  More people are turning to drink today. I am not a teetotaller. I think I should declare my interest here. I sometimes have a sherry at Christmas and the New Year. But I maintain that more and more people are turning to drink as a result of all the advertisements which appear and the efforts which are being made on all sides, and in this Bill, to increase facilities for drinking.
  I pay a tribute to the licensed trade in Glasgow and elsewhere. Licensed traders are giving attention to the accommodation they provide and are making substantial improvements in the amenities on their premises. They are making a grand job of it, but what they are doing is tending to increase the number of young people taking alcoholic drink. Often on a Saturday night, in some parts of the city I have witnessed what I regard as a most disgusting scene, a young fellow dragging his girl, a teenage girl, into a lounge bar, as it is called. I dare say that the lounge bar is quite a nice place, but more and more young people, as a result of the advertisements which they see, are turning to drink. Young fellows feel that the lounge bar is a place where they can take their girl friends. In their innocence, they think that it is the right thing to do. They go into the lounge bar and they buy drinks. I do not know
  80
  what the drinks may be, but they are certainly something which young people should not be introduced to at such a tender age.
  There is now the suggestion that dance halls should be allowed to sell liquor, even though there may be cups of tea and sandwiches on sale at the same time. I hope that the House will flatly reject this proposal out of hand, regardless of the views of certain sections of the community and of the Scottish Ballroom Dancing Association which thinks that it should have the privilege of selling drinks. These people seem to have no concern for the effect that the extension of drinking to ballrooms would have upon the younger generation. All they are concerned about is meeting competition from the lounge bars and restaurants which provide drinks with meals. They fear that people may not turn to the dance halls so much as to the restaurants and lounge bars, and they seem to imagine that the attraction should be alcoholic drink. This is becoming the focal point of the argument. The thing that will clinch the matter for people and induce them to go to the dance hall rather than to the restaurant will be the possibility of getting drinks in the dance hall. That is the stage we have reached. Some of the speeches I have heard have given me the impression that there are those who consider that we cannot insist on this not being done. There seems to be a belief that a person cannot be happy and enjoy life to the full unless there is an extension of drinking facilities.
  I agree on grounds of administration with the idea of a separate restaurant licence. As chairman of a licensing court, I know how often a licensing court has been hoodwinked by an applicant stating that he has had many requests from this customers who wanted a drink with their meals which he could not supply because the licensing court had refused him the only licence which he could apply for, namely, a public house licence. Sometimes the members of the licensing court have succumbed to these persuasions and have agreed to grant a full public house licence, and, in a few short months of that full public house licence being granted, the restaurant has disappeared and in its place a full-blown public house without the restaurant has been established.

  81
  Therefore, from the point of view of administration, I welcome the suggestion that licensing courts should be able to take note of a story put forward in that way and be able to compel the successful applicant to stick to his restaurant licence and not convert it into a full blown public house licence.
  I join one hundred per cent. with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in saying that this was not the time to introduce the Bill. We still await the remaining portion of the report of the Guest Committee, which is bound to contain very important opinions and recommendations with regard to alterations in our present licensing system. In my view, we are putting the cart before the horse. We ought to have seen the whole picture and seen whether licensing control was to be in the hands of the sheriff or what alternative method was to be adopted before proceeding with any consideration of the extension of drinking hours.
  I do not know—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us—from what source or from whose brain emanated the idea that the people of Scotland were raring to have an extension of their licensed hours. Who asked for it? There is no mandate for it. The Government could quite well have waited until the completed Guest report was before them. Instead, they have chosen to go ahead now. However, as I say, on administrative grounds I support the proposal for a restricted certificate.
  A restaurant is defined as a place used for the purpose of habitually providing meals either at mid-day or in the evening, or both. What is to prevent a tearoom owner deciding to provide only mid-day meals and thus enabling him to apply for a drink licence? Luncheon vouchers are used nowadays by very many business concerns, and their use may soon spread so that everyone in employment will have luncheon vouchers. All the places which provide mid-day meals in exchange for such vouchers will, under the Bill, be entitled to apply for a liquor licence. Is that right? Ought we to introduce young men and girls to the idea that they can buy a drink with their midday meal if they want it? Is this extension of drinking facilities, which no one has asked for, really necessary? There
  82
  will come a stage when young people will not be able to go into a restaurant where they do not see drinks served at the table. The luncheon tables are fairly crowded now, and, whether they like it or not, they will find themselves sitting with people who have drinks. They may disapprove, but there will always be the temptation.
  I want to know more about the interpretation of the words "habitually providing" meals. Glasgow is famous for its restaurants, and other towns in Scotland have many restaurants habitually providing mid-day meals. Is there to be any indication of whether they must have four tables or 40 tables for diners? The public house owners need not worry in the least. They will be able to get permission to open on Sundays. They will provide habitually, that is to say, every day in the week, a mid-day meal for customers, even though the customers may never turn up. The publicans are not worried about that. They will put on the meals even though there is no specified number that they must provide. Even if a number is ultimately laid down—four tables, ten tables or whatever it may be—they can apply for a certificate and it will pay them to put on the meals even though the diners do not come and the food is turfed out the next day. They will habitually provide the meals even though nobody habitually comes to eat them, except on Sunday. I am reminded of the title of a recent film, "Never on a Sunday". This will be "Always on a Sunday".
  The public house people will be quite prepared to install the necessary catering arrangements to conform to the requirement that they habitually serve meals. Every public house in Glasgow will be able to do it. I know that they have to set aside a portion of the premises for providing meals, but that is no insuperable bar against a publican making whatever statutory provision is necessary. There is a great danger in this idea of allowing public houses which have a place set aside for meals to open at these extended hours.
  What about the business of travelling out of the city? In Glasgow we are not very well provided with hotels, but, as I said in an intervention, they are springing up overnight. Private houses in

  83
  exclusive residential areas are being bought for the purpose of turning them into public houses. We have had a number of instances of that. Out of 2,000 licensed hotels in Scotland, we in Glasgow have only 26. Surely that is a wholly inadequate number for members of Glasgow's population who may wish to drink on Sundays. The brewers and others in the industry see great prospects here. They are beginning to provide premises with the minimum of residential accommodation because they do not expect that many people will spend the night, but nevertheless they want to conform to the legal definition of a hotel. Premises like this are springing up all over the place.
  Until the needs of people in Glasgow to drink on a Sunday, as estimated by the Secretary of State or by the Government, are met, they will have to travel outside the city. How will they do that? We know that more and more people are buying cars.
  Mr. James Dempsey: They are coming in bus parties.
  Sir M. Galpern: They may do that in Lanarkshire.
  Mr. Dempsey: Bus parties are coming from Glasgow to Lanarkshire in order that people may drink, especially at weekends. I was hoping that my hon. Friend would direct his attention to that aspect of the matter.
  Sir M. Galpern: People will continue to do that because Glasgow has not enough hotels. People will continue to go outside the city, not only in buses but in private cars.
  No one can scientifically say that by taking alcohol with a meal one is in any way minimising or offsetting the effects of alcohol on the brain. Therefore, we shall have the spectacle of publicans closing their premises at ten o'clock on Sunday nights, people will begin to drive homewards, whether it be to Coatbridge and Airdrie, to Edinburgh or to Aberdeen, and no one will be able to say whether those people, who had been drinking in public houses from three o'clock, or whatever the time is, until ten o'clock will be in a
  84
  fit state to be competent to drive on the road even though they have had a meal.
  This House took immediate notice of the report of the Medical Research Council on cigarette smoking. In that case a person decides for himself whether he should stop smoking or continue smoking, perhaps thereby doing himself harm. He is the captain of his own soul. He decides whether he dies at an early age or stops smoking. The question of whether public houses should be open on Sunday is a more iniquitous business. By driving after drinking, people are taking not only their own lives in their hands but the lives of other people whom they may maim, injure or kill. If we are prepared to say that it is wrong for people to smoke, surely we should take positive steps to minimise and not extend the facilities for drinking.
  I come to the question of licensed grocers. I am sorry that the Bill does not define a licensed grocer. His prime purpose was to sell groceries and his drink counter was a sideline. Nowadays, they have cut out the groceries. They call themselves licensed grocers, but in fact they sell nothing but drink. There should be a Clause in the Bill to the effect that only people who also sell groceries can legally call themselves licensed grocers. Only those who give a full grocery service to the public should be entitled to sell drink; and they should be restricted to the present hours, because I think that they are ample. There are people who have no interest in providing a grocery service but whose shops are purely off-sales departments.
  I now turn to the question of police supervision of registered clubs. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to help us on this. As has been pointed out, we have not a sufficient number of people with the rank of inspector to carry out the work. That should be patent to everybody. Perhaps two constables who may equal one sergeant or one sergeant alone should be empowered to inspect premises. They require a lot of inspection today and will require even more in future.
  It is wrong that drink should be available on Sundays on vessels plying on the Clyde. We had this at one time. Why did we stop it? It is not as though we propose to start something which

  85
  we have not had before and of which we have not had experience. We all know what happened on these Sunday outings to Dunoon and Rothesay. What was supposed to be a Sunday outing with the family degenerated into something quite different from the father's point of view. He was supposed to be below watching the engines, whereas in fact he was getting into a helpless state, and making it, not a pleasant Sunday outing for the family, but an event which would not be eradicated easily from the memory of his wife or children.
  It is no good saying that we are better educated now in our drinking habits. We are still drinking. People who thought they knew all about the amount of liquor which they could carry, on going into the fresh air, went out for the count. We shall probably be told that if we are to have drinking on Sundays it is only logical that it should be allowed on steamers. But in that case drinking is done in a very confined space. If a person gets drunk on a steamer, he becomes objectionable not only to his family but to all the other passengers on the ship. It is unpleasant for anyone who wishes to spend a Sunday afternoon on an excursion on the Clyde to have to suffer from this sort of thing. I hope that this provision will be withdrawn. Surely people can wait until the evening and have a meal in a licensed public house.
  Mr. John Rankin: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is illogical to restrict the consumption of alcohol on the roads and at the same time to make it more easily obtainable at sea?
  Sir M. Galpern: I shall not follow that argument now.
  There is no doubt that this Bill will have to be watched very carefully and, I hope, attenuated in Committee. I condemn it because there has been no request by the Scottish people for the extensions which it proposes. I feel that it will lead to an increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquor, whether it be in the form of beer, wines or spirits. In my opinion, the consumption of alcohol has been rising steadily during the past few years. The Bill makes no effort to restrict the amount of advertising of liquor through the various media. On the contrary, its purpose is
  86
  to extend drinking habits. I hope that the Government will reconsider it and will try to respect Scottish feelings and not proceed with a number of the Clauses in the Bill.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: There has been a noticeable falling away in the temperature of the welcome given to the Bill in the last couple of hours and I hope that I can do something to raise it a little. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), who I know holds his views strongly and sincerely, painted a dismal picture of the Central Station, Glasgow, on a Saturday night and I have some sympathy with him in what he says. I find it difficult, however, to accept that a marginal extension or reduction in permitted hours would affect the incidence of drunkenness, for the reason that I believe that the sort of uncontrolled or uncontrollable minority whom the hon. Member described will get drink whether the facilities are extended or reduced.
  Surely, the outstanding feature in all this in Scotland over the last decades has been a marked improvement in the behaviour of people in their drinking habits and the way in which moderation has increasingly replaced immoderation in these matters. I hope that the hon. Member is mistaken in his forecast of boozing cruising down the Clyde. I find it extremely difficult to think that habits of the kind that the hon. Member described would return today. I hope that he is wrong.
  The Bill sets out to make sense of nonsense and to reform some existing laws and customs which are out of keeping with life today. For example, the bona fide traveller ruling is to be abolished. This will remove an anomaly which has brought the law into disrepute. If one narrow section of the law is regarded as an ass, wider aspects of the law can easily fall into disrepute also.
  Many years ago, there was, perhaps, sense in providing that a traveller should be enabled to buy refreshment at the end of a journey of more than three miles. The whole method of travelling has, however, changed and the continuance of the old horseback ruling has led to the mass movement of people on

  87
  Sunday from one place to another to qualify as bona fide travellers by making a journey of just over three miles.
  In the constituency of an hon. Friend whom I dare not name, there is an hotel just three miles and one furlong out of a town. Every Sunday, one sees the bus parties going in and out. They sign the book. I have looked through the list of names and seen that the same party makes this deliberate journey week after week. Hon. Members will know that to keep within the law and custom, the Scot has to make a journey of three miles and one furlong—
  Mr. T. Fraser: That is not the law.
  Mr. MacArthur:—that is the custom—before he can buy a drink. Having made the journey, he is then enabled, by observance of the law and custom, to drink for the full twenty-four hours of the day.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the hon. Member aware that if, under the existing law, a Scot travels three miles and one furlong, or five miles and one furlong, and goes to a place where there is an hotel, and goes in and takes a drink and then returns to his home, he is thereby breaking the law, and that Scots are regularly prosecuted for doing this?
  Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member is quite right. I said that to be within the law, it is necessary to travel three miles and one furlong to have a drink at the end of the journey. The custom, however, is this regular breaking of the law—which, I agree, is not observed—by the journey of three miles and one furlong, and then the journey back, because the law is not capable of checking on the return journey. That is one of the reasons why the law is in a state of disrepute.
  The Bill also tackles the problem of the drinking and often drunken bus outing. After its journey through another place, Clause 20 of the Bill emerged as it now appears. The heart of the Clause is in subsection (5), which attempts to place a limitation on the bulk carriage of excisable liquor in a contract vehicle. I doubt very much whether this subsection will achieve the objective of stopping the drunken bus
  88
  outing. I share the view of other hon. Members who have made the point. It is, however, difficult to think of any better limitation that would achieve the object without interfering intolerably with individual liberty.
  It has been implied that that difficulty might be overcome by banning the carriage of the bottle in the pocket, for example. There are, however, circumstances in which the carriage of a bottle, a half-bottle or a "nip", in the pocket would be justified and socially acceptable. I think, for example, of a man coming off the ski slope at Glenshee, to go back in a bus to Dundee or wherever he started from, with a flask in his pocket from which he takes a "nip". Nobody would object to that. That is the sort of difficulty in the way of fulfilment of what, I am sure, all hon. Members want to achieve. The Bill makes a gesture. I hope that it will not replace the inoperable by something which is equally inoperable.
  The main departure of the Bill from the recommendations of the Guest Committee is in the matter of the Sunday opening of public houses. The Bill does not carry out the recommendation that public houses, hotels and restaurants should have the same standard hours on Sundays throughout the three groups. I appreciate that there are many and sincerely-held objections to this recommendation of the Committee. Among the objectors are the Church of Scotland, to which I belong, the publicans and many other bodies.
  I have received a number of requests from constituents, as, I imagine, all hon. Members have done, that public houses should not have permitted hours on Sundays and I have put all these before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is, however, only right that I should state my personal view that if hotels and restaurants are to be permitted to open on Sundays, there must be a strong case, if only in equity, that public houses should have the same facilities. As I have said, I appreciate the deep and sincere opinion of those who take a different view from mine, and I believe that this is a matter in which the wider public opinion must be observed.
  It seems clear that public opinion, so far as it has been judged, is opposed to the Sunday opening of public houses.

  89
  If that is so, my right hon. Friend must be right in his reluctance to take action that would run contrary to the majority of public opinion in Scotland as it has been expressed.
  In these matters, one must take careful note of the social and religious viewpoint of so many people. I hope, however, that this matter will be looked at again in the future in the light of changing habits and changing public opinion and in the light, too, of the standard of amenity and atmosphere which public houses will offer to the public at the time.
  I agree that many public houses in Scotland are not social places in the accepted sense. They are not places to which one could contemplate taking one's wife or girl friend. I hope that the steady improvement in the amenities of public houses in Scotland will extend and, perhaps, lead in time to a state of opinion in which the Sunday opening of the public houses will be possible.
  There is one other point I should like to make, and this concerns clubs and, in particular, the sporting clubs, the clubs which provide facilities for golf, rugby, curling, and so on. In this sort of establishment the club element is incidental to the provision of the sport, and, indeed, the profits from the bar tend to keep down the cost of the provision of the sport for the members of the club. At present the permitted hours of clubs are laid down in Section 124 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959. The effect of this, broadly, is to allow clubs to fix their own hours within certain limits. There is a large measure of elasticity in this. Under the new Bill clubs will have to adopt the hours laid down for all licensed premises, that is 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said earlier that he was a staunch adherent of the principle that hours should be standard throughout all establishments which are enabled to be open, although later in his speech he did, I think, make some concession towards the club which exists for sporting facilities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give very urgent thought to this matter. I am sure that he will. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to write to me recently to say that it was
  90
  his hope that something could be done which would help the clubs in this respect. It does seem hard that there should not be a facility for different hours in summer and winter, when one considers the effect of the early fall of night—on the golf club, for example.
  There is another case which has not yet been mentioned, that of the ice rinks. There is a large ice rink in Perth—one, I think, of eight similar establishments in Scotland—which has a particularly strong case to put forward. It provides seven curling sections which accommodate altogether 56 players at one time. One of the change-over periods is four o'clock, so that at four o'clock there are 56 people coming on and 56 people coming off, in theory, and it seems a little unreasonable that those coming off, at least, should not be able to have a drink before going back to their homes, especially so as many of those who come make a very long journey indeed.
  I would hope that some elasticity could be introduced for these clubs. There are many of this kind, which are well conducted, and they should not, I think, have a privilege which is already theirs removed abruptly by this Bill.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the hon. Member think that ice hockey may be improved if the two sides have half a dozen glasses of whisky before they start?
  Mr. MacArthur: I thought that the hon. Member would make a point of that kind. It seems quite reasonable that men coming off the golf course at four o'clock on a winter's afternoon or coming off the ice rink at four o'clock should not have to hang around till five o'clock to get a drink.
  Subject to these considerations, which, I know, will be gone into in Committee, I welcome this Bill, which, in its general principle, I believe, puts sense back into a series of laws which are widely held to be in disrepute.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) indicated that this Bill makes sense of nonsense. One can only do that if one abolishes nonsense, and we have not done that either here or anywhere

  91
  else. Therefore, I cannot find myself in agreement with the hon. Member on many of the aspects which he raised. Candidly, I felt that some of the points he referred to showed this sort of attitude of mind, that one can legislate for everybody so long as the legislation does not affect oneself or one's friends. That was the impression he gave, and, indeed, it was typical of all the speeches from the benches opposite.
  I think I must agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), who, like myself, is unable to appreciate the haste with which this Bill has been introduced. The Guest Committee has still two major issues upon which to report. It has still to report on the composition or constitution of licensing courts, and its second problem is the question of the granting of licences on housing estates. Both of those issues are extremely important indeed. The second issue, of reporting on the question of public houses on housing estates, is vital to the City of Glasgow, because no fewer than 300,000 people live on Glasgow's housing estates and there is not a single "pub" on one of them. And I am proud of those housing estates. I really am. I do not pretend to be a teetotaller, but I am nevertheless proud of those housing estates. I think we should have got a better overall picture of the licensing situation in Scotland had we deferred this Bill till we received the report on the two issues which the Guest Committee is still considering.
  I recognise that our licensing laws are laws to which people bring the most strong opinions, based sometimes on religious considerations and, on the other hand, sometimes on wider considerations. These opinions are very deeply held. It is inevitable, therefore, that many of the provisions in this Bill have provoked hostility from so many people. On the other hand, it has met with—shall I say?—a fair measure of acceptance.
  I hold the view that in our social legislation the aim must be to strike the right balance between the restraints which are still necessary to prevent abuses or social mischief and legitimate demands for individual freedom of choice and behaviour in an adult and responsible society. I believe that this
  92
  Bill attempts—I go no further than that—to achieve that objective in so far as it contains a measure of social reform designed to bring an aspect of our social legislation up to date and in keeping with modern demands. I agree with many of the provisions in the Bill, but I violently disagree with many other provisions. I think most hon. Members feel the same. I have never before heard so many hon. Members claiming to serve on the Committee to consider a Bill. Almost every hon. Member wants to be on it.
  I welcome the prohibition of the carrying of liquor in crates or containers by organised bus parties, but we would be fools indeed if we imagined for one moment that this prohibition would solve the problem of organised bus parties, particularly on Sundays. Organised bus parties on Sundays are a menace and a positive disgrace.
  I welcome the introduction of more severe penalties for a person who knowingly sells drink to young persons under 18, either on or off the premises. I regret that drunkenness among young people has increased in recent years. I realise that this problem cannot be solved by legislation, but the existing penalties of £1 for the first offence and £2 for a second offence are far too low and ineffective. I therefore welcome the proposed penalties of £25 for the first offence and £50 for subsequent offences.
  I am opposed to these suggested permitted hours in respect of off-sale licences. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note that almost every hon. Member who has so far participated in the debate has expressed dissatisfaction with the permitted hours in respect of off-sale licences. It seems incredible that we should tolerate such premises opening from eight o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock in the evening, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position. I do not think that anyone can justify the proposed hours.
  I particularly welcome the ending of the notorious bona fide traveller privilege and its replacement by a system of permitted hours for hotels. I am not, however, attracted to the provisions of this part of the Bill by which the holder of a public house licence, if his premises are structurally adapted and bona fide

  93
  used for the purpose of habitually providing meals at midday or in the evening, will be authorised to supply liquor on the premises to persons taking a meal, remembering, of course, that this applies also to Sundays. There may be a case for this, but I sincerely hope that we are not opening the door too wide, so wide in fact that we may eventually find ourselves in the position of witnessing the mushroom growth of public houses with restaurants attached to them all over the country, because if that happened all we would do would be to provide vastly increased opportunities for Sunday drinking.
  Mr. Brewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the public house has to be held to be bona fide used or intended to be so used?
  Mr. McInnes: I specifically said that it had to be so used. If there is a tremendous increase in premises of this type, it will be extremely difficult for our policemen to exercise the necessary supervision.
  Mr. Brewis: Surely the licensing court would deal with the position by not renewing the licence?
  Mr. McInnes: That is one reason why I wanted the Bill deferred until we had an opportunity to discuss what the Guest Committee had in mind about the constitution of the licensing court.
  It will be necessary to have a meal to get a drink, and now we come back to the question of what constitutes a meal. Is a sandwich on its own a meal? Does a cocktail sausage constitute a meal? There are restaurants in Glasgow—and I am sure that my hon. Friends the Member for Shettleston, the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) and the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Forman) will agree with this—where a sixpenny plate of chips constitutes a meal. Will it be possible to get a drink in such places?
  I now deal with registered clubs. There are many genuine registered clubs in Scotland in which people enjoy themselves. There are, however, many clubs where people are merely made members at the door of the club. These clubs are little more than drinking dens. I appreciate that Clause 16 makes provision
  94
  for the police to supervise registered clubs, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman has rather restricted the opportunities of the police to carry out proper supervision because he has laid down that the inspection must be carried out by a police officer of the rank of inspector. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are many areas in which there are a number of licensed premises, but in which there is no inspector of police. This provision will operate only in the four large cities, and even then it will be difficult to carry it out. I share the opinion of other hon. Members and prefer the original idea that two police constables should be permitted to carry out such inspections and should be given the power an entry.
  I deal next with permitted hours. I gather that there is a considerable body of opposition to the first period of permitted hours, namely, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. From the inquiries that I have made, it seems that most people would prefer the hours to be 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. I think that the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) raised this point. Incidentally, the period from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. is the suggested period for Sunday opening. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is a great volume of opinion in favour of those hours. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay due regard to that weight of opinion.
  The Bill makes no reference to public houses which have dance-halls. Other hon. Members have raised this matter. As far as I understand, there is no provision for the granting of licences to dance halls, as such. I believe that some Edinburgh public houses have attached to them accommodation where dancing is permitted, and I further understand that no admission charge is made to those dance-halls provided that the would-be dancers have bought drinks. If that is the case, I would favour the introduction of legislation to deal with that situation. Dance-hall proprietors in Glasgow and elsewhere are anxious to obtain liquor licences for their premises. Glasgow has a local by-law which prohibits music in public houses, which prevents dancing taking place there.
  I give a general welcome to the Bill, in that it is a much-needed improvement

  95
  upon the existing licensing laws. The Secretary of State can be assured that on many issues he will receive my strong support.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Henderson: I want to express on my behalf, and on behalf of many other hon. Members and the people of Scotland, satisfaction at the fact that we are not following England's example in allowing public houses to open on Sundays. Like other hon. Members, I have received many postcards from constituents expressing disapproval of the suggestion that drinking hours should be extended. It has been said that drinking is on the increase in Scotland. That may be so, but I do not think that drunkenness is anything like what it was forty or fifty years ago.
  One aspect of the problem that causes many people a great deal of anxiety is the amount of drinking that is shown on television. It gives the impression that the liquor trade has some sort of influence in the matter. The extensive advertising of drinking in the Press, on the hoardings, on television and elsewhere seems partly responsible for the increase in drinking, especially among young people. It is impossible to go to any social function or into the lounge of any hotel where drinking is allowed without being aware of the many young people who seem to be drinking alcohol. If the extension of permitted hours is going to increase their numbers it will be bad for Scotland.
  I believe that in Committee an Amendment will be moved to provide for drinking in dance-halls. I represent a Glasgow constituency, and Glasgow has some big dance-halls. The possibility that drinking may be allowed in those places causes me a great deal of concern. I fear that disturbances may break out. Not long ago I saw a television programme in which two or three teen-agers were asked how they obtained their partners at dance-halls. They all said that they went to the dance-halls with friends and then sat or stood round about. In due course a male would advance and would ask for a dance. One girl was asked, "Do you ever refuse?" She said, "Very seldom. I generally dance if I am asked." Let us consider what might happen in such a
  96
  dance-hall if a young man were permitted to drink. After three or four drinks he might lose all sense of proportion. He might go up to a young maiden and ask her to be his partner. She might smell the alcohol on his breath and refuse, which would probably make him feel hurt. I can visualise an enormous amount of trouble being created in dance halls if alcoholic liquor is allowed to be sold on the premises.
  Not long ago a dance-hall proprietor in Glasgow telephoned me and asked me to support the proposal that liquor licences should be issued to dance-halls. He said that the number of people who attended dance-halls in these days was much smaller than it was five or ten years ago. He blamed that on the fact that many hotels had dinner-dances on Saturday nights, and attracted his clients away, because they were able to sell liquor. I do not believe that that is the cause. Many former supporters of football clubs have given up going, because of other attractions. A dance-hall may have lost some of its patrons because they now have motor cars and can go into the country or to the seaside on Saturdays and enjoy God's fresh air. I do not believe that attendances at dance-halls would further diminish if liquor licences were refused. I appeal to Members who represent rural areas to picture the difficulties that would arise if liquor licences were given to dance-halls in the large towns and cities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) mentioned ice rinks and golf clubs. He might have mentioned football clubs. People who watch football matches often have to stand for one and a half hours on a cold winter's day, with the rain coming down. They cannot go into a pavilion for a drink. Let us suppose that we granted extended licensing hours to golf clubs. We should then be inundated with applications from all kinds of other sporting organisations to be allowed to sell alcohol with meals on their premises.
  Sir J. Duncan: There is no question of additional hours. The suggestion is that there should be alternative hours.
  Mr. Henderson: As far as I am aware, the application for dance-hall licences in the City of Glasgow is quite new.
  Sir J. Duncan: I was referring to golf clubs.
  Mr. Henderson: The subject of police inspection of clubs has been mentioned. I do not see how exception could be taken to police inspection of clubs. If everything is in order and above-board, there can be no objection, but if there is something wrong and contrary to regulations, then the police have their duty. In this respect the Bill is on sound ground.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the extension of hours. My home is about 50 or 75 yards from a golf club and at ten o'clock at night it is almost impossible to cross the road because of the enormous amount of traffic from the golf course. Most of the players have motor cars. I suppose that about 90 per cent. of the people who play golf go to the course by car, many of them travelling considerable distances from their homes. With the enormous and increasing amount of traffic now on the roads, an extension of hours to places like that golf club will mean greater danger to the motorists themselves and to the community.
  The Secretary of State is trying to tidy the dissatisfactory state of the law at the moment. I have no doubt that improvements will be made in Committee, but I welcome the Bill as a whole.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: In welcoming some aspects of the Bill, it is only fair that I should say that it does not go far enough towards an effective control of the sale of liquor throughout Scotland. It is fair to infer that the Bill has been hastily prepared, because it deals with two of the most important institutions governing the sale of liquor in Scotland and yet we have not had the opportunity of hearing the views of the impartial Guest Committee on the operation of those institutions—the licensing courts and the courts of appeal.
  The control of the sale of drink goes much further than is covered by the Bill. Hon. Members have referred to the encouragement to young people and others to indulge in drink which is presented by certain commercial activities almost as a sort of unique culture. We must remember that other legislation
  98
  would require to be strengthened to ensure the success of what can be welcomed in the Bill.
  Last week, I received a complaint from very important public people allegng that there was scarcely a television programme in which several bottles, and therefore several glasses with the bottles, were not available. I heard a well-known lady say that even the ladies' favourite programme, "Emergency Ward 10" usually had a fiesta of drink associated with it. Some people are at a loss to understand how the "doctor" can perform some of his operations after so much drink. These episodes are complementary to the more serious parts of the programme. The Secretary of State might well have held his horses a little longer, waiting for a comprehensive expression of opinion on the problem of the sale of drink in Scotland.
  One or two hon. Members have declared their interest and perhaps I should declare mine. I am a teetotaller, an orange and soda fan.
  Mr. Ross: We will tax you.
  Mr. Dempsey: I shall be paying 15 per cent. tax. I recently had the pleasure of attending a very important function in London as a Member of Parliament. When the attendants came round in their white jackets and with their trays holding rows of all sorts of drinks and concoctions, I asked for an orange and soda. They looked astounded and assured me that in that part of London they did not cater for that sort of drink, nor my type of drinker.
  I want to make it quite clear, however, that I believe that there is a demand for drink, but such demand should be in moderation, and thus the aim of the Bill should be to eliminate abuses and excesses. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) say that there was a byelaw in Glasgow which prohibited entertainment and music in Glasgow public houses on Saturday nights. I can assure him that there were music and jolly good entertainment in Glasgow's public houses last Saturday night to celebrate the spectacular victory of Scotland over England.

  99
  At any rate, the Bill attempts to deal with some of the anomalies of present legislation. Those of us connected with the administration of the present law have always been concerned about the so-called bona fide traveller. Nobody has ever been able to define this unknown warrior and I am glad that he has disappeared from our legislation.
  The Explanatory Memorandum says that a first object of the Bill is:
  "In particular, the grant or refusal of an application for a certificate will be at the discretion of the licensing court."
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the way in which the licensing courts are now operating. Has he examined their performances and their attitude towards the application of the present law concerning the sale of intoxicating liquor? I am sure that if he does make such an examination, he will have second thoughts about continuing with licensing courts. I am always at a loss to understand why in Scotland it is the sheriff who deals with the clubs and the licensing court which deals with the pubs. My experience over many years is that it would be better for the sheriff to deal with the "pubs" as well as the clubs.
  It is known for a fact that in some instances certain pressure groups have been able to anticipate in advance some of the decisions of some of the courts which, in their quasi-judicial capacity, have had to hear the evidence for and against and then decide to refuse or grant a licence. That is most regrettable.
  The Secretary of State should not have rushed this Bill to the House of Commons until the Government had obtained the views of the all-important, competent people who have yet to report on this aspect of licensing. The appeal courts which operate at present are an institution which could be eliminated in my opinion. I should welcome the Secretary of State considering the proposition that his Department should determine appeals because appeal courts are subject to similar pressure groups. In some cases there are even riggings of some regrettable decisions. Just as the Secretary of State's Department deals with planning appeals, it would deal with this kind of appeal.
  100
  The Secretary of State's Department consists of impartial officers who would give fair and objective decisions in matters of this nature. That type of approach to licensing as an alternative to the existing licensing court and appeal court could be quite compatible with the assimilation of local opinion on questions of granting or refusal of licences and it is worth exploring. At present the sheriff has to have some local knowledge before he grants or refuses club licences. It is surely reasonable that the same sheriff, from the same sources, could obtain the local point of view about public house licences. I suggest that these alternatives to the existing establishment for determining this aspect of licensing should be considered.
  I wish to make it abundantly clear that I am very much concerned with the permitted hours for off sales. Many such premises are detached from public houses. They have a separate entry and indeed are a separate entity. Premises of that kind should be brought within the jurisdiction of the Shop Hours Act. Why should any human being be expected to stand from eight o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night, with hours off in the morning and afternoon, in order to supply the general public?
  If it is desired to provide these facilities they should be provided in the same way as those in shops. Shops are open until seven o'clock at night in Scotland. Once a week, on the late night, they remain open until eight o'clock. I speak as a former shop assistant. I know that when a shop is open until six o'clock at night many people come in at five minutes to six and when they remained open until eight o'clock on the eve of national holidays, the same people came in at five minutes to eight. Late shopping is a bad habit, nothing less. It would be fairer to the sweated labour, which we are encouraging by these provisions, if the hours were related to those which apply under the Shop Hours Act.
  As one who has had experience of the administration of the police, I am glad that the police are to have some legal authority and some statutory powers to supervise the operation of clubs. This is a welcome provision in

  101
  the Bill. It has always seemed to me ridiculous that the police force in any police authority area had no power whatever to ensure the supervision of club premises which have licences to sell excisable liquor.
  I regret, however, that the Secretary of State insists on a restriction which will make this part of the Bill most difficult to operate. That restriction is that the police officer concerned must not be below the rank of an inspector. I am unable to understand the argument in relation to this ranking supervision. It must be obvious to the Government Front Bench that in Scotland some police forces are very small. One force, I believe, has only 26 or 28 men. It would in all probability have only one inspector.
  Mr. Lilley: What sort of clubs is the hon. Member talking about? As a Scotsman he must know about golf. Surely he has heard of the man who has holed in one? It would be sacrilege not to allow that man to have a drink at the club.
  Mr. Dempsey: I have made it clear that I do not object to the sale of liquor in moderation, but there are several types of club. There is the poor miner, coming up from the bowels of the earth. According to the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley), that miner should be able to weigh in at any time and have a drink on the way home.
  Mr. Lilley: Why not, if he wants to?
  Mr. Dempsey: The point is that if we argue for indiscriminate drinking in Scotland we shall leave ourselves wide open to the abuses which I have been condemning. Many people do not usually take refreshments; they wallow in drink. They have not adopted the habit of "cultural drinking", if it can be so described.
  Scotland has several counties in which ther are very small police forces. Surely two officers who are administering part of an area should be capable of supervising the clubs in it. It would not be practicable to have to wait for an inspector who is in charge of a subdivision of a police force. Two constables can supervise the local hotel and the local "pub". They can see that the
  102
  licensee is abiding by the law. In my view, there is nothing to hinder those same two officers in the course of their duty supervising the local club.
  Before he finally determines this issue, I ask the Secretary of State to study the problem of the actual police forces some of which have fewer than a hundred men, and also to take into consideration the geography of the areas they cover. I take it that hydro-electric workers are as much entitled to their clubs as are golfers. This appears to be an unnecessary police restriction incorporated in the Bill, this insistence on a police officer of the rank of inspector and upwards before effective supervision can be ensured.
  I want also to mention the question of the supply of drink to young persons. The Bill makes it clear that if a licensee knowingly supplies a young person, or someone at the bar knowingly orders up for a young person, or if a young person wilfully purchases a drink and takes it outside the premises, he is committing an offence. I wonder if the Under-Secretary of State has considered how he intends to apply this Clause. How is a licensee expected to know whether a person is 18, 19 or 20, or 18, 17 or 16? How does he ascertain this information? What steps must be taken, for example, by the person who is spending a night at the local to satisfy himself that a certain person is not more than 18 years of age. It is extremely difficult. Frankly, I do not know how it can be applied.
  Those of us who happen to attend some sporting event on Saturdays see these young people. Some of us think that they are very young. Today young people seem to retain their youth much longer and look only 18 when they are much older than 18. It is rather difficult for a person who has merely called in to "have one" before he goes home to be able to detect the age of young people.
  Mr. Bence: Would my hon. Friend not agree that in many cases today young people, especially young women and young girls, of 16 or 17 look as if they were 20, 22 or 23?
  Mr. Dempsey: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's contention. That makes it all the more difficult to apply this Clause. How is anyone in good

  103
  faith, whether he is the licensee or one of the locals calling in for "one" before he goes home, to determine the age of a young person? It is utterly impossible; yet he can be charged with an offence. I should like the Under-Secretary to explain how this Clause is to be implemented. Is he to insist on birth certificates if there is any doubt about the age of young boys or young girls? I am certainly all in favour of taking the strongest possible action to try to prevent the sale of liquor to young people.
  Mr. Brewis: The Clause relates to anyone who unwittingly supplies liquor to a young person.
  Mr. Dempsey: That renders the provision completely inoperative. Anyone can say that he did not know. That is the very thing that I am complaining about. It is not emphatic enough or effective enough to control the sale of drink to young people in Scotland. I am not a spoil-sport, but I believe it never does young people very much good to indulge at such an early age in the consumption of alcoholic liquor with its harmful consequences.
  Mr. Bence: Nor at any time.
  Mr. Dempsey: I agree. I can let my hair down on orange and soda water. Does not the Under-Secretary realise that the campaign to control the supply of drink to young people really starts earlier than 16, 17 or 18? Should it not start from the schools? In their last years of the scholastic life should we not be pointing out to pupils the horrors of drinking?
  Mr. Bence: And of smoking.
  Mr. Dempsey: Or are the vested interests in the drink trade so great that they control this machine in Scotland at present? Not a week elapses without our reading of some school banning former pupils' dances because of the excess drinking that takes place at these functions. There are very few exceptions to this rule. There is something radically wrong, in my view, that the pupils at these dances—when one knows that the bulk of them are under eighteen—should be sold drink. It would appear to me that the effort to control this
  104
  iniquitous pleasure has to be much more comprehensive than detailed in the Bill. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider these implications and how this aspect of the Bill affects the scholastic life of young people attending our secondary schools in Scotland.
  There is another factor which disturbs me. Clause 14 refers to the sale of certain types of liqueur chocolates without a licence. This is a bone of contention in certain parts of Scotland. I am very gratified to know that many associations—there is one in my own constituency—exercise considerable vigilance over the sale of what are known as intoxicating sweets. In my part of Lanarkshire we find that this practice is growing. I think that it is to be regretted. I would certainly have felt more strongly in favour of the Bill had it included a provision that liqueur chocolate would not be sold without licence in shops. Indeed, I do not think it should be sold in ordinary shops at all. In my view, if there is any sweet or other palatable item which contains intoxicants, it should be sold only in places where there are licences for the sale of intoxicants in general. I would, therefore, urge the Under-Secretary to have another look at this Clause and to consider very thoroughly the whole question of the sale of this type of sweet. I believe that these sweets should not be sold in places that are not registered for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
  Licensing a dance-hall can really become a menace. Anyone can promote a dance in a dance-hall and, under certain circumstances, apply for and receive a special licence to sell intoxicating liquor, thus meeting this demand. Licensing, on the other hand, can lead to many glaring abuses and to the incorporation of a "pub" in a dance-hall. Goodness knows, at present we are degraded enough from incident after incident as a result of drunkenness in ballrooms in Scotland. I hope that the Secretary of State will be strong and courageous, that he will not wilt to the pressure of the licensing trade in Scotland, that he will insist that the dance-hall is for the purpose of dancing, entertainment and enjoyment, and that in no circumstances will he agree to it becoming a glorified public house.

  105
  The Bill reveals that there are many weaknesses in the present law. I welcome some of the provisions and criticise others. The Bill is in great danger of becoming like a fisherman's net, a lot of holes tied up with string. We must avoid that danger. It was to be hoped that the Bill would eliminate the archaic practices in Scotland generally in the sale of intoxicating liquor. That should be the purpose of the Bill and it should be deliberately couched in such a way as to avoid all excesses and abuses in drinking.
  The Bill should have as its kernel an effort to allow people to enjoy themselves in moderation whilst on the other hand exercising strong statutory authority to prevent harmful effects on young people and in general to ensure that Scotland can be trained in the art, if it can be so called, of ordinary drinking in moderation.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), as usual, has made a reasonable speech. He has admitted himself to be an abstainer but at the same time he has not pushed his teetotal principles too far and he is prepared to countenance the principles held by others.
  Although I am a lawyer I do not think that a sheriff is the right man to hand out licences. It is better left to the licensing court on the spot whose members know the local conditions, the number of existing licences, and the needs of tourism. The hon. Member was right in many of the things he said about young people, but I thought that he was a trifle niggling about liqueur chocolates which in any event could not be served to young people under 16. If a young person over 16 wants to get drunk he will choose a much easier way than buying a lot of chocolates which will cost him pretty well a king's ransom before he gets drunk on them.
  We are discussing a difficult subject. In many oases the consumption of alcohol can he a social pleasure, it can be a sovereign remedy for many ills, but it can also be a diabolical disgrace which leads to alcoholism, that appalling disease, deaths on the road and to ultimate human degradation if it is carried to extremes. We therefore all have
  106
  to compromise with our principles. We have to strike a compromise between the two extremes I have mentioned and we have also to deal with different types of people and with human nature. We have to take into account the needs of tourists who represent about the third biggest industry in Scotland and we also have to look after the local residents who should be consulted. Human nature cannot be altered by legislation, as the Americans found in prohibition days. Horace Walpole speaks somewhere about the sovereign people lying about the place dead drunk.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has things about right in the Bill, though I do not agree with everything in it. The present provisions governing the sale of drink to bona fide travellers are completely out-of-date. The motor car has killed the argument about the traveller needing a drink. Indeed, the argument is the other way round now—that we should not be encouraging drivers to drink and thus cause accidents on the road. I agree about the need to standardise permitted hours. At present people drink as quickly as possible in one pub and then hurry off to another area to get more drink before the "pubs" close there. It is better not only for local drinkers but for tourists that the hours should be standardised.It strikes me that the claims of certain sporting clubs are rather strong. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) mentioned a golf club where people drink up to ten o'clock at night, but one cannot play golf in the dark. It is desirable that someone who is coming in from a round of golf at 3.30 p.m. should be able to obtain a drink, but I cannot see a case for a golf club keeping open until 10 p.m. I should welcome a change in the law which would enable clubs to make certain rules of their own, provided that they still kept within the permitted hours. I should be prepared to allow a bona fide outdoor sporting club to serve drinks outside permitted hours. I would not extend that to supporters' clubs because they take no part in the game. I have in mind skiing clubs, golf clubs, tennis clubs and other clubs of that kind.
  Mr. Bence: What about billiards and snooker?
  Mr. Brewis: One can play billiards and snooker after dark.
  It is notable that in Scotland there has been the same sort of increase in the number of registered clubs as there has been throughout Britain. In 1949 there were 884 clubs. In 1959 there were over 4,000. There is no doubt that not all these clubs are genuine social clubs, and I think that inspection by the police is a good thing. I agree with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that two officers would be perfectly satisfactory as an inspectorate. It seems to me, however, that inspection should not be restricted to within half an hour each way of permitted hours, because after 10.30 the club could reopen and members could go on drinking. After that hour a policeman would have to obtain a warrant. I do not like either of the Lords Amendments to the rules governing clubs.
  We should have to consider carefully the rules governing drinking in ballrooms. If a ballroom is allowed a licence it does not mean that everybody who goes to a ball must drink, but what happens at present is that people drink more than they need very quickly outside and then go into a so-called dry ballroom and make a disturbance It could well be argued that a ballroom could be licensed to enable people to obtain refreshment though, of course, those in charge would not be forced to obtain a licence.
  Dance halls are now being attached to public houses. I do not think that we want to quarrel with that. Anything we can do to improve accommodation in pubs is good, but it should be borne in mind that these dance rooms compete with ballrooms. In recent years the number of ballrooms in Edinburgh has been reduced from 30 to 8 with the result that many people who want to dance must go to a pub to do so.
  Mr. Dempsey: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that one cannot keep adults out of a ballroom but one can prevent their carrying liquor in? It would be extremely difficult if they were allowed to gorge themselves in one part of the ballroom which was licensed for the sale of liquor.
  Mr. Brewis: I agree, but it is not quite so easy to keep drunks out of a
  108
  ballroom or decide who is drunk and who is not.
  I come to the question of Sunday opening hours and the closing of public houses. I agree with this, but it is anomalous and even empirical to allow hotels to stay open but not public houses. In Scotland we must try to brighten up public houses, close many which are not fit to be open, and try to make the others places where a man can take his wife, or a tourist can go and sit in congenial surroundings and have a drink, but not drink to excess, a practice which is encouraged by the sort of drinking den described by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
  One provision which I welcome is that certain hotels which cater for holiday makers can now obtain a seasonal certificate enabling them to close during the winter. In places like Oban and Port Patrick all the hotels are needed for the tourists during the summer, but in winter one hotel is sufficient to cater for the local residents. My right hon. Friend has taken a step in the right direction here.
  Some hon. Members opposite have condemned off-licence certificates and said that off licences are open too long. If a lady wants to buy a bottle of sherry from her grocer when she is out shopping it is reasonable that she should put her money down and take her bottle there and then and not have to return later in the day just because public houses are then open, which do not concern her, and that is the only time she can buy her bottle of sherry from the grocers.
  Mr. Willis: But grocers will be able to stay open until ten o'clock.
  Mr. Brewis: The hon. Gentleman must realise that it will not be worth a grocer's while to stay open all that time on the offchance of selling the odd bottle of drink after normal shopping hours. Coming to off-licence departments of public houses, it is much better that a man who wants a drink should be able to buy a bottle of beer there, take it home and drink it by his own fireside. If we provide that no drink shall be sold after six o'clock at night, we are merely encouraging a man not to stop outside and buy his bottle of beer and take it home but to enter the "pub".

  109
  It is undoubtedly a very laudable thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking action against the boozing bus parties, as they have been called. They have been an absolute pest in Portpatrick and parts of my constituency and this action will be very popular locally. However, a coach and four could be driven through this provision. I hope that when the Bill becomes Jaw the Secretary of State will ensure that the police are out when it first becomes law. I hope that they take as effective action as they can and show that we mean business and mean, if we can, to stop this abuse by boozing bus parties.
  I want to refer to one great omission from the Bill. That is the question of State management districts in Gretna and Cromarty, which include Annan and Invergordon. These were originally established in 1916 under the old Defence of the Realm Act, 1915, because there were so many munition workers in the area. It was always understood that at the end of the war these State management districts would be abolished. The population of Annan has increased to about 6,000. In the town there are one off-licence and three public houses for these 6,000 people, plus any tourists who may choose to come to that very lovely district. Many traders in Annan, including the local co-operative grocery store, have applied for an off-licence certificate. It has been granted by the licensing committee but turned down by the Secretary of State. This has happened for well over forty years.
  The Guest Committee did not consider State management. This is the first licensing Bill for a great many years. A previous Royal Commission set up in 1931 came to this conclusion:
  "We have come without difficulty to the conclusion that the weight of evidence is strongly against retaining these two exceptional districts. The evidence before us was almost unanimous in condemning State management."
  The position at Annan at the moment is that people outside the district with off-licence certificates can deliver drink to residents and therefore get much of the trade which should belong to grocers and co-operative wholesale stores trading in the town. This is unfair.
  I understand that one of the points about State management is that we
  110
  should be the same as in England where there is the Carlisle State management district. I have often heard it said that it is popular in the Carlisle district because the beer is 1d. cheaper. However, the magistrates in Carlisle have appealed to the Magistrates' Association to bring pressure to bear to have the State management district there abolished. In Scotland the Dumfries County Council and the Convention of Royal Burghs have made representations against State management.
  On the English Licensing Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) came out very strongly against State management. He said:
  "It can be fairly said, in summary, that the scheme"—
  that is, the State management scheme—
  "is a relic of the teetotal enthusiasm that swept the country in the early years of this century."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 279.]
  Earlier my hon. Friend had said that we should advance to the second half of the twentieth century and not stay in the conditions of 1916, as we have done for forty years.
  I adopt my hon. Friend's words with regard to State management districts in Scotland. I do not see why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be inhibited from changing the law in Scotland merely because of the position in England. I therefore hope that he will accept an Amendment to the Bill to enable off-licence certificates to be granted in State management districts. In the main, I greatly welcome the Bill.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Hanuan: When following the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) it is always difficult to quarrel or find arguments containing any heat, because he is such a reasonable man that he makes even the most difficult subjects seem alluring. When he spoke of the courts and said how reasonable we should be in reaching a compromise on the question of drink, I could not help thinking that the compromise always seems to favour the trade. It is like the story of two men discussing their respective experiences at home. One said, "We always get on very well. We always compromise. Perhaps my wife wants to go to her

  111
  mother's and I want to go to the pictures. We compromise and go to her mother's." The same sort of thing exists with regard to the drink trade.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will not pay any attention to what the hon. Member for Galloway said about State management districts. I ask the Under-Secretary to remember that the spirit behind that innovation was to create a better atmosphere and get away from the excessive effects of alcohol drinking which obtained at one period.
  Mr. Brewis: The hon. Member is surely not implying that the people of Annan and Invergordon are particularly prone to alcohol?
  Mr. Hannan: No, I say the very opposite—because the facilities are not there. My theme throughout will be that the greater the facilities the greater the opportunities for the consumption of alcoholic liquor, and the greater the drunkenness. It is because of that theme that I ask the Secretary of State not to pay any regard to what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Much of what the hon. Gentleman said earlier was special pleading. He was special pleading for golf and other clubs but, as has already been asked: why not extend it further? Why not extend it to the miners coming up from the pit, or to the steel workers? Why not have a canteen on the premises? If the argument that the more facilities there are the less will be the drunkenness is right, is it argued that the answer is to keep public houses open all day and all night? If so, I do not accept that argument.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said, and I agreed with him, "We cannot and do not want to impose temperance by legislation." Later, however, he said, "What we are trying to do is to impose good behaviour by legislation." If by "temperance" we mean good behaviour and a reasonable attitude to things, why at one stage say that we should not attempt to impose temperance by legislation and later say that we should attempt to impose good behaviour by legislation? Surely, the one arises from the other.
  I have had grave personal trouble in making up my mind about this Bill.
  112
  From what I read, I concluded that it seeks to make Sunday drinking respectable. It is an effort to afford greater facilities than are at present afforded—just short of opening the public houses, but in a respectable fashion. I thought that the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) betrayed what is really in the minds of some hon. Members, which is that this is just a step towards finally getting the "pubs" open on Sundays. These were not the hon. Gentleman's exact words, but I understood him to say that perhaps in six months we could think it over again.
  I wondered at one time whether or not to call a Division on this Second Reading—it would not have been the first time that I would have been in a minority—but decided that that was perhaps not the right thing to do on this occasion, because this is a limited Bill. Had it been based on the principle of the supply of liquor as a whole, and of the reform of the licensing laws, there is no doubt about what my attitude would have been. I would have been opposed to it.
  We are here dealing with two issues—permitted hours and Sunday drinking. Even were the Bill to be defeated on Second Reading, the status quo would prevail and the supply of liquor would continue. Having to recognise that unpalatable fact, and deal with things as they are, we have to consider the times, the places and the manner in which drink will be made available. In as far as this Bill attempts to deal with some abuses—particularly the Sunday bus boozing parties—and as far as it effects some minor improvements, I must reluctantly accept it. I ought to say that I have reluctantly to acquiesce in it.
  My dilemma is further accentuated by the fact that, in common with some other hon. Members, I believe that this part of the Guest Report should have been dealt with after we had considered the machinery and mechanics by which we were to give effect to it in the Bill. It is passing strange that we should not know what those vested with the powers—whether it be the sheriff or those in the local courts—are to do, the constitution of such courts, or who such individuals will be before we say what they shall be able to do. Those matters come much later.

  113
  Unlike the Royal Commission of 1931, which dealt with the whole state of legislation relating to the supply of liquor, this Bill deals only with Sunday drinking. In paragraph 123 of the Guest Report we find that the Committee thought:
  "… it right to concentrate on the practical aspects of the problems … rather than to attempt to evolve any philosophy … for a … reshaping of the licensing law …"
  The Committee went on to say that it did not think that it
  "… appropriate to offer any general comments of a sociological nature …"
  I am sorry that the Committee missed that opportunity.
  This House of Commons, and we as hon. Members, cannot escape responsibility for stating the social aspects and our attitude to the social problems to which the excessive consumption of liquor gives rise, particularly amongst young people. Opportunities for the consumption of alcohol are increasing apace. Our young people, and those of us who are not so keen on this commodity, are increasingly confronted with opportunities to participate in it, and I am apprehensive about what will happen to some of our young people as the days and months go on.
  This afternoon we have heard of the opportunities that are being taken by ballroom owners to press their claims for licences, and we know what is happening. Instead of the public houses being restrained from providing dancing facilities in some little place behind their premises, the ballroom owner is being encouraged to apply for a licence in order to provide facilities for drinking. This is no compromise; it is the continual pressure of the drink trade to get further facilities to increase its sales. Every opportunity to increase drink sales is seized; in restaurants, night clubs, "pubs", hotels—even the nineteenth hole, even the curling event, even the bowling club. Every opportunity is being seized as an occasion for a drink.
  It is precisely in discussing the difference of view of hon. Members—not necessarily party differences—that we get into the rather dangerous area of personal statements that seem to reflect on the integrity or the wisdom of other hon. Members. I hope that the House will acquit me of having any design of
  114
  that character in mind. I shall not mind it being said that I am one of the "do-gooders" who tries to do things by legislation. I will plead guilty to that, and I hope that other hon. Members will try to do precisely that, not in the personal sense of making people individually good but in the sense that we should try to provide the conditions by which they will seek the desirable rather than the less desirable. That should be our object. Therefore, I want to see facilities of a different character provided, in equal quantity, so that young people will have real freedom to choose. If they are given that freedom I believe that they will choose the desirable before the undesirable.
  It is sometimes said that certain hon. Members give the impression that they are lecturing other hon. Members. I cannot be charged with that, for my arguments on this subject do not arise from a religious attitude. They arise because of an old-time notion that existed in the Socialist movement, a notion that led one to believe that one was a better Socialist if one did not participate. It is for that reason that I wish to see drinking facilities at a minimum, because the consumption of alcohol is a social menace which in a few years will provide a first-class problem for any Government. It is socially unnecessary and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I do not accept the view that one must imbibe a certain amount of liquor to enjoy oneself. The greatest enjoyment comes to those who make their own enjoyment naturally, by contributing to social events, and so on, and I am appalled at the increasing number of young people who are now appearing in the courts and who have become the victims of the insidious, all-pervading propaganda and slick sales techniques of the beer trade—by placard and on television.
  If I call the beer trade a social menace, I do so realising that the phrase "social menace" is not too strong a term. Hon. Members will recall the happenings at a football match in Glasgow two or three weeks ago. If that was not a social menace, I do not know what it was. Here were thousands of decent, good, honest citizens wanting nothing but to see two teams play football. Then came

  115
  the minority who were able to drink until half an hour before the match started. From these sources they were able to gain the dangerous weapons of broken bottles and tumblers with which to menace and assault others.
  Whose fault was that? It is reported that one or two magistrates are approaching publicans in Glasgow, not with a view to urging them to sell alcohol for more hours, but inviting them to close their public houses earlier. Thus the Bill we are discussing is already out of date. It is not only a question of "pubs" being closed on Sundays but that they should be closed on Saturdays, particularly until the football matches have ended. Publicans in Dundee, Aberdeen and elsewhere are voluntarily closing because of this menace.
  Since we realise the menace which exists in the excess consumption of alcohol, it is our responsibility to do something about it. The courts rather than providing more facilities should look more closely into whether the facilities already available should be restricted. It would be interesting to know in how many cases of police proceedings the lawyers pleaded that drink was the cause of the crime. It amuses me sometimes to hear in some the most foul crimes the solicitor pleading "He had a drink too much." This proves that there is a responsibility on someone to see that individuals do not get into that state and far from relaxing the law I am inclined to impose further restrictions.
  In 1954 there were proceedings taken in 123,000 cases. By 1960 the figure had risen to 177,000. These figures are contained in an official document giving the Scottish criminal statistics. Drunkenness itself is not a police offence but other offences, including being drunk in charge of a child or a vehicle, are. These cases have increased over the last ten years and in 1954 there were 12,511 such cases and by 1960 the figure had increased to 17,000. One of the most vicious crimes, as all hon. Members are aware, is that of the drunken driver. In 1941 there were 700 of these cases, by 1960 there were 3,600. Would anyone attempt to excuse these drivers on the grounds of mere drunkenness?
  Mr. Bence: Prison!
  Mr. Hannan: Indeed, but this is not merely a question of imprisonment. It is a licensing matter. I would take away the licences of these drivers and I would not stop there. Others have licences and the holders of those are providing the drink. Should not their licences be looked at?
  Regarding youth, the reason why 80 per cent. of young people leaving school at the age of 15 are ill equipped to assess for themselves that which is desirable and that which is less desirable is that they are constantly being confronted with advertisements and blandishments to start drinking. I have with me a book of advertisements. Advertisements which appeal to women and men, respectively, are classified. One states that a man is stronger and better if he consumes beer. Another states that to be a better young person, one should mix in the right circles and acquire a taste for drink. To suggest that liquor and alcohol can help young people to reach the heights is nonsense. Such a claim would certainly not be substantiated by medical evidence. Despite this, the impression is given that to consume such-and-such a beer is the height of social attainment. Unfortunately, in all these advertisements the finished article is never shown. One does not see the drunken sot going home.
  It is for these reasons that I have grave misgivings about the Bill, especially the provisions which will enable restaurants to be licensed and public houses to provide drinking facilities not only through the week but on Sundays. Incidentally, what will constitute a restaurant? Could a public house build a small premises adjoining it and install three or four or a dozen tables and so call itself a restaurant? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that this matter must be looked at extremely carefully.
  Clause 2 enables a publican to apply for a restaurant certificate. This is bound to lead to abuses because we have been told today that some public houses are already building premises adjoining their existing buildings. Do the Government not realise that this sort of thing will encourage young people to indulge in drinking? Are they not bound to have a dance, have a drink, return for a dance and repeat the process throughout the evening? It

  117
  is obvious that the dance-hall owners will want to get in on this market and will also ask for licences so that they can offer similar facilities. Deep concern is being shown about Clause 2 because it seems to suggest that it would be possible, merely on the request of an applicant for a licence, to have a condition inserted that part of the premises could be used for off sales business. This would seem to suggest that an application could be made for two businesses on the one licence. I should like the Under-Secretary to say whether I am right or wrong. In any case, the matter will be raised in Committee and he can expect some opposition on that point.
  Why should not the intimation in the Press indicate that an application is being made for an off-sales licence for the same premises, so that people may know what is going on? So long as the premises are structurally adapted to such a purpose and so long as there is no communicating passage between the two parts, I understand that the premises are eligible for an off-sales licence in addition to the ordinary on-sales licence. I can promise the Under-Secretary that a row is in store on this question.
  By Clause 18 it would appear that the off sales permitted hours could be from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Surely it cannot be intended by this Bill that premises shall be open for 14 hours. This would take us back fifty years. I should have thought that premises of that character would be either a public house or a grocery. What some people want is the best of both worlds.
  Clauses 1, 2 and 6 between them are the alternative to the opening of the public houses on Sundays. The more I consider this, the more I wonder whether the logic of the situation is not as some of my hon. Friends have said, that the pubs should be opened on Sundays. I think that this is merely a subterfuge. This is the pleasant way of doing things, the respectable way of providing drink. What is the difference between providing drink in a restaurant without a bar and providing it in another place with a bar? Is it the standing up that makes it not respectable? I believe that this is only a step towards the final aim of having the public houses open on Sundays. If that were to happen, it would give the greatest affront to the people of Scotland
  118
  because they would believe themselves to be cheated in view of their attitude to this Bill.
  I do not want public houses to be open on Sundays. Of course, I do not really want them to be open on any day, but I am prejudiced. However, I do say to hon. Members who do not agree with me that I would be prepared to compromise and to afford reasonable facilities although I do not think this Measure will do that.
  On the question of making drinking more civilised—I think that is the term that is used—I have seen people very much the worse for drink and it seems to me that it is the very antithesis of the better society which we all, no matter on what side of the House we sit, want to see established. I am certain that when this Bill becomes law there will be no shortage of applications by publicans who suddenly find that the ground behind their structures could serve a purpose. I favour uniform hours. That is why I think that the blandishments for special licences for special cases should be resisted. We are all "hail fellow, well met" at the bar and it is a great democratic world. What is good enough for the fellows in the public houses is good enough for those in the clubs, even the special clubs, and I hope there will be no special favour shown.
  I was going to raise one or two other matters, but I think that I have spoken too long already. I would merely say that I welcome Clause 17 by which no persons under 18 shall be served with alcoholic drink. I should also like to know whether no young person under 18 shall serve the drink, for this is just as important.
  As for the bus party, we know what happens. The buses are loaded up on Saturday nights. The hon. Member for Galloway in one breath said that he welcomed the Bill, and in the next breath said that a coach and horses could be driven through it, with which view I agree. Clause 19 will not deal with the problem. What is needed is a campaign in the schools and shops to spread the truth about alcohol and the effects of excessive use. The Minister is in a difficulty about the bus parties. We are all in a difficulty, because we want to try to obviate the serious blot on the good name and good behaviour of Scotland.

  119
  None of us can justify the bad behaviour, the bad manners, the indecent exposure and the use of garden walls for performing natural functions which takes place. Do not let us mince words about this. These things happen and they are a shocking disgrace to the good name of Scotland. Of course, only a small minority are concerned. I hope that this Measure will do what so many people want, although I very much doubt it because when men and women consume more than the normal quantity of alcohol it is not they who act according to their natural likes and dislikes: it is the stuff that they consume.
  I hope that the Minister will consider the great effect which insurance could have in acting as a deterrent not only against driving while under the influence of drink but among people as individuals. The Ansvar Insurance Company provides special terms for people who can guarantee that they are abstainers, and I think that that ought to be encouraged. If it were done, it would demonstrate the importance of people being abstemious—perhaps not going as far as I would go in the rebuttal of drink but at least being abstemious and temperate in their habits—and would help to counter the ill effects of the excessive consumption of alcohol.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I am sure every hon. Member respects the sincerity of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He made a most moving speech. One must, however, regret that he looks at this whole question from rather a narrow and restricted point of view, for which I do not blame him because certain things do happen in the City of Glasgow which we must all regret.
  Mr. Willis: And elsewhere, too.
  Mr. Hendry: There are other parts of Scotland, not the urban parts, where drink is regarded in an entirely different light. It is put in its proper place, as an ancillary to civilised living, not as an end in itself.
  It seems to many of us who know these rural parts that the way to deal with the abuses to which the hon. Gentle-
  120
  man referred is not to do away with alcoholic drink and licensed premises but to educate people—a process which the hon. Gentleman knows very well—and deal effectively with offenders. If disgusting scenes, such as those at a recent football match in Glasgow, occur, there is an obvious way of dealing with them, through the ordinary courts, not the licensing courts. If a crime like that is committed, we should deal with the crime, not do away with drink altogether. There are throughout the country many armed robberies during each year, but no one suggests that, on that account, we should do away with money.
  Mr. Willis: We do not allow people to have revolvers.
  Mr. Hendry: We do not allow people revolvers, but we do all we can to prevent robberies, and if robberies without revolvers are committed we deal with them as severely as we can. We do not do away with money. There are occasional cases of rape, but not even the most hardened bachelor, to the best of my knowledge, would suggest doing away with women. Alcohol can be a menace, as the hon. Gentleman said, but there is a way of dealing with the results of drinking alcoholic liquor, and there is a way of dealing with alcohol, putting it in its proper place as an ancillary to civilised living. This is what the Bill is designed to do.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on introducing the Bill but on having the sagacity to appoint Lord Guest with such a good Committee to make an extremely careful study of the law on the subject and to produce such carefully considered opinions and recommendations.
  Mr. Ross: And then not accept them.
  Mr. Hendry: I remember very well the sort of thing about which the hon. Member for Maryhill spoke. Such things used to happen in other places besides Glasgow, and they probably still do in other cities with which I am not so well acquainted. I remember the days when, after New Year's Day, the local police court was full of people charged with drunkenness. The police spent most of Hogmanay picking up the drunks and the courts had to deal with them the

  121
  following morning. Today, throughout Scotland, there are very few local police courts which have to deal with drunks after New Year's Day. It is the same now after every Saturday night. The local police cells used to be full of drunks, but, mercifully, throughout most of Scotland now most of that has gone. The improvement has come about very largely as a result of people being educated in the proper use of alcohol.
  The old idea was that man drank a glass and a pint and a glass and a pint until he was drunk. Mercifully, this has gone from most of Scotland and, through education, should soon be gone from the rest of the country. People should be educated in how to drink and when to drink, and they should understand the benefits to be obtained from a little alcohol at the right time and at the right place. If the hon. Member for Maryhill has never had the pleasure of drinking a glass of wine with his dinner, he has missed one of the most civilised pleasures or luxuries of this life, and I recommend that he try it, if only once.
  I welcome very much the proposal in the Bill for a new type of licence for hotels and restaurants. So far as I know, this is the first break-away in Scotland from the old idea that a public house is a place where drink is sold as an end in itself. In a "pub" in Glasgow—at least, in certain parts—there is nothing to do but stand at the bar and get down the drink as fast as one can. In a country "pub", on the other hand, the situation is completely different.
  In a great many parts of Scotland, as in England, the "pub" is the local social centre of the parish, serving as a kind of counterpart to the church. The church is the centre on Sunday—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but on Sunday the day of religious exercise, people go to church, but exactly the same people, including the parish minister and the Catholic priest if there is one—and there is one in many parts of Scotland—may often be seen during the week in the "pub". They will not be seen standing up against the bar, with their elbows on the counter, pouring down glasses and pints as fast as they can. They will take their drink sensibly, having a chat with their friends, and a great deal of very sensible civilised conversation goes on. This is
  122
  what I should very much like to see in Scotland. I do not like the idea of the "pub" being just a place to drink and only to drink. Alcoholic drink should be understood for what it is, and the "pub" should be a part of civilised life.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will know that the magistrates of Edinburgh have taken a very enlightened view about this matter and they have laid down rules for new public houses in new areas, the idea being that these public houses should be designed for the social purpose I have outlined rather than for the purpose of solid drinking, which has been the idea until now.
  The new type of licence for the restaurant is a first-class idea. A person should be able to have a drink with his meal. There will be no bar in the restaurant. A man does not go there to drink. He goes to have a meal and has a drink with it as an ancillary, which is what it ought to be. I should like to see this carried a good deal further, for instance, in the dance-halls. There are a great many dance-halls in our towns and cities which are extremely well-conducted places. I can see no reason why people who go to dance-halls should not, if they want it, be able to have an alcoholic drink as well as tea, coffee and all the other things served there. It would do no one any harm. The people who run the dance-halls are perfectly respectable. They are proud of the reputation of their dance-halls and they know perfectly well that if unseemly things take place in the dance-halls they will lose their licence at the next licensing court.
  This might be carried further into the theatres and all sorts of places. The licence would be granted by the ordinary licensing court at its session in the usual way, and the places would be under the supervision of the police. The people running the theatres and so on would run them not to make a living out of drink but to make their living in another way, and they could with perfect propriety serve alcoholic drink as an ancillary to the other activities of the place, which is what they ought to do.
  Mr. Manuel: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about dance-halls and dance-hall proprietors

  123
  who now want to enter the drink trade. He will appreciate that there are very many young people in Scotland who go dancing regularly every week but who are under age to be served with alcoholic drink. Would not his suggestion raise an insuperable problem? Would not many young people be led to obtain alcoholic drink illegally, under age? They would not take their birth certificates, would they?
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point, but I do not think it stands up to close examination. As he may know, in various places, in Edinburgh, for instance, there are many public houses now which have dancehalls as part of the premises. I understand that the magistrates of Edinburgh are insisting on dance-halls being provided in the new public houses. No doubt, young people under 18 years of age go to these places. It is left to the good sense of the person running the place to decide whether a young person is of age or not. In any case, the person in charge has his reputation to look to and his licence to look after. If he causes offence or allows an offence to take place, he knows very well that he will lose his licence.
  Mr. Manuel: I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Is it his contention that in the dance-hall, as in the public house, there would be a completely separate bar?
  Sir J. Duncan: No bar at all.
  Mr. Manuel: It is illegal for a person under age to go into the bar of the public house which has a dance hall attached. According to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, as I understand it, there will be a bar in the dance-hall, which is quite different.
  Mr. Hendry: I suggest that this point could be much better discussed in Committee. I have not come here to discuss dance-halls, dance-hall licences, or anything of that sort. It is late now and I do not wish to speak for a long time. I was only instancing dance-halls, theatres, and restaurants as places where alcoholic drink could be served as an ancillary to the main purpose, as I think it ought to be, as an adjunct to civilised behaviour, instead of as in the dismal and
  124
  undesirable public house which is still customary in Glasgow and, I am sorry to say, throughout central Scotland.
  I now wish to comment on the new approach in the Bill to the hotel law. Hitherto, it has been completely illogical. We have had seven-day hotels and six-day hotels. What else a six-day hotel is but a glorified public house, I have not been able to discover. The law concerning ordinary public houses is anomalous. It was understandable that a person away from home might have a drink in the hotel in which he was staying and that a person on a journey might well do the same. But things have changed. We have become more civilised now, for better or for worse. Nowadays, hotels have largely become drinking dens for 24 hours on a Sunday. That is indefensible, and I think that for that reason and that reason alone the Bill is to be welcomed.
  It is to be welcomed also because it introduces another type of hotel licence which will be available only in suitable circumstances for the smaller type of hotel which does not want a bar trade. That concerns my original point about the selling of drink as an ancillary to some other and proper purpose and as an adjunct to civilisation.
  I have spoken for long enough. I had intended to speak at greater length, but I think that I have said sufficient to make my point clear, which is that the genuine fears of the hon. Member for Maryhill can be cured by education and by the punishment of offenders. We must have a new outlook on the sale of alcohol, and the Bill goes a long way towards that end.
  Mr. Hannan: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill would be all right if the resources which are available in the advertising of drink were afforded to education?
  Mr. Hendry: That is rather a red herring. As the hon. Member knows, both sides of the House are most anxious that every facility should be given to education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members who have an influence in educational matters will use it in educating people properly. We should get away from this old-fashioned idea and should treat drink as

  125
  it ought to be treated—as an ancillary to some other and proper purpose.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill and have great confidence in commending it to the House.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: The debate has covered a great variety of points, most of them, in my submission, Committee points. The pièce de résistance was the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), which was mainly about dance-halls. I wish to bring the House back to the main question, which is: should the Bill be given a Second Reading? In order to comply with an undertaking to be brief which I have given, I must omit many of the things that I wished to say. I am, therefore, tied for time.
  I submit that the Bill should be given a Second Reading because the question is not whether we can abolish drinking but whether we can control it and whether the Bill will tend in that direction. I think that the Bill does tend in that direction, and for that reason it should be given a Second Reading.
  Is the Report of the Guest Committee to be ignored or implemented? I believe that it should be implemented, as also should the Bill with amendments, first, on its merits, and, secondly, because it is supported by responsible individuals and responsible organisations in Scotland. Most of them suggest amendments, and I agree that it requires amendment. As I have said the Report and the Bill are supported by a number of distinguished and representative organisations in Scotland, such as the Church of Scotland Committee on Temperance and Morals, the Lord's Day Observance Society, the Scottish Temperance Alliance, the Scottish Golf Union and the Aberdeen Excise Licence-holders Association.
  I should like briefly to refer to some of the observation made by these bodies. The Church of Scotland Committee on Temperance and Morals says:
  "We have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland expressing general approval of the Bill and are particularly grateful that many of our General Assembly's recommendations are embodied in the Bill".
  126
  The Scottish Temperance Alliance:
  "While recognising that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill introduced by the Government to the House of Lords improves the licensing law of Scotland in a few respects considers that some of the amendments proposed are objectionable."
  The Scottish Golf Union uses these words:
  "I ask for your support during the Second Reading of the Bill for certain amendments which the Scottish Golf Union are seeking to have incorporated in the Bill."
  The Aberdeen Excise Licence-holders Association says:
  "When the Licensing Bill was introduced in the House of Lords a few months ago its terms were generally acceptable to the trade, including hotel keepers, publicans and grocers whom we represent."
  It will be observed that none of those organisations wholeheartedly supports the Bill, but they all support it subject to amendments adumbrated in the documents which they have sent to me.
  The question before the House is not whether we can abolish drinking as an evil. Undoubtedly, the abuse of drinking is an evil, and we should all like to abolish that. The question is: does the Bill tend towards mitigating that evil? In my submission, it does and for that reason it should be implemented with amendments.
  The Bill deals with an ancient way in which poor old humanity, being gregarious, has attempted to be convivial and to enjoy itself. As an ancient, old-fashioned poet said:
  "Whoe'er has travell'd life's dull round,
  Where'er his stages may have been,
  May sigh to think he still has found"
  A hearty welcome, at an inn.
  Drinking undoubtedly is an evil. It should be controlled. Legislators down the ages have tried to control and mitigate it as an evil. The Bill tends in that direction. The Guest Report tends in that direction. For that reason, the Bill should have a Second Reading and I support it in the hope that it will be radically amended in Committee.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: We are dealing with an important subject, and you will do me a considerable service, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if after five minutes you shout "Time, gentlemen, please", because I want to give an

  127
  opportunity for other hon. Friends of mine to participate in the debate.
  We are dealing imperfectly with an important subject. It would have been far better had we waited until the Guest Committee had finished its deliberations and we had the whole picture of the changes which it proposes or suggests concerning licensing courts and licensed premises in new housing schemes. The one aspect impinges upon the other.
  We are grateful for the concern and attention which, obviously, have been given to the subject by the Secretary of State, but the right hon. Gentleman neglected one thing. What does he think will be the result of these changes that he contemplates? What picture does he see of licensed premises and facilities for drinking and their likely effect upon those who will drink in, say, five or ten years' time? We are entitled to know. Everybody says that everything is all right, that we do not need to worry and that there will be no great controversy because the "pubs" will not be open in Scotland. They did not want to open in Scotland. The hotels, however, are to be open, and licensed restaurants will be open on Sundays as well.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) is right. Relatively, the same people own all these premises in Scotland. Every "pub" that becomes available in any town or country district is bought up by the brewers. Who buys up the hotels? The Scottish brewers.
  There may be two reasons for this limited change in relation to the "pubs" being kept open and hotels being regularised in relation to bona fide travellers. Either—[Interruption.] I have limited time and am making one speech instead of three speeches. It may be visualised by some people that the day of the ordinary Scottish "pub" is over; there have been so many changes that we are graduating towards a new type of premises. Alternatively, this may be only a first step and, after the people of Scotland have accepted it, in five or ten years' time we will get the other change and the opening of "pubs" on Sundays.
  This is what I am concerned about, and my attitude is more the Forbes-Mackenzie than the Forbes-Hendry
  128
  attitude. We had to face a difficult situation 100 years ago, when industrialisation brought into our crowded and festering cities hosts of people who had been used to fresh country air and were deprived of relative freedom. With poverty came drink and all the evils therefrom. Something had to be done. Today, we have better conditions for our people. We have a far better outlook on life and on education, and we have a measure of prosperity. That same problem is no longer with us, but the evil power of drink still is. I am not worried about the same type of problem affecting the same kind of people.
  We should be proud of our young families and young married couples in Scotland who value temperance and who can keep drink in its place without losing control. The new problem today is the problem of our young people. They are the people with relatively little responsibility and much more money. They are the people who are the subject of attack and of the direction of television propaganda, of newspaper advertisements with literary gentlemen proclaiming the merits of this and that whisky. These young people are immature.
  I got a letter today from the Scottish Ballroom Proprietors' Association. It informs me that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry)—his must be the quickest speech made in this House by anyone who had been in the Chamber such a short time—will move an Amendment to extend licences to ballrooms. Does he appreciate the effect that this might have on young people?
  In a considerably misspent youth, I enjoyed practically every minute I spent at ballrooms on Saturday nights. I went dancing and I danced. The effect of alcohol brought into that atmosphere would be utterly destructive. Dancing at hotels caters for an entirely different clientele. It is young people who are out to enjoy themselves by dancing, and to gat drink mixed up in this is entirely wrong.
  Let us beware of what we are doing I am not entirely satisfied that we have adopted the right attitude about getting rid of the bona fide traveller ruling. I think that if we cut out bar drinking

  129
  altogether on a Sunday and limit it to drinking with meals that would be satisfactory, for things are difficult, there is no doubt about it.
  I live in a seaside resort where we get the bus parties, and they are an absolute disgrace to Scotland. We do not need to wait for them because we can see the same thing amongst people going to or coming back from football matches—the main roads littered with empty battles, and that not the worst of the offences. We have to place responsibility fairly and squarely on the person who runs the bus. If a person is running a bus for his livelihood and it is used in such a way as to be a disgrace to Scotland we have to fasten responsibility for that on the operator, and I am sure that if we did do so the disgrace would soon pass.
  As for clubs, I think they should have the same permitted hours as everybody else, and there should be no discrimination between the golf club and the railway social club. We have to look on the clubs as one part of the changing pattern and values of life. It may well be that the growth of the clubs is a reflection on the kind of "pubs" we had in the past.
  As for off-licence sales, I think the hours from eight o'clock to ten o'clock at night absolutely ridiculous. Our tradition of hours for off-licence sales comes from the licensing of grocers. Let us keep it that way; let us keep them as grocers. If we are to make a change I think the change should be towards shorter hours. I certainly do not want the public houses to have off-licences as well.
  I think we have a very reasonable outlook about these things in Scotland at the present time. I warn the Secretary of State not to take advantage of that. I think he may do some good with this Bill, coming even so badly timed as it is, and I think that if the Secretary of State will listen reasonably to suggestions for amending it in Committee he can make it a better Bill.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). This is a very important Bill. As he has just said, we are dealing with a pattern of social behaviour. That pattern, of
  130
  course, may not win the approval of everyone. It earns our censure in many respects, but I think we shall all agree that by legislation we can change the pattern.
  We have been doing that during my own time. I can remember quite distinctly the effect of the local veto legislation in the area where I now live. That legislation gave local areas the right to reduce or to ban altogether licensed premises within the area in which the voters lived. I saw with my own eyes the effect in the area where I now live. The electorate decided on reduction, not veto, and there was a diminution in the number of persons whom I myself saw, on a Saturday night, particularly, reeling about almost incapable of movement unaided, or lying on the side of the street, which was so common a sight, at least a not uncommon one, before legislation was brought in that modified it. Today on a Saturday one can move through that area and scarcely see a person under the influence of liquor. Legislation has its effect, and its effect is generally—indeed, I think it is always—good if the legislation itself is good. I could expatiate a little longer on that aspect.
  Of course, the pattern of social behaviour is not decided merely by how much is drunk. It is decided by the type of house people live in, by the education they get, by the social facilities which are generally available. We are entitled to say to the Government tonight Chat we hope that they will try to bring all these factors into operation as quickly as possible in changing the social behaviour of the community for the better.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, we have only a short time in which to make our speeches, and I shall therefore confine myself to one or two more observations. It is not helpful or wise for licensing courts to do as they are sometimes doing at the moment; which is to provide drinking facilities almost adjacent to football grounds. This has happened in Glasgow. It does not help to improve the situation.
  The position will be made worse by this Bill, because it will be possible now to provide drinking facilities up to the time the game starts, and then again immediately the match ends. The only

  131
  time when drinking facilities will not be provided will be while the match is on. As a result we may experience scenes such as have recently occurred in Glasgow, and we shall then deplore the conduct of the people who make use of the facilities provided for them by those who ought to know better.
  There is a fundamental contradiction in the Bill. The Government are taking pride in the fact that Sunday boozing parties will now be so restricted that they will disappear. The Government say that the boozing buses will no longer be seen on the roads, but at the same time they propose to introduce boozing steamers. I do not see the logic of this. I hope that whoever replies to the debate will be able to reconcile these two proposals. I doubt whether in fact boozing buses will disappear from the roads.
  The Clause dealing with this proposal is most interesting, because it says that it will be an offence for a person with a public service vehicle licence to carry or allow to be carried in his bus liquor in excess of six pints. This is absurd. On one page of the Bill it says that he cannot carry liquor, and on the next page it says that the amount to be carried must not exceed 6 pints. It is obvious, therefore, liquor can be carried. It may be that the driver is forbidden to carry it, but those travelling in the bus can. Suppose the bus holds 24 persons, as many buses do. If it is travelling, say, to Ayr, or Troon, or some other place, it may have on board around 24 people each carrying 6 pints of beer. This is supposed to stop the boozing buses. Obviously this provision is nonsense, because there will be 148 pints of beer on board the bus.
  Hon. Members: No, 144 pints.
  Mr. Rankin: I wondered how many hon. Members were asleep. I am glad to know that they are all awake.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: How many whiskies?
  Mr. Rankin: I am dealing only with beer at the moment. There will be 144 pints of beer on board the bus, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is proposed to stop boozing buses. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asks how many whiskies there will be on board. To discover
  132
  whether there is any whisky on board, it will be necessary to frisk the passengers, and it would be wrong to do this in a free society. The driver who started to search them in order to see if they had any half bottles in their hip or inside pockets would probably finish in the ditch, and someone else would drive the bus. I have exceeded the time allotted to me—
  Mr. Bence: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke for about twenty-three minutes. He should not grudge me seven minutes. That is not Socialism.
  Mr. Bence: It is teetotallism.
  Mr. Rankin: If that is teetotallism, some of us would like to have a little drink now and again. I shall stop if I am allowed to.
  A great deal could be said about the illogicalities of the Bill, but to the extent that it will improve social behaviour hon. Members on this side of the House will welcome it—although we have our doubts about some parts of it.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: We are all in the same difficulties as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). There are good spots in the Bill, and therefore we are put into the now characteristic dilemma, which is true of almost all Government legislation, of not being able to vote against a Bill as a whole in case we damage and sacrifice what is good in it.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) talked about the importance of education and other outlets for the energies of young people, and of providing facilities for the enjoyment of leisure. He might at least have criticised the Government for not prohibiting the very things of which he was talking. He talked about better education, yet he has constantly supported the Government's action in preventing the building of schools in which to provide that better education. How on earth can we provide alternative outlets for the energies of youth and provide better education if we do not provide the finance, and if we limit local authorities in themselves providing the necessary

  133
  facilities? The hon. Member must examine his own mind, and see whether he has developed the faculty for thinking things out.
  He talked of the Bill's civilising mission. What form will that civilising mission take? It will take the form of sticking a lot of tables into the back rooms of public houses on Sundays in order to justify people going in on the pretence of wanting a meal which they would not normally have wanted or which they could have had in the far better and more civilised environment of their own homes and families, where they should be on Sundays anyway. Is the hon. Member proud of that kind of civilisation? Is he proud of the Government's action in cutting down the educational provisions? Those are two matters in respect of which I should not have thought any hon. Member would be proud.
  His defence of the Measure was poor. We want to see the provision of alternative outlets to the energies of youth, but the Government are starving its education from the very primary schools upwards and are not providing facilities for its physical education, or outlets for its physical energy.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Swimming.
  Mr. MacMillan: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has campaigned for a long time on this subject and he has just mentioned swimming. I have also argued for the provision of these facilities, but with only a little success. The people in my constituency—in the middle of the Atlantic—still cannot get a halfpenny worth of Government assistance to provide them with public swimming baths. Yet they are in the centre of the best recruiting area for the Merchant Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve. There is surely something wrong with that. What happens when there are no swimming pols, or any organised facilities for the better enjoyment of leisure, by way of sporting activities and the rest? The young people go to the public houses on six days a week. Then along comes the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, with his "civilising mission" and his little tables in the "pub" back rooms. He wants these young people to be driven into the public houses on Sundays as well.
  134
  If we do not want these young people to go into the public houses we must help local authorities and voluntary bodies who are trying to provide alternative facilities. We must provide the finance to help them. On the question of finance, however, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West obeys the crack of the Secretary of State's whip, which in turn is only a proxy whip, at best, for the Treasury. The hon. Member knows that that is true. We are starving these young people both of the means for better education and for the enjoyment of their leisure, which would keep them out of public houses and teach them to enjoy life in a better way and at higher standards than that of public houses.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will argue that Whitehall knows best in these matters. I remember very well a message which went from my constituency to Edinburgh many years ago. I have told this story to the Secretary of State before and he will probably remember it. A number of my thirstier constituents on one occasion many years ago—the people concerned are all dead by now so I am not libelling the living; they may have died from thirst or from some other frustration—wrote to the Secretary of State or, rather, to one of his predecessors and were answered in the usual way by a civil servant who knew better. "Whitehall knows best", and so does St. Andrew's House, it seems.
  My constituents described their difficulties in this way. They said that to go to their "pub" they had to walk a distance of three miles, which took them quite a long time. They said that the walk back was a little over four and a quarter miles and they said that they wanted a "pub" rather nearer to them, so that they would not have to walk the long four and a quarter miles back or, even the three miles to the "pub". Knowing best, the civil servant wrote back and pointed out their error. He said that if they had to walk three miles there, they had to walk only the same three miles back. He even suggested, somewhat unfairly, that they might merely have felt that the distance back was longer, because in their latter state they had to take shorter steps.
  But he was not as clever as all that. He had forgotten that in the Hebrides the tide comes in and the tide goes out;

  135
  and, whereas it is possible to take a short cut across a beach when the tide is out, when the tide comes in around the headlands and into the bays one has to walk around it. That accounted for the discrepancy. The point is that Whitehall does not necessarily know best, and on the occasion of the present Bill it does not know best about what public opinion is.
  I am sorry that there has been so much public misreading and misunderstanding of the Bill. We have all been receiving postcards from well-intentioned people all over Scotland, hundreds and probably many thousands of them, assuming that public houses are not to have permitted hours on Sunday. Of course that is wrong. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, with his civilising mission of little tables and cups and spoons stuck in the little back rooms of the "pubs", knows that there will be permitted hours on Sunday and that as part of their higher education under Toryism young people will flock on Sundays into the "pubs". The Scottish people have been grossly misled by the so-called information services and in the various so-called explanations of the Bill.
  The second reason which is given by some people for supporting the Bill is that—they believe—buses will be prevented from carrying what they call "quantities" of liquor on Sundays. That is wrong. They are prohibited from carrying more than so much in any particular container; but the bus can be loaded up to the roof and the luggage racks on top can be stacked with still more bottles and canisters of the right size, till there is no room, at last, for the passengers. The Secretary of State may reach the very opposite result from what, no doubt, his intention is. He may well empty many a bus completely of passengers and fill it with little canisters of beer and whisky. Perhaps, like the fish in Rupert Brooke's poem, he finds "a purpose in liquidity" which is a higher purpose than that of merely carrying passengers. But we absolve him from any direct intention of loading the buses in such a way that there is no room for the passengers or from any intention to achieve something other than he has said. But this, I am afraid, is not the way he will
  136
  achieve what he has in mind. Tackling the problem in this way may well lead to the opposite extreme; because when one has restrictions and definitions of this kind, it is often the case that people become even more ingenious about circumventing the Act of Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West was lyrical and almost idyllic about the almost pathetic kindliness and warmth and hospitality of the local "pub". My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) again did us a service by pointing out that, like the buses with all the little containers, the "pubs" in toto amounted to a very large container. The little "pubs" have more and more been comprehended within the context of the ownership and control and monopoly of the very large owners who are ravenously acquiring everything like a "pub" which comes on to the market. The little "pub" with its warmth and personal hospitality is rapidly becoming a myth. Big business is all around the little "pubs" which it has eaten up, or perhaps I should say drunken up.
  There are many things in the Bill which are not nearly as good as the Secretary of State and others who have dished up this half measure, this mild puddle of compromise, would have us believe. However, we have all laid upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance and I believe my time is up; although I am rather short-sighted in studying the clock in my own interests. Ten seconds more, only. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I should say that the representations I have received and the correspondence which most of us have received, are rather in favour of the Bill.
  I am afraid that this enthusiasm—or at least attitude of compromise—is founded largely on a misunderstanding of the Bill; and that misunderstanding was sedulously disseminated through the country. I rather wonder whether all these postcards we have received were distributed through the Lord's Day Observance Society or whether the Scottish brewers and distillers were not subtly at work also in backing the Bill. The misunderstanding alarms me. When we reach the Committee stage I hope that it will be

  137
  possible to improve the Bill, even if we cannot ourselves bring in the vastly better one which we ought to have.
  9.6 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: It is evident from the debate we have had today that the majority of people support this Bill in parts and criticise it very fiercely at times in other parts. I think everyone on this side of the House has felt that there was no real urgency about this Bill and no need for the Government to bring it in. By 10 o'clock tonight we shall have discussed the Bill for six and a half hours. I am sure all of us on this side of the House would have chosen a different subject on which to spend six and a half precious hours. I can think of one outstanding subject: six and a half hours discussing ways and means of finding jobs for the 80,000 unemployed in Scotland.
  Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Herbison: I am sorry. I cannot give way as the time is so short.
  The Guest Committee was given a remit to make recommendations on four important matters. It has made recommendations on two matters. It seems that we would have been able to have weighed the provisions of this Bill and what they will do in a much better way had we the results of the recommendations which the Guest Committee may make on licensing courts and other matters. We cannot understand why the Government should have chosen this time to introduce this Bill when there are so many other matters of great urgency concerning Scotland.
  Like many of my hon. Friends, I realise that by legislation alone we cannot make people temperate about drink. Far less can we make anyone a total abstainer. It is from that realisation that the majority of our people have tried to examine the contents of this Bill as fairly as possible. I congratulate the Secretary of State, as others have done, on his exposition of the contents of the Bill, but today he missed a great educational opportunity. When he was presenting the Bill he said not a single word about the dangers and, indeed, the evil consequences of indulging to excess in strong drink.
  138
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that there were other ways of dealing with this problem and other ways of dealing with offences which happen as a result of taking strong drink. He suggested that if we had dance halls licensed young people could learn how to drink wisely. I take a very different view. The Government have rightly acted quickly about the dangers of cigarette smoking. All of us congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken on that problem. Today there was also an opportunity for the Secretary of State to drive home, particularly to our young people, the dangers of alcohol.
  There has been much talk about the drinking habits of the people in Scotland forty and fifty years ago as compared with today. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, said that drink was ancillary to civilised living. There are many homes in this country that would not agree with him for a minute. The general attitude of many hon. Members today has been that drinking habits have improved. In my mail at the weekend I received a draft copy of the next publication of the Christian Economic and Social Research Foundation. There we were given figures for England and Wales, and I should not be surprised if the figures for Scotland are not very much the same.
  The number of people taken to court and found guilty of drunken driving in 1960 was 6,806. The forecast for 1961 was 7,800. That is roughly 1,000 more found guilty of drunken driving in English and Welsh courts. One can realise not only the tragedy that many of those people brought to themselves and to their families, but the tragedy that they brought into many other homes. The number of male pedestrians under 21 who were convicted in 1960 was 7,879 and in 1961 9,000, an increase of over 1,000 young men taken to court and fined for being incapable as a result of having drunk too much.
  It seems to me that when we see this increase, particularly among young people of 21, the Secretary of State ought when he was explaining his Bill at least to have used a little part of his time to stress on young people in particular what could happen from beginning to drink at all, and certainly from drinking to excess.

  139
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said that one ought to talk about this subject to the medical staff at the Creighton Hospital, one of the best known of our mental hospitals, but if one spoke to the doctors and superintendents of any of the mental hospitals in Scotland, or, particularly, if one visited the number of voluntary patients there who are patients because they were alcoholics, one would realise the need for a great deal of education on the evils of beginning to drink at all. We are told, and most of us accept, that cigarette smoking is a contributory cause of lung cancer, but it has been known for a long time that alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver which can also be deadly. Why is it that these facts are not being continually stressed by the Government in every possible way?
  I want to make three suggestions to the Secretary of State. Firstly, there should be a nation-wide campaign against the detrimental effects of strong drink. The second point has been raised in debate a number of times today. Huge sums of money are spent on advertising strong drink on hoardings and on commercial television. The Government should be greatly concerned about what flows from that type of advertising. It makes young people think that the correct thing to do is to have a glass of sherry or gin, but in far too many cases it does not end there. The Government ought to be examining carefully what steps can be taken by government to curtail such advertising if not to abolish it altogether.
  Incidentally, this does not concern only the advertisements on television. In many of the programmes on both B.B.C. and commercial television it is represented to young people that it is very fashionable and correct to drink—the civilised way of drinking we have heard so much about today.
  Mr. MacArthur: And smoking.
  Miss Herbison: I have already said how important I think that subject is, and I have praised the Government for what they have done. I ask them to do the same about strong drink.
  I would also ask that the Government should provide far more money than
  140
  they have done hitherto to ensure that there are worthwhile alternative attractions for young people. On Sunday nights in particular, but also on many other nights of the week, young people have few of the alternative attractions that any civilised State ought to be providing for them.
  Since the end of the war there has been an almost mushroom growth of clubs in almost every village and town. When I tried to find out why this had come about I found that just as the brewers had taken over the "pubs" in in Scotland so they were providing the money in the first instance to build clubs. I was also told that it is not long before the clubs clear their debts as a result of the money made out of selling drink.
  On Clause 3 of the Bill, I would point out that strong objection has been taken on this side of the House to the fact that on-sales and off-sales should be regarded as one. We think that this is wrong. They should be regarded as completely separate. Some of us go so far as to say that public houses should not have off-sale departments at all. If they are allowed to have off-sale departments, there should be two distinct certificates—one for the on-sale and one for the off-sale. I am sure that an Amendment to secure this will be moved m Committee, and I hope that the Government accept it. A number of bodies in Scotland have said that when an advertisement is inserted in the Press saying that a licence is to be applied for it should be made clear also that it is not a licence only for on-sales but for off-sales as well.
  I come to permitted hours for off sales. Most people think that to allow off-sale premises to be able to sell drink from eight in the morning to ten at night is ridiculous and shocking. The Secretary of State said that mothers-in-law arrive at the strangest times or the most unexpected times and that if it is desired to give them a glass of sherry the young people want to find the off-sale premises open. There is a Shops Act. A young wife whose mother has just arrived may find that she has no milk or bread in the house. She can go to the off-sales department and buy a bottle of sherry, but because of the Shops Act she cannot buy a bottle of milk or a loaf of

  141
  bread for her mother. I think that most mothers-in-law prefer to have a square meal without the sherry. The Secretary of State took a silly example. The permitted hours should either be the same for off-sale premises as they are for public houses or they should conform to shop hours. I should prefer them to remain the same as for public houses because I think that abuses would occur if they conform to shop hours. I hope that in Committee an Amendment to meet this point will be tabled.
  Many people are worried about the extension of the permitted hours to ten o'clock. There is not any doubt that road safety will be further endangered. There is another Bill which will deal with people found drunk in charge, but many people are seriously perturbed about the number of accidents that occur because of drunken driving. The fear has been expressed in many quarters that raising the permitted hours to ten o'clock will lead to far less road safety than we have even at present.
  In Scotland the vast majority of people like Sunday to be a quiet day in their lives. If the permitted hours are until ten at night, I have not any doubt that many people will be disturbed on Sunday night. I hope that this matter will be further examined in Committee.
  Clause 15 deals with special permission for clubs. There will have to be restrictions of this special permission. For what kind of function will the club be given special permission? How often in one year will that special permission be given? It seems to me that if there is not a limitation on the number of times special permission is granted in one year, the Clause, as it stands, will leave the door wide open for the supply of drink in clubs, almost regularly, long after the permitted hours.
  Like others of my hon. Friends, I must make it clear that we on this side speak for ourselves, and many of us feel that the powers of police inspection of clubs in Clause 16 should be similar to those governing licensed premises. Not only de we feel that, but the Guest Committee, in paragraphs 60 and 61 of its Report made abundantly clear its view that the same provisions that apply to other licensed premises should apply to clubs.
  The Committee weighed up all the evidence. It was told that no one under
  142
  the rank of an inspector should be able to inspect, but the Report states:
  "We have carefully examined the possibility that police inspection of clubs might be carried out by senior officers only, perhaps of the rank of inspector or above. It is of the essence of any worthwhile system of supervision, however, that inspection should be practicable at short notice on receipt by the police of any serious complaint…"
  Most of my hon. Friends and, perhaps, some hon. Members opposite, feel that this power should not be restricted only to police inspectors. In some areas, police inspectors will not be available. I think that two constables on the beat can do the same for clubs as they can for other licensed premises. Respectable clubs would have nothing at all to fear from that. The Secretary of State spoke of privacy, but if one has nothing to hide one will not be afraid of a constable coming into one's club.
  Some hon. Members have asked for different hours for golf clubs, for ice hockey clubs and the like. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) said that it would be almost sacrilegious if the man who holed out in one could not get a drink afterwards. I have another word for it. I should be strongly opposed to any change at all. What, in effect, would this mean? We are told that it is dark at four o'clock, and the man comes in from his round of golf. He goes into the clubhouse and, because of the special hours there, he gets a drink. He may then go home and have a meal, and may then go on to another club. In other words, the hours are being very greatly extended, and I am quite opposed to it.
  There are some things in the Bill that I welcome, such as prohibiting the sale of drink to young people under 18 years of age. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State decided that public houses should not be open on Sundays. Nevertheless, sufficient has been said from both sides of the House today to show that this Bill can be really strengthened in Committee. I finish as I began, by making the strongest plea to the Secretary of State, in particular, to take some time—perhaps during the Committee stage—to use what good will and what power he has to stress, particularly on our young people, the dangers of strong drink.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has just joined the number of hon. Members who, during the course of the debate, have wondered why we should have introduced the Bill at the present time and have queried the wisdom of our introducing it now. I can only say that such questions give yet another illustration of how difficult it is to be Secretary of State for Scotland.
  In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) reminded us that in 1959 my right hon. Friend was vigorously criticised for being too slow in legislating on this subject. This evening a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have criticised him for being over-hasty in legislating in 1962. It just goes to show! Regarding the serious questions which have been put about facilities for discussing the extremely important matter of employment in Scotland—about which we are all deeply concerned—I understand that the business statement today indicated that we should have an opportunity in our Scottish Committee for a full discussion of that topic at a fairly early date.
  I shall now make one or two generalisations which may have some bearing on our attitude to the Bill both this evening and in Committee.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: On the question of the Secretary of State having been too hasty, why are we not waiting until the Guest Committee reports? Are we to take it that it will be a long time reporting and that the next Bill will be a long time in the queue before it comes up?
  Mr. Brooman-White: I will return to that point later. I was saying that I do not think that my remarks will be out of tune with the general tenor of the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Most people will accept that in matters of this kind, which affect the habits, wishes and pleasures of the ordinary run of individuals, the Government should impose restrictions only when those restrictions are either accepted as reasonable and necessary by almost everyone or when, in the Government's
  144
  view, they are required as a safeguard against some special circumstances which might lead people into doing something which would be either dangerous to themselves or an offence to the community.
  Of course, we have noted the extremely cogent views expressed by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North about excessive drinking by youths. We have tried in the Bill to make changes in the licensing laws which will bring them more into line with the contemporary patterns of life, which will not try to stop reasonable people behaving in what, in their opinion, is a perfectly reasonable way, but which will maintain with only minor alteration the substantial body of the licensing laws, which is generally accepted as necessary to guard against abuse or excess.
  I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which have attracted the greatest attention, both inside and outside the House. A number of people are from deep conviction opposed to any drinking of any alcohol at any time. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) made a sincere and reasoned speech on this point. Others, and this has been a long and strong tradition in Scotland—as was instanced by the Forbes Mackenzie Act, of 1853—are opposed to any drinking in public on Sundays.
  To those who hold such views one can only say that it is quite clear that a number of people want facilities to buy a drink on Sundays and that the existing law has become subject to widespread and, in some cases, scandalous evasion and abuse. That has been recognised in a considerable number of speeches, and that is an answer to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who in his intervention asked why we thought it a good thing to legislate as soon as an opportunity arose.
  These circumstances of abuse are the the circumstances which led Lord Guest to recommend Sunday opening. Since that recommendation was made, a considerable amount of opposition has been expressed by many sections of opinion against the idea of the Sunday opening of public houses. That opposition has been expressed in the House today, and I do not think that any hon. Member has advocated that we should go that far. But there has been a remarkable

  145
  consensus of view that some change in the existing law on Sunday drinking should be made.
  Lord Guest thought that the logical thing to do was to bring Sunday drinking arrangements pretty much into line with those relating to any other day and to open the public houses. We have differed from Lord Guest on that point and proposed the more limited measure of having permitted hours for clubs, restaurants and hotels on Sundays, for two reasons. The first is that we thought this would be more in line with what Scottish opinion wanted at present. I think subsequent reactions have shown that that was right. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and others have supported us in that view, that people wanted some change in the law but that they still wanted Sunday to be different.
  The second reason for the decision which we took stems from the other consideration that the Government ought to have in mind in framing this sort of law—the social risk. Not only do the people want Sunday to be different; Sunday is different, particularly in Scotland where, from the point of view of facilities for alternative entertainment. there is not much going. We have taken the view that, in those circumstances, to have the public houses open and most other things shut would be too great a social risk. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and others have pointed out that there are urban areas such as the East End of Glasgow where there are many public houses and few hotels. Of course, in these areas this Bill will make very little change in the existing position on Sundays. It can be cogently argued that it makes too little change. My reply is simply that, in our view, the alternative would be too much, and we feel that in this field too little is right.
  One can envisage the areas. One can think of those which one knows best, such as the Rutherglen road and the Paisley road, with the "pubs" open and everything else shut—circumstances where a young chap looking for diversion would find nowhere to go but the "pub". We feel that this is not a situation which it would be wise to create,
  146
  and that is the reason for the limited departure that we have made from Lord Guest's recommendations.
  The second main field of change in the Bill is in the group of Clauses dealing with the standardisation of hours. The principle of standardisation, I think, has been generally welcomed. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus, and I do not think I need take up time by discussing the merits of standardisation as such. Everyone agrees that the variations which have grown up between one area and another are undesirable and are a nonsense. Any change from a pattern which has been taking shape in this way may mean some small transitional inconvenience to some people. That is inevitable and is not likely to amount to very much. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus said, the fact that permitted hours are permitted hours gives some flexibility.
  Lord Guest based his recommendations for the new standard weekday hours broadly on what has come to be the practice in the majority of local authority areas. That seemed the fairest way of doing it. The hours seemed to us reasonable and we have accepted the recommendation as regards weekdays. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central and others have suggested certain minor variations. These can be discussed at a later stage. Broadly, we think that the recommendation is right.
  Sunday, of course, presented a different problem. There were no precedents for permitted hours in Scotland. Lord Guest recommended for licensed premises 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. This, of course, was suggested in the context of the "pubs" being open. The question was considered in another place in relation to the modified proposals for Sunday opening made in the Bill. It was decided that a later closing time and slightly longer hours would be justified. So the Bill has been amended to make the hours 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., that is to say, five and a half hours, which is the same as in England at present. There is a school of thought—we have received representations about this—which would prefer twelve noon as the opening hour. There is, however, an argument that this would bring the opening hour too close to the hours of

  147
  church services, and we feel that it would be much better to leave it at 12.30 p.m. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire urged earlier hours for closing on Sunday. This is a question for further consideration. It is a matter of judgment. It is worth remembering that there is a danger in closing at an hour which people may consider too early and which might lead to hurried drinking, which also is a thing to be avoided.
  Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman says that these were the hours introduced as a result of Lord Guest's Report. They were nothing of the kind. They were the hours proposed in the Bill in another place, the hours proposed by the Government in bringing in their legislation, and nothing to do with Lord Guest at all.
  Mr. Brooman-White: That is what I said. It was a departure from Lord Guest's recommendation on Sunday hours. I think I made that clear. I will check my speech. If I gave the hon. Gentleman that impression, it was a confusion. We have departed from Lord Guest's recommendation on Sunday hours.
  Mr. Woodburn: What would be the harm in having nine o'clock as the closing hour? It is a slightly different hour, but there would surely be no hurried drinking.
  Mr. Brooman-White: It is a matter of judgment as to what would be the best way of striking a reasonable mean. The matter can be discussed later.
  Since the Bill was published, it has become clear that substantial difficulties would arise from another point about hours. I refer to the effect on sporting clubs, golf clubs, rugby clubs, and curling clubs, for instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and other hon. Members referred to this. Especially during winter, the permitted hours would not be the normal hours for playing outdoor games and enabling people to have a drink when the games were finished.
  We want to depart as little as possible from standard hours. There is general agreement about that, I think. Equally, we do not want the law to be unreasonably restrictive. To overcome this dilemma, we should be prepared to con-
  148
  sider an Amendment in Committee limited to such sporting clubs, because it is only these clubs which have special reasons for not fitting into the general pattern. We might consider whether there could be an alternative set of permitted hours which they could adopt in the winter months which might fit their requirements better.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that any club would have this alternative?
  Mr. Brooman-White: No. I have referred to sporting clubs the activities of which would be limited by the extent of daylight hours in the winter months governing their ordinary hours of play. We want to make any variation as limited as we can and justified by the circumstances of the game.
  Another question about hours relates to off-sale premises. Should the number of hours be changed from the present arrangement so as to permit off-sale premises to operate between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.? This was fully considered by the Guest Committee, and the arguments are set out in paragraphs 99 to 105 of its Report. We have accepted the Committee's recommendations.
  In brief, the reason for the Committee's recommendation was that circumstances have changed very much from the days when there was a danger that people would buy a bottle of drink and start swigging it in the street straight away on taking it out of the premises. It is now a nuisance and, we feel, an unjustifiable inconvenience—I will not enter into the mother-in-law controversy—for people not to be able to buy a bottle of drink when they are doing their other shopping simply because that time happens to be outside the permitted hours
  I should make one point clear about licensed grocers because, judging from some of the speeches this afternoon, there seems to be some misunderstanding on this matter. At present, a licensed grocer can stay open for the sale of drink until the end of the permitted hours in the area. The Bill makes no change in that respect. It does not extend the evening hours for off-sales. Nor, in our view, can one reasonably limit sales to normal shopping hours without

  149
  seriously damaging or destroying the business of those off-sale premises which deal mainly or almost exclusively in the sale of liquor and which stay open after the normal shopping hours. The activities of such premises have not hitherto led to any obvious abuse and they have not up to now been the subject of any serious representations. There seems no good reason on the evidence that we have had hitherto for restricting this business.
  We have listened to all that has been said in the debate about that matter, but it seems to us that the important point is that off-licence premises should not be open after other licensed premises have been shut. That is provided for. They both close at ten o'clock in the evening. Hitherto, this has not created difficulties.
  I come to the various problems of control and the machinery for control. The most difficult, admittedly, is that of the Sunday bus parties. Everyone is agreed that something ought to be done to prevent the abuses which have become all too common. Lord Guest's Committee made certain proposals on this point. The Government entirely agreed with the objective. But when an attempt was made to work out the wording of a Clause in the Bill which would achieve the Guest Committee's intentions, the difficulties were found to be all but insuperable. Innumerable variations on the theme were explored, but they all ran up against one of two objections. Either they would be too easy to evade, or they would be impossible to enforce, or impossible to enforce without taking powers such as personal search, which seemed to us out of the question, as the hon. Member for Govan agreed.
  As we were unable to find a satisfactory way round these difficulties, the Bill was originally drafted without any additional provisions about bus parties. But after the debate in another place and continued representations showed how strong was the demand that at least an attempt should be made to do something about it, Clause 20 was inserted in the Bill.
  It is easy, I admit, to point out its imperfections. If we had been able to think of anything without obvious imperfections, we should have put it in the original draft of the Bill. This is
  150
  simply and admittedly the best that we and all those to whom we turn for advice have been able to devise to do something which we all want to do. We shall be very pleased if anyone can think of anything better before the Committee stage.
  Another problem of control which has given rise to some discussion and misgivings is the question of police entry to clubs. Lord Guest, in paragraph 60 of his Report, advocated the same rights of police inspection as there are for public houses on the basis of similar permitted hours. The original draft of the Bill followed that recommendation. However, the debate in another place and other expressions of opinion that we have received show that there is a widespread feeling that this goes too far. We have heard both points of view expressed this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) wanted more restriction on police entry. Other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), said that the Guest Report was right.
  Even though the permitted hours may be the same, there is an essential difference between licensed premises and clubs. Licensed premises are public places and clubs are private places. It can be argued strongly that even though permitted hours may be identical for both, it is not reasonable to subject private places to the same degree of control by police inspection as public places. This is another of our dilemmas, in which we consider that the right thing to do is to try to find an answer which the people concerned will not consider unreasonable or unduly restrictive—a barging in by the State on what they consider to be part of their private lives—but which, at the same time, gives the reasonable safeguards which everybody wants against infringement.
  An Amendment was proposed in another place, and was accepted by the Government, limiting the right of entry to clubs in two ways, first, restricting it to a police officer of the rank of inspector or above, and secondly, specifying that this right should be exercised only within the permitted hours or within half an hour each side of the permitted hours. It has been suggested today from both sides that that restriction is too

  151
  narrow and would not be practicable in some areas. This echoes the views expressed in the Guest Report. We are advised that, on reflection, the police consider that, although this is not an easy matter, a provision on these lines would not be unworkable. We will listen with interest to anything further that may be said in Committee about changes in this provision. We are concerned to find the right balance in this difficult matter.
  As regards the other groups of provisions dealing with new licences, the proposals for the restricted hotel and restaurant licences have been fairly generally welcomed, although misgivings have been expressed. The main problem which has been raised on the licensing front has concerned dance halls. It has been suggested that we should frame a special form of licence to cover them. One of the arguments against this is that there does not seem to be any substantial reason why dance halls should be treated differently from other places of evening entertainment such as theatres. If they want to get certificates, they may apply for a public house certificate. It will be open to dance halls to do the same.
  Hitherto, I understand, some at least of them have been reluctant to make such an approach, because they felt that it would put them under obligation to be open for all the permitted hours, which as evening businesses they would not wish to do. The analogy of the theatres shows that this was a misapprehension, but to dispel any possible doubt on this score we have stated explicitly in Clause 3 (4) that permitted hours are permitted hours and not obligatory ones. We feel, therefore, that the right thing to do is to leave the matter to the discretion of the licensing court, to whom dance halls should apply, in the same way as theatres or public houses, for a certificate. If the relevant Clauses in the Bill go through unamended, it should also be open to them to apply for a restaurant certificate if they so wish.
  Views have been expressed about the difficulty of control and to the effect that it is better for drink to be served within the precincts of a dance hall, where supervision would be easier, than
  152
  if people went out for a drink and reentered the dance hall. Views of that nature are not in line with advice which we have received from the Chief Constables Association in this respect. Nor is it accurate to present the picture, as has been done in some instances, that in "pubs" and hotels, the dance floor can be little more than an ancillary to the bar. I am advised that is not the case. The normal use of such dance floors is for dinner dances, and this involves payment for a meal and cover charge which would considerably exceed the cost of entrance to a dance hall. So it is not just a contrast of drinking and dancing in "pubs" or hotels as against dancing without drinking in dance halls, but of dancing and eating and drinking in "pubs" or hotels. And, as I have said, it will be open to dance halls to apply for a restaurant licence.
  My right hon. Friend has said, and I have repeated several times, that this Bill is not a comprehensive review of the licensing laws, but it does make what we consider to be a number of useful alterations and reforms. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) made one point about State management districts. I can point out that the new restricted hotel and restaurant certificates will be available in these districts without the need for any special reference to the Secretary of State. On the more general question of State management, I can only say that I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.
  What we have done in this Bill is to try to come into line with what we should regard as responsible present-day practice, and to hold a fair balance in avoiding undue restriction or interference with the individual on one side and maintaining the necessary safeguards against abuse or excess on the other. The course of the debate has shown that it is often an extremely delicate balance, and hon. Members in their speeches have put their finger on a number of points which are admittedly nice matters of judgment. At the same time we are fortunate in having a set of proposals which have already been the subject of a great deal of work and deliberation both by Lord Guest's Committee and in another place. All concerned will

  153
  appreciate that that preliminary work which has already been done should considerably ease the burden on us when we deal with the Bill in detail. Our feeling is that in the present Bill we have arrived, in the main, at the right conclusions and that they should stand. But certainly in Committee we will consider most carefully any further arguments, and, as I have indicated, there are a number of points where there is room for fuller reflection and perhaps adjustment. At this stage I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  WAYS AND MEANS [9th April]
  Resolutions reported.
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 994–1014.]
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith on each Resolution, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  First to Seventeenth Resolutions agreed to.
  Eighteenth Resolution—Purchase tax (Extensions of chargeable goods)—read a Second time.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 201.

  Division No.159.]

  AYES

  [10.2 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Coulson, Michael

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Allason, James

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Cunningham, Knox

  Harvey, Sir Athur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Curran, Charles

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hay, John

  Barber, Anthony

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heald, Rt, Hon. Sir Lionel

  Barlow, Sir John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Barter, John

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Batsford, Brian

  de Ferranti, Basll

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Bell, Ronald

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Doughty, Charles

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Biffen, John

  du Cann, Edward

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hobson, Sir John

  Bingham, R. M.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Holland, Philip

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Bishop, F. P.

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

  Hornby, R. P.

  Bossom, Clive

  Emery, Peter

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Box, Donald

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Braine, Bernard

  Farr, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Brewis, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Jackson, John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Finlay, Graeme

  James, David

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jennings, J. C.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Forrest, George

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Foster, John

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Buck, Antony

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bullard, Denys

  Freeth, Denzil

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Bullus, wing Commander Eric

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Burden, F. A.

  Gammans, Lady

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

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

  Gardner, Edward

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Chataway, Christopher

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Goodhew, victor

  Leavey, J. A.

  Cole, Norman

  Gough, Frederick

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Cooke, Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Green, Alan

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Cordle, John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Corfield, F. V.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gurden, Harold

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Peel, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Longden, Gilbert

  Percival, Ian

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Peyton, John

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Pilklngton, Sir Richard

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pitman, Sir James

  Tapsell, Peter

  McAdden, Stephen

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Pott, Percivall

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'Bt'r, Moss Side)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, w.)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Temple, John M.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Pym, Francis

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Renton, David

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Turner, Colin

  Marshall, Douglas

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Roots, William

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Walder, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Russell, Ronald

  Wall, Patrick

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

  St. Clair, M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mills, Stratton

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Webster, David

  Morgan, William

  Sharples, Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Morrison, John

  Shaw, M.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Shepherd, William

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Noble, Michael

  Smithers, Peter

  Wise, A. R.

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Speir, Rupert

  Woollam, John

  Osbrom, John (Hallam)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Awbery, Stan

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Baird, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Beaney, Alan

  Evans, Albert

  Jeger, George

  Bence, Cyril

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Finch, Harold

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benson, Sir George

  Fitch, Alan

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Blyton, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Kelley, Richard

  Boardman, H.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Bowles, Frank

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Lawson, George

  Boyden, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Ledger, Ron

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Callaghan, James

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hale, Leslie (Olham, W.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Chapman, Donald

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  MacColl, James

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hannan, William

  McInnes, James

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Harper, Joseph

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Cronin, John

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hayman, F. H.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Darling, George

  Healey, Denis

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Manuel Archie

  Deer, George

  Hilton, A. V.

  Mapp, Charles

  Delargy, Hugh

  Holman, Percy

  Marsh, Richard

  Dempsey, James

  Holt, Arthur

  Mason, Roy

  Diamond, John

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Dodds, Norman

  Hoy, James H.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  156

  157

  Millan, Bruce

  Rankin, John

  Swingler, Stephen

  Milne, Edward

  Redhead, E. C.

  Taverne, D.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Reid, William

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Monslow, Walter

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Morris, John

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mulley, Frederick

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Neal, Harold

  Rose, William

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Oram, A. E.

  Short, Edward

  Warbey, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Owen, Will

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Weitzman, David

  Padley, W. E.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Small, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wigg, George

  Parker, John

  Snow, Julian

  Willey, Frederick

  Parkin, B. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Peart, Frederick

  Steele, Thomas

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Pentland, Norman

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Stonehouse, John

  Woof, Robert

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Stones, William

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Randall, Harry

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. McCann and Mr. Grey.

  Nineteenth to Thirtieth Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th April]
Resolution reported,
WAYS AND MEANS [12th April]

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to make amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolu-
  158
  tion, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Brooke, Sir E. Boyle, and Mr. Barber.

  FINANCE
  Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

  SCOTLAND (GENERAL GRANT)
  10.17 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move:
  That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1962, dated 30th March, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.
  Under Section 1 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, the Order must be accompanied by an Explanatory Report. This has been published as House of Commons Paper 159 and laid at the same time as the Order.The second General Grant (Scotland) Order, made in December, 1960, fixed the aggregate amounts of general grant for 1961–62 and 1962–63. These were £57 million for 1961–62 and £59 million for 1962–63. The Act enables me to increase the annual aggregate of the general grants for the current grant period in the event of unforeseen increases in prices, costs or remuneration, the effect of which on the cost of providing the general grant services is so large that it ought not to fall entirely on local authorities. That is what this amending Order seeks to do for the years 1961–62 and 1962–63. The House will be aware that a similar Order to increase the aggregate grants in England and Wales has already been approved. That Order dealt only with the year 1961–62 and I understand that a further Order for 1962–63 will be made later.
  In two words, the principal reason for this amending Order is "increased costs". As hon. Members will have seen from the Report, these costs can, broadly, be divided into salary increases and other costs. As hon. Members see from Appendix 1, the bulk of the increases in salaries and, in fact, of the increases altogether over the two years, results from the new scale of teachers' salaries which took effect from the 1st June, 1961. The other main awards were awards to firemen, nursing and midwifery staff and to manual workers and building trade operatives. There were also a number of awards of lesser financial importance. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the bulk of these awards took place in the first half of 1961.
  160
  The most important of the other increased costs is an increase in rate payments due partly to rates on new schools and partly to a shift of the incidence of rates on revaluation; but the details and the amounts of these costs are all listed in Appendix 1 of the Report.
  The point I should like to make at this stage is that the extent of these increases has been discussed with the local authority associations concerned, that is the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of Counties of Cities. These discussions resulted in complete agreement both on the items that were eligible for consideration for increases in general grant and on the estimates of the actual increases in cost resulting from them. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the local authority officials and members representing those associations whose very hard work and skill in this technical field succeeded in producing these agreed solutions.
  Had these increases been taken into account without any other considerations, there would have been an increase in general grant in 1961–62 of £5·29 million and in 1962–63 of £6·28 million. The Order, however, as the House will see, provides only for an increase in 1961–62 of £1·75 million and in 1962–63 of £2·5 million.
  The reason for this is to be found in the financial effects of the transfer of responsibility for the administration of bursaries for higher education in Scotland from the local authorities to the Exchequer, and a consequential reduction in general grant. In case there should still be someone unaware of the fact, I had better make it clear at this point that unlike the increases I have mentioned previously the amount of this particular decrease is not one with which the local authority associations have felt able to agree.
  The disagreement does not concern the estimated amount by which local authority expenditure will be reduced as a result of the transfer. This is agreed to be £3·54 million in 1961–62 and £3·78 million in 1962–63. But the local authorities take the view that, of this total of £7·32 million for the two

  161
  years, only the amount which would have been met from general grant—that is about £4·5 million—should be deducted from the grant, whereas the Order provides for deducting the whole amount. This makes a difference of about £2·8 million, or £1·4 million a year, the reasons for which I shall try to explain.
  The Anderson Report on Grants to Students made a number of suggestions, but no firm recommendation, about the administration of bursaries. Nothing in the Report suggests that there should be any substantial change in the way in which expenditure is shared between the Exchequer and the rates. The Government have agreed to meet the whole of the additional expenditure arising from the improvements in bursaries resulting from the Anderson Report.
  The question at issue relates to the current expenditure on bursaries before these improvements are made. As far as this expenditure is concerned, the Government see no good reason why the transfer of administrative responsibility, which in itself involves no change on policy, should result in expenditure of about £1·4 million a year being found in future by the general taxpayer instead of from local rates.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman says that this involves no change of policy. Surely it is a very big matter that now the Secretary of State will decide whether or not a student may have a bursary, whereas that decision lay with the local authority. That is a very big change indeed.
  Mr. Maclay: It is in fact really an administrative change. There is no real change of policy. I feel that very definitely. The House will appreciate that the consensus of opinion among the Scottish local authority associations was in favour of the Government taking over administration of the bursaries.
  The adjustment of the financial arrangements effected by the present Order is therefore designed, I would emphasise, to ensure that the local authorities are no better off and no worse off, measured by the amount they have to raise by rates, than they would be if the Anderson Report had not been
  162
  implemented. This seems to me elementary justice.
  I must be very frank and say that, in the interest of Scotland, the Government must try to maintain a fair balance between Scotland and England and Wales in the amount of assistance given by the Exchequer towards the cost of local authority services. It has only been by maintaining this principle that it has been possible for the educational system of Scotland to develop according to its own traditions and needs, on different lines from those of England and Wales. In both countries the overall cost of bursaries, pre-Anderson, was shared in the proportion roughly of 62 to 38 between the Exchequer and the local rates. In England and Wales, where the State scholarships are being transferred from the Government to the local authorities, part of the cost of future growth will fall on the local authorities. In Scotland, the whole of the additional expenditure on bursaries arising from the Anderson Report will be met by the Government. It would not be reasonable to expect the general taxpayer to take on in Scotland, in addition, part of the expenditure which the education authorities previously met from the rates.
  I know that it has been suggested that we ought to have followed the arrangements made in England and Wales, under which certain local Colleges of Advanced Technology—usually known as C.A.T.s—are being taken over by the Government and are becoming a charge on the Exchequer without any recovery from local rates. This is a completely different matter. The English proposal involved a change in the status of the colleges in question. In agreeing that it would be justifiable for the whole of the expenditure on these colleges, once they become a Government responsibility, to be met by the Exchequer, the Government had in mind, among other things, the fact that the Scottish central institutions, which are comparable with the C.A.T.s have been financed entirely by the Exchequer for many years.
  It has also been argued on the local authorities' side that since expenditure on bursaries, now that it has been taken over by the Government, will no longer be relevant expenditure for purposes of general grant, it is wrong on this occasion to adjust the general grant total by reference to it. This on the whole

  163
  is a pretty odd argument. Of course the expenditure on bursaries is now Government expenditure and connot in future be relevant expenditure for general grant. But what we are concerned with here is the adjustment to be made at the point of transition.
  This is really a question of what is the most equitable arrangement as between the general taxpayer and the ratepayer. As I have already explained, it seems to the Government that the only fair thing to do is to deduct the current amount of bursary expenditure from both sides of the account—both from the estimated total of relevant expenditure for the two years covered by the Order and also from the grant which otherwise would be payable for those two years. We are left then with a net increase of £1·75 million in 1961–62 and of £2·5 million in 1962–3. This additional grant will be distributed to local authorities in accordance with the formula as set out in the Second Schedule to the 1958 Act.
  Despite the difference of principle between the local authorities and the Government about the bursary expenditure, which I greatly regret, I think that this Order shows that the machinery for revising the general grant from time to time is flexible enough to take account, during the period of any main grant Order, of the very varied types of increase in awards and costs that can take place. As I have already said, everything except the amount of the deduction for bursaries has been agreed. I repeat my regret at this disagreement, but I appreciate the good spirit and technical skill with which, in spite of the disagreement, the negotiations have been conducted by the local authorities, and I should like to express my thanks for their help. I commend the Order to the House.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: Under Section 1 of the 1958 Act, General Grant Orders must be made in advance for a period of not less than two or three years. The Order at present in force is the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1960, which prescribed the general grant as £57 million for 1961–62 and as £59 million for 1962–63. These amounts were fixed in December, 1960,
  164
  but since then there has been a considerable increase in the level of prices. There have been substantial increases in the salaries of teachers and firemen and other professions, all of which have involved local authorities in considerable increased expenditure.
  In order, however, that such expenditure should not fall entirely on the shoulders of local authorities, which are already over-burdened with expenditure which ought not to be theirs, the Secretary of State has, in accordance with Section 2 of the 1958 Act, decided to increase the grants by approximately £5¼ million for 1961–62 and by £6¼ million for 1962–63. I believe that these figures have been agreed as between the local authority associations and the Secretary of State.
  There is, however, a very serious dispute between the local authority associations and the right hon. Gentleman about the amount which the Secretary of State proposes to deduct from the grants in respect of the administration of bursaries, which has now been transferred from Scottish local authorities to the Scottish Education Department Many meetings have taken place between the Secretary of State's Department and the local authority associations. A considerable volume of correspondence has also passed between the Minister and the local authorities. The Secretary of State and the local authorities agree that the reduction of local expenditure resulting from the transfer of these functions may be estimated at £7,300,000 for the two years. That figure is agreed, but the local authorities claim—I think with every justification—that only the amount which would have been met from the general grant should be deducted. This in essence would mean that only £4½ million would be deducted and not the £7,300,000 proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Government themselves decided to take over the full responsibility for this service and, having done so, it is surely logical and inevitable that they must accept the full financial responsibility. But the Government attempt to escape from this obligation by saying that they intended to take over only the responsibility for the administration and not the full financial responsibility. The

  165
  Government now say that the local authorities should bear a proportion of the cost. In effect, the Government are saying that Scottish local authorities should be responsible for the administration of bursaries. That to me not only seems illogical, but it is also a mean and despicable attitude for any Government to adopt.
  What justification exists for local authorities having to bear a proportion of this burden? They have absolutely no control over bursary awards. The Glasgow local authority, for instance, does not know how many students have been given awards, nor the rate or scale of those awards. The local authority associations do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the full amount of £7,300,000 should be deducted. With the Scottish local authorities, I think that the grants should be reduced only by the due percentage of the reduction in relevant expenditure. To do it otherwise simply means that the local authorities must find part of the cost of bursaries out of local rates, despite the fact—and I emphasise it again—that the local authorities are no longer responsible for the payment of those bursaries. Surely, that part of the rate income that had previously been used to meet their proportion of the cost of the bursaries should be left with the local authorities to use elsewhere, or to reduce the rates.
  To give an illustration, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, transferred the responsibility for the maintenance of boarded-out mental defectives from the local authorities to the National Assistance Board, and the Government accepted full administrative and financial responsibility. At no time was there any suggestion that the savings effected by local authorities as a result of that transfer should be deducted from the general grant. That is all we ask here; that the expenditure incurred by local authorities when they deal with bursaries should not be deducted from the general grant.
  We grant that the Government are entitled to deduct the Exchequer proportion of the transferred expenditure, but not the share of £1,400,000, or the £2,800,000 for the two years, which was previously found from the rates. The Government are being needlessly evasive in saying that the transfer of bursary
  166
  award functions is merely a matter of administrative convenience. The Government have, after all, accepted that the full cost of any improvements in student bursaries should be met from national taxation. The Secretary of State himself finally decides whether or not a bursary award shall be granted. Is it not, therefore, logical that the person making the final decision on all financial matters should foot the total bill?
  This is called the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order. While the Order authorises an increase in the general grants, it also conceals an effective decrease by reducing local authority expenditure by £7,300,000 which, in our opinion and in that of the local authorities, should be only £4,500,000.
  We say most emphatically that there is no justification for passing an additional burden of £2,800,000 on to the local authorities and it is for these reasons that we oppose the proposals contained in the Order.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: As has been said, the Order is made in conformity with the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, and the Education Act, 1962, and the result of combining an increase under the first Act with a decrease under the second is to give local authorities a net increase of £1,750,000 for 1961–62 and of £2,500,000 for 1962–63.The decrease is the matter about which the authorities have quarrelled with the Government and which has been in dispute tonight. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would explain a little further exactly what expenses will be left with local authorities regarding bursaries. Will they, in fact, have to raise the £1·4 million, which is the sum in dispute, or will this figure be gradually decreased?
  On the other main topic—the question of increased costs to local authorities—I have some questions. On the back of the Secretary of State's Report there is a list of the estimates of additional expenditure. Can we be told whether these cover only increases which are known and, if not, how far they are projected into the future? For instance, in the near future there will be a severe increase in the price of

  167
  coal in the north of Scotland. Is that included in the estimates? There are also certain to be further increases in salaries and pay as we move away from the period of the pay pause. It is obvious that some of these are included—awards for teachers, firemen, nursing and midwifery staff, and so on—but are these simply those that have been agreed or what may be considered, to use a Scottish Office expression, to be "in the pipeline?"
  I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the real difficulties which face the north of Scotland over the administration of these general grants. I am speaking chiefly about my constituency, although I know that many of these points have arisen in other highland counties. If we take the total relevant expenditure in Shetland, it is up from £392,000 in 1957–58 to over £½ million in 1961–62. In this period the amount met by grant fell from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent.
  At the same time, we face difficulties which are not found except in the more remote areas. For example, the position of teachers in Shetland. There are the remote area and district island grants, and for a remote area such as this travelling expenses all through the administration of the county and the cost of freight transport figures largely. The fact that we have a great many islands and scattered districts means that we have 28 one-teacher schools and 12 two-teacher schools. School transport costs represent nearly £21,000, or equivalent to 10d. in the £ in the standard rateable value, and 50 per cent. of the secondary school pupils must be boarded. This is a very heavy extra expense on counties of low rateable value and small population. The average number of pupils in Scotland per teacher is about 20, but with us it is about 16. In addition, we have to keep nurses on every island. We have extremely high building costs, as the Secretary of State well knows. It is difficult to get builders to come and do work in the far North, except at extra expense.
  I am bound to say that in spite of our many advantages, we do have certain difficulties with our climate. We had a small local difficulty in Shetland this
  168
  year when the wind rose to 177 miles per hour. This is about double the speed of the major American hurricanes, and makes it necessary to strengthen buildings in a way not needed in the South.
  All the highland counties have a high proportion of old people. Twenty per cent. of the population of Shetland are pensionable and the sparseness of the population, which is now 34 persons per 100 acres, means that the additional assistance given to sparsely populated areas is not so effective as it sounds because while the congregation of the population in the burghs has been increasing, the costs in the landward areas do not fall as the population decreases.
  Under the original Act certain allowances are made for ferries, but ferries are treated on the same basis as roads. They are much more expensive, especially as on many islands we have no piers, or totally inadequate piers, and again the side roads are most expensive to keep up and are not very good anyway.
  The Shetland County Council has made certain proposals to the Scottish Office. I should like to refer to them briefly because they merit very serious consideration. First, the Council suggests that in relation to sparseness the borough population should be ignored and that the sparsity figures should be based simply on the landward areas. Secondly, attention is drawn to the extra cost owing to the sea journeys and the Council would like the Scottish Office to consider the sea journey as equal to twice the length of a road journey in the calculation of the various grants. It recommends weighting in favour of old people which has been suggested by many local authorities, and it would like some recognition of its difficulty in trying to stem the decline in the population.
  As for the building subsidy position, we argued this to some extent over the Housing Bill, but the difficulty remains that while subsidies are going down, building costs are going steadily up. Finally, the County Council believes that grants should be paid in relation to the actual expenditure, and it greatly regrets the tendency to rely more and more upon notional or estimated expenditure in various forms.
  I do not now refer to the crofter counties' grant because that is a complicated matter, but I take the opportunity to

  169
  point out to the Scottish Office that this whole grant system is not satisfactory so far as the highland and island counties are concerned. While we welcome the net increase which is to be given under this Order, we believe that it is time that many of the special considerations of these counties should be taken more into account.
  I must confess that what I am never clear about is what the effect of this sort of Order will be upon the equalisation grant. I hope that the Secretary of State, with his usual lucidity, will explain this in some detail before we part with the Order, because it is most important.
  I would also draw attention to the fact that it is difficult to find out in the Library of the House of Commons how the equalisation grant is applied. There are statistics for England but they are not supplied by the Government. They are supplied by the Society of Treasurers of the Counties. Again, I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to inform me about this. I see someone moving in a direction which, I hope, bodes well for the future.
  Mr. Maclay: It was once said that there was only three people in Europe who knew about the Schleswig-Holstein problem, and one of them was mad.
  Mr. Grimond: I recognise that reference. One was dead, one was mad, and one had forgotten. I am very much afraid that the Secretary of State has been so long at the Scottish Office that he has forgotten. We cannot think that he is dead, and we are reluctant to think that he is mad. I hope that, by the end of the debate, his memory will have been refreshed. It is an important point, and I imagine—I should like to know—that this Order will have a bearing upon it.
  I apologise to the House for having referred largely to statistics from my own constituency. One always finds it so much easier, of course, to obtain statistics from one's own constituency than from anywhere else. I think that the point is a general one and it should be made on this Order.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: I cannot recall an occasion when there has been such unanimity of opinion expressed from the associations represent-
  170
  ing the local authorities. All of us on this side of the House and, I imagine, all on the benches opposite, have received a very lengthy document setting out in detail the argument which has gone on between the County Councils Association in Scotland and the Association of Cities of Counties, showing the way that both associations have come together, how each endorses the other's actions, how they reiterate and emphasise each other's view. They have together supplied evidence of the kind of case which they have regarded as sound.
  I recall that, when the general grant was before the House in the first place, there was a lot of opposition from the County Councils Association, but there was no unanimity when we took into account the Association of Cities of Counties on that occasion. If I remember aright, Edinburgh did not support the others in their protest against the general grant, for the good reason that Edinburgh would benefit considerably from the general grant system, as we all now know. Here, even Edinburgh is very much opposed to this device—I can call it no other—adopted by the Secretary of State.
  The Government have argued, so far as I have understood them, that the local ratepayers and local authorities must be in no worse position than before. I suggest that they must necessarily be worse off if functions are taken into account. An important function has been taken from them. They did have the function of deciding who was or who was not to receive grant, and they had the function of deciding how much money was to be spent. If local authorities were generous in their decisions as to the number of students who were to receive bursaries or grants, they decided how much money was to be spent. If they were parsimonious, similarly this was their decision. They had a considerable say in the amount of money to be spent or not spent. Although the Government paid a share, the local authority in this way had a voice in deciding what should or should not be done. This function has been taken from them.
  Henceforward, these decisions as to who shall or shall not receive payment and how much shall or shall not be

  171
  spent are being taken by the central authority. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a definite way in which a local authority is worse off, if functions and powers and the right to exercise those powers mean anything in local government. No hon. Member would challenge the importance of these matters to local authorities.
  The principal argument that was brought forward in support of the general grant when it was introduced was that it would give local authorities so much scope and independence in the exercise of their powers. Here, the local authorities are being deprived of an important function but are being made to pay nevertheless. One must understand why they should feel as sore as evidently they do on this matter.
  We might argue that this function has been taken from local authorities but that, nevertheless, they are permitted to give advice and make certain recommendations. It might even be said that from the area of a local authority will come the students who benefit from these grants. If any educational function could be seen as a function of national responsibility, it is surely this highest of educational functions.
  Here we are deciding who will be our university students and our teachers. We are deciding the people upon whom to lavish the final touches of education, not that they simply enjoy themselves, but so that the nation benefits from this final polishing, this producing of the best of our youngsters to render the most valuable service to the nation. This cannot but be seen as a service which is national in importance, a service to the nation. It is something with which the nation as a nation should be concerned.
  I agree that this is a matter of deciding centrally with advice coming from the local authorities, but it is of such importance that the nation must put itself in a position where it can ensure that youngsters of ability are not denied the opportunity because of parsimonious local authorities or that, perhaps, in some cases youngsters lacking in ability are not pushed forward by over-generous local authorities, although that sort of thing seldom happens.
  172
  This is a matter of national importance, affecting the nation as a whole. The local authority ought not to have to make the decision as to who shall or shall not go forward or who shall get the bursary or grant. If we recognise that we must take the responsibility unto the nation, so we must take to the nation the responsibility of paying the cost and not seek to saddle the local authorities with this quite substantial proportion of the cost.
  Logically, we cannot reach that kind of conclusion. This is more especially true with other examples, which have been brought to our notice by the local authorities themselves, of an acceptance of responsibility for services that are deemed to be national in importance. We are reminded, for example, of the trunk roads which pass through local authority areas and are used by them. They sometimes even park their vehicles on either side of those trunk roads. Nevertheless those roads are recognised as of national importance and as a national responsibility, and are paid for nationally. Indeed, local authorities, in some cases, are given payment for certain administrative services which they carry out in connection with the roads.
  We are reminded, too, that under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, the boarding out of the mentally handicapped youngsters has been taken away from the local authorities as a peculiarly local authority burden—I should not use the word "burden"—as a peculiarly local authority charge and has been vested in the nation. If that kind of thing can be accepted as a national responsibility it would seem to me that this other matter must surely be seen as one of national concern and something which calls for national action.
  Let me finish with this and mention another point with which I am concerned. I can deal with this very briefly. I notice in Appendix I that there is mention of increased capital charges and increased rates—increased interest rates, I presume. We Members from Lanarkshire constituencies have been concerned over quite a period now with the difficulties affecting the Lanarkshire education authority. Lanarkshire education authority, at the instigation of the Government themselves, on the basis of the

  173
  White Paper which the Government put out in terms of the kind of school building programme which the Government were determined to embark upon, worked out its programme, submitted its programme to the appropriate Government Department, and was assured that this was in accordance with Government policy. It was then discovered that the amount of money which was to go to the Lanarkshire education authority in respect of this building programme under the general grant was quite inadequate, and that the share which was to fall upon Lanarkshire would place a very heavy additional burden upon the ratepayers of Lanarkshire.
  It may be that Lanarkshire should have said, "Forget about the money. Let the money in future take care of itself. Let us go ahead with building schools. We will argue about the money later." It may be that Lanarkshire might sensibly have taken that course. Lanarkshire may find itself faced with a very considerable increase in the amount of charge to fall to itself. It calculated that, whereas formerly the Government would have borne a share of this amount of work in the proportion of 64 to about 36, the position was so working out that the Government share had fallen to about 51 to 49, a very substantial shift of the burden of the provision of schools.
  This is always the big point; it is not so much the cost of building schools, it is the continuing cost of interest charges. That is the point with which we are primarily concerned. Finding itself in this position Lanarkshire, of course, cut down very severely on its building programme, and all Members for Lanarkshire constituencies are still feeling the effect of this. None of us has escaped the censure—I can put it in terms of censure—of very angry parents because of the kind of schools and the kind of facilities which their youngsters are still having to suffer at the present time.
  We know we cannot wave any wands and get rid of slum schools all at once just like that, but we could have done so very much more if Lanarkshire, with a generous Government, had been permitted to carry out the programme which its architects were convinced it could carry out. It could have been
  174
  well ahead now if the Government had said, "Go ahead and build, and we will meet the financial difficulties when they arise."
  Evidence is clearly emerging, in spite of what we have been told, that the primary purpose of this general grant was not to expand the services, and not to give additional freedom to local authorities; the primary purpose was to keep very effective control at the centre and prevent expenditure from increasing. One can point to increases, but they would have been substantially more if the local authorities had been working on the basis of agreed proportions for the job that had been approved—that is the point—and not some scheduled lump sum spread over all the local authorities in Scotland.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will say that he is looking closely into the difficulties, particularly into the difficulties produced by the existence of a new town in Lanarkshire. I hope that he will be able to offer some means of overcoming these difficulties so that we may get on with the job that faces us in Lanarkshire.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Lanarkshire's misgivings were not about what had happened over expenditure, but about what might happen in the future. We undertook to go into the difficulties with Lanarkshire and to consider with other local authorities at the earliest opportunity the implication of these figures. We hope that Lanarkshire will accelerate school building in the interim.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Lanarkshire is not the only county that finds itself in this position as a result of the operation of the general grant Every progressive local authority is in the same position, and when we last debated the General Grant Order I drew attention to the fact that Midlothian County Council had found itself in the same position as Lanarkshire. I do not know what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has to say about that, but I think that in Midlothian it was decided to go on with the school building programme, in spite of the fact that by doing this, because of the operation of the general grant, it would be subsidising

  175
  local authorities who were not undertaking an educational programme of a similar size and character. It required some courage to do that, but it is grossly unfair to the local authorities who are progressive minded and anxious to do what the Government keep asking them to do—to provide opportunities to make the best use of the children and their abilities.
  I think that this is a shocking Order, and I think that the Government's treatment of the local authorities is mean and petty. It is a strange thing that during this Session we have had two Bills which have been opposed by the local authorities, and now we have this Order which is also opposed by them. It will be a noteworthy occasion when the Government introduce a Bill which is acceptable to the local authorities.
  The Government pay very little attention to that aspect. They push the local authorities around as though they were a bunch of school children. I think that this is a deplorable way to treat men and women who freely and voluntarily give hours of their time every week to administering local services and local government. All that they get from the Government is this offhand treatment.
  The Government had one or two excuses to offer in this connection, and I want to ask one or two questions about them. The right hon. Gentleman kept advancing the argument that the transfer of the bursaries to the central Government, recommended by the Anderson Committee, was done purely for administrative convenience. Never has more nonsense been talked at the Dispatch Box—and we have to listen to a good deal of nonsense from that Box.
  This is sheer rubbish. The whole purpose of the Anderson Committee was not to recommend something merely for administrative convenience; it was—as my hon. Friend has pointed out—to make suggestions that would be in the interests of the whole of Scotland and, what is more important, to achieve a degree of equity in the treatment of boys and girls irrespective of where they lived and what their local authorities were like. That was far more important than the question of administrative convenience about which the right hon. Gentleman talked.
  176
  Not only did he talk about administrative convenience; this is the excuse given in House of Commons Paper No. 159, which says:
  "The Government cannot accept this; they see no good reason why a transfer of function which is made solely for administrative convenience should result in a sum (amounting to about £1·4 million a year), which is at present found from local rates. …"
  That is not true, as was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in his speech. The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for placing this shoddy bit of material before the House. So much for the Secretary of State's first point. It was not even a fair representation of the Anderson Committee's recommendation. But this is the mental approach of the Government on the question of the transfer of these expenses.
  The right hon. Gentleman then advanced the rather peculiar argument that the Anderson Committee had not made any recommendation about the transitional period, and recommended that this £1·4 million should be transferred to the Government. To start with, I do not suppose that the Committee was asked for recommendations covering the interim period, and I very much doubt whether it would think of the interim period. What it was concerned with was making recommendations which it hoped would be adopted by the Government and local authorities. But the right hon. Gentleman has not even the courage to accept responsibility for his own actions. He says: "We are not doing it, because the Anderson Committee did not tell us to." What a way to argue a point before the House! It is moral cowardice, to a deplorable degree, that the Minister should try to shelter behind this pettifogging excuse and put it forward as the reason for his not accepting the case of the local authorities. The more one considers it the more deplorable the whole business, and the worse the Government come out of it.
  A further reason was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not follow this to its conclusion either. He said, "We must not get too out of line with England and Wales in the percentage of money paid by the central Government and the percentage paid by local authorities. In England 62 per cent. is paid

  177
  by the central Government and 38 per cent. by local authorities." He left it at that. How far are we away from England's figures? To what extent does this £1·4 million per year differ widely from the English figures? He never told us anything about that. He never gave us any more figures. He simply produced these and told us that we must not get too far away from them—from which one would assume that this £1·4 million would make a very big difference.
  That was the implication of his argument. There was no point in his referring to this if he was not suggesting that by the Government's assuming responsibility for the £1·4 million for each of the two periods under consideration we were departing to a very great extent from the general allocation between the central Government and local government. What are the figures? I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening and will tell us. The hon. Gentleman smiles, but we heard nothing about this from his right hon. Friend.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I find it difficult not to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Willis: That is precisely why I was raising by voice and speaking, as is my custom, with gusto. I doubt whether it impresses the hon. Gentleman. At times I doubt whether anything can. But I hope that he will tell us what difference The figure of £1¼ million makes to the ratio of 62:38. Does the figure of £¼ million take Scotland very much out of line with England and Wales?
  I have often heard it argued that local authorities should not ask the Government to undertake certain local authority services, because in that way local authorities lose power. That is an argument to which we are accustomed, but in this case it has been reversed. The Government have taken over services but left the local authorities to pay for them. Scottish local authorities welcomed the Anderson Report and gave up these powers willingly in the interests of the nation as a whole, but their reward has been to be told that, during the interim period at any rate, they must continue to pay for them.
  178
  This is a mean and despicable way in which to treat local authorities. It is a pettifogging meanness which, I presume, is being undertaken at the behest of the Treasury. We ought to have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Treasury representative, here—not the right hon. Gentleman and his minions, but the man Who dictated this decision—so that we can let him know what we think about it.
  Local authorities are very angry about this treatment. My hon. Friends and I cannot vote against the Order for we are in the dilemma which always occurs when we have an Order of this kind—that we cannot amend it and so we have to accept what is bad in order to have the elements which are good. But my hon. Friends and I and most Scottish local authorities are opposed to this action and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman deals with the matter again, he will be more generous to local authorities, especially over the matter of bursaries.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: It becomes increasingly difficult to listen to the Secretary of State doling out platitudes to the men and women on local authorities—who serve the community with zeal and enthusiasm and advise the Secretary of State and his Department on matters affecting local government in Scotland—when they are treated so shamefully and shabbily.
  It seems that the new technique of the Secretary of State is to treat local authorities in this way. Only recently when he was introducing the infamous Housing (Scotland) Bill he even refused them the right to form a working party to examine its implications. Now we have the transfer of certain functions from the local to the central authority and, after all the earnest consideration local authorities have given to it and the customary thoroughness with which they have examined the proposed changes, the Secretary of State rejects their plea that there should be no charge to local rates for a service which the local authorities no longer provide.
  It seems absurd to decide to run a service and to charge other people for its operation. I have never heard anything so ludicrous in my life. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that when the hospitals were taken over

  179
  and run by the taxpayer, the contribution which local authorities had been paying up to that time was not deducted from local authority grants. No such mischievous idea was entertained at that time, yet now we have a situation in which the Secretary of State and his Department say that they will run the bursaries for Scottish students, but those who no longer have any responsibility for the bursary awards will pay for them. I have never heard anything so nonsensical.
  We are being misled by the Secretary of State saying that there has been no change of policy. There has been a decided change in the bursaries policy since they were taken over. Prior to the Department taking them over, the local authority in Lanarkshire gave bursary awards to married men students and their dependent wives without regard to age, but when the Secretary of State commenced to operate the scheme he laid down a condition that no married man would qualify for the dependent wife's allowance unless he was 25 years of age or over.
  I know of an outstanding case in the town of Coatbridge in which a student bursary was assessed by Lanarkshire County Council at £130 more than the figure at which the Scottish Education Department assessed it. The Department agreed only because Lanarkshire had committed itself in writing to the student, but gave an absolute warning that in future there would be a rigid policy that no married man student under 25 would get a dependant's allowance for a wife. I have noticed that the Secretary of State has been deep in conversation with one of his understudies. I hope that he has been courteous enough to pay attention to this important change of policy.
  He may not realise it, but he is driving young people out of Scottish universities and central institutions as a result of this policy. When the Minister replies I hope to hear a firm statement that he will administer bursaries as they have been administered before being taken over. I hope we shall have a positive answer. The Secretary of State is making little contribution to overcoming the problem of shortage of qualified and certificated teachers in Scotland by adopting a miserable attitude like this.
  180
  I wish to know if he intends to fulfil his threat, given in black and white, that in future unless a married student is over 25 he will not receive a dependant's allowance in respect of his wife. This is an extremely important principle which must be dealt with as a progressive education authority would have tackled the problem.
  I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will say to us that as a result of the increase in grant we shall be assisting local authorities, and especially Lanarkshire, to build more schools. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), I have been subject to the wrath of the people whom I represent because of the lack of school accommodation. Scarcely a month passes when I am not present at protest meetings or receiving deputations of people screaming because their schools have been axed from local authority programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) and I addressed such a protest meeting yesterday. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell's contention that a school should be built where needed and then we should fight the Government about who should pay for it, as this seems preferable to penalising the children.
  Members of the Lanarkshire authority feel so aggrieved and frustrated that they see no sensible purpose in meeting a deputation of irate parents from Coatbridge. The Secretary of State has now a benign look on his face and I ask him whether he or his underling will receive a deputation of taxpayers and ratepayers who are anxious to express their genuine protest against the way in which their children are being treated. It is a shocking state of affairs that children aged 5 to 11 years should be expected to travel to four different schools. The Director of Education for Lanarkshire sees no solution but to send the children from St. Augustine's School, Coatbridge, which was condemned in 1932, to four different schools. Chapel-side school, in Airdrie, is ready for the museum as soon as the Secretary of State co-operates in carrying out a school building programme which was axed in November, 1960, because of lack of funds.

  181
  One could continue almost indefinitely with this weary recital of the need for schools. There is only one Catholic senior secondary school for the whole of North Lanarkshire—St. Patrick's, Coatbridge—and the accommodation there is so obsolete and inadequate that the curricula laid down by the Scottish Education Department cannot even be completed. This is a serious state of affairs for the school, the children and the parents. In Airdrie there is an ordinary level certificate school, Airdrie High School. The school has 1,400 pupils for approximately 800 places. As a consequence, when the headmaster sets out in the morning he has to indulge in a route march to supervise the children who are spread over four schools which are quite a distance from each other. There are nearly 300 Protestant children in Shawhead without any school.
  This school problem could be solved by a word of encouragement from the Secretary of State to the effect that the Government are willing to review the operation of grants to assist hard-pressed local authorities to provide much needed education. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that the grant has been accepted by local authorities, including Lanarkshire. I recognise and respect that point of view, but it appears that Lanarkshire made a mistake. It is easier to be wise after the event. It would appear that if in the operation of the proposed grant additional emphasis were placed on school population, as opposed to the general population, this would result in authorities which have large school populations having an entitlement to grant which would enable them to proceed with providing the necessary school accommodation.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to have another look at this problem. It is above party politics. We are dealing with the citizens of tomorrow—intellectuals, engineers, scientists, teachers, professors, doctors, etc. We cannot allow this rot to continue. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will assure me that this increase will, in his opinion, meet the wishes of Lanarkshire and enable it to proceed with the full-scale school build-
  182
  ing programme which it axed at the end of 1960. If it does not, I hope that he will say that it is the Government's intention to introduce a supplementary Order so that we can look forward under the general grant formula to the resumption of school building in Lanarkshire, which has been suspended since November, 1960. That is the only solution to our problem. I emphasise that it is as much the Government's responsibility as it is the local authorities' responsibility. It is part and parcel of the machinery for the development of Scottish educational service. I hope—if not for the sake of the Opposition, for the sake of the children and the citizens of tomorrow—that the Government will not fail us.
  11.31 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: In introducing the Order the Secretary of State made the same claim as was made when the last supplementary Order was introduced, that apart from one vital matter, which has been dealt with very fully, the local authorities are in agreement. The local authorities could do nothing but agree. It was decided some years ago that this would be the form of financing local government from taxation. All that local authorities had to decide on this Order was whether the extra amount covered the needs outlined. There could not be any quarrel on that. It is not any great claim to be able to say that, apart from one very vital matter, the local authorities were in agreement. The majority of local authorities are still as opposed today to the general grant method of financing them from the central Department as they were in the beginning.
  I want to deal first with the question of the Anderson-type bursaries and the very strong feeling that local authorities have against the action of the Secretary of State. I do not know if the Secretary of State read the Glasgow Herald this morning. The third leader dealt with this very point. I shall not read the whole leader. I shall quote what I think is an important point of view. It is not only the local authorities which think that the Secretary of State is wrong. It is not only members on this side of the House who think that the Secretary of State is wrong. The

  183
  Glasgow Herald, which is no supporter of my hon. Friends, says this:
  "The dispute raises several points of principle and policy. The first concerns 'taxation without representation', for the local authorities are being asked to find part of the cost of student bursaries out of rates although no longer responsible for their payment."
  Local authorities feel very strongly about this and they have expressed their feelings forcibly to the Secretary of State and at meetings which have been held with the Minister of State and with officials of the Department. The Secretary of State said that this is merely an administrative device, but it is not. Until this new method of giving these Anderson-type bursaries was introduced last year, local authorities had the right to decide which of their students would be given an award.
  It is true that the question was how much, although, except for extra expenses, the Regulations laid down pretty well definitely what had to be paid. But in many matters the local authorities had the right of decision. That right has been taken completely out of their hands. It is because of that that the Glasgow Herald talks of taxation without representation; the taking of £1·4 million from local authorities to finance something over which they have no control. No fair-minded person anywhere could agree that that was right. Indeed, everyone thinks that the Secretary of State is wrong.
  The article goes on:
  "The second is the need to distinguish where local responsibility for full-time education ends."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) mentioned a very important point on this very subject. He said that the Anderson Committee was not asked to give its opinion on this subject but that the whole tenor of that part of its Report was that these further education bursaries of the Anderson type should become an Exchequer responsibility. Nobody reading that Report could come to any conclusion other than that the Anderson Committee regarded the financing of this type of bursary as a purely Exchequer responsibility, and that no part of it should be borne by the local authorities.
  The Glasgow Herald says:
  "Thirdly, Government policy ought surely be to reduce the number of official bodies
  184
  now involved in the State's responsibilities in higher education. Understandably, the Government are anxious not to be drawn into discussing these wider issues in this limited context. But they are being needlessly evasive"—
  and that is not a very pretty word—
  "in saying that the transfer of the bursary-award functions is merely a matter of administrative convenience."
  I strongly agree with that, and so do my hon. Friends, and so does every Scottish local authority—even including Edinburgh, which, alone among the local authorities in Scotland, a number of years ago welcomed the General Grant Order.
  It seems to us to be quite wrong that the Secretary of State should have paid no heed whatever to the strong representations made by those responsible men and women in Scotland who, day in and day out, look after their own local authorities without financial return. They are public-spirited people, and what they ask of the Secretary of State seems to us to be no more than justice. I would again ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter further.
  The subject was again raised during the Report stage of the Education Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman dealt tonight with a number of the comparisons then made. He took very great care not to deal with what might be the most important one—the boarding-out of mentally defective children. That provision is on all-fours with what we now say because, before that function was taken over, part of the financial responsibility was the Exchequer's and part was that of the local authorities. But, when the Government decided in the recent Mental Health (Scotland) Act to take over the full responsibility for those children they also took over the full financial responsibility.
  It will not be enough for the Under-Secretary to tell us, as his colleague has told us previously, that when the Government did that they warned the local authorities that it should not be regarded as a precedent. We do not accept that. I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that whoever has the responsibility and makes the decision should foot the bill and, in this instance, that is clearly the local authority.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised a

  185
  number of points, including the increases that are forecast and those that have already taken place. It is clear that future increases in coal prices, and so on, will not be covered, and it is clear from the protest meetings that have been held all over the country that the salaries of nurses and midwives are wholly insufficient. Surely the Secretary of State had some idea that the pay pause would come to an end. If so, he should have made provision under the Order for the increases that are bound to take place. On the other hand, does this mean that the nurses and midwives will not get an increase? Many local authorities have an acute shortage of midwives and this is an important matter.
  Several of my hon. Friends have pointed to the inadequacy of the arrangements for school building. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) seemed to think that Midlothian's difficulties were comparable with those of Lanarkshire.
  Mr. Willis: We debated this matter and I know the position in Lanarkshire. I was making the point that all the progressive local authorities have undertaken large school building programmes and were finding themselves in exactly the same position of being compelled to place increased burdens on their ratepayers because of the operation of the general grant.
  Miss Herbison: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, for the same is happening to many local authorities. I got the impression, from what the Under-Secretary has said, that he believes that Lanarkshire is doing nothing. Might I inform the hon. Gentleman that Lanarkshire was already £2 million overspent when the decision was taken and that that amount has had to come from the ratepayers? That £2 million was over and above the cost of the buildings started and ready to start. Lanarkshire has made a further decision to spend an additional £1 million which will have to be fully borne by the rates.
  Even so, Lanarkshire's school building is in a parlous state. That is because of the extra burden of the new town at East Kilbride. There is Fifeshire with Glenrothes, but the problem there is not nearly as serious as that in
  186
  Lanarkshire. The problems of Cumbernauld are not as serious as those of East Kilbride or Lanarkshire. It has been essential to provide schools in East Kilbride, in the main not for Lanarkshire children but for incoming families. But the rest of Lanarkshire is being starved of school buildings and there have been protest meetings throughout Lanarkshire.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) spoke of a school in Airdrie which was supposed to be giving educational tuition up to the ordinary level certificate. I supported the deputation of which he spoke because a great many of the children of my constituents attend that school and the conditions have to be seen to be believed. It is quite impossible to give to those children the education that they ought to receive. This Order will not help.
  I could take hon. Members to another part of my constituency, to another school that was in the programme and had to be cut out because of the decision of the Government, Calderhead junior secondary school, where the children are denied so much in a school where there are always 40 per cent. of uncertificated teachers. Among the difficulties of attracting certificated teachers to that school are the shocking conditions there. Another example is Muirhead, a big development area, where the conditions are scandalous. All of these places are denied schools merely because we have a big new town in Lanarkshire.
  The Under-Secretary gave an answer to an hon. Friend of mine to the effect that he should ask the other local authorities to get together and see what could be done. Whose responsibility is this? The responsibility must be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. Take the local authorities with new towns—Lanarkshire, Fifeshire and Dumbartonshire. Are they going to get every other local authority whose needs for new schools are very great to decide that they are going to give these three local authorities a bigger share of the general grant? It is just nonsense, and it is time that the Secretary of State realised this fact and made the decision that will ensure that those local authorities that have

  187
  to make educational provision for new towns are not penalised as they are at present.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer many of the questions that have been asked and will perhaps give some hope—although I doubt it very much—to local authorities on this matter of education.
  11.48 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Apart from the contribution of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), we have had a comparatively calm debate tonight. That is perhaps not altogether surprising, because the general grant is not usually a very exciting subject to discuss.
  Before turning to the main problem of the bursary arrangements which have interested most hon. Members, there are one or two other matters on which I should like to touch. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked about future increases in expenditure and whether they were included in the figures in the White Paper. Only increases which have actually taken place or can be foreseen are included. These do not include, for instance, future increases in the price of coal or possible future salary awards. But, of course, a further Order can be made at any time to cover such increases. So the absence of these factors this time does not involve any hardship to the local authorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether this Order has any effect on the Exchequer equalisation grant. The answer is that it does not because equalisation grant is a quite separate subject, which is going to be reviewed in consultation with the local authorities with a view to legislation next Session.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and for Edinburgh, East and Lanarkshire, North, raised the question of the need to provide schools in their areas. The hon. Lady implied that in her area the need was greater than the average throughout Scotland. I appre-
  188
  ciate the anxiety of the hon. Lady and of those local authorities which, because in some particular respect their expenditure happened to be higher than the average, have made points of this kind. But, of course, the whole object of the general grant, as I am sure the hon. Lady realises, is to give local authorities greater freedom. The general grant is a subvention in aid of the whole expenditure of a local authority and not a series of specific grants in aid of several different kinds of expenditure. What really matters is whether the distribution formula which is set out in the 1958 Act gives to each local authority the proportion of the general grant which is fair in relation to the overall expenditure which may reasonably be expected to be incurred in its area over the grant period.
  I think that I can best deal with the general criticisms Which have been made of various possible failings in the working of the general grant—notably those of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—by saying that a review is shortly to be held into the operation not only of the Exchequer equalisation grant but also of the distribution of the general grant. I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that the points which have been made in the debate tonight will be very carefully considered in that review.
  Mr. Lawson: How soon is shortly?
  Mr. Galbraith: "Shortly" means some time before next Session. I do not think that I ought to go further than that.
  Mr. Willis: Will the results be included in the local government financial arrangements to be put before the House next Session?
  Mr. Galbraith: The review is in connection with that possible future legislation.
  I now come back to what has been the real source of controversy in the debate—how to deal with bursaries. Before the Anderson Committee reported, the position was that expenditure by the local authorities on bursaries counted for general grant purposes as relevant expenditure and, of course, local authorities received grant on that expenditure. The Anderson Committee proposed that detailed executive functions of award making should be done in one of three

  189
  ways: entirely by the Education Department, by the Education Department with the local authorities acting as agents, or by the local authorities under rules drawn up by the Minister. When these possibilities were put to the local authorities, nobody showed any desire for grants to continue to be administered by the local authorities. The transfer to the central Government was not something imposed upon them, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnneis) seemed to suggest. There was no disagreement about the transfer at all.
  It was only when it came to making the financial adjustments to the amount of grant following upon the administrative change that differences arose. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said, the local authorities wanted the amount of grant to be reduced only by the due percentage of the reduction in relevant expenditure, and they wished that part of their rate income which had been used previously to meet the local authorities' proportion of the cost of the bursaries to be left with the local authorities—and here I quote from page 12 of their circular—
  "for use elsewhere or for a reduction of rates."
  The local authorities have been quite frank about it. They wish to use this administrative change as a means of reducing rates.
  Mr. Willis: Why not?
  Mr. Galbraith: It is understandable, if one looks at it from the point of view of the local authority or of the ratepayers. But it is hardly a view which the Government, with its responsibilities to the taxpayer, could be expected to accept.
  Mr. Willis: Why not?
  Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Member waits, I will tell him.
  Our view quite simply is that, as a result of the change, local authorities should not be any worse off, nor should they be any better off. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to constitutional propriety and quoted the Glasgow Herald.
  Mr. Willis: If local authorities give up something, surely they are entitled to compensation for giving it up.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member seems to have misunderstood. They wished to give this up. What I am saying is that it does not necessarily follow that they should be able to relieve their ratepayers of a burden and then transfer it to the taxpayer.
  Miss Herbison: The Minister is continually insisting that the local authorities wished to give this up. That is putting a completely wrong light on the matter. Three methods were examined by the Anderson Committee. The English Minister chose one. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in discussion, decided on another. The local authorities in Scotland accepted it, reserving right from the beginning the matter of the part that was not, they considered, relevant expenditure. It was not a case of their wanting to throw this away from themselves, because they took great pride in their bursaries.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am sure they did. But when the three possible alternative ways of awarding the bursaries were put before them, the Scottish local authorities chose not to accept, as the English chose to accept, the one in which the local authorities did the work. That is all that I was trying to say.
  The hon. Lady quoted from the Glasgow Herald what, I admit, is an interesting article. The important thing, however, is whether the Government's proposals are fair. If the Government were asking ratepayers to undertake an additional burden, that clearly would not be fair; nor would it be fair, as the local authorities propose, to lighten their burden at the expense of the general taxpayer.
  Mr. McInnes: Surely, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that what he is in essence doing is asking a local authority to rate for a service which it does not provide.
  Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Member will wait, he will see what we are suggesting. We are suggesting that the local authorities, as a result of the changes, should be neither better off nor worse off.
  Mr. Willis: They should be better off.
  Mr. Galbraith: It seems to the Government fair and proper to make the

  191
  adjustment in such a way that the local authority is neither the gainer nor the loser. Naturally, one can realise how disappointed local authorities are not to gain by this administrative rearrangement. But it would be impossible, the Government feel, to justify any other course, particularly when in England, also following upon the Anderson Report—I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will note this—it was decided that it would be more efficient administratively for the local authorities in England to assume all the detailed executive functions of award-making: that is, to do the very opposite of what we are doing in Scotland.
  Because in Scotland we adopted one of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee and England adopted another of the Anderson recommendations, it would be indefensible if this resulted in our transferring in Scotland to the general taxpayer a burden which is still borne by the local authorities in England.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to my question about the percentage of, I think, 62·38?
  Mr. Galbraith: Well, the old figure was 62·4. Naturally, as a result of this change it has altered slightly. It is now about 61·2 or 61·3. I should not like to be dogmatic about the figure; but it is a very slight difference.
  It might be a very pleasant thing to make this adjustment which the hon. Gentleman proposed, but I do not believe it could really be regarded as right to take this burden away from the ratepayer in Scotland when it is being borne by the ratepayer in England, and to transfer it, in Scotland alone, on to the taxpayer. It makes a quite consider able difference—
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman said just now that it made little difference.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am not going to debate it with the hon. Gentleman like this. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking, and I cannot carry on a conversation with him like this across the Floor of the House.The hon. Lady, and, I think, one or two other (Members, referred to the
  192
  boarding out of mental defectives. Though the point there is in some ways the same, there are some differences. The arrangements made at the beginning of the second grant period for transferring this task from the local authorities to the National Assistance Board involved comparatively little money. It was only £300,000 or so, as against £3½ million which is now involved. It was understood at the time, as my hon. Friend told the hon. Lady previously, that this should not be regarded as a precedent.
  Mr. Willis: What is it then?
  Mr. Galbraith: Well, it was something. One should be grateful for small mercies, but they should not necessarily be held to be precedents.
  Mr. McInnes: In essence the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is not principle which matters but the amount of money. In the mental health service transfer, only a small amount of money was involved, he said. This is absolute expediency. The question of principle does not enter into it, according to the logic of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman is being unfair. It is often possible, when a small sum of money is under discussion, not to apply the principles rigorously. But here there is quite clearly a principle at stake. We have local authorities in England bearing part of this cost—the cost of these bursaries—and just because they chose one method recommended by Anderson and we chose another it seems to me it would be utterly wrong for the general taxpayer to bear this burden which really ought to continue to be borne by the local authorities in Scotland.
  Miss Herbison: But there is one very big difference. The Secretary of State has tried to say it was just administrative convenience, but the Under-Secretary of State has been a bit more forth coming. He says that in England executive responsibility is with the local authorities. Of course, if one has executive responsibility one is willing to carry some of the finance, but the executive responsibility is now completely with the Secretary of State. No executive responsibility—
  Mr. Speaker: There must be some system about this debate. The hon. Lady has made one speech, and I think, three interventions. Another hon. Member has made one speech and, I think, two interventions. Really, that is departing from the proper form of debate, and debate cannot be conducted in this way.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, because it is very difficult to make a speech under these conditions.
  Reference has been made, not so much in this debate but in the circular sent out to hon. Members, to the C.A.T.s, but it seems to me that these C.A.T.s are one thing, bursaries are another. C.A.T.s in England and central institutions in Scotland are national bodies. In both countries the cost is borne by the taxpayer. Administrative considerations have given rise to different solutions for running bursaries in the two countries. In England it is the local authority which plays the major part; in Scotland it is the Scottish Education Department; but this haphazard difference in procedure should not be used as an excuse for imposing an additional burden on the taxpayer in respect of Scottish bursaries only when in England part of the burden is borne by the ratepayers. I am sure that on reflection the House will see the injustice of this state of affairs which is suggested by the Opposition, and that the Government scheme is really a fair one.
  I ask the House to approve this Order which, in spite of all that has been said against it, gives local authorities £4½ million extra, and which in doing so shows the flexibility of the general grant to meet changing circumstances and the Government's determination to see that local authorities have the means of exercising the freedom and discretion with which the general grant provides them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1962, dated 30th March, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.

  STEEL INDUSTRY (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]
  12.6 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I wish first to thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in being present to reply to this debate, particularly as the flood of Scottish eloquence to which we have just listened could have been foreseen and therefore the Leader of the House may have expected that he was in for a late night. I should have preferred to have the Prime Minister answering, but I gather that he is engaged in reconstructing his Government, and I should hate to interfere with such a desirable occupation. We cannot have the monarch here but at least we have the crown prince, and
  "A substitute shines brightly as a King."
  I only hope that I can stay on that happy note with the Leader of the House in the reply that he makes, and that I will not have to say to him at the end
  "Go, hang thyself in thine own heir-apparent garters!"
  I am sure that he will give a lucid and frank reply to clear up a difficult problem.
  I should like to recite briefly what occurred. On 14th March there was a meeting of the Fuel and Power Group, I think it is called, of the Conservative Party in some secret haunt in this Palace of Westminster. According to the reports in most of the newspapers on the following day, statements were made, or replies were given, at that secret meeting of the Conservative Fuel and Power Group on the subject, among other matters, of the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins.
  Some of the papers said that statements were made by the Minister. Others said that replies were made by the Minister to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but the reports made it quite clear that what the Minister without Portfolio was alleged to have said at this meeting was that they could not denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins now because the time for it had passed. Some of the papers said that in effect a decision had been made

  195
  that the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins was not going to take place before the next election, and this, I gather from the reports, caused considerable distress to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. All this was reported in the newspapers, and, although there were some variations in the reports, all the newspapers concurred in saying what I have reported.
  I was very glad to read this news, because one of the items on which I fought the election when I was elected was to try to stop the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and I was naturally gratified to see that for one reason or another the Government had apparently come round to my point of view.
  However, certain constitutional principles were raised and I thought that it was only proper that the statements which had been made in private by the Minister without Portfolio should be made in public to the House of Commons and to the people of the country, and particularly to the people who work in Richard Thomas and Baldwins. I therefore took the traditional form of putting a Question to the Prime Minister asking whether the speech delivered by the Minister without Portfolio on 14th March was in conformity with Government policy. The Prime Minister replied that the Minister without Portfolio had not made a speech at all on that occasion. I got into some controversy with the Prime Minister on the point, and I used what was un-Parliamentary language. I should perhaps have confined myself to saying that the reply given by the Prime Minister was, in Dickensian terms, "a blazing strange answer." In fact a statement had been made in some form or another by the Minister without Portfolio to the secret meeting of the Conservative group.
  Following this interchange in the House of Commons, I received a letter from the Prime Minister the next morning, and I have his permission to quote it. He said:
  "In answering your supplementary questions this afternoon I should perhaps have made it clear that, although it was public knowledge that Lord Mills had attended a private meeting of Members, he did not make a speech at all. What he did was to deal with questions, replying to each one as it was put to him."
  196
  So it was clear that Lord Mills attended the meeting and replied to questions. I have not heard it disputed in any quarter in which I have been able to probe the matter that the newspaper reports of what the Minister without Portfolio said on the subject of Richard Thomas and Baldwins were not roughly correct.
  This seems to raise questions of very great importance. I am strongly opposed to the growing position and status of private party meetings or private group meetings in this House. I know that they are necessary for some purposes, but there should be a Motion in this House to the effect that the influence of private party meetings has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Jolly good.
  Mr. Foot: But even if we do not carry the argument to that extent, there are other aspects of the constitutional position to be considered. Both prior to the replies given by the Minister without Portfolio to questions at this secret meeting and subsequently, Ministers in the House of Commons stated that they could not make any statement in the House about the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the date of its denationalisation. On 3rd April, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referring to the possibility of Richard Thomas and Baldwins being denationalised, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his assumption about the date of sale of this company."
  Later, in reply to a supplementary question, he said:
  "Neither can I add anything to the admirable statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made on this subject during the last eighteen months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1962; Vol. 657, c 194–5.]
  In the House of Commons and in public we are repeatedly told that the Government can make no statement on the date of denationalisation or whether they are going ahead on the question, whereas in private, to a group of Conservative Members, a statement is apparently made which gives much more information.

  197
  When the Prime Minister replied to my Question in the House he taunted me, and said that if I had been a member of a party I would have understood how these things operated. I would point out to him that the most honourable part of the Prime Minister's career was when he was not a member of a party, in the 1930s. He is quite wrong in this matter. I remember extremely well the procedure followed by the Labour Government. I ask every hon. Member, whatever his views on this matter may be, to look at the question fairly. What would have been the position in the days of the Labour Government if, at a private Labour Party meeting, a declaration had been made by a Minister saying that I.C.I. was to be nationalised on such-and-such a date, or explaining Government policy in regard to the nationalisation of a great industry?
  If that had been said at a private party meeting of the Labour Party and the statement had leaked to the Press there would have been hell to pay. There would have been uproar. The Opposition Front Bench—probably in the person of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—would have said that it was outrageous that a declaration of Government policy affecting a great industry should have been made in that fashion, and that it should have been made to the House of Commons and to the public.
  So, on the constitutional point, the question I put directly to the Leader of the House—and I hope that he will give me as direct an answer as he can—is: does he think it right and proper that a declaration of Government policy on a specific matter of this importance should be made in the privacy of one of these Tory Party meetings? If he says that he does not think it is right, either he or the Prime Minister must tell the Minister without Portfolio that he must behave himself in future—and I hope that the other Ministers will be circularised and told that they should also behave in this respect. In that sense, the constitutional position will have been protected to some extent. Perhaps that has already happened, and if the Leader of the House can give me that assurance, I shall be satisfied with that aspect of the matter.
  198
  But if he says that he thinks it right and proper for this declaration to have been made, then very serious issues are raised, because that would mean that the Government think that it is all right that they should make statements of policy affecting great industries to meetings of private Tory Members which the rest of the House and the country are denied the right to hear. It would mean that the Government were carrying still further the depreciation of the status of the House of Commons, which in all too many respects has been carried much too far.
  In conclusion, I want to refer to the issue of the Minister's statement itself. It is conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that he cannot confirm or deny what was said by the Minister at this party meeting and that he does not intend to do so. That would not be appropriate to the situation because everybody believes the reports in all the newspapers, and are justified in doing so. I do not mean that they believe every word reported, but they do in the general sense, especially in reference to Richard Thomas and Baldwins.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly take the view that the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins is a small affair. He cannot say that the £150 million in this company is a bagatelle or a trinket. He cannot use language like that in connection with an industry of this nature. That is a matter of paramount importance for the biggest and greatest steel firm in the country, now in the process of building the most modern and up-to-date steel works in the country. It is a firm engaged, as are many other steel firms, in dealing with some of the very awkward problems now facing the steel industry, I would say owing to Government policy. Surely the managers of the firm have the right to know the Government's policy towards their future.
  If, as this leakage from this Tory secret party meeting reveals, some decision about the future of this firm has been made, at any rate up to the time of the General Election, it is the absolute duty of the Government and all those responsible for the steel industry, if they are to deal honourably with the people in charge of this great industry, to make a statement publicly in the House of Commons. The only excuse they would have

  199
  for not doing so is that they would land themselves in difficulties with the bon. Member for Kidderminster and a few others on the Tory back benches. The right hon. Gentleman has had some experience in standing up to those back benchers and I hope that he will do so tonight.
  12.18 a.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has imparted a sinister character to the deliberations of my party colleagues and myself within the confines of Committee Rooms upstairs. Of course we recognise that members of a political party meet privately from time to time, as members of the Labour Party, I am given to understand, meet privately from time to time. In the very order of things, since the beginning of time, there have been these private party meetings of the major parties in the House, and since the beginning of time there have been leakages of what has been said and done in party committees.
  I claim no special individuality in a matter of this kind save only possibly in this respect, that generally what I say in a party committee upstairs I subsequently repeat publicly on the Floor of the House. In the course of his researches and doing his homework for this Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will no doubt have discovered from reports in certain newspapers, notably the Daily Telegraph, that alleged exchanges took place in that private meeting. The Daily Telegraph of 15th March said of me:
  "'I should be very queasy', he is reported as saying. 'about facing the electorate with a broken pledge in the next election campaign, which must come within about eighteen months.'"
  I am not going to comment here publicly on whether I said that upstairs or did not—an excellent piece of conjecture by the reporting staff of the Daily Telegraph. What I do know is that that was reported on the 15th March and that the OFFICIAL REPORT for 3rd April, contains these words said by me in a supplementary question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
  "Does he not realise that I should feel very queasy, as no doubt he would be in Hampstead and as the Chancellor would be in the Wirral, facing the electorate with a change of political infidelity. Will my right
  200
  hon. Friend give a clear and unequivocal assurance that it is the intention of the Conservative Party to complete the denationalisation within the next eighteen months and before the next General Election?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 194.]
  That is an adequate confirmation of the words attributed to me in a private party committee, but I am in a fortunate position this evening. I am speaking in the benign presence of the Chief Patronage Secretary. I am delighted to have him here to listen to me tonight, because these matters have been adequately confirmed by Treasury spokesmen on earlier occasions. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale pointed out in his speech, it is not very long ago that the Treasury Ministers confirmed the fact that the work of the Iron and Steel Holding Realisation Agency would substantially be completed within the lifetime of this Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in his speech tonight has created the impression that all there is to denationalise within the steel industry is Richard Thomas and Baldwins, but that, of course, is nonsense. Only 40 per cent. of the State holdings in steel today comprises Richard Thomas and Baldwins. The remaining 60 per cent. is a mixed bag of prior charges, loans and equities in a wide range of private enterprise steel companies not owned as to a majority financially by the State. To show my earlier interest—I have been questioning Ministers since the last General Election on this issue—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT Question No. 10 by myself to a Treasury Minister on 17th November, 1960, when the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury wound up his reply to my Question with these words:
  "that it is the Government's intention that within the lifetime of the present Parliament the work of the Agency should be substantially completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 529.]
  I shall continue campaigning for the remainder of the lifetime of this Parliament to secure adherence by the Conservative Party to the election pledges given in 1959 and the three preceding elections—that is, in 1950, 1951, 1956 and 1959—when we said perfectly clearly that we proposed to denationalise the steel industry, which in my view includes Richard Thomas and Baldwins.

  201
  My presence here this evening is not to ask the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, for a further assurance in addition to those already given by Treasury Ministers. I want no further assurances. I am merely here to call attention to the assurances already given and the election pledges already given on four successive occasions, and to remind my right hon. Friend that I will, in my own inimitable phrase, feel queasy indeed to face the electorate with a charge of political infidelity at the next General Election should there be any failure to complete denationalisation of steel before the next General Election.
  12.25 a.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: In only two minutes I want to ask the Leader of the House whether, as Leader of the House, he will give us an assurance, as the House, that if a change in Government policy on an important issue is made, a statement will be made on the Floor of the House. Secondly, I want to apply that principle to this matter and ask whether there has been any change of policy in the proposal to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins, which is a company with £150 million of capital employing thousands of workers whose future is the subject of a great deal of speculation in South Wales and elsewhere. Thirdly, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can make clear now whether it is the case that the Government have modified their policy to the extent that Richard Thomas and Baldwins will not be disposed of before the next General Election, in view of the condition of the stock market at present.
  As far as we know, the only official statement made to the House is the one, correctly quoted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), which was made on 22nd March, 1960, by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—that the work of I.S.H.R.A. would be concluded before the next General Election. But the reports which have appeared since then are so well documented that there must be at least some foundation for them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House to clear up that speculation and make clear for us the future of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and I ask him, as
  202
  we on this side of the House hope, to say that the rumours are true that the company will not be disposed of before the next General Election, and to give me and the House a general assurance in principle that important principles of this sort will be disclosed to the House on the Floor of the House.
  12.26 a.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): This, as far as I am aware, is the first occasion when an attempt has been made to debate the proceedings of a private party meeting on the Floor of the House, and this makes it an occasion so unusual that I thought that I ought to reply.
  I think that there is little dispute on the facts. A private meeting was held on 14th March. Unofficial reports appeared in the Press on 15th March. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) asked a Question to the Prime Minister on 20th March and out of that this Adjournment debate has arisen. I think that it is now accepted that what took place at that meeting was a question and answer session in which my right hon. Friend replied to questions one by one.
  Let us take the question of what can be asked on this matter. It is laid down quite clearly on page 357 of Erskine May that:
  "The Prime Minister cannot be asked questions about statements made by other Ministers in the country, but a question to the Prime Minister whether a statement made by a Minister of Cabinet rank represents the policy of the Government is in order."
  This device is always used, and it was used by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to ask for some clarification.
  In my view it was clearly right—and I make no reflection on the Table—for the Clerks to accept this Question because there was nothing in the reference to the speech of 14th March to indicate that it was not a reference to a normal speech on a public occasion. But it quickly became apparent that what was being referred to was not a speech in the country but an answer to a question at a private meeting in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster.
  Quite clearly this takes the whole question outside the doctrine of Erskine May, which I have just read to the House. The Prime Minister answered

  203
  accordingly, that is to say, he declined to comment on newspaper reports, just as one would decline to comment on a newspaper or any other report of a Cabinet Committee. I am sure that this is right. Any other course, with great respect to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), would lead us to a position which we should all regret.
  There are two reasons why it would be wrong for me or any other Minister to answer a question on points raised in debate at confidential party meetings. First, Her Majesty's Government are answerable to the House for their policy and they are not answerable to the House, and it would undermine the whole system of government in the country if they were answerable, for the processes by which policy is formed. They do not disclose in talk and they are not prepared to discuss in public the advice they receive or the minutes that may pass between Departments, or the proceedings of Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committees which have been the subject of speculation in the Press. These are entirely confidential. Similarly, I do not believe for a moment—I ask hon. Members to reflect on this—that it can be right that discussions at private party meetings, if they are concerned sometimes with questions of policy, are ones which can properly be discussed on the Floor of the House.
  The second reason is much more important to us all. The Palace of Westminster is a comparatively small place. We are a fairly small community. We are deeply divided on matters of policy, but we are mutually dependent in respect of many of our customs and conventions. Although we frequently disagree in public, there is a good deal of the ordinary commerce of friendly living between members of the parties in the House. I ask the House, particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, to reflect on this. If the doctrine is once admitted and if we once step outside what I have read from Erskine May, where does the doctrine end? If a question can be put to the Prime Minister asking about a statement or an answer to a question made by a Minister in a private room upstairs, what is to stop one being put down about a conversation
  204
  in the Lobby or the Tea Room or the Smoking Room? If Ministers are to be held to be answerable to the House in this way in the Palace of Westminster, what is there in this new doctrine which is being enunciated to say that they should not be held answerable for any remark they may have made, or which it is alleged that they have made, at a private lunch or dinner party or when they thought they were having a private discussion outside?
  Mr. M. Foot: There is a very simple distinction. It is well understood in the House that anything said in the corridors of the House or the Smoking Room is not to be revealed to the Press. The Press is, rightly in my opinion, trying to find out what happened at these meetings. It does so with the Labour Party meetings and with the Tory Party meetings. It is not stopped. It tries to find out, and the more news the Government give out at such meetings the more they will encourage the Press to try to find out what happens. There is a clear distinction between the confidence of Members of Parliament in the Smoking Room and elsewhere and what goes on at these meetings which go on all over the place. The Press tries to find out what takes place at these meetings.
  Mr. Macleod: There is no such distinction. The only distinction we have and the only one we can lean upon until the House in its wisdom decides to alter it is the doctrine of Erskine May which I have put before the House, that the Prime Minister can be questioned, by means of the device to which I have referred, on a speech by a Minister in the country. I am certain that, if we departed from that, we should find the situation very difficult indeed. The hon. Member has said that the Press is trying to find out what happens at private meetings. Of course it is. It does so with extreme efficiency. Equally, it likes to find out what happens, if it can, at many private meetings in which Ministers take part. For example, reports of what is supposed to have happened at the Cabinet appear almost weekly in the Press, but it has never been suggested that the Prime Minister can be questioned on these. It has never been suggested that he should deny the various reports or rumours that appear.

  205
  The position, I believe, is that for these reasons it would be wrong, and I believe that the Opposition would think it wrong, to answer questions or points raised in debate regarding statements made by Ministers at private party meetings. I am sorry if in any way this answer disappoints the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, but I believe that, when he broods over this and turns up, as I am sure he will, the quotation from Erskine May which I have read to him, he will feel that in the interests of the House as a whole this is the right line for me to take and that it was the right line for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take.
  These meetings are supposed to be confidential. It is idle to pretend that accounts of what takes place, usually accurate, sometimes not accurate, frequently appear in the Press. But I am convinced that it would be wrong for us to extend that comment to include discussion on the Floor of the House. That is why the Prime Minister declined to go into detail in answer to the hon. Member and that is why, for exactly the same reason, I decline to answer the questions that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has put to me. I believe that in so doing I am acting in the interests of Members of the House. I am sure that the suggestion that has been made that we should act in a
  206
  different way is entirely against our long-established procedure and the practice of the House.
  If that is so, I counsel the House to stay within the confines of the doctrine of Erskine May, which I have put before the House, which governed the response of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on 20th March and which has also governed the reply I have made to this debate.
  For all these reasons, I am quite convinced that this is the line that, in the interests of the House, we should take.
  Mr. Callaghan: Before the Leader of the House resumes his seat, may I ask whether we are to have a statement of policy on whether the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins is to be postponed? Because that is the issue that mainly concerns us.
  Mr. Nabarro: Put down a Question.
  Mr. Macleod: A Question can be put down, but I answered the question—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-jour minutes to one o'clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pensioners, Midlothian and West Lothian (Supplements)
  Pensioners, Midlothian and West Lothian (Supplements)
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
COAL
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
  Opencast Coal Working, Barnsley Area
  Opencast Coal Working, Barnsley Area
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Stocks
  Stocks
  Supplies
  Supplies
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Horses (Employment Underground)
  Horses (Employment Underground)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Airports (Luggage Conveyor Belts)
  Airports (Luggage Conveyor Belts)
  Supersonic Transport Aircraft (Anglo-French Collaboration)
  Supersonic Transport Aircraft (Anglo-French Collaboration)
  Transport Aircraft (Export Orders)
  Transport Aircraft (Export Orders)
  Rolls Royce, Ltd. (Labour Force)
  Rolls Royce, Ltd. (Labour Force)
  European Launcher Development Organisation (Convention)
  European Launcher Development Organisation (Convention)
HOSPITALS
  Maternity Unit, St. Austell
  Maternity Unit, St. Austell
  Rampton Hospital
  Rampton Hospital
  General Hospital, South Caernarvonshire
  General Hospital, South Caernarvonshire
  Ipswich and East Suffolk Hospital
  Ipswich and East Suffolk Hospital
  North-West Regional Hospital Board (Staff)
  North-West Regional Hospital Board (Staff)
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Smallpox (Vaccination)
  Smallpox (Vaccination)
  General Practitioners (Reserve Funds)
  General Practitioners (Reserve Funds)
  Merit Awards
  Merit Awards
  Motor Car (Mr. A. Grant)
  Motor Car (Mr. A. Grant)
  Deaths from Drowning
  Deaths from Drowning
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Greenock-Port Glasgow Area (Unemployment)
  Greenock-Port Glasgow Area (Unemployment)
  Bishop Auckland
  Bishop Auckland
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Small Farmers, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Grants)
  Small Farmers, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Grants)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Toxic Chemicals (Wild Bird Deaths)
  Toxic Chemicals (Wild Bird Deaths)
  Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances
  Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances
  Notification of Pesticides Scheme
  Notification of Pesticides Scheme
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Marlborough House
  Marlborough House
MALTA
  Constitution (Changes)
  Constitution (Changes)
WEST INDIES
  Trinidad and Tobago (Independence Conference)
  Trinidad and Tobago (Independence Conference)
  Barbados and Leeward and Windward Islands (Federation)
  Barbados and Leeward and Windward Islands (Federation)
EDUCATION
  Regional Colleges
  Regional Colleges
  School Buildings (Survey)
  School Buildings (Survey)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Less Developed Countries (Assistance)
  Less Developed Countries (Assistance)
  Iron and Steel Companies
  Iron and Steel Companies
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Intimidation
  Intimidation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876
  Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Experiments on Living Animals
SCOTLAND
  Vegetable Prices
  Vegetable Prices
  St George's Church, Edinburgh
  St George's Church, Edinburgh
  School Canteens, Highlands and Islands (Grant Aid)
  School Canteens, Highlands and Islands (Grant Aid)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Building Trades (Company Registrations)
  Building Trades (Company Registrations)
TRANSPORT
  Diesel-Engined Vehicles
  Diesel-Engined Vehicles
ROADS
  Abergavenny-Brynmawr Road
  Abergavenny-Brynmawr Road
  Gilwern-Clydach Road
  Gilwern-Clydach Road

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

REBUILDING OF COVENT GARDEN MARKET
2.34 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the progress of the plan approved for resiting and rebuilding the Covent Garden Market and whether there is any truth in the report that an Anglo-American commercial firm has been called in to advise Her Majesty's Government.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the rebuilding of the Covent Garden Market is the responsibility of the Covent Garden Market Authority. The Covent Garden Market Act allows the Authority to rebuild the market in the Covent Garden area. If they want to go outside that area, they must seek the approval of Parliament. The Authority have decided to carry out a detailed study of the issues involved in selecting the best site for the new market. For this purpose they have engaged the Fantus Company International Division, an international firm of professional consultants, whose headquarters are in Brussels and who are associated with the Fantus Company of New York and Chicago. The Authority announced full details on April 3 and I have asked them to send a copy of their announcement to the noble Lord.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Could he give the House any information as to when the new market should be ready for occupation?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, under the Covent Garden Market Act, the new market must be built by 1968. I understand that the Authority hope that these consultants on location analysis will report to them by the end of this year.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is it not the case that the Market Authority, having looked at King's Cross, Nine Elms and Seven Dials, have called in this firm of experts to advise them whether a site can be found where a comprehensive market can be built without the need for a separate annex, as was envisaged in the Act?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not know the full reasons why the Covent Garden Market Authority have called in this firm of experts. I understand that an announcement about the annex is expected shortly. I also understand, as the noble Lord says, that the Authority are considering the Seven Dials site, which is within the 120 acres of the Covent Garden area, and also sites at Nine Elms and King's Cross.
LORD STONHAM: But, my Lords, will the noble Earl say what are the terms of reference which have been submitted to this firm of experts and on which their report will be based? Does not the fact that the Authority called in this firm show that the Government were quite wrong in insisting, as they did, on the Covent Garden Market site?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. If I may take the last part of the noble Lord's Question first, I do not deduce anything of the sort from that. I do not know exactly the terms of reference which the Covent Garden Market Authority have given to this firm of consultants, who are quite properly advising them on location analysis.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, since public money is involved, surely the Government have the right to know, or ought to inquire, what the terms of reference are in an important matter of this kind, on which we have an Act of Parliament. And if the noble Earl does not know what they are, will he undertake to communicate them to us in order that we may form a judgment on this matter?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. I think we must keep a sense of proportion. The Covent Garden Market Authority are statutorily responsible for the rebuilding of the market by 1968. The noble Lord knows as well as I do what is in the 1961 Act. They have employed a very specialised and, I have no doubt, a very able firm of location analysis experts to help them to find the best site. It is their business why they have chosen this firm to do this. They are the statutory Authority responsible ultimately to Parliament for the rebuilding of the market.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that under the present Act they have to build the market within a circumscribed area? My recollection is that many noble Lords wished that area to be extended, and I think we are justified in asking to be told now whether this firm, which the Market Authority is employing, has been instructed to look outside that area or is still restricted, as the Government insisted the Authority should be restricted, to the Covent Garden Area.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has raised the point in this way. I understand that this firm is looking outside the area. The first statement which the Authority issued said that they are looking at sites at Nine Elms, Seven Dials and King's Cross. Let me remind your Lordships of what my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack said on July 13 last. After saying that the Authority had statutory authority to build within the Covent Garden Area without further Parliamentary procedure, my noble and learned friend said [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 233. col. 281]:
"… that if they wished to use a site outside the area it is not the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to withhold his consent to the promotion of a Private Bill in Parliament by the Authority, empowering it to build the Market elsewhere…"
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I ask if there has been any investigation to ascertain whether we have our own experts in this country, capable of building our own market for us?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is not a question of experts building a market; it is a question of experts to
646
advise the Authority on location analysis. The Authority really must be allowed freedom to choose who they think are the best experts to advise them.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, again may I ask: have we not experts who can advise on location?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have no doubt that we have experts who can advise on location; but, as I have said, that is a question for the Authority.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the experts are advertising for a chief executive to advise them, and that he will be appointed from this country? Would he agree that the fact that the Market Authority have called in this firm of experts is an indication that they themselves are not satisfied that the Covent Garden area is the right place on which to build the market?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. Noble Lords must make their own inferences, but I do not take any inference from what has been done other than that the Authority are quite properly getting experts to help them to choose a site for the Market.

DRUNKEN DRIVING: PROSECUTIONS AND SENTENCES
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the persons dealt with by the courts in England and Wales, in each of the latest three years for which figures are available, for the offences of driving or being in charge of a vehicle when under the influence of drink or drugs, were dealt with at magistrates' courts and higher courts respectively; and what the percentage of convictions was in each case.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, in England and Wales, during 1958. 4,090 persons were dealt with summarily at magistrates'

647
courts for these offences, and 93 per cent, of them were convicted. In 1959, 4,745 persons were so dealt with, and 95 per cent, were convicted. In 1960, the figures were 5,593 and 96 per cent, respectively. At courts of assize and quarter sessions, 605 persons were dealt with in 1958, and 55 per cent, of these were convicted. In 1959, 619 persons were dealt with and 57 per cent, were convicted. For 1960, the figures were 735 and 63 per cent, respectively.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the persons convicted by magistrates' courts in England and Wales of the offences of driving or being in charge of a vehicle when under the influence of drink or drugs were sentenced to more than three months' imprisonment in each of the latest three years for which figures are available.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960, the numbers were 32, 35 and 63 respectively.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the trouble which he has obviously taken to sort out the Answers to the Questions I have asked? In view of his Answers, may I give him notice of my intention to put down another Question having a bearing on this subject, and I hope that he will give it the same courteous attention that he has given to these Questions to-day.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this advance warning and trust that the reply will not involve putting so many statistics before your Lordships.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
2.43 p.m
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: 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 the speech by the Lord Privy Seal at the meeting of Western European Union on 10th April, 1962, is in accordance with Government policy.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Yes, my Lords. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying that I am having copies of the statement concerned placed in the Printed Paper Office of the House. I understand that they will be ready shortly after 3.30 o'clock.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the answer was, Yes. I thought that was one of the few answers which could be understood.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was thinking of the statement the noble Viscount was talking about. I thought he was referring me to some other statement.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is unable to be here to answer this Question, which particularly applies to his Department. The House must be aware that there is a good deal of concern about the way in which these discussions seem to be going, so much outside the knowledge or the confidence of the great majority of the citizens of the country, and especially Members of Parliament. I am glad to know now that a statement is going to be submitted. I managed to get a copy five minutes ago, but it has been quite impossible to read it. However, I understand now that the Press report may be taken as having been indicative of the Government's policy—and I am particularly referring to the report in The Times of Friday last.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the statement will be available to the House. We followed the usual course in these matters, which was that a perfectly accurate summary was given to the Press. The Times published a large part of the text, and as a large part of the text had been published, we thought it right that the whole text should be available.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that there seem to be a lot of people who think we have been living in a sort of Alice in Wonderland state about this matter for months and months. Most of the country is without any really detailed information. I was promised two months ago that I should get a full official translation of the settlement which had been made between the six nations on agriculture. I have not got it yet. The pressure in the country by what is as much a pressure group as that which organised the setting up of a new channel for the I.T.V. in 1953 has been going on for months and months, and wherever you go people are concerned that they do not know. Then this statement comes out in The Times. Apparently we should not have had an official statement now if at first there had not been this, somewhat of an official leak. That is how I understand the report. But it now can be published this far.
I should like to ask the Government whether they remember that in October last the Lord Privy Seal made a speech and said then that he did not propose to ask for any amendments to the Treaty of Rome. Now, apparently, we are simply heading straght ahead for a political unity, about which we know nothing in detail, except that the Government seem to be going practically full steam ahead both for entering into an economic unity and for a wide European political union. It is about time, as my right honourable Leader said in the country (I did not know he was going to say it when I put this Question down) that we had more information.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Viscount is complaining about. He asked me about a speech made on April 10 by my right honourable friend, and I have put the whole text at his disposal and at the disposal of the House. There is nothing in it about agriculture. As regards the
650
rest of the business, there is certainly no commitment to a European unity in the political sense. I simply do not know what these things are that the noble Viscount is complaining about.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should say, reading The Times report, that there is as large a commitment as could possibly be made without actually saying it in words. I note with great interest the last paragraph of the report.
"The speech was described by many W.E.U. representatives yesterday as marking an important stage, because it left them in no doubt that the United Kingdom would play a full part in a future European political community. Mr. Heath's reference to parliamentary control"—
that is, European parliamentary control—
"was regarded as particularly important. At the same time they praised the good tactics and skill with which Mr. Heath had avoided finally committing the United Kingdom in any way."
So the whole impression is left that we are going to accept it, and then the skill of the Minister is praised for having avoided a final commitment. These are extraordinary goings-on.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should have thought that anyone would endorse the tribute to my right honourable friend's tactics and his skill, which I certainly do. If the noble Viscount thinks that a community is the same thing as a unity, all I can say is that our understanding of the English tongue is not the same.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will probably come back to this when I have had a chance to study the detailed report of the speech. Certainly I am not impressed by the answers so far.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, while not, I think, arising directly out of what my noble Leader has said, I think it came into his second supplementary Question, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he can give any indication as to when the official translation of the Agriculture Agreement for the Six is likely to be available.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I believe it is very nearly ready. But if the noble Lord would put down a Question, I might be able to give him a more precise answer than that.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, before I move that the Report be now received, it may be helpful if I refer briefly to our discussion a week ago. The House then decided that more time was required for consideration of the Amendments to the Bill, and it was subsequently agreed through the usual channels that the Report stage should be taken to-day. I am glad to be able to say that in the meantime we have been able to consider further a number of points which have been raised by noble Lords on the Bill and to put down Amendments to meet them. I would mention, more particularly, the Amendment to modify the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, in its application to certain orders under this Bill, promised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and also the Amendments designed to take up points raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in relation to the clauses aimed at avoiding damage or obstruction of access to a pipe-line. These were points which I said last week the Government had not fully considered. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is satisfactory that we have now been able to put before your Lordships proposals for dealing with them.
We have also put down a number of other Government Amendments. Most of these deal with points raised in Committee, but in some instances we thought it might be convenient to the House if we suggested alternatives to Amendments put down by noble Lords where these appeared helpful in the intention but, for one reason or another, were not quite suitable, as they stood, for inclusion in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree, therefore, that the extra time for consideration decided upon last week has been usefully spent and that the Report should now be received. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Mills.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for the statement he has just made. I have just been consulting with my noble friends who have watched the Bill more closely than I have, and they are satisfied that the noble Lord has done his very best, through the usual channels, to meet the situation, and we shall be able to deal with these matters in the course of the discussions that will take place on this Report stage.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Clause 1:
Cross-country pipe-lines not to be constructed without the Minister's authority
Control of Construction of Pipe-lines
1.—(1) It shall not be lawful for works to be executed in land for the construction of a cross-country pipe-line except under an authorisation in that behalf (in this Act referred to as a "pipe-line construction authorisation") granted by the Minister, or otherwise than along the route delineated on the map annexed to the authorisation or within such limits of lateral deviation from that route as may be specified in the authorisation; and if works are executed in contravention of this subsection, the person executing them shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(2) The Minister, on an application for a pipe-line construction authorisation, shall have power in his discretion to grant the application or to refuse it.
(4) If, after a pipe-line construction authorisation has been granted, the execution of the works whose execution is authorised thereby has not been substantially begun at the expiration of twelve months from the date on which it was granted, or at the expiration of any extension of that period which the Minister may allow, the authorisation shall become of no effect, except as regards works previously executed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: moved to insert as a new subsection (1):
"(1) The British Transport Commission, or any Board or Authority to which the functions of the said Commission may be transferred shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we make no apology for returning to the subject contained in this Amendment. As my noble friends Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Silkin are both for the time being abroad, I felt it was only fair to the House that I should take some part in this myself, because they have taken a very prominent part

653
in the particular issue covered by this Amendment.
This Bill has gradually emerged, from the rather scanty reports in the Press, as being of the high importance, which was indicated not only by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, but also by my noble friends who have been taking part in the Second Reading and Committee stage debates. It is a vastly important Bill. Having regard to what one has already observed of the progress of this new method of transport, especially in the United States of America, with one pipe being divided and taking six, seven or eight different grades of a commodity, or different commodities, by long distance transport, it is a system which will have such general effect upon the transport systems of the country as to make it necessary for this Bill to receive very special consideration indeed.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh who bore in mind, when he was speaking at an earlier stage of the Bill, something that both he and I learned from the great former leader of my Party, Philip Snowden, as to what ought to be our attitude on such matters as this. He would often say, in that rather dry way of his, "I do not think we should be getting too excited about nationalising what is even a national service if it is at the dying end of its career. When any new era in industry is being commenced which is going to affect the lives of the whole of the community and possibly interfere with the existing industries being carried on, then is the time for it to become, in the public interest, the possession of the nation, the guidance of the nation being exercised in the first researches. A decision on which end of development is best in the national interest should be made not upon the desires of private enterprise companies wishing to exploit a particular commodity, a particular area or a particular service, but upon what is in general keeping with the requirements of the whole nation."
It seems to me that the Government have once again slipped up on this matter. It is not as though they are inherently bound to oppose nationalisation. It seems like a disease with them to which they must react. Here is a very great and important stage in the development of the community of which
654
we have always been proud to be a part. This ought to be done primarily on a national basis, under national direction and national control. It ought to be comprehensive in its set-up. It ought to be able to provide full consultation with existing industries, with the final veto of the Government upon whether policy A, B or C should be adopted according to the national interest, and not according to the local exploitations that can be carried out by a separate area scheme.
How far our transport requirements and transport problems in this crowded country will follow in the wake of the United States of America, I do not know. Certainly the Government must have recognised that there is a pretty big drive coming on in this matter, or else they would not have taken what we regard as limited public interest in the matter. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, can turn to us and say, "In this Bill we are not leaving everything entirely to private enterprise. We are setting up certain requirements that will have to be met and we are retaining Government rights of interfering." But, after all, what we want is a nationally owned system in which the national interest is at the basis of the constructive proposals, and not merely a set of negative powers which are being taken by the Government in this Statute.
Therefore, I feel that the Government have really missed a great opportunity for having full control, not only in the details of any particular scheme submitted to them from a negative point of view, but also in the thinking and the construction of the matter, on the basis of the whole national interest. In this, apparently, the Government have entirely failed, because they have this "bug" in their minds against anything that could possibly be called nationalisation. When you think of the concurrent Passage through another place of the Transport Bill, in which similar powers are being sought for the limited areas of the routes by rail or canal controlled by the Transport Commission, it seems an extraordinary thing that at such a time as that, when they come right into the picture, the Government should choose to go on with that foolish policy which they have already started with regard to our great transport system, of helping to lead to the destruction of this

655
or that or the other existing transport industry without any real remedy being provided.
I want to remind the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that the railway system of this country was bound, and proved itself bound, to come to disaster. It was known to all of us, when we were discussing it in the Parliament of 1921–22, what could be done about the railways; and how foolish it had been to leave a whole national requirement of railway transport in such a broken up, dreadful state that there were 146 or 147 competing companies, at a time, in 1919, after the war, when, until there was a railway strike, the railways could afford to pay only a minimum wage of 17s. a week to a railway fireman—an absolute scandal—let alone the fact that, of course, as soon as we had a war such as we had in 1914–18 the railways immediately became a great charge on the State, as they did in the last war.
The legislation which followed led to a reduction of the actual railway companies concerned to about four or five (I forget which it was), and we had immediately the recognition by a capitalist Government that you had at last to safeguard especially the passenger interests. Although you would not have imagined it was possible, the railway companies were given powers to run buses on the roads in an effort to combat the competition which had already arisen by privately owned transport covering the same ground and routes as the railways were already covering.
Nobody now disputes that you had to take over the ownership of the railways in this country. But after a Labour Government had provided a really integrated system of nationally owned transport, what did the Government do? Again, in their hatred of the word "nationalisation", they broke up the integrated transport service, and although apparently they could not get rid of all the road transport they had to dispose of, they let all the nice juicy bits go to private enterprise; with the increasing handicap of terrific loss of revenue to the Transport Commission, ever since, involving extra costs to the taxpayer while increasing profits go into the hands of private transport owners. This is the blessed doctrine of
656
private enterprise which they have adopted and promoted and to which they are sworn.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question, as I am not sure whether some of his speech is relevant? Is there anything in the Bill to stop the British Transport Commission running a pipe-line?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If the noble Lord had studied the Transport Bill at the same time he might be able to answer that question himself.
LORD HAWKE: Do we not then want an Amendment to the Transport Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not at all. I want an Amendment here giving full control of this scheme to the nation now. I think that the noble Lord had better think again. I think I made that perfectly clear at the outset of my speech. If I may say so, we have seen in many other directions the same spirit working, which is one of the reasons why the Government, at the end of ten years of Tory finance, have added to their difficulties in costs and losses at the present time.
I hope that before this Bill gets through Parliament there will be a change of outlook. We have not in the past been very happy about the treatment which has been given in another place to Bills which have entered their Parliamentary discussion in this place. Large and important Bills such as the Shops Bill and the Weights and Measures Bill, on which we spent hours and hours, and even weeks, in this House never even reached discussion in another place. I hope that that is not going to be the fate of this Bill. I hope that, before it gets through the other place, there will have been a re-assessment of what is the real requirement from Parliament in dealing with this new, great phase of what I say deliberately will be a new era in the transport arrangements of this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
(" (1) The British Transport Commission, or any Board or Authority to which the functions of the said Commission may be transferred, shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain.").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
3.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble Leader has said. I think perhaps we have not given the Government the credit to which they are entitled in abandoning, to some extent, their dislike of controls. They have been forced by the march of events to introduce this Bill to give them powers for what they call an orderly development of the system of pipe-lines. We give them credit for that, but we do not think the Bill goes far enough.
The Government claim that they have powers under Clause 8 of the Bill, and elsewhere, to prevent unnecessary duplication of pipe-lines, unnecessary waste and extravagance, waste of resources and capital investment, the monuments of which we see all around us in redundant railway lines stemming from unrestricted competition. Even within some of our lifetimes the Great Central Railway was built with a terminus in London with the aim of competing with some of the other lines, "tapping" some of the traffic from the Midlands. So it did, and what was the result? I believe (I have not checked this, but I have been told) that the Great Central Railway never paid a dividend; and certainly its competition contributed to the appalling state of our railways in the middle of this century. I hope that any Minister will be sufficiently farsighted to use his powers under Clause 8 of this Bill to prevent something like the Great Central Railway debacle happening again over pipe-lines.
That is all very well, but that is a purely negative power. What power are the Government taking under this Bill to allow them to give a positive stimulus to development in any part of this country? They have set up the National Economic Development Corporation, which presumably will be charged with the duty of planning our industry. If this means that transport is to play its part in the revival and resurgence of British industry this Bill could give the required stimulus, if it were amended. But, as it is, the Government appear to have set their face against assuming any powers of control of the economy. I wonder if they have ever looked across the Channel? They are very anxious, apparently, to take this country into close association with Europe, but what sort of
658
situation will they find in the transport world if they do? My information is that all over the Continent transport is very closely controlled, nationally or, indeed, supra-nationally. People on the Continent of Europe long ago gave up the idea that a section of the economic life of a country such as transport could be left to the free play of private enterprise.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am in some difficulty, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would help me. We are considering the first Amendment, which says that
"The British Transport Commission … shall have power to construct and operate pipelines in Great Britain."
I have understood from the Minister in charge of the Bill, right the way through the debates we have had on Committee stage, that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the British Transport Commission from laying and operating pipelines on their own property without let or hindrance, and that there are provisions in this Bill which would empower them to construct other short-length lines in order to link up one of their pipe-lines with another.
It appears to me that the noble Viscount's argument, Which he has put forward with so much force, really relates to the second Amendment. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House or the wish of the mover of this Amendment to discuss both Amendments together, but, as I understand it, and as I understood the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, it is the second Amendment which allows the British Transport Commission to be the arbiter of who shall or who shall not have pipe-lines. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for being, with that blunt honesty which we always admire, so forthright, and for saying that, in his view, this means the complete nationalisation of pipe-lines.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is what we want.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what the noble Viscount wants. That is the second Amendment, I think, with great respect, and not the first. If it is for the convenience of the House I will speak on that one.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I may just point out to my noble friend that we are perfectly clear where we are on the matter. I did refer to the Transport Bill which is passing through another place, and it is perfectly obvious that, although the powers which the noble Lord refers to are there, they will be strictly confined to something which can be done on land the Commission already own and nothing else. They will have no wider voice, unless our Amendments are adopted, in the general purposes for which this Bill is intended.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I would not claim to be a Parliamentary draftsman. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Hawke: let us address ourselves to the question which the noble Viscount has raised when the Transport Bill is before your Lordships' House. I find it difficult to attempt to legislate about a Bill of which I have not the slightest knowledge as a Member of your Lordships' House. We have no knowledge of what is happening in another place until it gets here.
I would address myself to the noble Viscount's main argument. To me this is a simple problem. If the noble Viscount had been addressing his very strong argument as to whether the Minister in charge of the operation and the administration of pipe-lines in this country should be the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Power, I could have understood that better, because I quite agree with him. The Minister of Transport is the Minister to weigh the pros and cons of this country's transport economics as between one form of transport and another, I can only hope that the noble Viscount will be as strong in his support of the Amendment which I think is going to be moved later on as he is on this one. Honesty compels me to say that I cannot agree that at the present time it would be in the national interest to nationalise the whole of this new form of transport. The British Transport Commission at the present time are struggling and struggling against great adversity to bring the present system of transport in this country to something like economic reality.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Against Government action.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We can all recriminate. I do not think it pays very much. I would not say who was to blame from 1947, who was responsible for rectifying the errors and omissions that marked the 1947 Act—and there were a great many. Do not let us forget that although in one part of the 1947 Act, we told the British Transport Commission, "You have got to run your industry at a profit, as a commercial undertaking, taking one year with another," in another part of that Bill we put in a clause which prevented them ever afterwards from getting near doing that thing. If we are going to job backwards we can spend all our time in vilification of one Government and vilification of the other Government. I am quite prepared to go all the way with the noble Viscount that the chief culprit in recent years has been the present Government, in their interference with the British Transport Commission, for political reasons, preventing them from ever carrying on the job properly. I am perfectly prepared to admit that. But the strange part about it is that when, at long last, we have a Minister of Transport who intends to run the transport of this country without political interference we have a host of protests about the increases of fares to make it a profitable proposition.
Let us take the position as it is to-day. I have some regard for the Minister of Transport. I know noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have not that high regard. I have a great regard for the brains of the man at the top of the British Transport Commission.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And his salary, I expect.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have great admiration for that too, because I believe in paying the rate for the job. Do not let us get into that argument. What has he said? He has great difficulty in finding the top managerial brains in order to carry out the task which has been given to him. He has to face a total deficit of £500 million. I understand that it has been said that this year the deficit on British Railways alone will be about £127 million, and

661
about the same in 1963. Does it really add up to common sense, business sense, in a Bill like this, to saddle the British Transport Commission or the taxpayer—that is what it means in the end—with the huge speculative capital expenditure which will have to be put into transport by pipe-line?
Let us allow the British Transport Commission to enter this field, if they so desire, and if it is profitable. I, for one, would always commend the British Transport Commission and their top management for putting profitability first in their consideration. The Commission have lost enough of the taxpayer's money up to date anyway. I do not think it would be a fair thing to do, it would not be in the taxpayer's interest, it would not be a business proposition, to put on the Transport Commission the task of being responsible for running pipe-lines except on their own property, entering into huge capital commitments for the acquisition of land and all that cost of speculation which this new form of transport must entail.
I am a wholehearted supporter of giving to the Minister of Transport the authority of controlling this project on behalf of the State. I think it should be the Minister of Transport who should have control over all forms of transport so that he can weigh them and balance them one with another. I think that at this present juncture it would be the height of folly for the Government to put on the British Transport Commission, as a national responsibility and a national duty, outside their carrying on of pipe-lines in the interests of their own business, the responsibility, financial, organisational and managerial responsibility of going in for this new form of transport. When the British Transport Commission can come to the Minister of Transport and say "We are now in a financial position, with built-up reserves and surpluses, to take over some of this", then I shall hold a different opinion. That is my view to-day, and I sincerely hope that the House will take it into consideration in debating this Amendment.
3.20 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I do not think I quite agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken in his interpretation of either the
662
first or the second of the Amendments on the Marshalled List. The first Amendment states, in effect, simply that
"The British Transport Commission or any Board … shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain."
As the noble Lord has just said, the Bill itself may empower people to do something on their own property; but, so far as I can read into it, the Bill gives the British Transport Commission no power on or off their own property. The second Amendment referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken does not create nationalisation of pipe-lines. As I read it, all the second Amendment states is that the Minister may, after consultation with the British Transport Commission, grant a pipe-line undertaking to anybody.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? But as to whether he is right in his interpretation of the first Amendment and I am wrong, I was basing my statement on many statements which the Minister has made throughout the passage of this Bill: that there is power in the Bill for the British Transport Commission to apply to run pipelines for linking up purposes on land which does not belong to them. In regard to the second statement he has just made, I asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he wanted nationalisation, and he said, "Yes, that is what we want."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Or the best we can get out of this Tory Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not arguing about what the noble Viscount would like. His reason for putting down these Amendments is to give the Commission the right of veto on all pipe-lines, whoever lays them.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what I understood. I understood that he wants complete nationalisation of pipe-lines. If I am wrong, I am sorry.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: After that gentle interjection, I revert to what I said previously: that all the first Amendment does is to give the Trans-

663
port Commission the right, if all the conditions are fulfilled, to construct a pipe-line—no more. The second Amendment simply states in effect that the Minister must consult with the British Transport Commission. But then the Minister has the right to grant or refuse. So there is no question here of nationalisation. Whatever the Minister may have said, whatever my noble friend the Leader of the Party may have said, does not alter the words of the Amendment or the words of Clause 8. If I may say so, in as few words as is necessary, both these Amendments together do nothing about nationalisation. That is a myth. I hope that noble Lords opposite who are as strong in their anti-nationalisation feelings as is the Minister in charge of the Bill, will not be misled into believing that either of these Amendments has anything at all to do with nationalisation. Indeed, unless I utterly misunderstand the words on the Marshalled List, all we ask is that the British Transport Commission shall be in the same category as any private applicant—neither more nor less.
I listened to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill during earlier debates on this measure. He was most frank. I admire him for it. He said, "We believe in private enterprise. We do not welcome nationalisation. Therefore we are satisfied that the Bill as it stands, is right." One can understand that. That is all that the noble Lord has said: "No nationalisation; private enterprise for ever. Amen." It seems to me that this ideology of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is standing in the way of what might be, and ought to be, sound common sense. As my noble friend the Leader of my Party has stated, it is grossly unfair that people in one section of the community, if they can fulfil the conditions, may construct pipelines ad lib., but that the one operating service in the country which may make sound use of pipe-lines here or there, for well-defined and specified purposes, should be given no chance to do so. As I see it, that is neither good business nor common sense.
Here is one of the greatest services in the country, the railways, losing money hand over fist, largely because of what the Conservative Government did several
664
years back by disintegrating an integrated service. They are losing large sums of money; they are highlighted in the Press. Here is an opportunity—I do not say a certainty—in what looks like becoming a new transport service, for the British Transport Commission to join in. They own a good many miles of land where pipes could be laid alongside the railways. That is perhaps where most of them ought to be. They have a chance to resurrect what died when the Conservative Government came back into office in 1951.
I should have thought that every noble Lord in this House, looking at public service and good sense, could not fail to appreciate the intention of these first two Amendments, and would accept the request of my noble friend the Leader of my Party to help the British Transport Commission in regard to this matter of pipe-lines, so that the field is not left completely open to the "big boys" to get in at the early doors, to "scoop the pool" and have all the facilities available to them, leaving the tag ends, as it were, for generations to come, to the British Transport Commission when nothing will be worth having. To do that is not only anti-good sense, it is anti-nation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that there is something to be said for these two Amendments which simply put the British Transport Commission in the same position as individuals or companies. I hope that he will start thinking on those lines.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that this Amendment was fully considered during the Committee Stage and was then defeated on a Division. I have listened carefully to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, have said, but my view is not altered that this Bill is dealing with the problem of controlling pipe-lines in the right way. I described it when we debated this matter earlier, as "nationalisation by the back door." The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has in his honest forthright way made it quite clear that this is what we are considering. He said that what we need is a nationally owned system, which should be dealt with on a national basis under a national control.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: These Amendments do not say so.
LORD MILLS: No, but the Leader of the Opposition has made it quite clear what is behind these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, appealed to noble Lords behind me and said that he hoped they did not share the anti-nationalisation feelings of the Minister in charge of the Bill; he said that I did not welcome nationalisation and that for me it was a matter of "private enterprise for ever". Well, I have never expressed myself in such terms. I have had a great deal to do with the nationalised industries. I realise the mistakes which the Opposition made—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And the Government!
LORD MILLS:—at the time they were the Government in dealing with this problem of nationalisation. That does not mean I have ever expressed myself as being against any kind of nationalisation in any circumstances, which was what the noble Lord attributed to me. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has said that this is not what the Amendment says. Amendment No. 1, as it appears, is merely superfluous because there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Transport Commission from applying for what powers they like. This Bill does not deal specifically with the powers of the Transport Commission. Any limitation or extension of those powers will be found in the Transport Bill, which is shortly to be discussed in your Lordships' House. But if we take into account Amendment No. 2, which prohibits the Minister from granting any application for a pipe-line without first consulting the British Transport Commission, it is quite obvious that the intention of the Amendment is to make the real authority the British Transport Commission and not the Minister.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does that not mean we shall have to wait until Statutory Orders or Regulations are made by the Minister for the exact Regulations he will issue in regard to this? Nobody knows what will happen. But let there be no misunderstanding about this. I think the Minister will admit that in
666
his previous speeches he has clearly reckoned to be dealing with the question of national ownership. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 55), col. 773];
"… the Government do not think that public ownership is desirable at this stage."
Those words were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. That is, in fact, the very thing we fear: that you put private enterprise on this alone at the start, you take the cream off the milk, and then, when they get into trouble, you are willing to nationalise. I say that that is reprehensible.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not withdraw a single word of what I said, but that does not give to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, the right to say that I am against nationalisation in any circumstances and in any conditions. I was dealing with this Bill and with the question of pipe-lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was quite right when he said that there was nothing in this Bill dealing with the powers of the British Transport Commission. The Transport Bill, which is shortly to be considered by your Lordships, enables the Commission to construct pipe-lines for their own purposes, or where the line is to be mainly on the property of the Commission; and it enables them to enter into agreements with other persons for the construction or operation of pipe-lines by those other persons. That appears to be the right approach to the matter.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who put his finger on what is a very practical point which I suggest noble Lords opposite are apt to ignore: that, in view of the financial position of the British Transport Commission, and in view of the call upon its energies or those of its successors, it would be folly to saddle it with a responsibility for the financing of pipelines which would mainly be required by private enterprise for the conveyance of their materials.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just put this to the noble Lord? He talks about the financial position of the Transport Commission. Have not the Government contributed to that in large measure by taking away a good portion of their

667
revenue from the roads? And, in the other direction, does this Pipe-lines Bill not seek to derogate from their present revenue by taking traffic away from them?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am not going to be tempted to debate the position of the railways. The right time to debate that is when we consider the Transport Bill in this House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But this affects it.
LORD MILLS: I repeat that it would be folly to saddle the British Transport Commission with this operation. I think the powers that will be given to the Transport Commission in regard to pipelines under their own Bill are right and proper. I think it is right in this case to leave the development of pipe-lines to private enterprise, always provided that there is public control on a recognised plan and pattern. And I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill does provide that. I am sorry, but I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, make a most unsatisfactory reply. If he were associated with any business whatever one would have thought that, as one responsible to a board of directors, he would never have made such a statement. We have to face the fact, in a changing world—and we are fortunate, I think, to live in times of change—that as one industry rises another falls. Railways came in when the stage coach went out of business; the motor car came in as the horse and carriage went out. Surely here we have a form of transport which is likely to develop and which one can develop only by taking traffic from road, rail and inland water transport.
There are two forms of transport under the British Transport Commission, inland waterways and the railways, and both will lose a considerable amount of traffic. Surely, if they are a declining industry it is good business for them to take the alternative traffic through their own service. One would have thought that anybody associated with ordinary industry, when in this changing world their business was going to decline and
668
a new line of commodity arise, would automatically change their industry's operations in order to take advantage of the new advances in technology. I think that is only good business on the nation's part.
In regard to the financial position of the Commission, the Government have given Dr. Beeching an impossible task. There is no human being in this country who, on the basis of even the revised capital structure of the British Transport Commission, can make the railways pay, unless in fact you are going to ruin the general economics of the country as well. In order to make them pay, you would have to cut out commuter services and all sorts of other things, such as social services. But here is an opportunity, with a developing form of transport, for them to undertake it and, in fact, to cut some of their losses on the normal operations which they have; in fact, they will be put further "in the red" if they do not undertake it. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be supported.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not think it will be very, very long before we finally learn of the proposals of Dr. Beeching, which will mean the continuance of railway services which are paying, and of those which can be made to pay. I think it will then be found that the cuts in the railway services which will then have to be made, to exclude other categories of traffic, will be socially intolerable and will mean that, with the agreement of all political Parties, the Government will have to decide on those public transport services which will have to continue and on how they will be financed. In other words, certain traffic, which is bound to lose money and cannot avoid losing money, will have to continue for social reasons, and as taxpayers we shall have to pay for the losses on such traffic.
It therefore seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government are stubbornly resisting the attempt which we are making to give British Railways a better opportunity of earning profits on pipe-lines. That does seem to be a very sound proposition from the business point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that he did not think it was right that the British Transport Commission should be saddled with the

669
responsibility for developing pipe-lines on a large scale. But he is quite happy to saddle private enterprise with this responsibility, and it is absolutely certain that no one in private enterprise will build a pipe-line, or seek to build a pipe-line, unless he is pretty certain that he is going to make a profit. In other words, in seeking to protect the British Transport Commission from responsibility for building pipe-lines, the noble Lord is at the same time seeking to see that they do not make a profit out of this tremendous and potentially great service.
I think it was absolutely incorrect of the noble Lord to suggest that my noble Leader, in advocating nationally owned pipe-lines, was in fact referring to these Amendments; he was saying precisely what we should like to do if we had the political power to do it. Then, again, the noble Lord said that Amendment No. 2 would make the British Transport Commission the authority, and not the Minister. It would do nothing of the kind; it would mean that, if a service were required, the Minister would consult the British Transport Commission, who would advise him whether in fact they thought the new pipe-line service was necessary. In other words, they might be able to convince the Minister that that particular traffic was being adequately and properly carried by an existing service; or they might be able to convince the Minister that they should have an opportunity of erecting that pipe-line themselves. We should be putting a publicly owned service first, or giving them the first crack of the whip. That is a very different thing from saying that they would then be the authority.
There is a complete cleavage between us, and I think it is a cleavage of ideologies. We on this side of your Lordships' House generally take the view that, if an industry is owned in common by the nation as a whole, that industry should be given an advantage, if there is an advantage to be given, in the way of business to be done—which seems to us to be sound, practical common sense—rather than to do what the Party opposite have done, for example, to hand back the profitable road haulage industry to private enterprise, and then to ask the taxpayers to go on paying £100 million or more per year to finance
670
the deficits on the railways, which have been created by just such a policy. That seems to us to be utterly daft, and certainly not in the interests of the public as a whole. I would submit that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is now advocating, with regard to the pipe-lines of the future, precisely what the Party opposite did from 1951 onwards and, indeed, what they did in years previous to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said, "We believe in private enterprise". Quite frankly, in a number of instances, so do I. But I believe that, in so far as it is possible, where private enterprise and public enterprise are competing they should compete on equal terms. Nobody can pretend that publicly owned railways are allowed to compete on equal terms with the road haulage industry, which is privately owned. Just consider the conditions under which the railways have to operate. They have to own, build, pay for and maintain their tracks. They have to pay for their signalling systems. They have to pay for all their accidents. If the people who run road haulage enterprises had to pay on that basis, they would be paying something like £500 million more than they do at present. So the conditions are quite unequal.
It is quite certain that some home lines, such as the Great Central and other smaller sections of railways, are going to be closed down. Not all of them, but some of them, obviously, will be properties which would be very suitable for pipe-lines. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to discuss the exact niceties of this Amendment, and of Amendment No. 2, and to say, "British Railways will be quite free to come forward with suggestions as to the pipe-line and to approach the Minister." But the plain fact of the matter is that the Government's opposition to this Amendment—and, presumably, to the next one to which the noble Lord objects even more strongly—makes it very clear that they are opposed to giving British Railways any greater chance of getting into the pipe-line business than the limited one which they will have under this Bill. That seems to us to be wholly sinister, and it also seems that the Government are determined to perpetuate the inequalities under which British Railways labour and have laboured, and that we shall

671
therefore lose the opportunity, which will come if our views are accepted, of British Railways getting into this business and earning a profit out of it.
It is not very often that from memory one can remind the Government that they have been wrong—I did it earlier this afternoon about a matter a few months old—but I say that, if we all
3.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved in subsection (2) after "application", where that word occurs a second time, to insert:
"subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit to make".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for serving up again this chestnut, which appeared on the Committee stage of the Bill, but I am encouraged by the remarkable amount of recognition which has come from the Front Bench of the points that were made by various noble Lords at that stage into hoping that perhaps this also is a matter upon which their mind is still open and where they may again be prepared to listen to arguments. When this point was discussed in Committee, my noble friend Lord Chesham said that he could think of no sort of modification or variation of the authorisation that was likely to be desired by the Minister except one of route, which,
reassemble in a few years' time and the Government's ideas on this have gone through, we shall again have the unhappy task of telling them that they have made the wrong choice to the bitter cost of the taxpayer.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

St Davids, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Amwell, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Archibald, L.

Lucan, E.

Walston, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hawke, L.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newall, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Howe, E.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Ironside, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Jeffreys, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bossom, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Cawley, L.

Lambert, V.

Saltoun, L.

Chesham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Spens, L.

Dynevor, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tenby, V.

Fortescue, E.

Margesson, V.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Merrivale, L.

Twining, L.

Hampton, L.

Mills, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

as he pointed out, is already covered by paragraph 5 of the First Schedule to this Bill. I then said that I would be spurred into further thought and research to see whether I thought that to be correct. Having done so, my Lords, I am not convinced that variations of route are the only matters that would be likely to be raised by the Minister at the stage when he is considering granting or refusing an application for a pipe-line construction authorisation.
When the application is made to him, it is made in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule, and one of those provisions, it is true, is that the route should be specified. However, that is not the whole of the matter, because Clause 38 of the Bill, which was inserted by Her Majesty's Government during Committee stage, also requires the Minister to have regard to various amenities—plant life, geological factors, and so on. And there is the further point—I think it is an ancillary matter, but it appears in the Bill—that under Clause 5, when the Minister grants an

673
application for a construction authorisation, he also grants any necessary planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which may be necessary on account of development involved in laying the pipes, and, I suppose, in building any ancillary works which may go with them.
Therefore, I want to make quite certain that the Minister's powers are suitably comprehensive at this stage. Although the provisions of the First Schedule do not specifically mention the ancillary works to the pipelines at the stage of the Minister's considering the application, none the less I think that, for tidiness and general convenience, those would probably be included so that he could give planning permission for them under Clause 5 at that time, because, as I understand the Bill, that is the only time at which he could give planning permission. If any development were proposed at any other time, it would have to be dealt with by the other procedure under the 1947 Act. The whole of the pipe-dine and its ancillary work seem to me to fall for the Minister's consideration when he looks, in the first instance, at the application for an authorisation.
He might want to alter the route of the pipe-line, and that, as I said, is covered; but so far as the ancillary works are concerned, he might want to do other things. For example, he might want to say that a pumping station, which is, in some cases, a fairly large structure, should not, for one reason or another, be in the position proposed, but that it should rather be somewhere else; and there are no doubt other things which could be thought of. Even if they cannot be thought of now, they may crop up in practice. As I understand the way the Bill is drafted, the Minister could not, with his present powers, require any such modifications to be made. He could modify the route, but that is all. Any other matters, such as the positioning of pumping stations, would, if they were unsatisfactory to him, have to be refused, and with them the whole of the application. He could, perhaps, say that he would he prepared to consider a new application which fell in with his wishes, which he might at that stage indicate. If that were to be the common practice, then a pipe-line
674
owner would have to go through the whole rigmarole again, and would have to send in his application for the preliminary stage under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule, for the veto powers to be exercised or not, as the case may be. The whole matter would become immensely complex and long-winded, and I believe quite unecessarily so.
Therefore, I am asking Her Majesty's Government if they will again think about this and see whether they have sufficient powers in the Bill for the Minister to make a comprehensive survey of the whole scope of the application when it first comes before him, so that he can deal with it in line with all the powers laid on him by the Bill, and particularly in regard to the amenity provisions in Clause 38. I am not convinced that this is covered, and I note that noble Lords opposite appear to share my view, since they have put down Amendments very much to the same effect as mine. With that weight of feeling in the House behind us, I hope that noble Lords on the Front Bench will be able to give us some satisfaction in this matter, although I now raise it for the second time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("application") insert (", subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit to make,").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has made out a very good case. It seems to me that he could have gone even a little further, because whereas Clause 18 provides that the Minister shall have regard to safety and to the material from which the pipeline is constructed, I cannot see that it necessarily provides that the Minister must be satisfied as to the size or capacity of the line. Having regard to future development plans of his own Department, the Minister might very well require that the pipe-line should be rather larger than the promoter wished it to be. Moreover, the Minister will alone have cognisance of the strategic reasons. He can, of course, under the Bill as it stands, order the pipe-line to be routed in a different way; but, as my noble friend said, the question of putting pumping stations in one place or another might very well require to be considered from a strategic aspect. I should have

675
thought that this was a very harmless provision and might be very useful, and I hope that my noble friend will accept it.
4.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we discussed the next following Amendment, which is mine, at the same time as this one, because, as the noble Viscount has said, we have been thinking on parallel lines on this question, both in the Committee stage and now. On looking at my previous Amendment, I think that that was preferable to the one I have put down now, if only for the faat that it consisted of four words instead of about fifteen; but the intention is the same. However, I note that I have used another word, the word "conditions", and I suspect that there may be trouble over the precise meaning attached to the words "modifications" and "conditions".
First of all, it seems odd that in subsection (2) of the main direct clause describing the Minister's powers and duty, Clause 1, the Minister should be empowered only to accept or to reject the application. It is only common sense that he should be empowered to modify it, and, if that is so, surely this is the place to say it, and to say it quite plainly. The kind of modifications or conditions in my mind were these. It is true that the same thought occurred to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as occurred to me—namely, that the precise location, appearance, and so on, of the above-ground associated equipment might need modification by the Minister before he could feel that he could approve it. But other considerations have also occurred to me. Suppose the Minister had an application for a pipe-line from point A to point B, and that just beyond point B there was an industrial area the development of which the Minister particularly wanted to assist. Suppose a factory or dockyard, or something like that, was situated beyond the place where the applicant intended to stop. Surely the Minister should be able to say: "Yes, you can have your application, provided you extend it five miles beyond in order to fufil another useful purpose." Or it may be near the start of a pipe-line, where the Government propose to build
676
a refinery which they would want to link up to the pipe-line. It seems to me that it should be within the powers of the Minister to impose a condition such as that. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Viscount on this Amendment, even though we are looking on the problem with slightly different emphasis.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, if I may step in the same footsteps as the noble Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to ask your Lordships to devote consideration to Amendment No. 5 as well, and to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 refer to the same point. I thought that I had tried to be fairly helpful about this matter on the last occasion and I feel a little disillusioned by what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, because evidently I did not succeed. In Committee, in response to Amendments moved by my noble friend and the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, I undertook to see whether we could make the matter any clearer
Evidently there was some misconception about the power of modification. I referred to paragraph 5 of the First Schedule and indicated that there was the power to modify. But on looking at this, as a consequence of the complaint that that was not very clear, I have put down Amendment No. 5 in order to clear up the point. On consideration, it did not seem to me to be necessary to go any further than this. I had not supposed that the matter would be raised again in exactly the same manner as it was in Committee. I make no complaint about that. But I do not feel that the arguments put forward by noble Lords to-day make me any more inclined to accept the point.
I would criticise the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, because of the implication it contains that the Minister should be able to modify anything, if it seemed good to him to do so. That goes too far, because otherwise the Minister does not have power to do that. As I said last time, his power of modification is restricted to route. I think that it is important to have planning in mind when considering whether modifications or conditions

677
are desirable. With regard to the difference of definition "between" modifications" and "conditions", I think that it could reasonably be said that the argument is equally good for one as for the other.
My noble friend, who was worried about this planning matter, is really under a misconception. I have sought the best advice I could find since the last stage and I am assured that the Minister has just the same powers under the planning section (Clause 5) as has the Minister of Housing or the local planning authority, if they are doing it. I know, because we had a private argument earlier, that the noble Earl remains unconvinced on this matter and perhaps I had better go into a little more detail. If it was a question of a pipe-line which the Minister was prepared to agree, except for the position of one or two pumping stations—the example which my noble friend put forward—we could consider it in exactly the same light as that in which it would be considered if the local planning authority were dealing with the matter in the normal way. If the local planning authority or the Minister wanted the position of a pumping station moved, they could do one of two things: either turn down the whole application or, what I feel would be more likely, grant the application with the exception of that part relating to the pumping station whose position they wished to move and ask the applicant to put in a new application for the pumping station alone on a different site. That is how it is done now.
That certainly creates a certain amount of trouble, as things always do when they do not go the way an applicant wishes. But the amount of trouble which my noble friend alleged it would create is rather exaggerated, if I may say so. I think that the amount of trouble they will have to go to is little different from that which is gone to by an applicant for planning permission for any other kind of development. The essential point is that the Minister has just the same powers when he is granting a deemed planning permission as the local planning authority, and it would not really be desirable to "mess about" in this Bill with the powers under the Planning Acts and give the Minister different planning powers from those which are available to the Minister of Housing
678
and the local planning authorities, particularly when the planning powers would then be different in the case of a cross country pipe-line and a local one. I do not think this Bill is the place in which to make such changes in planning powers. The position in this matter is really quite clear.
The noble Viscount particularly mentioned the duty on the Minister and, of course, on the applicant to pay due regard to amenity and so on. But the Minister is merely required to have regard to amenities in taking action under Clause 1 or Clause 5, as is clear from the Bill; and I think the position is adequately covered. As regards the dimensions of pipe-lines—if I may refer my noble friend Lord Hawke ahead to what will come in on the new Clause 8, which will be moved a little later on, and if I may be allowed to anticipate that your Lordships will be good enough to accept it—he will find his point is quite well covered there.
To return to the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, it did not seem to me that the conditions he said he had in mind were anything which could not be dealt with by means of the Bill as it stands at present. Could we just look at what might happen? Restoration of land, for instance, is covered by Clause 39. The noble Earl mentioned, with some unease, like my noble friend, tile powers of the Minister to attach conditions to the granting of planning permission under Clause 5. I hope I have dealt satisfactorily with that. This, after all, will cover such questions as burying the line, replanting trees, hedges and so on, and the external appearance of such buildings as pumping stations. Conditions as to multiple use and non-duplication, if I may so call it, may be imposed under Clause 8. I say quite seriously that I do not think there is any necessity for either of these Amendments. I hope that noble Lords concerned will not wish to press them, in view of my explanation, but, on the other hand, will accept Amendment No. 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, when we come to it and I move it formally.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before my noble friend decides whether to accept or reject the noble Lord's invitation, I should like to ask two questions arising out of what the noble Lord has said. Both Amendments, Nos. 3 and 4,

679
have been tabled in the belief that the Minister could either accept or reject an application and could not modify. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in his speech, said that Amendment No. 5 which he will later be moving is to meet that point. But if, as he then subsequently said, there is no need for these Amendments at all, I am wondering why there is any need for Amendment No. 5, because that does not appear to do what either of the other two Amendments are intended to do. It appears to be governed by the provisions of the First Schedule only, and, therefore, could effect only modifications which might come under the First Schedule. It is impossible for anyone to say that other modifications will not be necessary in respect of particular schemes which come outside the First Schedule. Could the noble Lord answer those points?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised a query on something I have said, I take it that I am in order in speaking again. The noble Lord has not quite gathered what I did say, probably because I did not make it clear enough. What I said was this. He was perfectly right in saying that the Government Amendment No. 5 refers to the existing modifications, and I tried to explain at the beginning that what I had undertaken to consider was whether the matter was left too vague in the drafting of the Bill for ready comprehension by a normal, ordinary person trying to read it, and whether it could be modified and, if so, how. I thought there was a point there and that a drafting Amendment to clarify the matter was indicated, which is Amendment No. 5, as are Nos. 23 and 24 when we get to them. That is as far as I went, and I hope it is now clear. So far as the other two Amendments are concerned, there is that difference: this one is drafting for clarity, while the others do something which I have been trying to indicate to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, could I, with leave, ask the noble Lord this question? I do not think he answered the point I made as to whether under the Bill the Minister has power to insist on a variation of the route asked for.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am, I am afraid, playing ducks and drakes with the Rules of Order by speaking again. I cannot remember the noble Earl asking it, but I have no doubt that he did. I think the gist of his query was: does it make clear that there is power to modify the route asked for?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: On the Minister's initiative.
LORD CHESHAM: I thought that was made perfectly clear in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule. The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to draw the attention of people to the fact that that power to modify exists. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord's question.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the last thing I should wish to do would be to suggest that I am not appreciative of any Amendment that is put down by Her Majesty's Government to meet points that I made on the Committee stage. I entirely appreciate what my noble friend has said about his Amendment No. 5, and I applaud it, because it seems to me to be quite admirable that where a power to modify is to be in a Schedule and not in the body of the Bill an Amendment should be put down by the Government to put it in the correct place in a substantive clause and show that it exists. This my noble friend has done, and I am grateful to him. It is, however, as he said, only part of the substance of the discussion we had in Committee on the point. The other half related to the powers of the Minister which the First Schedule did not provide. I have listened with great care to what my noble friend has said this afternoon and, if I may say so, I think he has made a useful speech in clearing this matter up. It is quite true that the order to modify the route exists in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule. By that I would expect that the Minister would not have power to force it to be elongated or varied in such a way that it was, in fact, a different pipe-line altogether from that for which application had been made. It may be that the point of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, would not be met purely under that modification of route, but what I think my noble friend has established is that where the Minister is not satisfied with the application as it is made to him, and

681
cannot cure the defect in it by imposing purely planning conditions under Clause 5, then in practice he will refuse it and tell the applicant to go back and think again and produce something more acceptable to him. I cannot see how he has powers under this Bill as drafted to grant part of the application, as my noble friend suggested, and to refuse part, because the application stands as one and the power is only to accept or refuse it. Nevertheless, a great deal of light has been shed by my noble friend upon what would be the procedure under this Bill. I accept his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN had given notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (2): "or to grant it subject to such conditions as appear to him to be expedient." The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have discussed this Amendment, and I think the points about which I still have doubts can be raised on Amendment No. 64.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we have also discussed this Amendment, and I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("applications") insert ("and to any modifications subject to which they may be granted").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point came up in the Committee stage; it was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." His point was that it was unfair to the property owner that there should be a pipe-line authorisation hanging over his head for a long period. Perhaps I may explain my object in moving this Amendment, which would change from twelve months to six months the period within which the applicant must begin work on his pipe-line. What is there in the Bill as it stands to stop a possible abuse of the procedure by an undertaker who wishes to go into the pipe-line business putting in applications for a number of
682
different pipe-lines? He might stake out claims in all sorts of directions, especially those likely to be profitable, holding on to them and not starting work, and indeed, perhaps having only the resources to start work on one, though still keeping his authorisation for another. It seems to me that if there is a rather shorter time limit, and if the Minister, as my following Amendment indicates, has to scrutinise rather carefully the grounds upon which extensions are asked for, that is likely to prevent any such abuse of the procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. line 7, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think the noble Earl answered his own question. The Minister, of course, is there to see that any provisions in the Bill are not abused. We have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl in what he is seeking to do, because no one wants land to remain with a threat of a pipe-line unresolved for any longer than it must be. But what we are faced with here is: what is the right minimum? We have chosen twelve months. The noble Earl, in his Amendment, seeks to cut it down to six months. Pipe-lines can be very expensive affairs indeed, involving millions of pounds, and the applicant cannot know at the time he makes his application exactly how long it will be before authorisation will be given, if indeed it is given at all. In the nature of things, therefore, he will not always be able to make the arrangements necessary for him to start construction within a limited time. It may be several months before he is able to do so. I think he must be given an adequate period before he is required to start the work. Perhaps your Lordships will remember that in the recent Esso Petroleum Company Act a period of three years was allowed for the acquisition of land or rights, and of five years for the completion of works. It is not necessary to allow that kind of period for pipe-lines constructed under this Bill, because in case of difficulty the Minister is empowered to extend the period of authorisation. Nevertheless, I suggest to your Lordships that it would be wrong to cut down that period to as little as six months.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved to add to the clause:
" () The Minister shall not allow any extension under the last foregoing subsection of the time within which the execution in any land of the works whose execution is authorised by a pipe-line construction authorisation must be begun unless he is satisfied that notice of the making of the application for the extension has been given to every owner, lessee and occupier (other than tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of the land and that sufficient time has elapsed to allow every person to whom the notice was given an opportunity of making to the Minister written objection to the application."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we have to consider this Amendment together with Amendment No. 12. This Amendment follows an undertaking which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on March 26, in the discussion on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part." Amendment No. 12 refers to local pipe-lines, while this Amendment refers to cross-country pipe-lines.
The Minister has power under Clause 1 (4) to extend the period of validity of a pipe-line construction authorisation, which would otherwise expire after twelve months. The present Amendment provides that he should not allow any such extension unless owners, lessees and occupiers have first been given the opportunity to make written objections. I suggest that it is sufficient for this purpose to allow the opportunity of written objections, rather than a hearing, because a hearing would involve virtually reopening the whole inquiry into the authorisation, whereas the real issue will be whether or not the promoter has good reasons for not having started work, and whether he seriously intends to proceed. Moreover, to provide for a hearing would require longer notice which it might be unreasonable to require the applicant to give. A similar Amendment has been put down to Clause 2, as I have already said. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mills.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend for meeting this point. I agree with him that, on balance, written representations probably are enough in this case, but it is very satisfactory indeed that this Amendment and Amend-
684
ment No. 12 are now to be written into the Bill, and I thank him for what he has done.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Local pipe-lines not to be constructed without notice to the Minister
2.—
(2) A notice for the purposes of the foregoing subsection must—
(c) state whether or not the grant of any rights or the giving of any street works consents is requisite to enable the proposed pipe-line to be constructed and to be, during the period during which it may reasonably be expected to remain, inspected, maintained, adjusted, repaired and renewed and, if it be the case that the grant of any rights or the giving of any such consents is requisite for that purpose, specify the rights and consents the grant or giving of which is so requisite and state, with respect to each of them, whether the grant or giving thereof has been, or can be, obtained;
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down following an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in Committee on April 3. It has the effect of requiring a person giving notice to the Minister of the construction of a local pipe-line to state in his application whether or not any river works consents, as well as street works consents, are requisite to enable the pipe-line to be constructed, and whether or not they have been, or can be, obtained. A similar point will be found in Amendment No. 58 and Amendment No. 63 in the First Schedule, referring to cross-country pipe-lines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after ("street") insert ("or river").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2) (c) to leave out all words after the second "state" and to insert instead:
"(i) that each of the rights and consents so specified has been sought, and
(ii) whether each such right and consent has been or is reasonably likely to be obtained".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a point which I raised in Committee, though at that stage, I am sorry

685
to say, my noble friends were unable to do anything about it. It refers to what seems to me to be the cardinal necessity that owners and occupiers of land should know at the earliest possible opportunity that a pipe-line is proposed to be laid across their land. My noble friends said several times that, by inference, this appears to be a requirement upon the pipe-line owner imposed on him under Clause 2(2) (c), the inference being derived from the fact that he has to state to the Minister in respect of each right or consent whether the grant or giving of it has been, or can be, obtained. As a result, it is supposed that the pipe-line owner would have to ask all the people concerned whether or not they agreed to his proposals, and I appreciate that this is so. I have, however, attempted to re-phrase the thing in a slightly more obvious way and to lay upon the would-be pipe-line owner a definite duty to tell the Minister that he has consulted all these people and warned them.
There is a second point which I did not mention on Committee but which occurred to me when I thought about it again. It would probably be very difficult for a pipe-line owner to certify, as it were, categorically to the Minister, that any grant or consent can be obtained. At this stage he might not have gone very far with his negotiations and some of the matters might be in some doubt. If he were to be completely honest there would be occasions, I think, where he had high hopes of obtaining the consent but could not honestly say that they could be obtained in these particular circumstances. Again, I have attempted a small redrafting to say that he should be required to say only whether or not he would be "reasonably likely" to obtain the consents. I hope that these two small points may be helpful, and I suggest that they should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("state") to the end of line 46 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, our noble friend is, of course, right that this point was raised on Committee, and I did say at the time that I would undertake to consider it further. That, my Lords, I have done, and I have come to
686
exactly the same conclusion. I am sorry to say to my noble friend, as I came to the first time. I really do not see that what my noble friend proposes does anything to the Bill, although I do not want to go through all the argument again. He even summed it up very clearly himself, I thought: that the pipe-line operator or applicant cannot state what he is required to state by the Bill unless he has sought the necessary consents. One can boil it down to the fact that if I were to accept my noble friend's Amendment it would amount to nothing more than that there was a certificate that the applicant for the pipe-line authority was not a teller of untruths, and that is about all it would add, because I think it must stand the argument under subsection (2) (c) regarding the necessary information, which is quite specific. He has to state whether or not the grant of any rights is required, to specify what they are and to state in respect of each whether or not the grant has been, or can be, obtained. He could not go along and do that unless they had been sought. I submit to your Lordships that that really covers the point very well.
As for my noble friend's second thought and his draft, while I appreciate what he is endeavouring to do, I cannot entirely agree with him as to the value of his form of words because I should have said that his Amendment, if I accepted it, would add length but no greater certainty. In fact, the position would be less certain, because his proposed words, certainly in the second part of his Amendment, rather water down the obligation on the applicant and rather weaken the case. The position is that the Minister wants to know about what compulsory purchase orders are likely, so that he does not waste a lot of time considering an application which is unlikely ever to come to anything. I think that the combination of "sought" and "whether each such right and consent has been or is reasonably likely to be obtained" does bring in too much element of the applicant's opinion about the consents, rather than the more positive, if slightly more difficult, words in the Bill, whether it "has been, or can be, obtained". While I understand what my noble friend is getting at, I would ask him to agree to leave the words of the Bill as they are

687
and for your Lordships to leave it like that, too.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. I still cannot understand why he will not write into the Bill the requirement that the landowner should be told at an early stage. However, this is the third time I have tried and each time I have been rebuffed. So far as the second point is concerned, "can be" of course imports just as much a matter of opinion as does "reasonably likely". The only way to cut out the matter of opinion on the part of the pipe-line owner would be to use the words "has been", but as my noble friend considers that "can be" is the right form of wording I will not go further, except to say that if the pipe-line owners are really honest, as I am sure they will be, when they make their applications, the Minister is bound to be left in a greater state of uncertainty with my noble friend's wording than with mine, because nobody can honestly say that a consent can be obtained unless his negotiations have got so far that the matter is virtually a certainty; and if he cannot say that it "can be", the only thing he can say is that it "may be". Therefore, I think the Minister would be very much worse informed as a result of my noble friend's wording than he would be if mine were accepted. However, it is a small point and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) state that any requisite permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 has been granted, specifying any conditions which have been imposed on the permission."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another point which arose rather incidentally on the discussion in Committee on the point about which I have just been talking. The noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked whether or not on the occasion of a notice being served under subsection (1) of Clause 2 for a local pipe-line, the Minister would be in possession of the details of the
688
planning consent which would be necessary for the pipe-line before it was constructed. Although there is nothing, I think, in this Bill which requires planning consent to be granted, of course it would have to be granted under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, because laying a pipe-line would be development. Conditions would probably be imposed by the local planning authority on the laying of a pipe-line, and it seems that the Minister ought in every case to have the maximum information before him at an early stage when he is considering what he should do with his powers under later clauses of the Bill.
It may well be that most of the conditions imposed under the Planning Act will be as to clearance of buildings on the surface, or landscaping, or such like; but, on the other hand, I can foresee that some conditions would have a bearing on the safety regulations and other provisions which the Minister has power to deal with under later clauses. Therefore, I think he ought to be in every case in possession of the planning consent that has presumably been granted and that he should know any conditions the local planning authority have seen fit to impose, so that in the first place he may not duplicate them, and secondly, that he may fit in any conditions he himself lays down, so that they do not conflict and are complementary. I hope my noble friend will think slightly better of this Amendment than of my previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 46, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Mills will not see fit to accept this Amendment, which I must confess I feel is somewhat unreasonable. I say this for two reasons: first, because I believe it will add considerably to the length of time which will elapse before construction work can start on a local pipe-line; secondly, because it seems to me quite unnecessary for an intending pipe-line developer to obtain planning permission before giving notice to the Minister. As the normal notice period is sixteen weeks, surely an application for planning permission could be made con-

689
currently with the notice of intention to the Minister; in other words, the two could go together. During the Committee stage, I stressed the grave inconvenience which would be caused to industry in their day-to-day operations by this lengthy notification period of sixteen weeks, to which the noble Lord replied that this period was necessary so that the Minister could impose safety restrictions. He added that the Minister had powers to allow a lesser period in particular cases. I feel that if this Amendment were accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, or the House it would mean a further unwarranted delay before the pipe-line operator could start construction, and it may be for a pipe-line which may be only a few hundred yards long.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Viscount wishes only to help the Minister in arriving at his conclusions, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that it would be wrong to require the applicant in all cases to obtain planning permission before giving notice to the Minister, because that would only impose an unnecessary delay. There is no reason why the granting of planning permission should be regarded as a necessary prerequisite to the notice to the Minister under Clause 2. The giving of notice to the Minister, which is required on safety grounds, and the application for planning permission are two quite separate things. There is nothing to prevent their proceeding concurrently. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said, the fact that sixteen weeks' notice has to be given to the Minister before the pipe-line can be constructed is for safety reasons, and the period can be shortened. The period of notice in no way enables the Minister to override the local planning authority's decision. Equally the granting of planning permission and any conditions attached to it would not affect anything that the Minister has to do upon receiving notice.
The whole reason for including the safety provisions in Clauses 18 to 22 of the Bill was that the necessary measures could not be imposed by way of a condition attached to a planning consent. There is therefore no danger of any conflict between what the planning authority does and what the Minister
690
does. I should think in almost all cases the Minister would learn of what the planning authority does. I hope the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
Yes, my Lords. I appreciate the point the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has made. It is, incidentally, I think only fair that he should have an opportunity of criticising one of my Amendments quite as harshly as I criticised some of his on the previous stage of the Bill. I see that point. I think it should, however, be a matter of administrative policy that the Minister should have the planning consent, at whatever stage it is granted, before him at some stage when he is considering safety regulations, because although I agree the two will probably not conflict on many occasions, there may be some times when there would be advantage in having the two co-ordinated. I hope some sort of procedure can be thought of by which the Minister will always be able to have available to him planning consent at the right time. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this is the parallel Amendment to Amendment No. 8 dealing with local pipe-lines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) The Minister shall not allow any extension under the last foregoing subsection of the time within which the execution in any land of the works to which a notice given for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section relates must be begun unless he is satisfied that notice of the making of the application for the extension has been given to every owner, lessee or occupier (other than tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of the land and that sufficient time has elapsed to allow every person to whom the notice was given an opportunity of making to the Minister written objection to the application.").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Diversion of pipe-lines]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the first of five drafting Amendments, the others being Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17, which are consequential on the Amendments that have been made to Cause 1. I beg to move No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, leave out ("Subsections (2) to (4)") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (5)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("Subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (4)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (4)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("the reference") and insert ("references").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power of the Minister to secure the removal of works executed in contravention of section 1 or 2
4.—
(2) if a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection fails, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the notice was served, or such longer period as the Minister may on his application allow, to comply with the requirement imposed by the notice, the Minister may enter and remove the works in question and may recover from the person in default, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the expenses reasonably incurred by the Minister in so doing.
5.1 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this clause gives the Minister power to require, and, if necessary, to carry out, the removal of works which may have been constructed in contravention of Clauses 1 and 2. However, it seems to me that it does not cover the possible
692
similar contraventions under subsection (1) of Clause 3. The object of these Amendments is, therefore, to give the Minister power over constructions coming in the latter clause as well as the former clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("or").—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 17A has to be taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 17B if it is to be properly understood. The Amendments seek to make it clear that anyone who either constructs a cross-country pipe-line or a local pipeline, or diverts an existing pipe-line, without proper authorisation is liable to be required to remove it again. But the Minister already has adequate control over diversion of pipe-lines. Clause 3 (1) provides for him to authorise, or to be notified of, proposals for the construction of diversion pipe-lines. If a pipe-line owner wishes to construct a diversion pipe-line and he does not approach the Minister through the procedure of Clause 3 (1), then the procedure in Clause 1 (if his diversion is a cross-country line) or Clause 2 (if his diversion is a local pipeline) will apply. So I suggest to the noble Lord that there is no real need for this Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his assurance. I confess that I had read this clause rather differently. It did not seem to me that the Minister had the power to call for, or cause, the removal of unauthorised works under Clause 3 (1). But if the noble Lord can assure me that I am wrong, I accept his word and, with the permission of the House, would withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "period" to insert "not exceeding twelve months from that date". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down following an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in Committee, and I hope it will be thought to meet the point. To understand its full effect it is necessary to refer ahead, to Amendment No. 19 which I shall be moving in a moment, although I shall have something separate

693
to say about it when I come to move it. In a sense, the two Amendments are linked. What my noble friend wanted was that where there has been a contravention of Clauses 1 or 2 and a notice had been served to remove the pipe-line, the period in which it must be removed should automatically have been extended. I argued that it was thought that that would be undesirable, because works constructed in contravention of the Act should, of course, be removed as soon as possible. We have tried, by specifying a limit of twelve months to which the Minister may agree, to meet his point by bringing it about that works should be removed at a time of year which would cause the least interference with agricultural activities.
This is where the Amendment links itself with Amendment No. 19, because at any rate the first part of it says that an operator who has to remove his works shall not do so until he has consulted with all the owners, occupiers or tenants concerned. Whereas in the normal way six weeks might be the right period, it might be better for them to be removed at once, before a sowing started or something of that kind; or it might be better to remove them later on, after the harvest, or whatever it may be. Therefore, it seemed to us best to put a limit of a year on the matter—with a normal period of six weeks and a limit of a year as the maximum extension that may be given. Your Lordships will probably have noticed that the extension will still be on the application of the operator who has to remove the works. That makes sense, because if he consults with the owner or occupier of the land, finds that he cannot agree but still goes ahead, then, of course, he is rendering himself liable for heavy compensation in damages. That is the second part of Amendment No. 19, which introduces another new matter to which I shall be coming in a moment. I hope that my noble friend will feel that his point is met, and that your Lordships will see your way to accepting this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Page 4, line 44, after ("period") insert ("not exceeding twelve months from that date").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I shall
694
on the next two Amendments express my gratitude. But I cannot quite see that Amendment No. 18 meets the point that I raised, because I was trying on Committee to change the six weeks to twelve months, and the noble Lord convinced me, quite rightly, that that was an impossible change to bring about. In this case, the Bill as it stands refers to
"such longer period as the Minister may on his application allow,"
which allows the Minister discretion to give five months, twelve months or fourteen months. I cannot see why it is necessary in this case to limit the Minister's discretion. I tried on the Committee stage to extend the time which was allowed for clearing out the work.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I can put it in a fairly simple way, we decided that we wanted to keep the six weeks because in the normal way these things must be removed quickly. There is no reason why they should not be removed in any other way. The idea is that the operator should go along to the Minister and say: "I have consulted Mr. X, the occupier of such-and-such land, and I wish to have three months longer, because of his harvest", or something to that effect. To that the Minister will agree. The idea of the twelve-month limit on the Minister's discretion is to prevent a wily operator—because, for all I know, there might be one—coming along with a series of indefinite excuses; that he has had to send his excavator to Glasgow to he serviced and that it will not be back for a year; or that it has got lost on the railway, or got bogged down in Cornwall, and so on and so forth, the kind of excuses that could be made so that the job might be spun out. That is the reason for this Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
" ( ) A person shall not begin to remove any works in any land in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) of this section, and the Minister shall not enter, or begin to remove any works in, any land in exercise of the power conferred on him by the last foregoing sub-

695
section, except after seeking consultation with every owner, lessee and occupier of the land (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month).
(4) Where, in consequence of compliance with a requirement to remove any works imposed by a notice under subsection (1) of this section or of the exercise of the power to enter and remove any works conferred by subsection (2) thereof, a person, other than the person who executed the works, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled, where the loss was suffered in consequence of such compliance, to compensation in respect of that loss from the person who executed the works, or, where the loss was suffered in consequence of the exercise of that power, to compensation in respect of that loss from the Minister; and the Minister may recover from the person who executed the works, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of any compensation paid by the Minister under this subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come to another of those moments with which one is sometimes faced, when explanation is considerably more complicated than substance; because, in moving Amendment No. 19, I must draw your Lordships' attention to Amendments Nos. 30, 39, 40, 50, 52 and 60, as being very much wrapped up in the operation of No. 19. If your Lordships will allow me, I propose from now on to refer to this group of Amendments as "The 19 Group". Amendment No. 19 (which follows an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in Committee) falls into two parts. The effect of the first is to ensure that a pipeline operator acting in accordance with a notice from the Minister, or the Minister himself, if he is acting in default, shall not enter land except after seeking consultation with the owner, lessee or occupier. The purpose is to meet my noble friend's point that the minimum disturbance and inconvenience should be caused.
The other part of the Amendment also fulfils an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, on the point which he raised that there was no compensation payable when pipes were removed in the case of contravention. Subsection (4) provides the compensation which seemed to be necessary. The next Amendment No. 30 is consequential. Perhaps I had better speak to later Amendments when we come to them, but I might point out here that there are two others, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, where notice
696
can be given to remove a pipe-line and where provision for compensation in an exactly similar way was necessary. I have put those in, and will mention them briefly when I come to them. I think it is not necessary for me to say more now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 49, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment, which, as we have been told, deals with the question of notice, to ensure that the minimum damage is done to the land, and also with the question of compensation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting those points.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may" and insert
"and the Minister of Housing and Local Government may jointly"
The noble Lord said: This clause would take planning control out of the hands of the local authority and give it to the Minister of Power. None of us has yet had any experience of how this new enterprise of pipe-lines is going to work, but it seems to me that the views of the Minister of Power upon a pipe-line might differ greatly from those of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Not only will pipe-lines be involved, but there will almost certainly be pumping stations whose design and siting will be matters of direct concern to the local authority, or at any rate to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, rather than to the Minister of Power. As I say, the attitude of the Minister of Power would be likely to be quite different from that of either the local authority or the other Minister I have mentioned. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that, at any rate in the first period, it would be very desirable that the two Ministers should be in accord on this basic question of planning, rather than that it should be handed over to a Minister whose attitude might be somewhat different. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("and the Minister of Housing and Local Government may jointly").—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Ministers are empowered under various enactments to grant deemed planning permission, without being required by the Act under which they operate to act jointly with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. To insert a provision of this kind in the Bill would seem to be quite inconsistent with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. In practice, of course, the Minister would naturally consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government (or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be) before reaching his decision on these matters. But, as I explained to your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, it is inappropriate to put into a Bill provision for consultation between Ministers. I suggest to the noble Lord that a provision of this kind would be quite unprecedented, and it is therefore not acceptable.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt better informed than I am as to the precedents in this matter. He assures me that it will be quite a new departure to give a joint authority in this matter, and I have to accept his word for that. I myself should prefer planning control to be under the Minister of Housing and Local Government rather than under the Minister of Power. However, I do not intend to press the Amendment, and, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Provisions for avoiding construction of multitude of pipe-lines between same points]:
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mills has been kind enough to ask me to deal with this Amendment, which anticipates the new clause which is Amendment No. 21, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with the matters together. The new clause replaces the present Clause 8 in the Bill. It does not alter the main purpose of the clause which, as your Lordships will remember, is to avoid unnecessary multiplication of cross-country pipe-lines, by enabling the Minister, where appropriate, to require that a line is built of sufficient capacity to accommodate other pros-
698
pective users, and it is then shared by them. It has been put down following undertakings given in Committee by my noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Chesham on March 26, and it gives effect to an Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Stonham.
Because of the multiplicity of Amendments that are before us, I would remind the noble Earl that I refer to the Amendment in his name which was dealt with in Hansard, Vol. 238 (No. 55), Columns 821 to 826. It also gives effect to an Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in columns 829 to 832; and it increases the penalties following criticisms made in Committee on March 26 by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and other noble Lords, which are in columns 832 to 834. Finally, it also takes account of criticisms of the drafting of the original subsection (1), made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
First of all, the Clause as now revised breaks up subsection (1), so that it meets the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Secondly, it enables the Minister to take action where he is satisfied that further pipe-lines will follow substantially the same route or any part of it, which meets the point of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. Thirdly, it provides for the recovery by the pipe-line owner, from the persons who will be sharing the pipe, of payments in consideration of the right to do so, which point was raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. Fourthly, it increases the penalties for failure to comply with a requirement imposed by the Minister under subsection (2) to ensure the sharing of the line, from £100 for an initial offence and a further £20, to £500 and £25 a day.
It does not take effect of Marshalled List Amendment No. 19 on the Committee stage, to replace "may" by "shall", which was moved by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Stonham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, at columns 827 to 829, and which would have obliged the Minister to impose requirements as to the size of pipe to be constructed whenever the necessary conditions were satisfied, instead of leaving this to his discretion. The acceptance of the Amendment moved in the Com-

699
mittee stage, to empower the Minister to take action when he is satisfied that further pipe-lines will follow substantially the same route or any part of it—I repeat "or any part of it", because that was stressed so much in the last stage of the Bill—makes it even more important, in my view, to preserve the Minister's discretion to administer this clause in a flexible way.
It is perfectly possible that the Minister might be satisfied that there would be a future demand for a pipe-line following only a mile or two of the route proposed in the application before him, but I submit to your Lordships that it would be quite nonsensical to force the applicant to construct a bigger pipeline on that account. Even where two pipe-lines were proposed following substantially the same route for the whole of their length, it is conceivable that the particular circumstances of the case might make it desirable to authorise the construction of separate lines. For these reasons, the new clause retains the word "may", and empowers the Minister to take action at his discretion according to the circumstances of the individual case.
I gave very careful consideration to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the penalties should be raised and, of course, my noble friend Lord Mills undertook to consider the point further than he had done. I just want to say one or two things on that, because I want your Lordships to know that we have considered the matter. I think one has to bear in mind that there should be a proper relationship between the penalties prescribed and the penalties under various enactments for comparable types of offence. In spite of the great weight which I always attach to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whenever the word "planning" comes into our discussions, I still think that the offence created under this clause is broadly analogous to planning control offences, and for this type of offence provision for imprisonment upon conviction on indictment is not considered so appropriate as it is, for example, in the case of contravention of safety requirements, which your Lordships will see if you look at the penalties prescribed in Clauses 18 to 21 of the Bill.
Given, therefore, that an offence under this clause should be punishable by a fine on summary conviction, the question is: what should that fine be? It is always difficult to get exact precedents or exact analogies, but the original figures of £100 and £20 were in line with the penalties for failure to comply with an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Acts. I think it was my noble friend Lord Mansfield who argued in the Committee stage that these were out of date, because they were the penalties of 1947. I think it escaped my noble friend's memory for the moment, that the penalties under the 1947 Act were £50 and £10 a day, and the £100 and £20 were substituted only two years ago in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act. Another precedent of recent passage is the Public Health Act, 1961, which provides in Section 4 for fines of £100 plus £10 a day. One had to consider that, but I also considered, as was said, that offences under Clause 8 of the Bill might often be different in scale from those under the Town and Country Planning Acts or the Public Health Act, and larger penalties might be appropriate.
But one comes to another point, that there is a real difficulty in placing too heavy penalties for imposition by a magistrate's court. The highest maximum penalty is usually £100. Exceptions have been made in special cases. In one case, the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, a maximum of £500 has been provided. This penalty, in Section 6, can be imposed if an aircraft is used on any flight without an air operator's certificate or an air service licence. I ought to say that, of course, that section provides also for imprisonment, because it has a safety background, which is not the case here.
To impose a higher initial fine than £500, as the Amendment set down by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye proposes, would be out of line with powers granted to magistrates in other cases. I was going to remind my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, because we were colleagues in the war-time Government—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, will remember this—that when we imposed these very big penalties under the Defence Regulations we had some difficulty in getting even lesser penalties

701
imposed, and the noble Lord will remember that in one Regulation we had to put in a provision for minimum penalties, which is something that I dislike very much because, of course, it is a great limitation on the courts. But that shows the difficulty; and that was a matter that one had to take into account.
On the question of deterrence, apart from the increase I feel that most of these companies, which are large and influential, would be affected by the conviction and the continuing penalties. I will not go into other methods that might be used, but I think your Lordships, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, will have them in mind. I think it is not a good thing for a Lord Chancellor to make pronouncements off-hand of possible methods of taking legal proceedings, but they are, I think, apparent to those who have studied the matter, and I say nothing more about that.
I am sorry I have taken so much of your Lordships' time. I think the House will agree that we have really tried to meet the points that were made to us; and in the case of the only one where we have not there seemed to us very good reasons for not doing so. But, on the whole, we have met the points, and I hope your Lordships will feel not only that we have done so but that the contributions which your Lordships made so interestingly on Committee stage have borne good fruit. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment. I take it that we are speaking to the new clause as well as to the deletion of Clause 8. It seems to meet to a great extent the points which most of us had in mind. I confess to being somewhat disappointed that the Government are not considering increasing the penalties to the extent suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. His argument is, of course, unanswerable: that a fine of £500 and £25 a day is negligible to a concern with the financial resources that are necessary to anybody who is going into this business. As the Minis-
702
ter has already told us, it is an expensive business and those entering it are bound to be financial concerns of the largest scale. Nevertheless, I would never question the Lord Chancellor's view on the technical difficulty, from the point of view of administering the law, of raising the scales of financial penalties above a certain limit, and so I would not myself press that point. It seems to me that the new arrangement is going to make a much better instrument in the hands of the Government for the orderly control and development of pipe-lines than was the previous one, and I thank the Government for it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is, I think, most agreeable that we are no longer to see the present Clause 8 in the Bill, suffering, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, described, from defects of verbosity and lack of punctuation, and that in its place there is to be a new clause which meets a variety of substantial and important points which were introduced into the Bill by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I welcome this new clause, and I think it will be a much better clause than the one it replaces.
On the matter of the penalties, which my noble and learned friend has just outlined to your Lordships, I was charged by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye (who wishes to apologise to your Lordships for being abroad on this afternoon) with dealing with his Amendments to the Amendment, and it seems to me that the noble Lord will probably not wish me to move these this afternoon. In the first place, when my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye left the country my noble and learned friend had not altered the Amendment by putting in the amounts which now stand in his name. As it was first put down, it did not contain these increased penalties. Secondly, I think that it is most important that magistrates' powers to fine should be kept within recognisable limits, and that they should not be given a penalty to impose which is quite outside the bounds of what they normally recognise as being available to them. In any case, it is perhaps quite possible that they would not use it.
Be that as it may, I think my noble friend would be satisfied with the new

703
amounts that have been put in, particularly in view of the fact that there are powers in the Bill, in Clause 45, where an offence is committed under this particular new clause, for the directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of the company to be prosecuted and fined as well. That ought to be a very salutory power in the hands of the magistrates and those who prosecute, and between the two of them, and possibly with the other expedients to which my noble and learned friend referred, this will meet what I believe to be quite a serious consideration in this particular context. However. I do not propose to move the Amendments standing in my noble friend's name, and I support both the omission of Clause 8 and the insertion of the new clause.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my word of thanks to the Government and also to the draftsman for having so sensibly improved this clause, which was in a pretty sorry state when we first had it. On the question of penalties, though, I wonder whether the Government could possibly consider, whilst the Bill is going to an-another place, the question of the "refresher" penalties, the daily penalties. It seems to me that Lord Balfour of Inchrye was on a very valid point with regard to these penalties in relation to the very high capital cost and the probable high income to be derived from these pipelines, and that once a firm has been fined £500 for an offence of this kind, the £25 a day refresher fine might well be derisory and only a fraction of the earnings they might derive each day. Whilst fully cognisant of the difficulties of this matter, which the noble and learned Viscount has explained, I wonder whether consideration could be given to that particular point. Perhaps if the offence continued after a stated number of days the daily fine might then be very substantially augmented, or something of that kind. Then, I think, we should all be satisfied with the clause.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask for some clarification with regard to the penalties aspect of the new clause? I mentioned on Second Reading, and I gather other noble Lords did subsequently, that I found the daily
704
fine rather low, especially when one considers the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel or oil which would be going through such a pipe-line. What I should like clarified is this. In the past it was estimated that a fine of £100 for an offence was sufficient, and that one-fifth of that amount was the appropriate amount for daily continuance of the offence. I fail to understand the logic why, with a daily continuance of the offence, it should now be considered that one-twentieth of the initial fine should be the appropriate amount. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, in his earlier remarks, referred to a proper relationship between the amounts of fines, and I cannot quite see the logic, if previously one-fifth was the right amount, why one-twentieth should now be the appropriate figure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, first of all, may I thank your Lordships for the cordial reception you have given to this clause? On the question which Lord Stonham has raised, which is connected with what my noble friend Lord Merrivale has just said, I think it is important to have a daily penalty imposed, because that shows that the person is continuing to commit an offence. As I say, I am always rather chary of giving what really amounts to advice to other people on other remedies, and I will certainly see that my right honourable friend the Attorney General and I look at this matter carefully before it goes to another place. But what I think is really important is what is likely to be the grounds for a different procedure for stopping the offence. As I say, I think this would be sufficient grounds. I think it would really meat Lord Stonham's point if one were satisfied that, in the case of somebody who was being really difficult, the matter could be stopped.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale raised a point of pure arithmetic which I find fascinating. As he spoke, I worked out what it would cost per year at £25 a day. In years other than Leap Years, I made it £8,725 by the time you reached the end of the year, though no doubt my noble friend will work it out for himself and correct me if I am wrong. But it is very difficult to get everything absolutely in line. As I have told your Lordships, these penalties are higher than most

705
daily penalties. We raised the first one rather further than has been imposed in cognate and analogous matters to meet the feeling in the House. I think that if my noble friend Lord Merrivale were to do some research, he would find that it would be very difficult to get a greater daily penalty imposed, even though it seems rather out of scale. However, I assure him that we paid great attention to everything which has been said, and we have discussed the matter fully and have come to the conclusion that we think this will meet the problem. Once again may I express my gratitude to your Lordships, and ask your Lordships to agree to the Amendment?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in view of the statement of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to the effect that he is not going to move the Amendments to this Amendment, I think I can formally move this Amendment myself and ask your Lordships to agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause.
(Provisions for securing that a pipe-line is so constructed as to reduce necessity for construction of others
A voidance of Construction of superfluous Pipe-lines
.—(1) Where—

(a) application is made to the Minister for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation for the construction of a pipe-line to be designed for the conveyance of a particular kind of thing or of things of a particular class, and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that there is evidence of demand existing or likely to arise for the grant of such authorisations for the construction of further pipe-lines to be designed for the conveyance of that kind of thing or as the case may be, things of that class, and

(c) the Minister is also satisfied that the routes to be taken by the further lines will severally be, as to the whole or any part thereof, the same or substantially the same as the route or any part of the route to be taken by the line to which the application relates,

he may, if he grants the application, grant it subject to the condition that the line to be constructed pursuant to the application or any length of that line specified in the authorisation shall be so constructed as to be capable of conveying, during such period as may be so specified, not less than such quantity as may
706
be so specified of the kind of thing in question or, as the case may be, things of the class in question.
(2) The Minister may at any time, by notice served on the owner of a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of the foregoing subsection, impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the following purposes, namely,—

(a) securing to persons other than the owner of the line the right to have conveyed by the line or, as the case may be, by any length of it specified in the authorisation by virtue of that subsection, the kind of thing specified in the authorisation or, as the case may be, things of the class so specified;

(b) regulating the charges to be made for the conveyance by the line or, as the case may be, by that length thereof, on behalf of persons other than the owner of the line of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class;

(c) securing that the exercise of a right secured by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection is not prevented or impeded.

(3) A notice served under the last foregoing subsection on the owner of a pipe-line may authorise him to recover, from persons to whom a right is secured by the notice by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, payments of such amounts as may be determined in accordance with provisions in that behalf contained in the notice, being payments in consideration of that right's being secured to them.
(4) Where a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of subsection (1) of this section is constructed without conformity to that condition, the works for the construction of the line shall be deemed, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act, to have been executed in contravention of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.
(5) If the owner of a pipe-line fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice served on him under subsection (2) of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds; and, if the failure continues after his conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable, in respect thereof, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each day on which the failure continues.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause
Provisions for securing that a pipe-line is so used as to reduce necessity for construction of others
" .—(1) An application with respect to a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation may be made to the Minister by any person other than the owner of the line who seeks the right to have conveyed by the line on his behalf a particular kind of thing or things of a particular class,

707
being, as the case may be, the kind of thing or things of the class which the line is designed to convey.
(2) Where an application with respect to a pipe-line is made under the foregoing subsection to the Minister he shall serve on the owner of the line and the applicant notice of the time (being some time not less than twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice) at which the question of conferring on the applicant the right sought by him will be considered by the Minister, and the owner and the applicant shall be entitled to be heard when that question is so considered.
(3) If after taking the question aforesaid into consideration the Minister is satisfied that the line could, without prejudice to the proper and efficient operation thereof for the purpose of the conveyance on behalf of the owner thereof in the quantity required by him of the kind of thing, or things of the class, which it is designed to convey, be so operated as to permit of the conveyance thereby on behalf of the applicant of the kind of thing, or things of the class, the right to the conveyance of which is sought by the applicant, he shall declare that he is so satisfied.
(4) Where the Minister makes under the last foregoing subsection a declaration with respect to a pipe-line he may by notice served on the owner of the line impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the following purposes, namely,—

(a) securing to the person whose application resulted in the making of the declaration the right to have conveyed by the line the kind of thing to which the application related or, as the case may be, things of the class to which it related;

(b) regulating the charges to be made for the conveyance by the line on behalf of that person of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class;

(c) securing that the exercise of a right secured by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection is not prevented or impeded.

(5) A notice served under the last foregoing sub-section on the owner of a pipeline may authorise him to recover, from the person to whom a right is secured by the notice by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, payments of such amounts as may be determined in accordance with provisions in that behalf contained in the notice, being payments in consideration of the right's being secured to him.
(6) If the owner of a pipe-line fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice served on him under subsection (4) of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds; and, if the failure continues after his conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable, in respect thereof, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each day on which the failure continues."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this second new clause
708
follows an undertaking by my noble friend Lord Mills, given in Committee On 26th March last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 55), cols. 834 and 835], and it gives effect to the substance of the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 22. The purpose of the clause is to enable the Minister to compel the owner of a cross-country pipe-line who is not using it fully to share it with some other person. The Minister must first be satisfied, after hearing representations from both the owner of the line and the applicant who wishes to share its use, that the line could be so used without prejudice to its proper and efficient operation
"for the purpose of the conveyance on behalf of the owner thereof in the quantity required by him of the kind of thing, or things of the class, which it is designed to convey."
In other words, he must be satisfied both that it is technically feasible for the line to be shared, and that the owner will not be prevented by sharing from using it to the full extent that he himself wishes. These powers will enable the Minister, by ensuring that existing pipe-line capacity is fully used, to reduce the need for the construction of new pipe-lines. The clause is therefore supplementary to the new clause which I have just moved in the preceding Amendment, which can be applied only at the time a pipe-line construction authorisation is being granted. There are many fascinating by-ways into which one could go at this point, including the history of the United States, its legislation, and its litigation over the past nearly 60 years, but I do not think the moment is quite appropriate to do that. Therefore I will spare your Lordships those extra words, and, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am really delighted that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to put this clause into the Bill. It seemed that as the Bill orginally stood there was a considerable gap in the Minister's powers, in that he could impose these sharing arrangements only if he thought about them in time to impose conditions at the stage when the pipe-line was first

709
constructed. He had at that time no power to impose sharing arrangements at a later date if it became clear that this should properly be done. Now that this clause has come in to fill the gap, I am very pleased indeed to see it. I think I may say the same as regards the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye as I did on the previous occasion: I do not think that he would wish me to move them, so I will confine myself to welcoming wholeheartedly this now clause.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that the addition of this clause is an advantage, and it gives the Minister more powers. However, I wonder whether the implications have fully been worked out. It seems to me that, if the provision is to be of any use, it means that the Minister must have information in his possession before giving an authorisation to the initial applicant, because if the work has been begun, as things are in the Bill at present, the plans cannot be altered short of digging up the whole pipe-line and relaying with a pipe of a different size. This seems to presuppose a very efficient economic intelligence service, that will really be able to tell the Minister what are the needs of industry for transport of this nature and what they are likely to be in the future. Under an earlier clause, the Minister certainly has power, but unless he has full information, it seems to me that this power cannot be of as much use as it might be.
Moreover, there is the question of common carrier obligations. When he is told to provide a pipe of sufficient size to carry his own goods and goods of other people, can the original applicant confine himself to carrying his own goods or is he bound to carry other people's goods in his pipe-line? It occurs to me that the cost of a pipe-line will be such that, unless it is in use 24 hours a day, it might easily not be financially sound. An applicant may be reluctant to enlarge the diameter of his equipment if he thinks there is any danger of there not being sufficient traffic to keep his line fully occupied. These are the sort of considerations that seem to arise and which I feel have not been explained in connection with the Bill. I wonder
710
whether the Government have these points in mind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, again I am grateful for what has been said. With regard to the noble Earl's first point, I suppose that those who want to share the line and make application would probably be able to learn from the output and service whether the pipe-line is being used to capacity or not. Then it would be a question of deciding whether it was being used to capacity or not, and whether the new user would affect the efficiency of the first user.
On the noble Earl's point about common carrier obligations, I want to make clear that the purpose of the clause is to minimise interference with other people's land by reducing the need for new pipe-lines. It is not the intention to enable the Minister to impose common carrier obligations on the pattern commonly applied in the United States, because these obligations would require the owner to accept traffic from other persons whether he has spare capacity or not, and that is quite a different matter. I said that I would spare your Lordships the history of the United States from the Hepburn Act of 1906, but may I just say that it deals with specific commercial problems according to the geography of the United States, with very much larger transport links than we have. I do not think that I need go into the particular commercial disputes. I am sure that the noble Earl is familiar with them, as I am. We are dealing here with a separate and more limited problem, where a person thinks that there is room in a pipe-line, wants to use it and makes an application. I am sure that this will be a useful provision and ask your Lordships to agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Orders for compulsory acquisition of land for pipe-line construction]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, earlier your Lordships accepted Amendment No. 5 in order to clarify the modification that could be made. If that was necessary in Clause 1, it is also necessary in Clause 9. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, after ("applications") insert ("with respect to any modification subject to which such orders may be made").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Orders for compulsory acquisition of rights over land for pipeline construction]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the same point in Clause 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, at end insert ("or of any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in Committee, I gave an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, to put down an Amendment to ensure that compulsory rights orders should not authorise the disregard of any by-laws made by river boards. This Amendment completely covers the point; indeed, it goes further, by applying to statutory instruments as well as to bylaws. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is not personally present to receive his "lollipop", but I hope that I shall learn that he is content with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, at end insert ("or of any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I am very grateful for that assurance about the river boards, and on behalf of the River Boards Association I thank the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Burden, I would thank the Government for having given him an even larger "lollipop" than he asked for.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders
11.—
(2) Where in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order a person suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation
712
in respect of that loss from the person in whose favour the order was made, or where the owner of the pipe-line is not that person and the right in the exercise of which the loss was suffered was exercised by that owner, from that owner.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
" ( ) For the purposes of assessing any compensation to be paid by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, sections fourteen, fifteen and sixteen of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, shall apply as if the interest in land depreciated by the making of the compulsory rights order had been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of that Act.
( ) In the application of the foregoing subsection to Scotland, for the reference to the Land Compensation Act, 1961, there shall be substituted a reference to sections two, three and four of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. 1959."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a matter which I regard as of considerable importance in the field of compensation for compulsory rights orders. As your Lordships will know, compensation for compulsory purchase orders under Clauses 9 and 10 will be dealt with in accordance with the code which is laid down in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, for England and the Town Planning (Scotland) Act, 1959, for Scotland. That particular code, however, does not apply to the purchase of compulsory rights, and so far as I know the full provisions for compensation in that case must rest in the provisions of this Bill as they now stand and, in particular, Clause 11.
In cases of compulsory purchase of land, rather than of rights, Parliament has seen fit to lay down a very complex code which gives to the owner of the land which is being compulsorily acquired compensation for various future planning possibilities which might have brought him a greater amount of money for his land than if it were to be considered merely in the light of the conditions existing at the time of the notice to treat. Among other things, the provisions of the 1961 Act now provide that notice is to be taken of such matters as are in the development plan, and of the types of development which are specified in the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—small matters of rebuilding and 10 per cent.

713
increase in size and such things. Notice is also to be taken of the situation which can arise if the land in question forms part of the comprehensive development area. All sorts of things might be put on the land; for instance, shops, offices and houses; or, indeed, on a particular part it might be a whole street. None the less, account is taken of the potentialities of the new area that will be created after comprehensive development.
In the case of a compulsory rights order the surface of the land is sterilised and no development of any sort will be allowed on it. Therefore, although the land is not compulsorily acquired, it comes to the same thing, so far as the owner is concerned, because whatever planning permission were granted to him, if it were not for a pipe-line, he could not take advantage of that and could do nothing whatever with his land except to leave it a vacant site.
I am seeking in this Amendment to give the landowner, where it is only a compulsory right which is required from him, the same sort of protection, code and compensation as would apply to him if there were a compulsory purchase order for the land itself. I hope that this course will commend itself to the Government: otherwise, what I foresee happening is not so much that the man over whose land compulsory rights are acquired will not get his compensation, but that there will be endless arguments between the experts on both sides before the Lands Tribunal, the cost will be enormous and the time wasted prodigious. It seems to me that it would be better to put in this Bill the same code as applies to the compulsory purchase order and so clear up the matter and make it plain. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has grounds for the fears which he has expressed. If he will look at the words on page 9, line 16, he will see that they are:
" … proves that the value of his interest is depreciated by reason of the making of the order."
714
The essential question that my noble friend has raised is whether account is taken of any reasonable prospect of development in the same way as is done where the land itself, as opposed to the rights only, is compulsorily acquired. I believe that any question of preventing development which could reasonably have been expected at the time the order was made will be taken into account under the Bill as it stands and that the Amendment is unnecessary.
The value of a person's interest in land (for the depreciation of which he will receive compensation) means market value, and in assessing this account will be taken of the possibilities of future development. I am sure that my noble friend is more familiar than I am with all the intricacies of the Rajah's case and the other notable pieces of litigation which surround this charming field of the law. But what has to be determined by the Lands Tribunal, in measuring depreciation, is what is the effect on the value of land subject to a compulsory rights order of the limitation on its use effected by the right to place a pipe-line therein. This is a question of fact into which all such considerations as the effect on future development must, as a matter of common sense, enter. It is very unlikely that a landowner seeking compensation would fail to bring such considerations to the attention of the Lands Tribunal.
My noble friend said, with an air of regret, that it might mean the production of plans and so on. I would only tell him, to cheer him on his legal path, that I remember well that in almost the first of these valuation arbitrations which I did, a long time ago, I was appearing for the person whose land was being acquired, and the reply of the acquiring authority was that I was really asking not for compensation for the value of the land but for the value of the most interesting and imaginative plans which my own architect had put in for its use. However, I can assure my noble friend, in order to encourage him, that that had not the slightest effect, and we received a considerable slice of money which was due compensation for our loss. I hope that he will not press this Amendment. I am sorry, after

715
meeting him on so many points, that I cannot meet him on this, but I do not think his Amendment is necessary.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in view of my noble and learned friend's charming reply, I will not press this Amendment. I may add that, so far as I can see, I was being entirely altruistic in moving the Amendment at all. I think that some difficulty might arise. I agree that in the normal simple case there is unlikely to be any difficulty, but the point of the provisions of the Land Compensation Act has been to take care of some of the much more difficult cases, such as the comprehensive development areas, where, of course, it is not possible in the normal way to say what the actual piece of land is likely to be used for, in view of the complete redevelopment of the whole area; and in such cases provision is made for compensation to be paid on the pretext that some building of a certain class—shops and offices, for example—would be erected on that site. This is the sort of thing which is very valuably controlled by the provisions of the 1961 Act and with which it would be almost impossible to deal were it not for statutory provisions of that sort. I wonder if my noble and learned friend would have one further look at that, because I think it is a difficulty which I do not think can be met, apart from statutory provision. However, in view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as the result of an undertaking given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, who had complained in Committee that Clause 11 (2), as drafted, was difficult to follow. It was, my Lords. It will not be now.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, after ("in") insert ("consequence of").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for this Amendment. It was not merely that the subsection was difficult to follow; as it stood, it did not make sense. I am glad that this Amendment,
716
which makes sense of the subsection, has been put forward. Curiously enough, almost the exact words of the Amendment occurred both to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and to me, but we both lacked the confidence boldly to assert it. I am glad the matter has now been put right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after "order" (where that word first occurs) to insert:
"or in consequence of the exercise of a right over land granted by any other person to the owner of a pipe-line to construct and use a pipe-line,"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another point on compensation, and it arises from what seems to me to be the most extraordinary anomaly in the Bill as now drafted. If there are two owners of land, and a pipe-line is constructed through the land of one of them, it would depend purely and solely upon whether that line is constructed under a voluntary agreement or as a result of a compulsory rights order whether the other man, upon suffering some damage from the pipe later, will have to prove negligence or not, As the Bill stands, if it has been necessary to take a compulsory rights order to take a pipe through neighbouring land and then, as it so happens, the thing blows up or there is some damage caused to the neighbour's land, there will be an absolute liability for damage to chattels and the pipe-line owner would have to pay automatically. If, however, the man through whose land the pipe is put has been so accommodating as to allow the pipe-line company to have a voluntary agreement, then if damage occurs to his neighbour, that neighbour would have to prove negligence before he could recover any damages whatever. This seems so illogical and extraordinary that I have attempted to put down an Amendment to meet the point.
It may be that it should be dealt with in a separate clause, but, nevertheless, dealt with I am sure it must be because it has nothing whatever to do with the neighbour whether the right is taken compulsorily or by voluntary agreement. He has no say in the matter. Indeed, he probably knows nothing of it, and yet he is liable to be seriously pre-

717
judiced if as a neighbour he is an accommodating and charming man who allows the pipe-line company to go through without difficulty. I believe that this is a point which Her Majesty's Government ought seriously to consider before allowing this Bill to go any further, because otherwise I am sure that injustice is likely to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, after ("order") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I can appreciate what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is trying to achieve for the neighbour of an owner of land through which a pipe-line is going. But there are one or two points on which I should be most grateful to the Minister for some clarification. First of all, if this Amendment is agreed to, would it have any retrospective effect? In other words, would it undermine the basis on which past agreements have been negotiated, and also would it give a further opportunity to an owner of land through which a pipe-line goes to reopen negotiations with the owner of a pipe-line? In other words, what I am sincerely hoping is that, if this Amendment is agreed to, it only looks forward; that is to say, it does not affect any agreements which have already been reached, and it would not give a second opportunity to an owner of land through whose land a pipe-line goes, to re-enter into negotiations with regard to that pipe-line.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will try to explain the position as clearly as I can to my noble friend Lord Merrivale, because I think he has put his finger on some of the difficulties which this Amendment raises. I would start by reminding your Lordships that subsection (2) of Clause 11 provides that where, in consequence of
"the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order a person suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation"
from the pipe-line owner. The Amendment would provide, in addition, for compensation to persons who suffered loss in consequence of the exercise of rights under a voluntary wayleave granted by somebody else. The Amend-
718
ment does not seek to protect the landowner who actually grants a wayleave, because it must be assumed that he acts advisedly and ensures that his own interests are covered. It merely seeks to protect the position of third parties. Our difficulty is that to admit the principle of the Amendment would imply that there was some justification for giving special protection to third parties who might be affected by the construction or operation of a pipe-line as distinct from any other form of industrial development. That, I am afraid, I cannot accept. As my noble friend Lord Mills explained in Committee, the Government decided against introducing the principle of absolute liability generally in the Bill, and the same arguments apply here.
I come now to the point which Lord Colville of Culross put with such force; that subsection (2) will protect third parties where compulsory rights are taken, and that the same should apply in the case of voluntary wayleaves. The answer to my noble friend is that the clause is intended primarily to protect landowners affected by a compulsory rights order and persons having chattels on their land, for example, tradesmen's vans and the like. These are the people whom a landowner negotiating a voluntary wayleave would also normally protect, if only to ensure that he himself was not liable. It is doubtful how far subsection (2) would protect adjoining landowners, because the courts would probably hold that the words
"in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order"
are aimed at damage done in laying or altering a pipe-line and could not be construed as covering more remote results. As my noble friend will appreciate, it would be very undesirable to change the wording, because this would cast doubt on the corresponding provision of Section 18 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act.
Surely, the short answer is this. If someone were giving a compulsory way-leave, he would normally protect the third parties who were covered by the Amendment in the negotiations. He would say, "Well, you must protect me and you must take the responsibility for third parties". And if he does not

719
do that he is a very silly man. But I do not think that we can go tearing up the agreement he makes and substituting something for it. I think that would be a wrong course to take. We must rely on the good sense and acumen of landowners to see that they cover that point.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by one thing that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his last speech. Do I understand that he thinks that the liability imposed by subsection (2) applies only (if I may express it thus) to accidents caused in the laying of the pipeline in pursuance of a compulsory rights order, and does not cover damage caused by any subsequent accident to the pipeline, such as an explosion? Is he convinced that the subsection has that limitation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not go so far as that. I said that it was doubtful how far it would protect the adjoining landowners, because one would have to look at the construction which the courts would place on the words "in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order". How long it would take for the damage to show will always be a question of fact. But the point I was making is that I think it is at any rate doubtful whether the courts would hold further than I indicated. I do not think it affects our main point, and if my noble friend considers it further I believe that he will see that it is a general point which ought to be borne in mind.
LORD CONESFORD: I was only wondering what would be the position of the landowner. My noble and learned friend said that no doubt he would be able to cover certain risks by insurance. If I understand the position now correctly, where there is a compulsory rights order, without insurance he will be covered for damage, so to speak, at the initial stage of the laying of the pipeline; but if he wants to cover himself subsequently against accidents caused by, say, an explosion, he will have to look after that and cover himself by insurance; for the owner of the pipeline will be under no sort of obligation to insure against such an accident to third parties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that in that last statement my noble friend has over-simplified the question of causation, but I shall certainly look into what he has said. But one comes back to the original point: that if somebody grants a voluntary wayleave he ought to exact, as one of the conditions of granting it, that the same liability will be covered by the grantee as will be done in the case of compulsory acquisition of rights. That is really the point of the matter.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, might I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor whether, in the case quoted by the noble Lord, Viscount Colville of Culross, if any such transaction did take place, the right of way given by one person to another, such a gift could be offered and accepted without first going to the planning authority to decide whether the piece of land in question could be used for other purposes? Would that not be likely to cause a very highly complicated situation? We should have the planning authority's considerations side by side with the kindly offer of one person to another of some rights over his land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer to that is that before the owner of the pipe-line, the person who wants the wayleave, can obtain permission to put the pipe-line there, he must satisfy the planning aspect, as well as every other aspect. However, we are dealing with a hypothesis where he has satisfied the planning aspect, and we then come to the narrower question of whether the owner of the pipe-line obtains the right to lay it by agreement with the landowner or by compulsion. Where my noble friend and I join issue, for once, is that my noble friend says there ought not to be the position in which if the pipe-line owner has to resort to compulsion then there is protection against third parties, but that if he does it by contract there is not. I say that if the pipe-line owner makes his contract he ought to ensure the same protection for third parties as would be given if it were a compulsory transaction. That is really the difference between us. My difficulty is that if I abandon that position I am accepting a much wider degree of absolute liability than would otherwise be the case; and that I cannot do.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I find my noble and learned friend's reply profoundly disquieting. It seemed to me that we had reached a stage in Committee when it had come clear that a third party, when a compulsory rights order had been made, had got something in the nature of absolute liability. My noble and learned friend now says that is not necessarily the case; and, indeed, that he does not know whether the courts would so interpret the Bill. My noble and learned friend further says that he is not sure how far the protection under Clause 11, subsection (2), would extend to cover a person through whose land a compulsory rights order goes; and my noble and learned friend further agrees with me that the anomaly to which I pointed is, in fact, a true one.
As I understand his argument, there are two difficulties in his way. First, he does not wish to impose any further form of absolute liability than at present exists; and, second, that if he were to change the wording in this clause to make it clear what the law was intended to be, he would in some way prejudice Her Majesty's Government's position under the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, by which Government pipe-lines are laid and for which compensation, I believe, is provided for in the regulations made by the Treasury under that Act. This Bill is meant to lay down a code for pipe-lines which are to last, presumably, for a very considerable time, and the code is intended to cover every possibility and every eventuality that may crop up. Yet here, enshrined in the only part of the Bill which lays down the rights of compensation on compulsory rights order, is this complete obscurity, which not even my noble and learned friend can explain; and your Lordships are asked to pass this Bill to another place without even knowing what the compensation is to be for.
I must say that I find this state of affairs very disquieting, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government ought to look at this again. It might be that they would prejudice their own case to some degree under the Land Powers (Defence) Act, but if this Bill is intended as a book of rules for pipe-line construction in the future I think it is monstrous that this clause should be passed without
722
anybody having the faintest idea what it means and what protection it gives to anybody. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will do something about this, otherwise, as I say, it will be a disgraceful state of affairs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should just like to make clear to my noble friend, which I am afraid I have not done, that nothing that I said was intended to derogate from the protection that has generally been assumed to be given by the Bill. I would again remind your Lordships of the words of subsection (2) of Clause 11:
"Where in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order a person suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation …"
from the pipe-line owner. I want to affirm that. There is no question of any doubt about that. All I said—and this is what my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford asked me about—was that when one comes to consider the words, "in consequence of the exercise of any right", that is a matter on which the courts might take a more limited view. I thought it only fair that that point should be made. But there is no derogation at all from that position, that the person who suffers loss by reason of damage to or disturbance of enjoyment of land or chattels is entitled to compensation from the pipe-line owner. We start from that.
I still say that the only point between my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and myself is that he wants to extend that to persons who suffer loss in consequence of the exercise of rights under a voluntary wayleave granted by somebody else. That is really the difference between us, and I think he will agree with me (and I would ask him to look into it again) that to admit the principle of the Amendment would imply that there was some justification for giving special protection to third parties who might be affected by the construction or operation of pipe-lines, as distinct from any other form of industrial development. He is asking for the compensation to apply in the case of a voluntary agreement negotiated on equal terms between two people, and I am saying that compensation should apply only

723
where there is compulsory action. That is the position between us. I think he will on reflection see that to depart from the position I have just stated in acknowledging the case of voluntary agreement, would be making a departure in principle. And I think he is underestimating the ability and common sense of the ordinary landowner who is giving a voluntary wayleave to think he will not provide for this position in his arrangements with the pipe-line owner. I am always ready to consider what my noble friend says, but I hope he will consider my arguments because I think on reflection he will find they are not deserving of such vitriolic words as he used a moment or so ago.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is really a lawyers' picnic and it is terribly difficult to understand. Do I understand that the subject of compensation is this. Assume a case where the owner of land has made a voluntary agreement to allow a pipe-line to go through, and some other owner of land into which the pipeline may not necessarily go at all claims that he has received some damage by reason of his neighbour's acceptance of that pipe-line. My noble friend wants compensation for that man and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack refuses to give it to him. Is that the point?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, it is much subtler than that. The Bill gives compensation to Lord Hawke's third party if there has been a compulsory acquisition of rights; but if the first landowner has voluntarily agreed to allow the pipe-line to go on his land, then it does not give compensation unless he has provided for that in his agreement. I hope I have stated it fairly. That is the subtle distinction between us. I say it can only happen where compulsory powers have been taken; my noble friend wants it to happen where the landowner makes a voluntary agreement.
LORD HAWKE: The position, frankly, does not seem to me to be equity.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I quite agree with my noble friend. Of course, I will consider my noble and learned friend's arguments. I had no intention to be vitriolic, but it does seem to me injustice. It is possible that the man through whose land the voluntary
724
wayleave goes may make provision for the pipe-line owner to pay compensation for damage to his neighbour, but this is remarkably little comfort to the neighbour, because he is not involved in the negotiations, is not a party to the agreement, does not necessarily know the agreement is being made, and, indeed, his next door neighbour may be his bitter enemy and would not in any circumstances make an agreement with the pipe-line owner for his protection. It is not so much from the point of view of the man through whose land the pipe goes that I am worried; it is for the neighbour who might be prejudiced purely by the fortuitous circumstance of his neighbour's giving a wayleave voluntarily or having it taken by compulsory rights. I see the noble Viscount is in some difficulty of principle, but he is giving the neighbour absolute protection where there are compulsory rights, and he must have differentiated a pipeline to that extent from other forms of industrial activity; so to some degree he has already breached his own principle.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am worried in the same way as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but I am worried too about the position as regards chattels. Suppose sometime afterwards (I have given the example before) there is an explosion in one of these pipe-lines, which causes damage to somebody invited by the landowner through whose land the pipe-line goes. An explosion, perhaps a considerable time after, causes damage to the chattels of this third party. I do not know what the Government's intention is about this, whether this is supposed to be an insurable risk, whether the landowner has got to warn all invitees to his property that "There is a pipe-line under my land which I suppose might explode"; and if it does and does damage to the invitee's property, is the invitee to claim by a lawsuit that he has been invited on to dangerous property?
I should have thought the case differed from a great many other forms of industrial activity, because the risk may not be visible at all to the third party. I mentioned this at an earlier stage and it is probably out of order on this Amendment; but I hope that my noble and learned friend and the Government will carefully consider whether this is not a case where persons who are either

725
damaged themselves, a thing not covered at all, or whose property is damaged, ought to have the same right against the person bringing a dangerous thing on to the land or under the land as is given by the well-known case of Rylands v. Fletcher, and that type of liability. I honestly believe that this merits further consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hesitate to intrude on your Lordships again—this is the Report stage and not a Committee, and therefore I am asking for your Lordships' patience—but I want to ask my noble friend Lord Conesford to consider this. What is being asked for in this Amendment is that, if a landlord makes voluntary grants of wayleave of a pipe-line on his land, then the third party may have an absolute right. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is distinguishing entirely—it was this basis that we discussed—between an absolute right and a right under Rylands v. Fletcher, because as my noble friend Lord Conesford will remember, Rylands v. Fletcher is subject to the three defences, if my memory is right, of act of God, contributory negligence and the act of another third party. If the hypothetical person to whom both my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and I refer can bring himself within Rylands v. Fletcher, he recovers at once. There is no question of his being barred from Rylands v. Fletcher. All he is being barred from is the absolute right if the defences that are applicable to Rylands v. Fletcher would not apply. That is as I understand the position.
If my noble friend Lord Conesford considers that, I think he will see that the position is not so bad as he thought, because in his last speech I think he thought that the person was in fact deprived of being able to recover damages even if he could get the assistance of the ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher. I think we have had a hearty lawyer's aperitif in this discussion, and that we ought universally to apologise to the non-legal Members of the House. Of course, I will have another look at this as my noble friend feels strongly about it. I have tried to give the explanation, but I will look at it again. It is a most
726
technical point. I hope he will not press it to-day.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive a fourth speech on this Amendment, I gladly accept my noble and learned friend's assurance. I believe it is something that ought to be looked at again, and I hope that something may come of it as a result of his considerations. But at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the second Amendment in what I call the "nineteen group". In this case it is consequential on Amendment No. 19 which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Power to place pipe-lines in streets]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am informed that the term "highway" has a different significance in Scotland from that in England and Wales, and these Amendments are necessary to ensure that Clause 13, which gives power to place pipe-lines in streets, is applied in exactly the same way in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (11) and insert—
"(11) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) references to a street which is a highway shall be construed as references to a street over which there is a public right of way;

(b) the expression "carriageway" means a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles;

(c) the reference in subsection (6) to the Minister of Transport shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State;

(d) in subsection (7), the words from "and, where" to the end of the subsection shall be omitted;

(e) the reference in subsection (10) to the Minister of Transport shall be construed as including a reference to the Secretary of State.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Power of the Minister to impose requirements with respect to mode of construction, &c, of pipe-lines
18.—(1) The Minister may at any time if he considers it necessary so to do in the interests of safety, by notice served on a person who is executing, or is proposing to execute, works in land for the construction of a pipe-line,—

(a) prohibit, as regards works for the construction of the line or of any length thereof specified in the notice, the execution of the works (so far as they fall to be executed after the service of the notice) otherwise than in such a manner as may be so specified;

(b) prohibit, as regards any length of the line specified in the notice, the construction thereof (so far as it falls to be constructed after the service of the notice) except of such materials as may be specified in the notice or the incorporation therein in the course of the construction thereof (so far as it falls as aforesaid) of component parts of a class so specified that do not comply with such requirements as may be so specified;

(2) If a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection serves on the Minister, before the expiration of twelve weeks from the date on which the notice was served, a counter-notice objecting to the notice, the Minister shall afford him an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and if the first-mentioned person avails himself of the opportunity, the Minister shall, before the expiration of twelve weeks from the date on which the hearing is concluded, consider the objection and the report of the person appointed to hear the objector and by notice served on the objector either quash the notice objected to, or confirm it without modification, or confirm it subject to such modification as appears to the Minister to meet the objection.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in sub-section (1) (a) to leave out
"(So far as they fall to be executed after the service of the notice)".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this question and for not letting go of the bone, because I think that the safety provisions in this Bill are still insufficient. The particular point raised in this Amendment is also the point of Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 36, to which I should like to speak. The clause is headed " Safety of Pipe-lines " and it empowers the Minister to do certain things if he considers it necessary in the interests of safety. In subsection (1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal respectively with the manner of execution of the works, the materials of which the works are to be
728
constructed, the component parts and the depth below the surface at which the pipe is to be placed.
As at present drafted, the Bill states that the Minister may prohibit any such length of pipe-line as in his opinion does not come up to a proper standard, and there are penalties for promoters who go ahead with construction and do not comply with the standards. But there is a strange gap in the Minister's powers, because it will be seen from the words in parenthesis, which I propose to leave out, that the Minister has no power to enforce his requirements in such parts of the pipe-line as have already been constructed. So if his inspectors have failed to warn him in sufficient time of the plans of the promoter, and the promoter goes ahead with building his pipe-line in an unsafe manner, or of inadequate materials, or with the wrong component parts, or at too shallow a depth, the line of pipe-line that has been laid before discovery of the fault cannot be disturbed if the fault is rectified. And as, by definition, the Minister serves a notice only when it is unsafe for the line to be laid in the way he complains of, it seems to me that the Minister is going to condone the existence, in a number of parts of the country, of a highly dangerous object, an underground pipe conveying inflammable or explosive substances and built in such a way as is not adequate for safety. I therefore suggest that this loophole should be closed.
It may be said that once the thing has been built, laid, buried and completed it would be too much to expect a promoter to go to all the expense of digging it up and relaying it to the required standard. My Lords, is it too much to expect of a promoter? You expect him to build his pipe-line to such a standard as the Minister considers safe, and presumably that is a more expensive standard than a less safe one would be. You are imposing additional expense on the promoter, if one likes to put it that way, by insisting on standards at all; but if it is in the interests of the public that these standards should be preserved it seems to me that there is no argument whatever for allowing such lengths as have escaped the Minister's observation to be allowed to remain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 11, leave out from ("works") to ("otherwise") in line 12.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, these four Amendments, 32, 33, 35 and 36, seek to remove the limitations in Clause 18 (1) (a), (b) and (c) which restrict the Minister's power to impose requirements on the mode of construction, materials and depth at which a pipe-line is to be placed, to work not yet carried out at the time the notice is served. The provisions of the Bill dealing with safety, Clauses 18 to 22, were based on the broad principle that the Minister should be empowered, before the pipe-line is constructed, to specify how it should be constructed, the materials and the component parts of which it should be made, the depth and the manner in which the work should be carried out; and, after the pipe-line has been constructed, to impose requirements as to the maintenance repair, et cetera, of the line and the pressure at which it should be used in order to ensure that it is, and should remain, safe in operation.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would mean that, so long as a pipe-line is still under construction, the Minister would have the power to impose requirements not merely on the construction of that part of the pipeline which has not yet been laid, but on any part including the part that has already been laid. It is, in fact, improbable that such powers would ever need to be exercised in practice. Pipe-line technology is a well-established branch of engineering, and there is no real risk that a pipe-line which has been properly constructed in accordance with up-to-date practice will suddenly be found to be totally unsafe.
But, in examining this matter further in view of the noble Earl's suggested Amendment, we have come to the conclusion that if the Minister's power is to be extended in this way, perhaps the noble Earl would agree with us that it would be better to go the whole hog and to give the Minister power to deal also with any pipe-line which may have been completed. If the noble Earl would agree with that, I would propose to have a Government Amendment prepared to deal with the whole problem. I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied on that.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at a convenient time we will take Amendment No. 34.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this might be a suitable moment to adjourn until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven and resumed at eight o'clock.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved in subsection (1) (b), page 15, line 17, after "materials" to insert ", and with the inclusion of such safety devices,". The noble Earl said: I hardly dare to have another shot: I may get another bulls-eye. This is to give the Minister power to insist on certain safety devices in the pipe-line system. Presumably, any firm undertaking a construction like this would observe sound engineering practice and would install all necessary safety devices. But, after all, all legislation is designed to guard against failures of judgment, care and precaution, so it seems to me that it is worth while to strengthen the Minister's powers in this direction.
To give an idea of the kind of safety devices that are thought necessary, I should like to quote a few lines from an account of the pipe-line that has been operating in France from Le Havre to Paris for a number of years. There are not only safety precautions in the pipeline itself; the material used and the construction of the relief valves have the same regard for safety which prevails in the stations and terminals. The safety and control devices are many.
"Some apparatus is equipped with recorders to show the slightest trace of any untoward incident, or even operate the safety or alarm systems. Contact monometers in the fluid, detectors of hydrocarbon vapour near the motors and temperature registers on the working parts of motors and pumps can stop the working of the appropriate parts when they reach the critical value."
That gives one an idea of the kind of complexity and elaboration of devices, needed to guard to the maximum extent possible against accidents. That is what

731
should like to see the Minister empowered to insist on when granting an authorisation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, after ("materials") insert (", and with the inclusion of such safety devices,").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MILLS: The noble Earl proposed his Amendment carefully, giving the impression—I am sure he is right—that he has thought a lot about this. While I am of the opinion that the clause, as drafted, should be adequate to enable the Minister to secure that adequate safety devices are included in the line, this Amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt, and I therefore accept it.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this puts into the Bill what I should imagine is a matter of normal engineering design: that, before you decide the materials of which you are going to make your apparatus, you must know at what pressure it is designed to work. I do not know whether this proposed subsection is suitably drafted, and I see that the Minister has set down two later Amendments that seem to achieve the same object. But perhaps, to clear the matter, I should move this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 28, at end insert—
(" (d) prohibit, as regards any length or lengths of the line specified in the notice, the construction thereof except to such dimensions in relation to the maximum working pressure at which it is intended to operate the line as may be so specified.")—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to enable the Minister to specify the dimensions to which each section of a pipe-line must be constructed in relation to the maximum working pressure at which it is intended to be operated. A subsequent Amendment will be proposed to the First Schedule—Amendment No. 64 in the Marshalled List. There is no corresponding Amendment proposed to Clause 2, but I take it that that is merely an oversight.
When anyone is designing a pipe-line, he will take as his starting point the physical characteristics of the thing to
732
be conveyed by the line—for example, its viscosity and the quantity to be moved in a given period of time. With these data, he will then consider all the variable factors, such as the internal diameter of the line, its thickness, the materials from which it is to be constructed and the pressure at which it is to operate. He will then seek the optimum combination of these variables in order to arrive at the cheapest method of constructing the pipe-line consistent with adequate safety margins. I think it follows that it would be wrong to require the applicant to state at the outset, before he has completed his design, what the working pressure is to be, and then to impose requirements on the construction of the pipe related to that pressure. As the noble Earl has said, a Government Amendment has been put down, and I think that that Amendment should be adequate to cover the point the noble Earl has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he help me? There was some concern on the Committee stage about the pipe-lines that might be constructed in some of the built-up areas, such as our ports. I would have thought that the question of pressure in these pipes was a matter of very great importance from the point of view of safety in those built-up areas. It may not be quite so important in farmlands, but in a built-up area I should have thought the question of the safe pressure, as opposed to the materials which are being used in the pipe-line, would become a very major point. Could the noble Lord say whether his Amendment would meet that particular worry?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when the noble Lord deals with that question raised by my noble friend, I wonder whether he would at the same time cover a related point with regard to subsequent inspection of these lines regarding pressure. The noble Lord will be aware, of course, that boilers and any other kind of equipment which is subject to pressure are subject to erosion of various kinds, where the walls of the container, in this case a pipe-line, become thinner. Therefore, I am wondering whether the noble Lord is satisfied that that point is covered in the Amendment which he proposes to move later.

733
It is not merely a question that the pipeline will be sufficiently strong to do the job for which it is intended at the time it is installed, but that we must be satisfied that there is adequate inspection to ensure that the public is at all times safe, and if it is not, that the pipe-line is going to be replaced.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, perhaps I did not explain fully why the noble Lord's Amendment was not quite suitable, and for that I apologise. What I was trying to say was that the Minister must know all the requirements before he can specify the pressures either of the line or of the different parts of the line. I think he has not only to specify the requirements as to the method of constructing the line, but how all these things vary for different parts of the line. Then once the line has been constructed, the Minister can still exercise the necessary control to ensure that it is safe in operation by fixing the maximum pressure, not only for the line but for different parts of the line, too. If any error has been made at an early stage, safety can still be ensured by specifying a lower maximum pressure if it is found that part of a line is so constructed as not to be able to cope with that pressure.
Although the Amendment as it stands is not acceptable, it has drawn attention to a useful point on which there is scope for improving the Bill. Clause 21 (1) enables the Minister, in the interests of safety, to fix the maximum working pressure at any point in the line. The present Amendment draws attention to the possibility that it may be appropriate to fix different working pressures for different sections of the line, as was mentioned in our discussions in Committee. This would avoid the need to fix an unduly low maximum for the whole line when it is necessary for only part of its length. I think the noble Lord will see that the Amendment I have put down deals with that point.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, speak just before withdrawing the Amendment, I should have thought that before the applicant ever makes his application he must surely have worked out his plains in much detail. He must have had complete drawings and plans in order to be sure that what he was proposing was going to be an economically sound pro-
734
position; and that is why I thought it was reasonable to ask him, when he first makes his application—and, of course, this comes in with Amendment No. 64—to specify all that. However, I would be willing to withdraw this particular Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "twelve" and insert "four" [weeks]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. It seeks to reduce from twelve to four weeks the time which the Minister is allowed in which to give his decision after he has held an inquiry into an objection to a notice which the Minister has had served. This point was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Silkin, who pointed out that the objector is given twelve weeks in which to object and at the expiration of that time the Minister has to arrange for an inquiry which, as my noble friend said, will take an unspecified time—perhaps three months. Then, after the inquiry has been held and the inspector, or whoever is appointed to hear the inquiry, reports to the Minister, the Minister has twelve weeks in which to decide whether he will confirm the original notice or terminate it. That means that possibly nine months or twelve months, or even longer, may elapse, while the matter remains in abeyance.
It may be argued that when a notice has been served on a licensee for a pipeline it is right and proper that he should have as much as twelve weeks in order to prepare his objection, but whatever strength there may be in that argument, surely there is no need for the Minister to delay his answer for as long as twelve weeks, having regard to the fact that, when the inquiry has been concluded and the inspector makes his report, all the facts will be before the Minister to enable him to make a decision.
We are dealing here with the question of safety. We are also dealing with a project which has been approved in its initial stages and which presumably everybody desires to go forward. Therefore, it is in everyone's interest that it should go forward without any avoid-

735
able delay. I do not profess to know all the machinery that is necessary before a Minister can give a decision on a matter of this kind. I know that it takes about four weeks to get .a reply to an ordinary letter, but that, of course, has not to go through the machine. I think that in a matter of this kind, it ought to be possible for the responsible Minister, having all the facts before him, to give a decision within four weeks—certainly in less than twelve weeks.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36. leave out ("twelve") and insert ("four").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have taken careful notice of what the noble Lord has said about the replies from Ministers. He will have in mind that they have to go through the "pipe-line".
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may be allowed, I am not saying anything personal here, because if I had an inquiry to make of the noble Lord I would make it in the adjoining chamber and get an answer at once.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, we will see whether we can increase the pressure all round.
This Amendment arises out of a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in Committee, and it has been given careful consideration since the noble Lord raised it. We understand the desire to reduce the time and avoid delay in a matter in which danger may be involved. But I think noble Lords have overlooked, first, the fact that a notice under Clause 18 (1) relates to a pipe-line (or that part of it) which is not yet constructed and which cannot therefore be a source of danger; and secondly the fact that under the second paragraph of subsection (2) of Clause 18 the quashing of a notice following the consideration of objections does not affect its previous operation. In other wards, if the Minister specifies that a pipe-line, or part of it, must be constructed to certain standards, the fact that the promoter has objected to the Minister's notice will not enable him to construct it to any lesser standards.
It could, of course, be argued that the Minister should reach his decision more quickly, not in the interests of
736
safety but in order to avoid holding up the work of construction for an unduly long time. There is more sense in this, and clearly it would be undesirable to delay work indefinitely. On the other hand, there may well be complicated technical arguments to consider, and twelve weeks is by no means too long to allow as an outside limit. If the issues are clear and the Minister can reach his decision more quickly, there is nothing in the Bill to stop his doing so; but I suggest that it would be unwise to insist upon quick decisions where safety is involved.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I think he made one error in his answer. He quite rightly said that this clause is in respect of pipe-lines not yet constructed; but he also said that it would not affect, as it were, work that has already been done. A little while ago he was good enough, in dealing with Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Lucan, to say not merely that he accepted them, but that he would introduce Amendments which went further. In other words, the clause will be so amended as to cover the whole operations, right from the beginning. That will affect the answer the noble Lord has given me now. I suggest that the brief was prepared without taking into consideration the fact that the noble Lord was going to concede the points he has already conceded to my noble friend.
In those circumstances, I hope he will look at this question again, and even if he cannot accept the period of four weeks suggested in the Amendment, he may accept some shorter time for consideration by the Minister of a report which will contain all the facts and should enable a decision (because that is all that is needed: no further inquiry is needed, but only a decision on the facts, for and against) to be reached by the Minister in a clear way. With respect, I should have thought that this would not need twelve weeks. I hope that, even if no answer can be given now, the noble Lord will take into consideration the fact that his present reply must be affected by the earlier decisions which he announced, and that he will look at the matter again.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the words of my noble friend Lord Silkin on Committee stage, when he said that on matters of safety we seem to be dealing with this clause in a very leisurely way, are still relevant. By the third line of subsection (2) of Clause 18 the person on whom the notice is served has twelve weeks in which to reply. If he allows the work to go quietly forward during those twelve weeks before he complains, there again seems to be a loophole which prejudices safety.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say only that this matter has been very fully considered. We have taken everything we can think of into consideration and have come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to disturb the twelve weeks.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 [Enforcement of requirements imposed under section 18]:
8.26 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the third Amendment in the "No. 19 group". It is rather more substantive, because it is not a consequential Amendment; it is a parallel one. If it was right to provide for compensation for owners where notice had been served to remove the pipe-line for contravention of the provisions of Clauses 1 or 2, it must equally be right to provide for compensation where the pipe-line has to be removed for contravention of safety requirements under Clause 8. That is what this clause does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
("(3) Where, in consequence of compliance with a requirement imposed by a notice served on a person under subsection (1) of this section or of the exercise, in consequence of the failure of a person on whom such a notice is served to comply with a requirement imposed thereby, of the power conferred by the last foregoing subsection, a person, other than the person on whom the notice was served, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled, where the loss was suffered in consequence of such compliance, to compensation in respect of that loss from the person on whom the notice was served, or, where the loss was suffered in consequence of the exercise of that power, to compensation in respect of that loss from the Minister; and the Minister may recover from the person on whom the notice was served, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of any compensation paid by the Minister under this subsection.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Power of the Minister to impose requirements with respect to examination, repair, &c., of pipe-lines]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Clause 21 (1) empowers the Minister at any time, by notice served on a pipe-line owner, to require him to operate the line in such a way that the pressure at any point does not exceed a given figure. As I explained in my remarks on Amendments Nos. 32 and 37, this Amendment has been put down to give effect to suggestions embodied in the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren—Amendment No. 47—that the Minister should be empowered to fix the maximum pressure, not only for the line but also for any length of it. This will mean that if for any reason a particular section of the line needs, in order to ensure safety, to be operated at a reduced pressure, the Minister can require this without imposing unnecessarily low pressures on the rest of the line. Amendment 39D goes with this Amendment, and is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, leave out from ("interests") to ("such") in line 39 and insert ("by notice served as aforesaid require that the line shall be so operated that (according as may be specified in the notice) the pressure of its contents, or the pressure of the contents of any length of the line so specified, will at no point exceed").—(Lord Mills.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for putting this Amendment down. It seems to cover a certain gap in the provisions. The only thing I would suggest now is that the rubric of the clause, instead of being, "examination, repair et cetera," of pipe-lines might be, "operation, examination and repair".
LORD MILLS: I will consider that, my Lords.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) If the Minister is at any time satisfied that, in the interests of safety, a length of a pipe-line which is not capable of being isolated from the rest of the line ought to be made capable of being so isolated, he may by notice served on the owner of the line prohibit the use of that length until there have been taken such steps as are requisite to enable that length to be so isolated."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment No. 39B, was put down following consideration of the Amendments put down to Clause 18 by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren, to strengthen the Minister's powers to impose safety requirements on existing pipe-lines. The Amendment would enable the Minister at any time by notice to a pipe-line owner, to require steps to be taken—for example, by the insertion of additional valves in the line—to make any length of the pipe-line capable of being isolated from the rest of the line. This might be desirable in order to make it possible to limit the extent of damage which could be caused by an accident affecting the line in a particular area—for example, if a new town had been built near an existing pipe-line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 40, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mills.)
*On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I regret that I ought not to have moved Amendment No. 39B because of the undertaking I gave under Clause 32. I had not realised that. Perhaps if I may make myself entirely clear here, I do not propose to move Amendments 39B, 39C and 39E because of the undertaking I gave under Clause 32.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but would he just repeat those which are not moved?
LORD MILLS: Nos. 39B, 39C and 39E.
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 39A. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 1, after ("pipe-line") insert ("or a length of a pipe-line").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power of the Minister to cause steps to be taken for rendering pipe-line, or length thereof, safe on abandonment or cesser or use]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the next Amendment is in the "No. 19 group." If it was right to provide compensation in two sets of circumstances
740
where a pipe-line has to be removed it must be right in the third. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where, in consequence of compliance with a requirement to do any thing to a pipeline or length thereof imposed by a notice under subsection (1) of this section, or of the exercise of the power to enter and do any thing to a pipe-line or length thereof conferred by the last foregoing subsection, a person, other than the owner of the line, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled, where the loss was suffered in consequence of such compliance, to compensation in respect of that loss from the owner of the line, or where the loss was suffered in consequence of the exercise of that power, to compensation in respect of that loss from the Minister; and the Minister may recover from the owner of the line, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of any compensation paid by the Minister under this subsection.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power of the Minister to remove deposits imperilling pipe-line]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is put down following an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who wished at the time to make sure that in the category of buildings, structures or deposits which the Minister could remove, or cause to be removed, if they were within ten feet of a pipe-line, any buildings, structures or deposits made in connection with the work of statutory undertakers should not be included. I undertook to have another good look at this matter, and on examination we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to amend Clause 23 in respect of such works. It applies to the sort of structures and buildings that normally would be of so temporary and innocuous a nature that they would not fall within that class, or if not of that kind should fall within it. I think the noble Lord would probably agree with that.
On the other hand, it did seem to us that there .was a point to be covered so far as deposits of earth and soil were concerned, and that is the purpose of this Amendment. I should just add, in case there is any misapprehension, that the words it is intended to insert come after the words in parenthesis, after "silage" and not between "silage" and the bracket in the Bill. I say that for complete clarity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 13, after ("silage") insert ("or in the course of executing code-regulated works within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950,").—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend could tell me whether the expression "code-regulated" is defined in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950; because if it is not it seems to me a rather unusual expression to find in a Statute and one which perhaps ought to be expanded.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I cannot say offhand. But if it is defined it is all right; and if it is not, I think it is perfectly clear what it means. I do not think it is likely to require definition, even if it is not such an expression as my noble friend might use himself.
LORD STONHAM: Would it make it easier for the noble Lord and simpler for the noble Viscount if he told us which are the works regulated by code?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, those who are associated with local government statutory undertakings understand the phrase. Therefore I think this meets the case, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting it in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 27 to insert the following new clause.
Compensation in respect of restrictions under sections 23 and 27
" .—(1) Where works are executed for the construction of a pipe-line and the value of an interest in land is depreciated in consequence of restrictions taking effect by virtue of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act or subsection (1) of section twenty-seven thereof, being an interest subsisting at the time when those restrictions take effect as respects that land, then, subject to the provisions of the following subsection, there shall be payable in respect of that interest by the owner of the pipe-line compensation of an amount equal to the amount of the depreciation.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply,—

(a) where land is acquired, whether compulsorily or by agreement, for the purpose of placing therein a length of pipe-line, to land which, immediately before the acquisition, comprised or was held with the land so acquired;

(b) to land comprising or held with land over which a right to place therein a length of pipe-line has been acquired, whether com-
742
pulsorily or by agreement (otherwise than by virtue of the acquisition of the land)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause which has gone in to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. He wanted compensation to be paid to people whose interest in land was depreciated as a result of the restrictions imposed on the use of land within ten feet of a pipe-line in Clause 23, which affects buildings or structures, or Clause 27, which affects various deposits of earth and so on. I undertook to put down an Amendment, and this is it. I think the Amendment meets the noble Lord's point, but I should add that it also goes some way to meet another point raised in an Amendment put down in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney. He argued at the time that operations for the storage of crops, grass or silage, as well as other agricultural operations, should be exempt from the provisions of Clause 27. We still feel unable to accept that argument, and we rejected it in the interests of access to the pipe-line for safety, since silage clamps and the like may be relatively large and may remain in the same place for some time. Therefore, I do not think they should be exempted.
The present Amendment will provide for compensation in those circumstances where the landowner or occupier can show that the value of his interest has been depreciated because of the restrictions and that he could not put his silage clamps and so on where he wished. I would only say that this is an Amendment we thought earlier on we should not be able to put down, but we have, after all, been able to do so. I hope that it will meet what my noble friend had in mind and will he acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for this clause. It is, in fact, the first fruits of your Lordships' perseverance last Monday, so it is particularly notable in appearing on the Marshalled List to-day. I am sure your Lordships will feel that this clause alone makes postponement of the Bill for a week worth while in order to be able to consider this clause this evening. Having

743
considered it, I am glad to see what is in it; I welcome it and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having put it down in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Viscount suggesting that the House should adopt the same method on other occasions?
LORD STONHAM: If the circumstances warrant?
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for going some way to meet the point that I raised on the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28:
Notification of certain accidents
28.—(1) Where any of the following events occurs, namely,—
(a) the bursting, explosion or collapse of a pipe-line or any part thereof;
notice of the event, in such form and accompanied by such particulars as may be specified by the Minister, shall forthwith be given by the owner of the pipe-line to the Minister.
8.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert:
" ( ) the escape of any thing from a pipeline;".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause deals with the notification of certain accidents, or, as they are called in the clause itself, events. The clause says:
"Where any of the following events occurs, namely,
(a) the bursting, explosion or collapse of a pipe-line …"
It seems to me that the escape from the pipe-line of the substances that we are thinking of is almost as serious as the bursting, explosion, or collapse. The escape of the substance which the Bill calls a "thing" seems to me to be one of the things that is most certainly notifiable. If near the house of one of your Lordships some high octane fluid, petrol or jet fuel, was escaping, I think you would think it well worthy of notification. I suggest, therefore, that this should be included in the Bill, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 28, which provides that the Minister must be notified of the things which are clearly stated in the Bill, is to enable him to order an inquiry, if he thinks it necessary to do so, into an accident, under Clause 29, or to impose requirements as to maintenance, inspection and so on, or working pressures, under Clause 21. If I were to accept it, this Amendment would require notification to be given to the Minister in addition of the escape of any thing from a pipe-line. It would mean that a large number of the notifications would in fact be of minor leaks, of which it seems scarcely appropriate for notice to be given to the Minister. They would fall to be dealt with more appropriately by the inspector who would be inspecting the pipe, and would indicate that more attention should be paid to repair and maintenance.
May I go on to the next Amendment? I have tried to take up the spirit of what the noble Earl wants, because I think that any major escapes such as the Minister would wish to know of—anything worth while reporting to him, so to speak—would in any case arise from the bursting, explosion or collapse of the pipe. That is the way in which I have so far seen it. I do not know how any major escape from the pipe could take place without one of these three things happening. Perhaps the noble Earl will expatiate on that in a moment. Amendment No. 41A which I will presently move but which I should like to speak to now in this connection, is designed to ensure what, I think, the noble Earl wants—immediate notification to the Minister of a serious accident. It has been drafted in this way because I do not think it would be necessary to report the accidental ignition of something which some time before had escaped from a pipe-line. I think that this covers the main point that he wishes to make. Will the noble Earl allow me to take into consideration his other Amendment as well? I think that would be unnecessary because if there is to be a report of the escape of anything, as I have said, it would not very much matter whether it was ignited or not: if it got out it would have to be reported. Therefore,

745
that Amendment I consider to be unnecessary. I have tried to pick up in Amendment 41A the sense of what the noble Earl sought. I hope he will find it a satisfactory solution in the circumstances, and that he will prefer it to his own Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Personally, I do not find the Minister's reply particularly satisfactory. Presumably the Minister is assuming that in these pipe-lines there will be liquids which might explode or ignite. We are at the beginning of a new transport system. May I develop this point? If you are in a built-up area where there is a water supply and you are moving acids and the pipe starts to leak, surely the leakage will then become a very important matter. Is a leakage a "collapse"? I should not not have thought so.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but if the leakage was of a size which required reporting to the Minister—and this was the theme I tried to develop—I should have thought it would certainly come under the heading of "collapse".
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take up the points made by the noble Lord. The leakage of substances such as the ones with which we are dealing is surely a matter of some seriousness. I do not know whether every notification should be made to the Minister, or whether there should be provision for notification of minor events of that kind to the local health authority, the local water supply or other authorities. But as this is the clause of the Bill dealing with notification of certain accidents, I should be very sorry to see any mention of "leakage" omitted from this section. It may be gas or it may be liquid; it may be inflammable, or it may not be; but I should have thought that there ought to be provision in the Bill for it to be somebody's duty to report an event of this kind. Even a minor leak could be a source of considerable danger or nuisance to inhabitants in whose neighbourhood it escaped. Although I appreciate the noble Lord's Amendment No. 41A, which I think deals with that point, it seems to me that the clause should make it clear that there is a
746
responsibility to notify any occurrence of that sort.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it seems to me, from a non-technical way of looking at this, that there is a complete difference between a "bursting, explosion or collapse" and a leak. Even in an ordinary private house where you have a pipe—admittedly, not a large pipe-line—you can have a leak of water or a leak of gas from the pipe, and the pipe has not collapsed, exploded or burst. I should have thought that it was perfectly possible for these pipelines to develop such a leak as that which could be extremely dangerous whether to human life or to animals.
As my noble friend has said, it may be an acid which is being carried. There might be a very small leak, with no collapse whatsoever of the pipe. The pipe-line is still integral as it used to be, but a small leak comes out into a water supply, over a field or wherever it may be, giving off noxious fumes or mixing with some alkali, which reacts with the acid and causes very serious results. As this Bill now stands, there is no need for that to be notified, and I should have thought that my noble friend's suggested emendation was an eminently sensible and desirable one, which in no way affects the spirit of the Bill, but safeguards the public without putting any undue burden upon the undertakers of the pipe-line. I personally can see no reason at all why this simple and worthwhile suggestion should not be adopted by the Government.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again on Amendment No. 41, I would say this. I rather think that the noble Lords opposite have a point here. I had previously thought that the contention I put forward, on anything that the Minister would require to know, would be covered by the existing wording of the Bill, but I must confess that I feel some little doubt about it at the moment. I should think that the question of the ignition of something that came out of the pipe was probably covered by the Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, and it perhaps meets the views of noble Lords opposite on that score.
As regards the escape without ignition,

747
as I say, I am not quite convinced about it now and I should like to reconsider this matter, if the noble Earl would consider withdrawing his Amendment. I cannot give any commitment on what I can do about it, but I should like very much to reconsider this matter to see whether the safety angle, which is allimportant—I do agree about that—needs tightening up in this respect. Whether it can be done in time for a later stage in this House or in another place, I could not say, but I should like to give the assurance that this matter will be very carefully considered in view of what has been said.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and, in view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.54 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think, after the discussion, that there is anything I really need to acid to this, so I beg merely to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 38, after ("pipe-line") insert ("or of any thing which, immediately before it ignited, was in a pipe-line;").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29:
Inquiries into accidents
29.—(1) The Minister may, where he thinks it expedient so to do, direct an inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act into an event notice of which is required by the last foregoing section to be given.
8.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "do" to insert ", and shall if the event has resulted in loss of life,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43, standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. This, again, is the "may" or "shall" argument: the argument between permissive and mandatory powers. As the subsection now stands, the Minister may, if he thinks proper, direct that an inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Act: but we seek to insert in the fourth line words which pro-
748
vide that, if the incident or the accident has resulted in death, then the Minister must hold an inquiry.
One can visualise that, where there has been an explosion, the collapse of a pipe or the emission of some fluid, which has not caused an accident, or which has not caused a fatal accident, the Minister might not think it desirable to hold an inquiry unless he felt that it might bring forth some knowledge which would be of general use in respect to the service of pipe-lines. But if a fatality has occurred, then inevitably there will be very considerable public concern; the kind of concern which will give rise, perhaps, to requests in another place for a public inquiry to be held, requests which are usually acceded to when accidents of this kind occur. With this new method of transport we feel that it would be highly desirable, in order that if accidents do occur public confidence should not be sapped by ignorance arising from lack of knowledge, that in the event of a fatality it should be mandatory, an understood thing, that the Minister should immediately set up an inquiry.
We are dealing for the moment with things which have been uncharted. All day to-day noble Lords opposite, in their replies and in moving their own Amendments, have on quite a number of occasions generously conceded that matters which they had not previously thought of have been raised during our discussions and have been considered or thought about, and in the result points have been conceded. I would submit, my Lords, that this is another one, and that if fatalities arise through any kind of accident or failure of a pipe-line then there should be an immediate inquiry ordered by the Minister. That is what our Amendment provides, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 4, after ("do") insert (", and shall if the event has resulted in loss of life.").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can well understand why the noble Lord thought it well to put this Amendment down. He has given us a very clear exposition of the reasons. Therefore, I am a little concerned at finding it necessary to resist the Amendment. I will try to explain

749
why. Clause 29 as it stands is similar to Section 122 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, with the exception that the Minister may direct that an inquiry should not be held in public where this appears to be expedient in the interests of national security. I am sure noble Lords will well understand that the reason for this is that a pipeline may be a matter of strategic importance. The Factories Act, 1961, also provides for inquiries into accidents.
Neither the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, nor the Factories Act, 1961, provides that there must always be an inquiry into fatal accidents, and I think it is desirable to keep the provisions of this Bill in line with other legislation. In any event, serious accidents will be immediately reported to the Minister under Clause 28, and an inspector could, it necessary, attend the coroner's inquest and give evidence. Where the cause of death can be clearly established at the inquest, and there are no further issues arising, it may be unnecessary to hold an inquiry as well.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that we are not asking for a public inquiry? We are asking for an inquiry. I should have thought that right through industry, if there is a serious accident, certainly in a case involving death, there would be an inquiry into the various safety factors required in that industry. My first comment to my noble friend Lord Stonham, when I saw this Amendment, was that an inquiry should be necessary in the event of serious injury and not only in the case of death. Because, as we know, this is going to be a new system, and the Minister may well obtain information that will enable him to preserve the safety of persons in this industry in unfortunate events. I should have thought that the Government, if they cannot accept this Amendment this evening, would at least agree to give this matter further consideration. We do not ask for a public inquiry, especially where national security is concerned, but we certainly feel that there should be some basic inquiry into the cause of an accident; and, in my view, that should apply where serious injury has arisen and not only in the event of death. I ask the noble Lord if he will again look at this matter.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will just add this. I said that I understood the reasons for putting down this Amendment. I was advised that we had to take into account the fact that there might be cases where the lines were of strategic importance, and therefore we had to be careful how far publicity was given to the matter. But I will certainly have another look at this Amendment and see what can be done, if the noble Lord will now withdraw it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of that assurance, for which we are extremely grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Duty of pipe-line owners to make arrangements for notifying fire-brigades, police, &c., of pipe-line accidents]:
9.3 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line if requested so to do by any authority, board or undertakers for whose notification, in the event specified in the last foregoing subsection, arrangements are thereby required to be made, to furnish the authority, board or undertakers with such maps, and to give them such information, as they may reasonably require in order—

(a) in the case of a fire or police authority, to enable them efficiently to discharge the duties falling to be discharged by them in consequence of the happening of the event;

(b) in the case of any other authority, and in the case of any board or undertakers, to enable them efficiently to take, in consequence of the happening of the event, steps for the purposes respectively mentioned in relation to them in that subsection."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment that has been put down following undertakings, which were given by my noble friend Lord Mills and myself to various noble Lords opposite—Lord Burden, Lord Silkin, Lord Lindgren and Lord Stonham—in respect of various Amendments, six in number, which they moved on the Committee stage. There was a kind of umbrella offered at the time, and this Amendment is the result. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that, where necessary, information and maps are provided for the use of public authorities, without making it obligatory to furnish the

751
material when it was not required for any purpose—a point which was generally worrying various noble Lords opposite who spoke on behalf of various authorities and bodies. I think it meets all the arguments that information should be supplied to river boards, fire authorities and other statutory bodies, by providing for that information to be given in its proper context; that is, in relation to duties which the various bodies will, or may, have to carry out.
It does not provide for the information to be given automatically to all local authorities, as some noble Lords wished. It may be that most of them will be entitled to the information in their capacity as police or fire authorities but apart from these have no other duties to perform under this part of the Bill. I can see some noble Lords getting up and saying that the point was that these authorities should have notice in advance that there was going to be a pipe-line. That matter is covered by the wording of the Bill, though here I must point out, in case any noble Lord has noticed, that there has been a small but unfortunate printing error in Clause 32, in that an important word has been left out. The clause begins:
"It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line to ensure the efficient carrying out of arrangements …"
That should read:
"It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipeline to make and ensure …"
That was the original draft of the clause, but due to an unfortunate error it is different in print. This word, however, is all important in this context, because if a pipe-line owner does not set about making the necessary arrangements—in order to make which he has to approach the authorities, and so they will know what is going on—my argument will fall down. If the local authorities concerned do not get sufficient information, the duty is laid upon the pipe-line owner to give it to them. If there should be an authority on the boundary of a proposed pipe-line who might be overlooked, this Amendment enables them to demand information, if it is necessary for them to have it. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to noble Lords who were worried about this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone a long way to meet the various points we made about ensuring that advance notification should be given to all authorities likely to be concerned with a pipe-line in their area, and, in particular, fire authorities and certain other authorities who are not covered by the definition of local authorities which is still in the Bill. The present definition, for example, excludes the London County Council, who are of great importance in a matter of this kind, and some of the Amendments which my noble friend and I moved on Committee stage were designed to meet the position of the L.C.C.
This Amendment says:
"It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line if requested so to do by any authority, …"
I do not think that there is a definition of authority as such in the Bill. There is a definition of local authority, but not of authority. Subsection (2) (a) in the Amendment uses the words "in the case of a fire or police authority". We all know who the fire authorities are, and that point is covered. The noble Lord may argue, in the case of the London County Council, that they are a fire authority so that my point is covered. But I do not think he will, because there are other matters in which a local authority would be concerned, particularly an authority such as the London County Council, which their position as fire authority would not cover.
I do not think this is a mere drafting or small point. We must, I feel, before we part with this Bill, ensure that the very proper rights in matters of this kind of major authorities, county authorities, such as the London County Council, and their immense prospective responsibilities in respect of pipe-lines, will be taken care of. Therefore, I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the point I am now making is covered. My recollection is that it is not, but I shall be very relieved if he can, in a few well-chosen and simple words, point out how wrong I am.
9.12 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that my words will be simple, although I am not sure about well-chosen. Of course, the noble Lord is technically right in what he says about the exclusion of the London County Council, as such. But in his reading of "authority" as set down in the Amendment he must refer also to subsection (1) of this clause, because it specifically refers in subsection (2), which is part of the Amendment, to the authorities in the previous subsection, where it is rather more clearly set out.
The point is that we have tried to cover the matter in the way I described in moving the Amendment so that authorities and bodies of various kinds should be notified and know all the details where they have some duty to perform in the event of some kind of accident. "Local authority" is defined in Clause 30 (4) as including "council of a county"; and this includes the London County Council, although, as the noble Lord said, it does not become apparent from what is set down in Clause 32. I think that for all useful purposes any authority which needs to know about the existence of a pipe-line because of the duty it will have to discharge will know about it, either under this clause as fire or police authority, as something which they must do (because I think the obligation on the pipe-line owner to notify them is now pretty water-tight), or because of the planning connection. I hope I have given the noble Lord the assurance he requires, and that as a result of what I have said he feels more happy about it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may be allowed by leave of the House to say another word on this, I regret to say that I am not completely happy, because, as I understood it, the noble Lord said that I was technically correct in my reading of the matter and that it meant that in this Amendment the London County Council was in fact excluded. If that is the case, I would regard that as a most unsatisfactory way in which to leave the matter.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I said that he was technically correct in the way that he defined the word
754
"authority". But, of course, in effect, as I understand it, they are not excluded, because of the duties they would have to perform in connection with the pipeline.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. If it means that in matters where they have jurisdiction where pipe-lines come into their area the London County Council will have notification, then the Amendment is quite satisfactory from my point of view, and I am most grateful to the Government for introducing and moving it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment your Lordships have just accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("either of the foregoing subsections").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment will be required as a consequential Amendment if the new Clause 38, which is to be moved as a Government Amendment, is accepted. The new clause refers to statutory water undertakers and local water authorities which will therefore have to be defined. Previously the only reference to these bodies was in Clause 32, and they were defined in subsection (3) (d) of that Clause. With the insertion of the new clause, it will be more appropriate to include the definitions in the general interpretation provisions in Clause 54. The definitions in Clause 32 will therefore become redundant. The present Amendment will remove them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, leave out lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Mills.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to be unduly meticulous, but in the drafting of this would it not be better also to leave out, in line 18, the word "and", and then "in this section", because "and" is not a suitable conjunction after "(d)". I think it would be a slightly tidier way of doing it.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I would ask the noble Viscount to let me consider that and deal with it later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 47, is consequential, oddly enough, on Amendment No. 48; therefore perhaps I had better speak to Amendment No. 48 and then move this Amendment. Although it looks quite long, this is the Amendment which was put down to fulfil an undertaking which my noble friend Lord Mills gave to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in Committee. Clause 33 originally provided for the notification of the Minister only by the pipe-line owner on change of ownership or use of the pipe-line. My noble friend wanted the owners and occupiers concerned to be informed of a change of ownership, and that is what this Amendment does. There does not seem to be any call for them to be notified of the change of use, but it is obviously desirable that owners and occupiers should know whom they should get hold of in case of any trouble, and that is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 33.—(Lord Chesham.)
9.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I find myself supporting the noble Lord in Amendment No. 47 to leave out Clause 33 but opposed to him when he spoke to Amendment No. 48. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that this Amendment was intended to satisfy some doubts and fears of a noble Lord opposite, but when I look at the Amendment and also at the Bill, I find a serious matter. It is that in the beginning of the Bill the Minister is given powers to grant an application for a pipe-line or to refuse it. I presume that he would make his decision not only on the question of the need of a pipe-line, but on the ability of the persons who wish to operate it. That is the first point. If, under the clause that is in the Bill and the proposed Amendment No. 48, there can be a change of ownership of the pipe-line without any prior notification to the Minister, I think quite a serious
756
objection could be raised, because there can be a change of ownership of a pipeline without the Minister's being aware until three weeks after the sale and transfer has been accomplished.
There are two reasons why this raises a serious objection. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when speaking to an Amendment that we moved on the question of an inquiry into an accident, said that there might be a case when national security arose, when the running of pipe-lines owned by a company might be in the national interest. Under the Bill as it now stands, it is possible for the owners of that pipe-line to sell it to foreign interests. Therefore the question of national security immediately raises its head, certainly far higher than when we discussed the question of an inquiry into an accident.
The second point on which serious objection can be raised concerning the transfer of a pipe-line without prior notice to the Minister, is that power has been given to the Minister to grant compulsory purchase and compulsory use of land. That has been done in the interests of the State; but it is to be operated by private enterprise. I am not arguing against that now; but is it not easy to assume that as soon as the pipeline operator is operating, having used compulsory powers, the assets of that company become very valuable, certainly much higher than the assets of the company when the line was put down. Yet this company is free, having obtained compulsory powers, to sell the pipe-line to another company which may be quite objectionable to the Minister. But that can be accomplished without the Minister's being able to stop it. This is quite wrong, as I see it. It may be that the Minister can give us some assurance, but it seems to me that the owners of the pipe-line will be able to sell their property where national security is at stake without any reference to the Minister. In my view, it is quite objectionable. Therefore, I support the Minister when he moves Amendment No. 47, and I would ask my friends to object to Amendment 48.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that I can even improve upon the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in pointing, to defects in the

757
new clause—at least, I think I am right. The effect of the new clause, as indeed of the present Clause 33, is that there may be a change in the thing or class of things that is going through the pipeline. To take an extreme case, whereas in the first instance, the substance in the pipe-line might have been treacle, it might then become aviation fuel. In the Bill as it at present stands, under Clause 18 the Minister has certain powers to prohibit various things being done in the interests of safety, but he can do that only by notice served on a person executing or proposing to execute works for the construction of a pipe-line. That is to say, the safety precautions he lays down under that clause can be laid clown only before the pipeline comes into operation. In the instance I gave, where a pipe-line is built to convey treacle, the precautions would not have reference to any future use of the pipe for any other purpose.
The only other power the Minister has to deal with such a change or use appears to me to be in Clause 21, where he has at any time the power to serve notice with respect to
"the examination, repair, maintenance, adjustment and testing of the line."
or
"the inspection of the route taken by the line".
or to the pressure of the contents per square inch. I should have thought there might easily be circumstances in which, with such a change of thing or class of things passing through the pipe-line, as mentioned in Clause 33, a great deal more than that might be required. Conditions could not be imposed under Clause 18, because the pipe-line would be constructed and be in operation, and I do not think that maintenance, adjustment or testing would begin to cover some of the new devices which might be required. Therefore, if my noble friend is going to look at points made by noble Lords opposite I would ask him to look at this, too. I apologise for not having noticed it before, but it appears to me that it is of importance that this gap should be closed before we allow this Bill to go forward.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, no doubt the noble Viscount who has just spoken has noticed that in the First Schedule, paragraph 1 (d), the applicant
758
has to state what he proposes to convey in his pipe-line before he can obtain the authorisation; and yet when he wants to change the substance from treacle to aviation fuel, as the noble Viscount said, he does not have to notify anybody until three weeks after he has done it. Surely that is something that needs to be looked into.
May I, on quite a different subject, on the question of nomenclature, question this word "thing". We talk about a "thing" in a pipe-line. Surely, "thing" is a singular noun and not a noun of quantity, and is it a correct way of describing some continuously flowing substance in the pipe-line? It worries me every time I read it in the Bill, and I suggest that some better word might be found.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it is precisely as a result of endless cerebrations on the subject that the word "thing" has been adopted, because I think that it is probably the best available word to describe all the multitude of things that might be put up a pipeline. On the other subject, I have listened with great care to what has been said. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will not mind my saying that in fact the substance of this Amendment and its form have been no more really than a peg upon Which they have hung certain hats.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cannot object to this Amendment as an Amendment. He may have certain reservations to express on the circumstances which would give rise to the substance of the Amendment, because it merely says that where there is a change of ownership that change of ownership shall be notified to the owner of the property over which the pipe-line goes as well as to the Minister. The desirability of that will not be altered where there is a change of ownership. The noble Lord queries whether there should be a change of ownership, or whether that should be catered for in the Bill. There, I am inclined to be with him. But this is not the place to deal with it.
What I am saying is that I have listened to what he and my noble friend have said, and I believe that there is a point there that we should again con-

759
sider. Rejecting or altering this Amendment will not make the slightest difference to that consideration, or to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has raised, because I think it is right that where there is a change of ownership of a pipe-line it certainly should be notified to the landowners concerned. I think that is indisputable. Whether there should be a change is a matter for consideration, but not in connection with this Amendment. I therefore propose to ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and I propose to go on to say that we should like very much to consider carefully in principle what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and, similarly in principle, what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, in the hope that we shall be able at least to have something to say upon the matter when we come to Third Reading. If that is agreeable to your Lordships, I hope that you will agree to this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree that these two points have been hung on to this Amendment, but I am sure the noble Lord will agree that they are extremely important. When he is considering them, would he also give some further thought to what my noble friend Lord Lucan said about the expression "thing"? When we come to speak of the escape of a "thing" from a pipeline, that could cover everything from the Loch Ness monster to a defeated Conservative candidate escaping from a by-election.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, speak again? The things in the pipe-line are limited to the things for which the pipeline is authorised—and it is not thought necessary to authorise a pipe-line for defeated Conservative candidates. If it were thought to be necessary, I think we should have to bring into play the shared user by other requirements.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I do not want to follow the important discussion that Lord Shepherd and Lord Colville of Culross have had on this clause, but I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage. I am sure it is most important that the landowner
760
should know who owns the pipe-line that runs through his land. I agree that my Amendment on the last occasion went too far. I am sure it would be impracticable to notify him of all changes in regard to the things that are going through the line. In the case of the Minister I think it is important that he should know, but in the case of the landowner, while I think he should know the ownership, there is this difficulty.
LORD SHEPHERD: I raised my objection rather "off the cuff", because it was a point I noticed when I was reading it. This is an important matter, and I think it would be useful if we could have some discussions before Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.36 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not going to waste very much time in moving this Amendment, but I should just like to say one thing with regard to the point that has been raised about the imposition of safety requirements after a pipe-line is constructed. That argument is properly put forward in the Bill as drafted now. Of course, the position will change in view of the Amendments from noble Lords opposite which my noble friend Lord Mills accepted in principle to-day. Therefore, that particular argument is not as valid as it would have been before to-day's proceedings took place. It is not strictly in order perhaps, and so as to avoid getting further out of order, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33 insert the following new clause:
Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line
(".—(1) Where a change occurs in the ownership of a pipe-line, the owner of the line shall, within three weeks from the date on which the change occurs, give to the Minister and to every person who is an owner, lessee or occupier of land in which any part of the line is situate (except a tenant for a month or any period less than a month) a notice stating the particulars of the change.
(2) Where a change occurs in the thing or class of things conveyed by a pipe-line, the owner of the line shall, within three weeks from the date on which the change occurs, give to the Minister a notice stating the particulars of the change.
(3) A person who fails to satisfy an obligation to which he is subject by virtue of either of the foregoing subsections shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment argeed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment follows an undertaking I gave in Committee on April 2 in response to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who was concerned with the avoidance of pollution of water supplies. The undertaking was to provide special recognition of the duty placed on my right honourable friend, the Minister, to safeguard against pollution of water supplies. Clauses 18 to 22, 31 and 33 are particularly concerned with safety and changes in use, and contain the provisions on which the Minister will mainly depend in carrying out his duties under this new clause. Noble Lords will see that three consequential Amendments will be necessary—Nos. 46, 56 and 59—in order to remove the definitions of "statutory water undertakers" and "local water authority" from Clause 32 to the general interpretation provisions in Clause 54. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
Protection of water against pollution
(" .The Minister, in order to determine whether to exercise any of his powers under this Act and in what manner should be exercised any of those powers which he has determined to exercise, shall have constant regard to the need of protecting against pollution any water, whether on the surface or underground, which belongs to any statutory water undertakers or local water authority or which they are for the time being authorised to take.").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39:
Obligation to restore agricultural land
39.—(1) A person executing pipe-line works in agricultural land shall be under obligation to secure, so far as is practicable, that upon the completion of the works the land is so restored as to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "land is," and to substitute
762
"restored to a condition similar in every way to that subsisting before the execution of the works".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a point which was raised on the Committee stage by my noble friend, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and it concerned the obligation on the pipe-line owner to restore agricultural land to proper condition after he had dug his trench in which to put the pipe. I think my noble friend at that stage produced an Amendment which perhaps was not altogether reasonable. However, the justification given by my noble friends in front of me for the wording which was then included in the Bill seemed to me to be unreasonable, in that the words "reasonably fit" had been imported from the Opencast Coal Act. If your Lordships will consider the difference between restoring land after opencast coal has been dug out of it and restoring land after a trench has gone through in which there is a small pipe, you will perhaps think that there is some reason for varying the wording of the obligation on the pipe-line owner to restore. I see that my noble friend Lord Mills has an Amendment down, No. 49B, which I rather think is intended to meet the same point; but, without looking a gift horse in the mouth, I am not altogether sure that it does. Because, as I see it, the purpose of restoration of agricultural land is not only that the top soil shall be put back on top, and other matters of that nature attended to, but that the land drainage shall he restored, the fences and hedges be put back and, where it is country with banks, that the banks shall be built up. All things like that are to be put back as nearly as possible to the same condition as they were before the pipe-line went there.
If I am right in supposing that Amendment No. 49B is on the same point, I do not believe that it will meet this requirement at all, because the purpose for which the land was in fact used before the pipe went through has nothing to do with the condition of the land itself. The only way in which No. 49B could meet the point would be if it read:
"for the purpose for which it was capable of being used immediately before the execution of the works had begun."
As I say, I do not want to be captious about the wording of my noble friend's Amendment, but I think that there is

763
some importance in this matter, because, after all, it is going to be a matter of great concern for the farmers to have their land restored as nearly as possible to the same condition as it was in before. I think that we ought to try to contrive the best possible wording to meet that function. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 3, leave out from ("is") to the end of line 4 and insert ("restored to a condition similar in every way to that subsisting before the execution of the works").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have listened with care to what my noble friend has said, and I must say that I agree with most of the case he has put forward about the importance and the necessity of getting this matter right. I think that perhaps he will not be very surprised when I say that I do not greatly care for his Amendment—at least, for the wording of it—because it is open to the same objection as is the Amendment which I think was moved on Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, which referred to the same point. What may surprise my noble friend a little more is that, after a due amount of reflection, I do not greatly care for the wording of our own Amendment No. 49B, either. I slightly agree with my noble friend that it does not go far enough to meet this case. I have devoted a great deal of thought to this particular matter, and I believe that we could do a good deal better to meet the point which the noble Viscount has made, and which I think should be met to a considerable degree. Therefore, I am going to suggest to my noble friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, that I will not move mine, and that I will put down a very much better one on Third Reading.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the Amendment, which attempted to meet the point I made on Committee stage. I will not repeat all that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said; and, for the reasons he has given, I do not at the moment greatly care for the Government Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for undertaking to look at this matter again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I recognise the shortcomings, both of myself and of the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I recollect, this is another of the "19" group. It is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 15, leave out ("subsection (2) of section eleven") and insert ("any other of the foregoing provisions").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Penalties for uttering false documents]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendment extending Clause 32, Which is Amendment No. 44 on the Marshalled List. Clause 32, as amended, provides for penalties for failing to provide maps or information, but does not specifically penalise the provision of false maps or information. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 32, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
(" (c) in purported compliance with section thirty, or subsection (2) of section thirty-two, of this Act deposits or furnishes a document which he knows to be false in a material particular or gives any information which he knows to be so false or recklessly deposits or furnishes a document which is so false or recklessly gives any information which is so false;").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Provisions as to inquiries and hearings]:
9.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( ) Any inquiry or hearing held under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule or paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to this Act shall be conducted in accordance with rules of procedure to be made by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Council on Tribunals."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if I may move notionally to the Cross Benches for the purpose of moving this Amendment, I do so very willingly on

765
behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and particularly so in view of the discussion that took place between him, my noble and learned friend and myself on the Committee stage. I think it is most felicitous that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put down this Amendment in the way that he has, because it seems to me to reflect the confidence that I think your Lordships and the country as a whole have in my noble and learned friend and the Council on Tribunals between them to establish a fair method of hearing in cases where local authorities' inquiries are laid down by Statute.
When this matter was discussed in the Committee stage on the First Schedule, my noble and learned friend, I think, rebuked me slightly for what seemed to him to be a too rigid application of the rules of court procedure to local inquiries. I would now, if I may, hasten to reassure him that that is the last thing I wish to do. On the other hand, I very frequently attend public inquiries, and I know some of the difficulties that tend to arise. I foresee that, in the context of this Amendment, at a large local inquiry held under the First Schedule there may well be grave difficulties about who is to begin, about the information available to an objector before he has to state his case, and many other matters which I think could, with great advantage, be considered by my noble and learned friend and the Council on Tribunals before this Bill really comes into action.
An inquiry under the First Schedule will be of rather a peculiar nature. It will certainly not be in the nature of a planning appeal, because it will not be an appeal from anybody at all. It will be more an inquiry in the first instance. As it stands at the moment, it does not appear to me that it will be an inquiry, either, quite after the fashion of, for instance, an amendment to a development plan, or the promotion by a local authority of a large compulsory order pursuant on designation of a development plan, or anything of that nature. I think that the procedure will be to some degree sui generis, and I think it is certainly worth considering whether some special rule should not be made to ensure that the procedure will run smoothly. I am sure that my noble and learned friend agrees that that is really
766
the point of any rule that is laid down for procedure at local inquiries. The whole point of them is that they shall be informal, easy to understand, cheap, short, and extremely efficient at getting at the real point of the matter without too many of the legal twists and turns which might occur before other tribunals.
Therefore, although I am not fully conversant with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, might have wished to make on this particular matter, I hope that it is something which my noble and learned friend will consider. If he does not make rules as such, perhaps he will at any rate put it before the Council on Tribunals, and perhaps, for all I know, it might be the subject of a circular to be sent round in due course. At any rate, I shall be very interested to hear what he has to say. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he was speaking during the Committee stage, was kind enough to say that he had put down these Amendments in order to let me express my views upon the subject again; and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for having developed the argument on behalf of Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The noble Lord will remember that I told my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth during the Committee stage that the work on the rules of procedure was well in hand, and that I hoped that they would soon go to the Council on Tribunals for consideration.
With regard to the first of the noble Lord's Amendments, proposing that inquiries and hearings should be conducted in accordance with rules of procedure to be made by the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that is necessary from the point of view of the Statute Book, because I already have the power under Section 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, of 1958—the provisions added by Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959—to make rules for the conduct of inquiries or hearings held by, or on behalf of, Ministers. I can assure my noble friend Lord

767
Colville of Culross that, if I consider it necessary to make rules for inquiries or hearings to be held under this Bill, I will do so, and I think he may take that as a satisfactory aspect of the matter. I should not like to be tied until the Council on Tribunals have had a chance of looking at this and we come to a final conclusion on the present rules of procedure.
Also, quite frankly, before I form a final conclusion in the matter I should like to have a look with my right honourable friends at the way the Bill, in the initial stages, is likely to work. I think it would be unfortunate if one were put in the position of not being able to hold any inquiries until the rules were made, because one wants them to be flexible and adjusted to the actual requirements. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross knows that there is, of course, a great field of rules at which I have to look, but I assure him that I am most anxious that the result of which he has spoken and the kind of inquiry which he has described should take place. At the moment, its perfection rather frightens me. It is like the headmaster who was describing the qualities which he would like of the head boy of his school, and a visiting governor said, "I know exactly where you get these qualities". So the headmaster asked: "Where in the school would I get them?". The Governor replied, "You would not get them in this school or in any British school; the only person I know with those qualities is Napoleon Bonaparte". But despite that moment of pessimism, I shall try to conform with the view of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and I give him that assurance. With that, I hope he will not press me further.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount is to look at this again, would he perhaps look at subsection (3) of Clause 41? He will find that it consists of 170 words in one sentence, without a single semi-colon. I could suggest, if necessary, a very simple way of splitting, it up into two or three sentences and making it much more understandable to the average person.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am most grateful for what
768
my noble and learned friend has said, and I know very well that this matter will now be given, if it has not already been given, the greatest possible scrutiny. I would impress upon my noble and learned friend that this may be a different sort of inquiry from others, and there is a great deal to be said for having some sort of statement made in good time beforehand on behalf of the pipe-line owner who is promoting the whole thing, so that there may be proper preparation on both sides. This is the sort of point that I am sure my noble and learned friend will look at, and in view of what he has said I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would be most satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I underline what has been said by the noble Viscount, and put it in this way? This Bill is supplanting the Private Bill procedure, under which a Select Committee would proceed upon the basis that a person seeking authorisation would have to begin. For the objector to begin would be a very great departure from the procedure that is being supplanted by this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a further word. I want to be sure that I have these two points correctly. I thought at first that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was talking of the public inquiry itself. I should be glad to look into this point and should be grateful—I mean this most sincerely—if he would send to me any points that have occurred to him on the question, and I will look at them. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was on the same point. I thought that he meant the Joint Select Committee. If he did, of course, the procedure by which a statement of the promoter's case is made will be continued and the objectors will have that in the Joint Select Committee. If I have misunderstood him, and he is really thinking of the inquiry, that is a matter which we shall have to consider, because one of the important things in all these inquiries is that those who are taking part in the inquiry should know its purpose and the points of policy involved.

769
I will look into these points most carefully.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with leave of the House, may I say that what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is doing is drawing an analogy between the Private Bill procedure, by which a promoter has to present his case and persuade the Committee that the preamble is proved, and the present inquiry under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule which, on the face of it, at any rate, looks as though it was up to the objector to prove the case rather than vice versa. I think that is the point that the noble Lord was making, and it was the change of roles of the two parties that was causing his concern.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to the clause:
" ( ) Any rules made under the preceding subsection may provide for legal aid to be furnished to any objector."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think I must be candid and say that when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me to move this Amendment, he said that he was handing me the end of a string on which he had already set flying a kite in the deliberations of your Lordships' House some time ago. None the less, the point to which he is referring in this Amendment is an important one and, in the context of another inquiry, is dealt with by giving the inspector the power which exists under the Public Health Act to award costs to an objector.
The point the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has in mind is certainly this: that where a large pipe-line project is under discussion it may involve a long inquiry, and possibly, if the inquiry into the authorisation and the inquiry into any compulsory purchase orders are taken separately, two inquiries; and there is theoretically a third stage of the Special Parliamentary Procedure to be contended with. The line might well pass through the land of a man who had not a great deal of money but who, none the less, had an extremely valid objection; and if there were not provision in the rules or in the Bill to allow him, if successful at court, to have his costs, he might be completely handicapped from taking part and putting forward his
770
very proper views on the subject. I am sure my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth would be extremely glad to hear my noble and learned friend's views on the subject, in order once again that this might be discussed by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are two aspects of this matter which I think must be considered. The first is where the costs of an objector can be paid under provisions such as that which my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross, mentioned; and that I will certainly look into. The other is the question of granting legal aid under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. That is a much more difficult question. Since I have been Lord Chancellor I think I have introduced legal aid in some seven different fields. But my noble friend will appreciate that I have to be careful with my priorities. I want legal aid where it is most needed, and I have to consider this very carefully. While I quite see that in the case he mentioned it might be badly needed, on the other hand, if he compares it from his own experience with some cases before the Lands Tribunal, for example, he will see that I have to keep a close watch on the problem.
There is, of course, the other problem I assure him that I had no intention of rebuking him in any words, but that was his description of it earlier. He will realise that there are a series of tribunals where to introduce legal aid might encourage a formalism which would not be of advantage for the purpose for which the tribunals were established. That is another aspect I have to consider. I hope he will leave it to me to do two things: one, to look into what I may call his Public Health Act point; and the other, to take the question of applying legal aid in the sense of the Legal Aid and Advice Act in accordance with the priorities I have to consider, but which will certainly include the cases my noble friend put to me. I hope that that will be satisfactory to him for the moment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I realise that this is an extremely

771
wide, complex and difficult subject, and we should be grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount has already done. I am sure that perhaps, if not immediately, in due course, this sort of thing may be possible; but I am only too willing to leave it to my noble and learned friend's timetable. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the sixth Amendment in the No. 19 group. This is the one which provides for disputes about the compensation we have introduced for various types of removal to be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal.
That is in the same way as other compensation provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
Determination by Lands Tribunal of questions as to compensation
(" . Any question with regard to a person's entitlement to compensation under the foregoing provisions of this Act or the amount of compensation to which a person is entitled under those provisions shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Lands Tribunal.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 45 to insert the following new clause:
Modification of Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, in its application to certain orders under this Act
" . The Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, shall, in its application to an order to which it applies by virtue of subsection (5) of section nine, or subsection (7) of section ten, of this Act (not being an order that relates only to land in Scotland) have effect as if, for the proviso to subsection (2) of section four of that Act (which, in a case where no resolution that an order be annulled has been passed, precludes the reference to a joint Committee of both Houses of a petition of general objection unless either House has ordered that the petition be so referred), there were substituted the following proviso:
'Provided that where any petition so certified has been certified as a petition of general objection, that petition shall not stand so referred if, during the resolution period, either House has resolved that the petition be not so referred'."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment which gives effect to the undertaking which I gave to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford. We discussed this at considerable length, and I do not want to repeat myself. All I want to do now is to carry out what I undertook to do. May I say to my noble and learned friend that although there is an argument as to the necessity for the Amendment to my Amendment which he is proposing, I am quite content, in order that the matter may be absolutely clear, that my noble friend's Amendment be accepted. If he would like to move that, then I will move mine with his Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 45, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful. I rise to adopt that excellent suggestion. The Amendment of my noble and learned friend as it stands seems to me to provide an excellent machinery, in pursuance of his pledge, for referring a petition of general objection to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think that, when that has been done, nobody will conceivably wish to refer it in the very elaborate alternative way. Therefore, it will be a great simplification if my Amendment is accepted; it will make it simpler for everybody to understand. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 5, after ("as if") insert—
(" (a) the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of that Act were omitted; and
(b)").—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, pipe-lines of certain statutory bodies]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 44, which your Lordships accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 26, leave out ("subsection (1) of section thirty-two, and sections") and insert ("and sections thirty-two,").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, certain pipe-lines of railway undertakers]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 12, leave out ("subsection (1) of section thirty-two, and sections") and insert ("and sections thirty-two,").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think very good progress has been made with this Bill and that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn. It leaves us some 29 Amendments to consider to-morrow. I beg to move that further consideration of this Bill be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH, NOTTINGHAM, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL

  SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.