Sitting of 11 July 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
  TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Tay Road Bridge, presented by Mr. Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Immigrants
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Labour how many British employers have asked for A vouchers to sponsor the entry of immigrants under the Immigration Act.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): 418 applications for vouchers had been received from employers up to 3rd July.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is that the sort of number which the Minister expected, or is it in excess, or less?
    Mr. Hare: It is difficult to say, because we have to judge how we go on this problem. It is very difficult to give any concrete answer to the hon. Gentleman at this stage, as we have only just started.
    Mr. Chapman: Have there been consultations between the Ministry and employers, particularly with the nationalised industries, to see whether on some co-ordinated basis they could recruit
    1318
    together in areas such as the West Indies for the labour that is needed?
    Mr. Hare: Every vacancy is checked by my Department. We are working closely with the British Transport Commission and other organisations which are carrying out recruiting schemes. If employers wish my assistance in this connection, as I have said before in this House, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that they are prepared to put forward.
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Minister of Labour how many applications he has received for permits from Commonwealth immigrants; and how many have been granted.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many applications he has received for permits for Commonwealth immigrants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hare: Up to 3rd July, 2,817 applications for employment vouchers had been received from Commonwealth countries, and 2471 vouchers had been issued.
    Mr. Gurden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recruiting which has been going on may be unnecessary? Surely it would be better to fill the vacancies from those unemployed persons on the registers at employment exchanges and that, if possible, they should be brought from Birmingham rather than from overseas?
    Mr. Hare: I have another Question to answer regarding recruitment. Perhaps I could deal with that point later.
    Mr. Lipton: In granting these permits, does the Minister advise applicants about the parts of the country in which not only would it be possible to get a job but also to find reasonable housing accommodation? In other words, does the right hon. Gentleman try to divert people from areas which a re grossly overcrowded instead of persuading them to go to areas where there are jobs and no accommodation?
    Mr. Hare: Areas where there are problems regarding housing are well known. The concept of the Act was not to prohibit immigration but to control it.
    Mr. Fisher: Is it the position that—probably because of their anxiety to get to this country before the door was

    1319
    shut—a great many people came here on 1st July; and perhaps the numbers were rather exaggerated and that therefore correspondingly, possibly, my right hon. Friend may have to reduce the numbers a little in the immediate future? But, in the long term and looking at it later in the year, would he envisage being able to allow in a somewhat larger number than at the moment? Can my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of the numbers of immigrants, starting, say, from the beginning of 1963, that he would envisage admitting?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend is right in saying that a large number of people did come in at the last moment before the recent legislation was enacted. So far I have not been in a position of having to refuse many applicants because the numbers have been fairly small. I think that it would be most unwise for the Government or the House to adopt a set attitude as to how this problem should be handled in future, when the number of applications may rise. We have to see what is the situation from month to month and how many of these people can be comfortably and reasonably absorbed.
    Mr. Cleaver: To what extent is my right hon. Friend taking housing difficulties into account before issuing permits?
    Mr. Hare: Naturally, I have to take into consideration not only difficulties regarding housing but a number of other social problems which would affect the well-being of people who come to this country.
    Mr. Dugdale: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), the Minister said that the new Act was designed to control immigration, but what he and many others are concerned about is the control of immigrants when they arrive here so that they may go to the right places instead of the wrong ones, which is quite a different question.
    Mr. Hare: I entirely see the point made by the right hon. Member. Obviously the difficulty of people going to certain areas is well known, but we do not seek to direct people. I think the right hon. Member would find himself in difficulties if he were to pursue that point too far.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Labour what is the quota of unskilled immigrants from each country of the Commonwealth allowed into the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour how many applications have so far been received for entry vouchers from intending Commonwealth immigrants who have no specified job arranged or special skill; how many have been issued; and what system of allocation of such vouchers is being used so as to share them among the Commonwealth countries most affected.
    Mr. Hare: Up to 3rd July, 1,870 applications had been received from immigrants with no specific jab or special skill, and 1,620 vouchers had been issued. No quotas have been allotted to individual Commonwealth countries. I explained in the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill that vouchers would be issued to applicants with no specific job or special skill on the basis of first come, first served, and that is being done.
    Mr. Dugdale: Are neither official nor unofficial quotas being in any way operated? It would be as well to be perfectly clear on this point.
    Mr. Hare: We went into this in the debate. I see the right hon. Gentleman's point in favour of a quota system, but it would be very difficult to apply such a system fairly. I will give two examples. If the system were based on population, it would give an overwhelming advantage to India. If it were based on the number of immigrants before control operated, Pakistan would say that she was being penalised through the exercise of restraint at our request.
    Mr. Chapman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficulty? Once the figures reach the point where he has to stop people entering, Commonwealth countries, in the absence of any knowledge about how admissions are being shared out among themselves, will never know what to do about encouraging people to apply for entry vouchers. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that once he gets to the point of stopping people entering, he will have to let the Commonwealth

    1321
    know how he is sharing out the vouchers that he has available?
    Mr. Hare: It would be the greatest possible mistake to tie ourselves down at this stage to some rigid scheme for the distribution of vouchers when it is not so far necessary. We shall learn a lot as we go along. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is not an easy problem. I keep an open mind about it, but it would not be right at this juncture to tie ourselves down to what has been suggested.
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Labour what is his policy in regard to the issue of labour permits under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to labour recruited in the West Indies by the British Transport Commission.
    Mr. Hare: Employers wishing to bring Commonwealth citizens to this country for specific jobs may obtain employment vouchers for them on application to my Ministry. Men recruited by the British Transport Commission in the West Indies will therefore get vouchers.
    Mr. Pannell: As on 1st May this year, there were more than 35,000 Commonwealth immigrants unemployed in this country, that being more than 20 per cent. of the total unemployment in the main industrial areas, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the recruiting agencies are superfluous, and will he ensure that all possible means of recruiting immigrants in this country will be explored before permits are issued for others to come 4,000 miles from the West Indies?
    Mr. Hare: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that the British Transport Commission is in the same position as any other employer and that under the terms of the Act it is open to it to nominate a person from the Commonwealth for a certain job. It would be unfair if it were treated in a different way from other employers. However, I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not this about the only category of immigrants coming to work here where the employer takes trouble to ensure that housing accommodation is available for them, and to
    1322
    that extent might this not provide an example for the Minister to follow in granting other permits?
    Mr. Hare: It is true that lodging arrangements are made. On the general point raised by my hon. Friend, we never proposed in the Bill to cut off immigration until all the unemployed were at work. We must keep a proper perspective in this matter.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour up to what total vouchers for entry to Great Britain are issued to intending Commonwealth immigrants who are seeking work but do not come within the special categories of having a specified job arranged or a special skill and how this total is being calculated.
    Mr. Hare: At the moment, employment vouchers are being issued without restriction to Commonwealth immigrants who have no specific job or special skill. The Government are, of course, keeping this matter under very close review, in the light of the number of applications being received and 'the capacity of this country to absorb them.
    Mr. Chapman: That is not satisfactory. Is the Minister not aware, for example, of the dilemma facing the Government of Jamaica, who do not know whether to encourage a large number of people to make application for these vouchers lest they end up with a large number of very disappointed and irate people who think they are on the list but are not? Will he realise that he must, at some point, give some indication of the numbers involved so that Commonwealth Governments will know what to advise their people?
    Mr. Hare: Again, I think the tendency of hon. Members is to try to lay down at this stage rigid rules and principles which we are not in a position to do. It would be inadvisable, in fairness not only to the Governments but to the peoples of the territories concerned, for us to make judgments now. There can be no actual pressing need to do so until we have gained the experience we will get from the number of applications we shall receive in the coming months.
    Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).
    Mr. Fell: I am sorry, because I rather hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) had been called. Has my right hon. Friend worked out what effect the regrettable possibility of our joining the Common Market would have on the number of people from the Commonwealth he would be able to allow to enter this country?
    Mr. Hare: That is a hypothetical question. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend would care to put down a question on that subject, although I do not think it would be very easy to give him an answer.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the main purpose of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was to restrict this immigration and not to stimulate recruiting in the overseas territories to which it refers? Will he also bear in mind the fact that there are some people who would be very glad to see the administration of the Act breaking down through intensive recruitment overseas?
    Mr. Hare: I do not see any danger of the latter event happening. I have noted the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on this matter.
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed in Great Britain at 30th June, 1962, or the latest available date.
    Mr. Hare: There were 34,255 on 18th June.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of these continuing high numbers, does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is quite wrong to issue labour permits for unskilled labour before the unskilled labour at present unemployed in this country has been absorbed?
    Mr. Hare: These figures are high, but considering the large number of additional Commonwealth immigrants who came in, so to speak, in order to be here before the Act was implemented, it is interesting to note that the number of unemployed dropped by about 550 in June as compared with May. I have told the House, both today and in the
    1324
    debate, that we have to watch this with the greatest possible care. We must consider the employment prospects and other social conditions which will enable us to absorb these people in a way which will be reasonable to them as newcomers to this country. At the same time we must not place too great a strain on our social services here.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the complaints that have just been made on behalf of Scotland and the fears of increased unemployment? Will he also bear in mind the complaints that have been voiced about the fears of the north-east of England and Merseyside? Does he not think that it is unwise to allow more and more unskilled people to come in when so many of our own people are in fear of losing their jobs?
    Mr. Hare: I can only repeat what I have said. Of course, we all must have regard to the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed and the employment prospects in this country. I made it clear during the passage of the Act that we are not prepared to cut off immigration until all those unemployed are at work.

    Motor Industry (Strikes)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour how much time has been lost in the motor industry through strike action, both official and unofficial, in the last year; what has been the effect of these interruptions on the cost of production; and what steps he is taking in conjunction with employers and trade unionists to produce greater stability in labour relations within the industry.
    Mr. Hare: In the year ended 31st May, 1962, 750,000 working days were lost in the motor industry through industrial disputes. I must point out that about half were the result of the two national one-day official stoppages in engineering. Figures are not available to show the effect of these stoppages on production costs. A number of steps have been taken by the industry to improve relations following my discussions last year with leading employers and trade unionists. I propose to have a further meeting later this year to review the position.
    Mr. Edelman: Do not the figures show that there remains a serious problem of stoppages in the motor industry which the mutual expression of good will between employers and trade unions will not adequately dispel? Is not a deep-seated reason for these strikes in the motor industry the fear of redundancy, which becomes aggravated as winter approaches? In those circumstances, will the Minister take some statutory power in order to try to present to the industry a pattern of terminal payments for workers liable to become redundant?
    Mr. Hare: I share the hon. Member's disappointment that there were so many unofficial strikes, but since we had these talks the employers and unions have kept strictly to agreed procedures and to agreements. The unofficial strikes which have taken place have gained no unofficial striker anything but have imposed great hardship on his fellow workers and damage to the prospects of the firms concerned. This factor must be kept clearly in mind. There is a difference here from what has happened before. I think the hon. Member knows my feelings about the need for employers to plan very carefully any redundancy they may have in mind and to give plenty of notice of it. I think he knows my general views but in particular I should like to see all workers in industry given greater security than they have at present.
    Mr. Prentice: At the meeting last December, to which the Minister referred, the employers said that they were taking new steps to improve communications in the industry and were increasing personnel departments, including training of supervisors and so on. Can he say anything about the success of those proposals?
    Mr. Hare: A great deal has happened. A number of firms have strengthened their personnel requirements and got down to the job of improving their systems of communications. As the hon. Member knows, better arrangements are being made and are in operation for the training of supervisors and others concerned in management. I am glad to say that the training of shop stewards is also being developed.

    Industrial Disputes
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Labour whether the figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1961 include days lost through unofficial as well as official strikes; and whether he will name the three industries which lost most days per 1,000 employees through unofficial strikes in 1961, and give the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in each case.
    Mr. Hare: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes". There are difficulties in defining and classifying strikes as official and unofficial. The three industries which lost most days per 1,000 employees through strikes not stated to be official were coal-mining, the docks and the motor industry. It is estimated that the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in these industries fell within the ranges 1,000–1,500. 500–1,000 and 500–1,000, respectively.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is true that the greater number of these unofficial strikes are also unconstitutional in the sense that they are in breach of agreed disputes procedure? Do the figures he has given include men thrown out of work who were not actually on strike but were put out of work as a result of dislocation in production following unofficial strikes? Is it possible for consultation with the trade union leaders to stop this happening?
    Mr. Hare: These figures do not include those thrown out of work because of the action of unofficial strikers. In the last few years, I think there has been a stronger recognition on both sides of industry of the damage which is done in this way. I was glad to notice the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) on this subject the other day.

    Redundant Workers (Severance Payments)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour if the will introduce legislation so to amend the Wages Councils Act, 1959, as to make provision for fixing minimum severance payments for workers who become redundant.
    Mr. Hare: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 21st May, it is my policy to encourage industry to make proper arrangements for dealing with the problem of redundancy. Considerable progress is being made on a voluntary basis, but I will, however, bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion in the light of developments in industry generally and the special position of industries covered by wages councils.
    Mr. Prentice: The Minister referred to "considerable progress". Would he agree that something less than 5 million workers are at the moment covered by arrangements of this sort and that progress is far too slow? Does he think the type of suggestion made in the Question would give a boost to progress in this field?
    Mr. Hare: We want to treat this on the broad pattern of industry generally. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that under 5 million workers are covered, but it is equally true that most of them are covered by the very progressive policies pursued by employers within the last few years.

    Sick Leave With Pay
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken in his Department to promote wider arrangements for sick leave with pay; and whether he will introduce legislation to make the necessary amendments to the Wages Councils Act, 1959, so that wages councils may recommend minimum conditions for sick leave with pay.
    Mr. Hare: The introduction of arrangements for sick leave with pay is a matter for employers, after discussion, where appropriate, with employees or their representatives. My officers give advice and information on sick pay arrangements to interested firms. I am advised that the Wages Councils Act, 1959, does not debar wages councils from proposing that, where the contract of employment continues during sickness, minimum payments should be made in respect of the period of absence due to sickness.
    Mr. Prentice: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation on the latter point. Would he therefore take steps
    1328
    to encourage wages councils to help to extend sick leave with pay? Is this not a case where some sort of push by the Government would help the schemes to spread? Will he keep in touch with the survey which the T. U. C. is conducting at the moment among unions in connection with proposals for sick leave with pay?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think I can prejudge particular proposals until I have considered them in detail. I would certainly give consideration to sick leave payments proposals provided they were within the powers of wages councils. I would not feel inhibited in this respect as was the last Minister of Labour in the Labour Government who turned down such a suggestion and referred back the sick pay proposals to the council concerned.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister realise that these 5 million workers are the lowest paid in the country? If they have no sick pay they have no resources to fall back on, because they have not been able to save anything out of the miserly wages they receive. The proposal is being made so that they should not suffer undue hardship.
    Mr. Hare: I think I have cleared the atmosphere by saying that I am going a great deal further than did the Minister of Labour in 1951 when he referred back the proposals to the wages council concerned. I hope that what I have said will be noted by everyone concerned.

    Firm, Birmingham
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the decision of Messrs. Bellis and Morcom, Ledsam Street, Ladywood, Birmingham, to discharge a large number of employees in the near future; what notice he has received of this decision; how many employees are involved; and what arrangements he is making to provide alternative work for those discharged.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): The Department was informed by the firm on 14th June that 400 workers were to be discharged on 6th July; those who needed assistance in finding alternative

    1329
    work were registered in advance of their discharge and every effort is being made to help them.
    Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that although this firm has made a loss in three successive years it was able to give its workers only two or three weeks' notice before discharging 430 workers a large number of whom have given over thirty years service, and a number over forty years, without a single penny compensation being paid to them? Is this fair? Could not the Ministry safeguard workers from this kind of thing?
    Mr. Green: The Department has no legal powers to do what the hon. Member has suggested. I understand that the difficulty is because of the firm's financial position. I am aware that compensation has not been offered, and I gather that the redundancy is the result of a real decline in orders for the firm's products.
    Mr. Cleaver: Can my hon. Friend say whether the firm has a pensions scheme or not?
    Mr. Green: Not without notice.

    Bishop Auckland
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour how many men are unemployed in the Bishop Auckland travel to work area; how many of these are classified as being in the construction industry; how many are in mining; and how many in transport.
    Mr. Green: 1,857 on 18th June, of whom 434 were last employed in construction, 362 in coal-mining and 73 in transport and communication.
    Mr. Boyden: Is it not very serious indeed, especially at this time of the year, to have nearly 500 men unemployed in the construction industry? Has the Minister made any representations to his Cabinet colleagues that there ought to be an acceleration of public building of schools, houses, hospitals and so on to absorb this serious unemployment?
    Mr. Green: We are, of course, deeply concerned about the problems in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. So concerned are we that it is scheduled as a development
    1330
    district, and we hope very much that this will attract new growing enterprises to the area in time. There are 960 jobs which are expected to arise from new buildings now. The hon. Gentleman—he mentioned hospitals—will also be aware of, for example, the Hospital Plan which my night hon. Friend the Minister of Health is introducing.
    Mr. Boyden: But that hardly touches the problem of the area. There is an enormous programme of slum clearance there. Why does not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend make serious representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to provide more money for this aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Green: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. All I am trying to tell him——
    Mr. Willis: Do something.
    Mr. Green: —is that we are doing something. I am sorry that these things take a little time to mature.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the total migration from County Durham in the first six months of 1962; and what amount of this migration was from the Bishop Auckland travel to work area.
    Mr. Green: I regret that this information is not available in this form.
    Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Gentleman keen an eye on this set of figures, because if the migration is still running at the rate shown by the Registrar-General—about 600 a year—from south-west Durham, surely this aggravates the situation referred to in Question No. 9?
    Mr. Green: What we do know—I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep a very close watch on it—is the net loss by migration from the northern region. The figures are collected regionally, and I suggest that it makes more sense to continue to do that, because there is a substantial amount of movement within the region which would have to be discounted if we collected figures within region's.
    Mr. Ainsley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the area there are 2,500 juveniles unemployed? What does the

    1331
    Board of Trade, which has scheduled the area under the Local Employment Act, intend to do for these young people?
    Mr. Green: There is, of course, an obvious connection between the opportunities for young people and the general employment prospects in any one area. I accept that. [Laughter.] I would not have thought it was a laughing matter. It is for this reason that so much of the County of Durham—rather more than half—can now have help under the Local Employment Act, and there are already certain fruits from that. I am certainly not detracting in any way from the seriousness of the situation there, but certain fruits are already apparent in the shape of new buildings and other developments which have already been notified to the Board of Trade. I hope that these developments will continue and prosper.

    Wages (Payment by Cheque)
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now name a day authorising the payment of wages by cheque; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations between his Department and the banks and the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Hare: I am unable yet to fix an appointed day because I am still awaiting the comments of some of the many interested organisations whose views I have invited. However, I have been promised the outstanding replies within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend write to the interests concerned pointing out that it has taken a very long time to reach finality on this matter and that the advantages to the country are such that they really ought to agree among themselves to enable him to make a decision as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hare: I have already taken the advice of my hon. Friend and made clear my own views about the length of the delay.
    Mr. Prentice: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the views of the National Union of Bank Employees? Will he bear in mind that my hon. Friends and I think that he ought to consult direct with the union, partly because
    1332
    its members will have to operate the proposal when it comes into effect and partly because it would be a good chance for him to set an example to the bank in having consultations with a bona fide trade union?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman has skilfully introduced a red herring, but I have taken notice of what he has said.

    Irvine, Kilwinning and Kilbirnie
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of registered as unemployed at the Irvine, Kilwinning, and Kilbirnie employment exchanges at the nearest convenient date; and what action he will take to reduce the number.
    Mr. Green: At 18th June, 1962, 348 were registered at Irvine, 179 at Kilwinning and 235 at Kilbirnie. These numbers should be reduced as jobs in prospect mature.
    Mr. Manuel: This seems like the old, old story. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that this is a development district under the Local Employment Act? Is he also not aware that at Kilwinning there is an industrial estate which cost the Government more than £100,000 for site preparation and servicing? There has been only one factory on this estate since 1948, so will the hon. Gentleman try to advise the President of the Board of Trade to take action to build advance factories? Skilled labour is available in the neighbourhood.
    Mr. Green: Regarding the last part of that question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave an answer to the hon. Gentleman on 15th March last. It is a matter to be referred to my right hon. Friend and not to me. However, the hon. Member might like to bear in mind the fact that part of this area—and we realise its difficulties—is within daily travelling distance of an actual, as opposed to a pipeline, development at Linwood.
    Mr. Manuel: That is utter nonsense.

    Employment Increases
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the clothing and footwear

    1333
    industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the vehicles industry in Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the paper, printing and publishing industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the chemical and allied industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the metal manufacturing industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the building and construction industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the engineering and electrical industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.
    Mr. Hare: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    In all the industries mentioned, except for clothing and footwear, employment increased in Great Britain between 1957 and 1961; the largest increases were in engineering and electrical goods, construction, and paper, printing and publishing. Employment in clothing and footwear fell during the period.
    In Scotland, the proportionate increase was slightly larger than in Great Britain in engineering and electrical Goods and in construction, but smaller in paper, printing and publishing. There were decreases in vehicles, chemicals
    1334
    and allied industries, metal manufacture and clothing and footwear; in the last of these the decline was proportionately smaller than that in Great Britain.
    Mrs. Cullen: Since the Minister is well aware of the serious unemployment in Scotland, does he realise that we want to know what and when he will be doing something about it so that the people of Scotland may have some confidence in him?
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. Lady knows, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade and myself are very concerned about the employment position in Scotland. I hope the hon. Lady will not be one of those who try to indicate that nothing is being done about this, but will realise just how much has been done in the last ten years to get a better balance of industry in Scotland generally. The fact is that there are now, in addition to a large number of new jobs created by the special facilities given by the Government of the day, a large number of jobs in prospect.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from what he has said the overall picture is very unsatisfactory? While it is true that the Government may have been doing something, is it not about time that they really woke up and did something much more effective, because the position is getting worse each year?
    Mr. Hare: As I have told the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), a great deal has been done and is going to be done. I can assure the House that the Government have got the difficulties of Scotland very much in mind.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is because of the very deep concern felt by my hon. Friends about the position in Scotland that this series of Questions appears on the Order Paper? The right hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate that his Local Employment Act is not meeting this case. Will he take steps to set up industries in those areas suffering from continual unemployment?
    Mr. Hare: One should not minimise what the Local Employment Act has done, for I think that it has done a great deal. The hon. Member says that

    1335
    it has not done enough. These are all problems which the Government are considering, and I think that in these matters, although we want more to be done, it is a great mistake to minimise what has been done. This is a tendency I have noticed in the remarks of some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Scottish seats.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will note with some concern the increasing unemployment in the Scottish paper industry? Is there any possibility that the reduction in the tariff on paper imports under the E. F. T. A. Agreement may have had an effect on the number of people employed in the paper industry? If the E. F. T. A. Agreement is responsible for this, does not the Minister realise that the movement of trade with the Six may mean that the paper industry of Scotland and of Britain may be destroyed entirely? I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's observations on whether or not the E. F. T. A. Agreement has played any part in the contraction of employment in this industry.

    CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES IN GREAT BRITAIN AND SCOTLAND (1957–61)

    —

    Change in number of employees (Thousands)

    Percentage change

    1957–59 (a)

    1959–61 (b)

    1957–59 (a)

    1959–61 (b)

    Great Britain

    Scotland

    Great Britain

    Scotland

    Great Britain

    Scotland

    Great Britain

    Scotland

    Clothing and footwear

    -38.·6

    -1·0

    +23·1

    +0·7

    -6·1

    -2·8

    +4·2

    +2·4

    Vehicles

    +2·3

    -4·4

    +30·8

    -4·1

    +0·3

    -9·9

    +3·6

    -10·0

    Paper, printing and publishing

    +6·3

    -0·6

    +43·8

    +2·7

    +1·1

    -1·1

    +7·7

    +4·9

    Chemical and allied industries

    +6·0

    -2·6

    +14·1

    +1·6

    +1·1

    -6·6

    +2·7

    +4·6

    Metal manufacture

    -26·7

    -8·2

    +59·6

    +2·9

    -4·6

    -13·3

    +10·4

    +5·4

    Construction

    -13·9

    -9·5

    +97·1

    +18·9

    -1·0

    -5·8

    +7·0

    +12·6

    Engineering and electrical goods

    +2·0

    -4·3

    +213·2

    +21·8

    +0·1

    -3·0

    +11·2

    +15·2

    TOTAL

    -62·6

    -30·6

    +481·7

    +44·5

    -1·0

    -5·7

    +7·6

    +8·8

    (a) Figures based on the 1948 Standard Industrial Classification except that:—

    (i) "vehicles" excludes "motor repairers and garages";

    (ii) "engineering and electrical goods" excludes "shipbuilding and ship-repairing" and "marine engineering".

    These omissions are in line with the 1958 Standard Industrial Classification.

    (b) Figure based on the 1958 Standard Industrial Classification.

    Factory, Woodley
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he is making to deal with the problems
    Mr. Hare: I have no information on that, but I do not believe for a second that our paper industry would not be fully competitive with the countries of the Six if we joined the Common Market. I have every reason to think that they would, indeed, be well capable of competing. Taking the argument, which I believe to be true, that if we joined the Common Market there would be considerable trading facilities, then that would be to the advantage of a great manufacturing country like Scotland.
    Mr. Baxter: Then why has it been necessary to keep in operation a tariff of 16⅔ per cent. on the importation of paper? Why is it believed that that tariff is necessary if, by wiping it out, the British industry could compete in the Common Market countries?
    Mr. Hay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that our industry is quite incapable of working without a large measure of protection because, if it were so, we should not be able to earn our living.
    Following are the figures:
    arising from the forthcoming closure of the Handley-Page factory at Woodley.
    Mr. Green: Our local officers are today beginning to register workpeople at

    1337
    the factory in advance of their discharge, and should have little difficulty in finding alternative employment for most of them.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Will my hon. Friend instruct his local officers to have particular regard to the problems of the older men—those of 55 years and upwards—who, even in an area with mercifully high employment, are likely to find it most difficult to find another place?
    Mr. Green: I accept that.
    Mr. Emery: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Reading Employment Exchange has kept in touch with the movement, because many of these men at Woodley live in Reading; and will all assistance be given by that exchange to deal with these redundancies?
    Mr. Green: I take my hon. Friend's point. Since unemployment in the Reading area is about 1 per cent. we do not anticipate that we shall have too much trouble there.

    Apprentices
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices have been made redundant during each of the last three years; and what action is taken to ensure that they can complete their apprenticeship.
    Mr. Hare: When such cases occur, the employment exchange and the Youth Employment Service co-operate with the interested parties to place the apprentice with another employer with whom he can complete his indentures. Statistics are not kept, but very few cases of difficulty are reported to my Department.
    Mr. Emery: Can my right hon. Friend make known the procedure for this exchange of apprenticeship in the Reading area because, in the lay-off referred to in the previous Question, a number of apprentices are affected and it is essential that they should be given every opportunity to complete their apprenticeships with other indentures?
    Mr. Hare: I shall certainly see that that is done; and, in particular, that the youth employment officer is made
    1338
    aware of the point my hon. Friend has just made.

    Cash Register Industry, Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Minister of Labour what notification he has received of short-time working in the cash register industry in Dundee; how many people are affected; and if he will give details of their entitlement to unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Green: I understand that from 6th July, 3,300 workers will lose one day's work a week. Subject to the normal rules, they will be entitled to unemployment benefit for any day on which work and earnings are lost.
    Mr. Thomson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that this short-time working is causing considerable hardship, particularly at the holiday period? Is he aware that anomalies appear to have arisen in the, payment of unemployment benefit to those working on short time? Will he instruct his officers in Dundee to do everything possible to see that the benefit is paid to as many as possible?
    Mr. Green: I am sure that that will be done. I did speak of the normal rules, and I am quite sure that those will be promptly and punctually operated.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the reason for the short-time working is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still thinking of going over to decimal currency; and that nobody will buy these cash registers if they think that we shall not stay on sterling? Will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor to make up his mind quickly?
    Mr. Green: I do not doubt that that is a factor, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish a large general problem to be resolved by reference to one particular problem.

  SOUTH AFRICA

    Aaron Diboku
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the

    1339
    case of Aaron Diboku, a citizen of Bechuanaland, who was chained at night by his South African employer and escaped home to Bechuanaland with an 8 ft. chain, attached to an 8 lb. 11 inch metal ring, padlocked to his left ankle.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): Her Majesty's Ambassador has drawn the attention of the South African Government to the case. A South African named Willcox had already been convicted by a Bechuanaland court of manstealing for the removal of Dikobu from the Protectorate. Her Majesty's Ambassador has suggested that the South African Authorities should consider the possibility of further prosecution for any offence committed in South Africa.
    Mr. Brockway: I welcome what has been done, but is it not a scandal that a British citizen and subject should be chained down by his employer in this way and, when he escapes, has to escape with an 8 ft. chain attached to his ankle, as well as a large metal ring. If that had been in a Communist country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the very strongest protest would have been made by the Government. Surely, the least that can be asked is that general compensation should be paid to this man for the infamies committed on him.
    Mr. Godber: Of course, this is a thoroughly deplorable case, and I agree with the hon. Member entirely on that. The facts arc that the man concerned has been apprehended, the case has been heard, and. he has been convicted on the charge.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Do not these sound mealy-mouthed words— "drawing the attention of the Government" and "asking them to consider the possibility of further prosecution", seeing that both sides of the House made very strong representations when British subjects were being held prisoner in Laos only a week or two ago? Cannot we expect the same toughness from the Government towards the South African Government over this treatment of a British subject?
    Mr. Godber: There is nothing whatever mealy-mouthed about it at all, and I reject the words. This was a case in which a private individual took the
    1340
    action, not a Government—a very important distinction. The South African authorities did co-operate in the apprehension of the man, and in bringing him to justice.

    Commonwealth Preferences
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will introduce legislation to amend the South Africa Act with the object of withdrawing the economic privileges allowed to South Africa; and if he will notify the Government of the Republic of South Africa of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the introduction of the Sabotage Act by the Republic, which is about the crowning of the Nazi system in that territory, why should we give Imperial preferences, subsidise sugar and enter into a defence agreement with a country which is now obvious to the world as a Nazi Power?
    Mr. Heath: It was only a short time ago that we had long and detailed discussion about the South Africa Act. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the introduction of the Sabotage Act, but we cannot at this stage change an Act that we so recently passed.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does an employer who chains his employee enjoy the benefits of Imperial preference?
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman himself took part in the discussion we had about that when we thrashed out the whole question of the political policy of South Africa, and its relationship to the Act we then passed, which included trade matters.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those whom many of us represent do not wish South Africa to stop buying our textiles; that because South Africa is buying our textiles the whole of my city is fully employed, including 30,000 coloured immigrants?
    Miss Lee: Does the Lord Privy Seal's reply in regard to the debate we had in this House mean that nothing but a change in the vote of the House will change his attitude on South African preference? If so, does it not mean that

    1341
    we shall have to wait for a General Election and a change of Government?
    Mr. Heath: What I was meaning was that we devoted a great deal of time to the South Africa Act, which has so recently been passed. Hon. Members on all sides took part in those debates, in which we examined very thoroughly the relationship between the political policy of South Africa and any economic and other arrangements we made. We came to a decision and it is much too early to consider changing it.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Have not the developments that have taken place since the South African Act was passed, including the passing of the Sabotage Act, made a new case for reconsideration of the South Africa Act, greatly reinforcing the arguments we advanced from this side?
    Mr. Heath: In those debates, I expressed Her Majesty's Government's view about South African racial policy. That was an aspect of those debates, but we reached a decision on the South Africa Measure in those circumstances.

  SLAVERY
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal if, having regard to the increase of slavery and the slave trade consequent upon decolonisation by European powers, he will move in the United Nations General Assembly for a Committee on Slavery.?
  Mr. Godber: The first step must be to persuade those members of the United Nations which have not yet done so to accede to the International Convention of 1926 and the Supplementary Convention of 1956 and to co-operate in carrying out their terms. Her Majesty's Government have taken initiatives in this sense at earlier sessions of the Economic and Social Council, and it is our intention to take a further such initiative at the current session.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will Her Majesty's Government, whose record in this matter is very good, expose the hypocrisy of those member States which not only have not ratified the Slavery Conventions but tolerate or even uphold slavery and the slave trade in their territories and yet presume to sit in
  1342
  judgment upon Britain and Southern Rhodesia and other colonial Powers which have suppressed slavery and the slave trade within their territories?
  Mr. Godber: Certainly, Her Majesty's Government have taken a lead in this matter and intend to continue to do so. Concerning other territories, we are seeking to get them to accede to this. There are Questions with regard to Southern Rhodesia on the Order Paper. I should like to reserve comments on them until they arise.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I thank the Minister for saying that the Government will take further initiative about this very important matter. Is it not a fact that the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations regularly deals with the question of slavery?
  Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I think that the Slavery Convention is probably the most useful way to bring pressure on more of these States to join the Convention. While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think that this is the best way to move forward.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he will make a statement on the position now reached in the negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the Common Market with regard to safeguards for Commonwealth exports of produce and manufactured goods; and what representations he has received from the Commonwealth Governments about these particular negotiations;
  (2) what safeguards he is now demanding for permanent comparable outlets for temperate zone foodstuffs from the Commonwealth in the enlarged European Community in the event of Britain joining.
  Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the statements which I made to the House on 31st May and 2nd July.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth countries are very concerned indeed that Commonwealth preference on manufactured goods will end in 1970? Is it the

  1343
  Minister's intention in the negotiations on temperate zone products to agree to a similar arrangement for such commodities, or is he demanding as an alternative to this that, without any shadow of doubt, the Commonwealth countries will have comparable outlets in the enlarged community to those which they now have with the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Heath: I have dealt with this matter in great detail on many occasions in the House. I gave a full explanation about the proposed arrangements for manufactured products in a statement on 31st May, and it was then later discussed in debate. I also explained fully the basis on which we are negotiating for temperate foodstuffs in a statement on 2nd July. The request for comparable outlets and the arrangements which I explained to the House about the transitional period and the long-term after that are different from the arrangements for the manufactured goods.
  Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon, Friend assure the House that if the legitimate objections of the Commonwealth to our joining the Common Market are upheld, he will get from the Commonwealth the same categorical promises that he demands from the other side, namely, that they will lower their tariffs against manufactured goods and take our goods into their market?
  Mr. Heath: That is an entirely separate question, although I appreciate its relevance.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the course of the negotiations suggest that outlets available to the Commonwealth on much of their products will depend not so much on the machinery agreed but on the prices fixed for these products in the European market, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will take no final decision on British membership of the Common Market before the prices of these products have been agreed?
  Mr. Heath: The price of the products is obviously a fluctuating matter which will change from year to year. One cannot ask for an undertaking in perpetuity about prices of agricultural products in the Common Market.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wall.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Can we pursue this question, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: We must go on to the next Question.

  U. S. S. R. AND DENMARK (FISHERY LIMITS)
  Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the progess of negotiations with the Soviet and the Danish Governments on fisheries limits.
  Mr. Godber: Under the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 1956 which the Soviet Government terminated with effect from 12th March, 1962, British vessels had the right to fish in two areas off the Soviet coast, one to the west and one to the east of Cape Kanin. The main value to us lay in the western area, where there was a small but useful plaice fishery. Discussions have been held in Moscow, but I regret that the Soviet authorities were only willing to consider a concession for a year at a time and only in the eastern area. Since this would not have provided a worthwhile basis for agreement, these discussions have ended and no further talks have been arranged.
  As regards Denmark, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 2nd May.
  Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to reach a conclusion on negotiations about the Faroes with the Danish Government, or are we to expect that neither Government will enter into an agreement until a decision has been made on entry into the European Economic Community?
  Mr. Godber: I do not think that it necessarily hinges on that. The position is that we handed an aide memoire to the Danes on 17th April and their Government have indicated that they are considering our views, and we hope to hear further from them.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say whether this aide memoire asked for a continuation of the six-mile limit?
  Mr. Godber: I do not think that I can elaborate on the Answer I have given at the moment. We must await a reply from the Danes before I can give any further information about it.

  UNITED NATIONS (SOUTHERN RHODESIA)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the recent General Assembly resolution on the constitutional problem in Southern Rhodesia be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on its legality.
  Mr. Godber: No, Sir. As at present advised, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served in asking the General Assembly or the Security Council to seek an advisory opinion or that there is any prospect that either body would request an opinion if asked to do so.
  Mr. Henderson: How do the Government justify their claim that this resolution of the General Assembly is ultra vires on the ground that it is within the provisions of Article 2 (7), narnely, the domestic jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government, when at the same time they state that they have no power to interfere with the constitutional development of Southern Rhodesia?
  Mr. Godber: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have always taken this position in regard to Southern Rhodesia, a position that any intervention would in fact be ultra vires on the ground that Southern Rhodesia is not a State represented at the United Nations, and that such representations as take place in regard to it take place through the United Kingdom Government. We have taken the view that any intervention in regard to Southern Rhodesia is ultra vires.This position was made quite clear by our representative, Sir Patrick Dean, and I stand on that position.
  Mr. Healey: Does it not appear hypo, critical and slightly contradictory for the Government to maintain when they are asked to improve the nature of the Southern Rhodesian constitution that for all intents and purposes this territory is self-governing and then to deny
  1346
  the same fact when the question is raised in the United Nations, and will not the Government when they refuse to have the United Nations discuss this matter take some initiative to change the constitution in Southern Rhodesia so as to give the Africans fairer representation?
  Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add with regard to the constitution of Southern Rhodesia. The position which I have made clear is that we accept responsibility for representations in relation to Southern Rhodesia at the United Nations. We represent their position there and it is on that basis that we rest ourselves on Article 2 (7) of the Charter.
  Mr. P. Williams: Will my hon. Friend recognise that a large body of opinion regards the influence of the United Nations in this as being thoroughly mischievous, and will he acknowledge the fact that there has been greater stability and sense of purpose in British affairs in Africa in the last few months?
  Mr. Godber: I would deplore the fact that this resolution has been tabled and passed. Our position has been made clear, that we do not accept this resolution and we believe that Britain has every right to be proud of her record in this territory.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Are the Government not saying about Southern Rhodesia what they said about Cyprus, and which they had to abandon? if we deny that the resolution of the Assembly is legal, ought we not to go to the International Court to test that view?
  Mr. Godber: The provision for going to the International Court for an advisory opinion is only open to an organ of the United Nations itself. We are not in a position to take a case to the International Court. If the General Assembly or the Security Council are willing that that should be done, it would be a different matter.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman ask them?
  Mr. Godber: I indicated in my first reply that there seems to be no hope that either body will consider it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is that a reason for not asking them?

THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Scottish economy.
The Scottish Division of the National Coal Board is today making public a review of the prospects of Scottish collieries up to 1966, which they are discussing with the trade unions. It shows that a substantial number of Scottish collieries have good prospects and will increase their manpower, that others will before long exhaust their reserves of coal and will have to close down by 1966 on that account, and that there is a third group of collieries among which many have fallen short of paying their way which have a doubtful future.
The net effect is likely to be a continued fall in coal mining employment in Scotland over that period. But because large numbers leave the industry each year on retirement and for other reasons, the number of men actually displaced from the industry will be much less than the total fall in employment.
In these circumstances, the House will wish to know what immediate steps the Government are taking in relation to this situation; and in relation to its continuing policy of encouraging the development of new and growth industries in Scotland.
For the men who may be displaced, the first endeavour of the National Coal Board will be to offer another job within travelling distance of their homes. The Board has a very good record in this respect; all but a small number of the men affected by closures in Scotland last year were placed in fresh employment within the period during which the Board pays redundancy compensation. The Board's allowances to transferred men have recently been improved and will aid those who move their homes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will ensure close co-operation between his local officers and the collieries over the finding of new jobs for those displaced. As I have explained, the National Coal Board expects to be able to offer the majority of them jobs in other pits. In some cases, however, the right course may be to offer a man training in another trade, and my right
1348
hon. Friend proposes to expand the resources of the Government training scheme for this purpose. He will consult the unions in these trades, to secure their co-operation. It is the intention to increase the training allowances and the lodging allowances for those who leave home to take up work elsewhere.
As regards new industrial employment, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced that the site of the Donibristle R.N. Air Station, in Fife, will be developed as an industrial estate and it has been decided to proceed at once with the conversion of the big engineering shop into a factory for industrial use.
The Government have also decided to acquire a further five sites suitable for future industrial development in various parts of Scotland, and, in addition, to build a number of advance factories.
As already announced, assistance under the Local Employment Act is being resumed for the Bathgate area, which includes the new town of Livingston as well as other districts where large overspill housing developments are under construction. This area is already providing a new growth point in the Scottish economy.
Some movement of workers out of industries which are contracting into those which are expanding is an essential element in economic growth and the higher living standards which that will bring, and this is particularly important for Scotland. The Government's determination is to foster this economic growth and, at the same time, by looking ahead, to do all they can to meet the human, social and industrial difficulties which inevitably go along with economic change and fresh development.
Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that the statement he has just made will fill Scotland with great dismay. All the verbiage in which he has wrapped it up only seeks to hide—and this is a fact that he has carefully excluded from his statement—the number of pits that are to be closed as a result of this action and the number of men who will lose their employment.
How many pits will it be safe to assume will have to be closed in Scotland? Might it be as many as 60, and

1349
will it involve the loss of employment for 20,000 miners in Scotland? Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman might say, does he not realise that whether these miners get jobs either in other mines—and I do not know where they will be able to get them—or anywhere else, this will mean a loss of a further 20,000 jobs in Scotland?
Coming on top of the closure of the 16 pits which has already been announced, there is the close-down of the shale oil industry in Scotland and the closure of the North British Locomotive Company's factory, with consequent cuts in railway employment. This really fills Scotland with dismay. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will convey no hope to the people of Scotland that the Government are seriously tackling the situation?
We want to know the pits which are involved and the number of men concerned. The news about Donibristle was given some time ago. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where the five industrial sites to which he referred are to be located, how many advance factories are to be built, and how many jobs will be provided?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to make this statement, in view of the fact that he has resisted the demand from this side of the House for many years to have advance factories built to meet this situation?
In view of this unsatisfactory position in Scotland, is it not time that the Government did something or got out and let another Government deal with the situation?
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. I should make it clear, first, in reply to his sweeping attack on the Government's record, that the Government have a good deal to be proud of in the work that they have done to bring new employment to Scotland in the last few years. In two years, from 1959 to 1961, there was a net gain of about 30,000 jobs in Scotland. What is more, in the years since the Local Employment Act came into operation, in 1959, £41½ million has gone to firms in Scotland, or which are coming to Scotland, as well as 29,000 jobs.
1350
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the number of pits which had been closed. If he had followed my statement carefully, he would understand that there was a considerable element of doubt about a substantial number of pits, which matter is being discussed between the National Coal Board and the union at the moment or is to be discussed. Some of the pits which are to be exhausted are clearly becoming visible and 8,000 men are employed in the pits which will become exhausted over the period in question. As for the rest of the pits, it is impossible at this moment to forecast how many jobs will disappear.
The hon. Member also asked where the sites for the advance factories will be and how many there will be. I think that it is clear that it would be extremely unwise and foolish, before the acquisition of advance sites, to inform the people who own the sites where these factories will he placed. The number of advance factories is a matter which, for the present, must remain for consideration when we see precisely the full implications of the Coal Board's statement. What I have done is to come to the House as soon as I could to explain the situation that has developed and to state broadly how we propose to deal with it.
The hon. Member mentioned the fact that hon. Members opposite have raised the question of advance factories for many years. As he knows, a number of advance factories have been built. [HON. MEMBERS: "One.1 In certain circumstances they can be useful, but they are by no means the universal panacea that some hon. Members opposite seem to think.
Mr. T. Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that the Government can never anticipate these happenings? Is he not aware that the number of jobs in Scottish mines has declined by 15,000 in the last four years? Is he not aware that even in the first half of this year the number of jobs in Scottish mines has declined from 68,000 to 64,000, a further drop of 4,000?
Is he aware that a Motion was put on the Order Paper early in the Session calling on the Government to consider the social and economic consequences of

1351
these pit closures, some of which are inevitable—we recognise that—and to take steps to provide alternative employment? It is not good enough to say that other jobs may be found for the miners who will be displaced. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the jobs of about 78,000 miners in Fife are now in jeopardy and the jobs of a further 45,000 in Lanarkshire?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this is not just a question of the number of miners having difficulty in finding alternative employment, but also that there are fewer jobs available to young men leaving school? Will the Government wake up to their responsibilities and make the necessary survey to ascertain what the social and economic consequences of further closures will be and take steps to delay closures until steps are taken to provide alternative employment in the area?
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will appreciate, if he looks again at my opening statement, that I made it very clear that one of the inevitable consequences of all this was a net loss of jobs in Scotland. It is clear that the Government are looking forward, because this is a programme for the next four or five years. We are doing precisely what the hon. Member asks that we should do. We are trying to see in advance what will happen and to make adjustments in our economy well in advance where we know of closures and of possible loss of employment.
The Government have made it cleat that we fully realise the grave nature of what is happening and are doing our best to take steps to meet the situation. The hon. Member must make up his mind whether he considers that industry should be directed to move, because I do not think that that is the policy of his party and I do not see how it is practicable in a free society.
Mr. Grimond: The Secretary of State speaks of growth in the Scottish economy.
Mr. Ross: Where?
Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that growth is just what has been so gravely lacking in the
1352
Scottish economy for so long and that what will worry many people about his statement is that all these measures have been tried before and have failed to give us the results we want?
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered some of the other suggestions which have been made? Has he considered, for example, the establishment of a development board, the improvement of freight transport, the giving of fiscal advantages to industries coming to Scotland, and the moving of the headquarters of Government Departments and agencies to Scotland? On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, there seems to be no reason why there should be success now any more than there has been in the past.
Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept for one minute that there has been no success in the past. Growth has certainly been known in the years 1959–61 when there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs in Scotland, and in a great many industries which have a real growth potential. It must not be forgotten that we have managed to get the motor car industry back to Scotland and that there has been a steady advance in a great variety of industries. What we are doing is to alter the whole basis of the Scottish economy so that it can be a growth economy. We are not bolstering up decaying industry which could not possibly be good for the future of Scotland.
Sir T. Moore: Whilst appreciating the sympathetic and helpful attitude which the Government are taking in this unhappy but unavoidable situation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could indicate the precise numbers in each district, for example, in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, who may be involved? Can he also say whether he is satisfied that all those who will be for the moment declared redundant will be ultimately suitably employed either in the coal industry through the retirement of older people or in other industries now forthcoming in Scotland?
Mr. Maclay: It is not practicable, for the reasons I have indicated, to give details pit by pit or area by area because, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is still a considerable element of uncertainty about which pits will close

1353
and which will not close. As soon as we have more positive information we can act in the areas which are particularly concerned.
As for the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, every effort will be made to see that employment opportunities which are being lost by the closure of pits will be made good in one way or another, but I cannot commit myself positively to say how quickly that can happen, because in a free society we must encourage industry to come by various devices. These have been extremely successful over a period, though I agree that progress this year, as in many other countries, has not been fast because industry is not to anything like the same degree on the move as it was before.
Mr. Woodburn: While we appreciate any jobs that come to Scotland, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it has been obvious to everyone for twenty or thirty years that the economy of Scotland is changing, that its old economic life is ebbing away and that all the little jobs that have come to Scotland have not done anything to solve the fundamental question of what will be the future economic pattern in Scotland?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what dismays people is that the Government are trying to plug up little holes here and there while the whole thing is flooding away and the population and industry are draining away to other countries? Is he aware that Scotland will perish unless the Government get down to economic planning?
Mr. Maclay: This is just the attitude towards Scotland which is disastrous. Scotland is full of vigour and enterprise. The number of jobs created not only by the Government but by Scottish firms is very high indeed. It is difficult to assess the numbers exactly, but I am working on figures which, I hope, will give a more accurate picture. Scotland presents great opportunities to incoming industry. It is not a country which is down and out, and I object very strongly to that impression going out from the House. Scotland is a country of immense opportunities and I appeal to
1354
every right hon. and hon. Member to help us take advantage of them.
Mr. J. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman's statement gave the number of pits closed or about to be closed, but it did not give the number which are doubtful. My information is that on top of the 27 which are 'scheduled to be closed there are 33 which are doubtful. Do I understand that the Government intend to find jobs for miners from the closed pits in the pits which are now classed as doubtful and thereby make them also uneconomic?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him for advance factories in the Lothian area when it was de-scheduled? Is he aware that when the shale industry closed down I asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to re-schedule the area for development and he refused, and that it was only after the West Lothian by-election that the Government decided to re-schedule that area?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the next few years we shall lose 24,000 men in the coal industry in Scotland? Is he aware that that figure is not a guess? How long will the Government allow the Coal Board, which is carrying out 'their instructions, to run down the coal industry in Scotland? Is he aware that for eighteen months I have had reason to believe that the Board is prepared to write us off as a coat producing area?
Several Hon Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I beg to remind hon. Members that we cannot have these irregular debates on statements day by day and that the number of questions Which it is possible to allow on them is governed by the length of the questions Which are asked.
Mr. Maclay: I know the concern felt by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), particularly about this area. I will not go over the points about advance factories again, but I am not able to say, and no one can say, how many of the pits in the doubtful category will be closed in the period in question.
Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have some sympathy with him and that the Minister who should have been making the statement today is

1355
the Prime Minister? Is he aware that we on this side of the House consider that his right hon. Friend carries the burden of full responsibility for Government policy and that we would have had much more respect for the Secretary of State for Scotland if, before he came to the Dispatch Box to make that statement, he had tendered his resignation because of the failure of the Government properly to plan the economy of Scotland?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that Bathgate has been re-scheduled, an area where the B. M. C. factory was established and where the motor car industry was brought into Scotland to solve our problems, shows that it has not solved the problem even there and that this is a demonstration of the Government's failure?
May I address the Leader of the House and say that instead of discussing the opening of "pubs" in Scotland for the rest of today we should discuss the closing of pits?
Mr. Maclay: I find some difficulty in finding anything to answer in what the hon. Member has said. Let him think very carefully indeed before he criticises what has happened in the Bathgate area, because that is one of the most constructive things that has happened in Scotland for a great many years.
Mr. T. Fraser: The Secretary of State began his statement by saying that the Scottish Division of the Coal Board is today to publish a review of Scottish collieries up to 1966, and the rest of his statement flowed from that. It would be very helpful to the House if we could have from the Ministry of Power an indication of the nature of the statement made by the Scottish Division of the Board in Scotland today. The House might then be in possession of the kind of facts which would enable it to consider whether or not the Government's proposals, as announced by the Secretary of State, are adequate to meet the situation.
Mr. Maclay: If I may deal with that point, one difficulty when statements are being made simultaneously to different groups of people is that it is not possible for them to be issued together at the same moment. We have been doing our
1356
best to give the House as rapid information as we could about this situation.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is placing the House in an extremely difficult position? The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, in very general terms, referred to a smilar statement made by the Scottish Division of the Coal Board containing all the facts. Surely, the Minister of Power could have made a consequential statement after that of the Secretary of State. Even at this stage, I should have thought that the Government must know the facts about this, and could have presented them to the House.
Mr. Maclay: I undertake that this information will be made available as soon as possible.
Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Mr. Speaker, but West Fife is the hardest hit section of Scotland affected by this statement. There are 4,000 jobs in West Fife which are to be lost as a result of this statement. Do you not think it unfair—I appreciate your difficulty—that hon. Members who are most adversely affected by the statement are not allowed to put questions?
That being the case—and I do not blame you in any way for that—do you not think that the House deserves the protection of the Chair to ensure that we get a debate on this statement, because it is the most damnable statement about the Scottish economy which we have heard for a very long time?
Mr. Speaker: What the Chair does need is the assistance of the House and of hon. Members in not asking long supplementary questions, because that reduces the possibility of calling hon. Members who have large constituency interests, and not raising points of order that are not points of order.
I quite understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but I hope that he and the House will understand that we cannot have these irregular debates over statements. I do not fix what the House does about its business; the House does that. We must set a limit to these questions.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the closure of collieries in Scotland and the failure of the Government to take urgent steps to deal with the economic and social problems which will arise."
I realise that it is difficult to justify an announcement of such a sweeping character as this within the definition of "definite", because there has been a lack of definition in what the Secretary of State said. It is a definite fact, however, that a large number of miners will be directly affected by the decision which has been announced this afternoon, and that many of these men will not be able to take employment as a consequence of the decision.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a Motion on the Order Paper for nearly seven months—indeed, nearly eight months—asking the Secretary of State or the Government to hold an inquiry into this very situation before these particular circumstances arose today. No such inquiry has been opened, and, with respect, the Adjournment of the House could provide an opportunity for the discussion of this Motion on the Order Paper at this juncture, rather than the discussion of the Scottish 'licensing law which, with respect, is relatively unimportant, compared with this vital economic statement, which affects the economic (health and well-being of Scotland.
Mr. 'Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the announcement of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the closure of collieries in Scotland and the failure of the Government to take urgent steps to deal with the economic and social problems which will arise."
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's application. 1 do not conceive it to be within the Standing Order.
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to ask leave. Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of
1358
the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give the House information about pit closures in Scotland which is essential to a proper appraisal of the statement by the Secretary of State."
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give the House information about pit closures in Scotland which is essential to a proper appraisal of the statement by the Secretary of State."
I am debarred by precedent from allowing that to be within the Standing Order. I am sorry.
Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Some of us have had the opportunity of seeing privately the figures involved in these closures and the number of pits that are listed to be closed, and the further number, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), that are possibly to be closed. I am positive that the Secretary of State has this information, but he has not divulged the number of pits or the number of men affected to the House. This is the basis of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has now sought leave to move. If we can prove this, we ought to discuss it, because I feel that in the circumstances the Secretary of State is withholding vital information.
Mr. Speaker: That does not bring it within the Standing Order. I am sorry, but I am quite firm on my Ruling.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the dignities and the rights of this House? It is within the knowledge of a number of hon. Members on this side that in the Lobbies outside this Chamber, the figures which we are seeking, and which the Secretary of State says he cannot give us, are now being handed out. Is it not humiliating that the House should be in this situation? Will you

1359
give us some advice, so that the House can be protected against this kind of behaviour on the part of the Government?
Mr. Speaker: It involves no point of order for the Chair whatsoever. There are procedures whereby some misconduct of Ministers can be made the subject of what is virtually a Parliamentary indictment, if the House chooses to resort to it. It has nothing to do with me, and I cannot make it so. I am sorry.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder, and the said Estimates again referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—
Class III, Vote 2B, Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate).
Class VI, Vote 5, General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

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

  New Clause.—(ALTERNATIVE PERMITTED HOURS IN CERTAIN ATHLETIC CLUBS DURING WINTER.)
  (1)A registered club may apply to the sheriff for any one of the following orders, that is to say—

  5

  (a) an order providing that during the winter period the permitted hours in the club on weekdays shall not be those set out in paragraph (a) of sub 5 section (1) of section four of this Act, but shall instead be the period between eleven in the morning and two in the afternoon and the period between four and half-past nine in the evening; or

  10

  (b) an order providing that during the winter period the permitted hours in the club on Sundays shall not be those set out in paragraph (b) of the said sub 10 section (1), but shall instead be the period between half-past twelve and two in the afternoon and the period between four and eight in the evening, and that for the purpose of the sale or supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises there shall be no permitted hours in the club on Sundays; or

  15

  (c) an order which contains both the aforesaid provisions; and the sheriff shall, if in his opinion the conditions set out in the next following subsection are satisfied, make the order applied for.

  (2) The conditions referred to in the foregoing subsection are—

  20

  (a) that the premises of the club are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests of athletic sports or athletic games;

  25

  (b) that one or more of such sports or games is or are usually carried on out of doors and, when so carried on, can (unless artificial lighting is used) only be carried on during the hours of daylight;

  30

  (c) that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used, during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests, during the hours of daylight, of such a sport or game as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph;

  35

  (d) that having regard to the time at which the said sport or game is usually carried on by members of the club and their guests, the permitted hours set out in paragraph (a) or (b) or paragraphs (a) and (b) (as the case may be) of subsection (1) of section four of this Act are not suitable for the supply of exciseable liquor in the said premises to persons who participate in that sport or game.

  40

  (3) On an application for an order being made under subsection (1) of this section by any club the sheriff clerk shall forthwith give notice thereof to the chief constable who may, within twenty-one days of the date of the receipt by him of such notice, lodge with the sheriff clerk objections to the making of such order on the ground that one or more of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the last foregoing subsection has not or have not been satisfied in relation to the club, and shall, on lodging any such objections, send a copy thereof to the secretary of the club; and if any such objections are lodged and not withdrawn, the sheriff

  45

  shall as soon as may be hear parties upon the application and objections and may order such enquiry as he thinks fit, and shall thereafter make or refuse to make the order applied for, and may award expenses against the unsuccessful party.

  50

  (4) An order made under this section by the sheriff in respect of any club shall expire on the date on which the certificate of registration which is in force in respect of the club expires.

  (5) In this section the expression "the winter period" means the period beginning with the first day of October and ending with the thirty-first day of March.

  —[Mr. Maclay.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.

  4.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a consequential Amendment to this Clause in Clause 5, page 7, line 16, to leave out from "or" to "six" in line 17 and to insert:
  "section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) or, as the case may be".
  Would it be convenient for this Amendment to be discussed at the same time as the new Clause?
  Mr. Speaker: If that is the general wish of the House. I do not know whether the Opposition can help me in deciding whether that is the wish of the House.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: Yes, Sir. We do not take objection to that.
  Mr. Maclay: I am grateful for that agreement.
  The application to clubs of the principle of standard permitted hours throughout Scotland has been one of the very difficult questions raised by the Guest Committee's recommendations. The Committee recognised this. At present, under Section 124 of the Act of 1959, clubs can fix their permitted hours to suit the wishes of their members, within certain limits—not very wide limits. Clause 4 of the Bill implements the Guest Committee's recommendation that registered clubs should have the same permitted hours on both weekdays and Sundays as licensed premises. On the whole, this provision has been welcomed and any inconvenience which may arise has been accepted as the price of the advantages of standardisation. It is the case that very few social registered clubs have objected to these proposals.
  On the other hand, in the case of clubs which are primarily for some athletic sport or game, the hours at present fixed by the club within the existing statutory limits are, naturally enough, fixed as far as possible to meet the convenience of those who have been playing the game concerned. It must be accepted that to a certain extent the standard permitted hours do not fit in with the hours at which games are
  1364
  played as well as do the hours at present fixed by the club. Here there is a clash between two objectives, both of which are desirable.
  We are generally in favour of the standardisation of hours and standardisation has been welcomed, but in our view it would be wrong to take standardisation to such a length that in some cases the standard permitted hours blatantly did not meet the obvious needs. The Government have received, I have received as Secretary of State and many hon. Members have received, a considerable number of representations from sporting clubs about the disproportionate inconvenience which it would cause in their circumstances. The question which we have to consider is whether anything should be done to meet this difficulty and how far it is desirable or possible to go without endangering the benefits to be obtained from standardisation.
  I recognised this difficulty in my speech on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook in Committee that we should introduce a new Clause to meet it. This is the Clause. The essence of the Clause is that if, for reasons beyond the club's control, the standard permitted hours and the club's main activities do not and cannot fit in with each other, there is a special case for a departure from standardisation. This is the case with outdoor athletic clubs in winter, when the short hours of daylight prevent play during the hours which fit in with the evening period of permitted hours. The effect of the new Clause is to devise procedure whereby a club may apply to the sheriff for alternative permitted hours on week-days and Sundays, or both, during the winter months. The sheriff will be obliged to grant an order allowing this if the four conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, and if the club is devoted to outdoor athletic activities in the winter.
  Subsection (1) sets out the procedure. The clubs apply to the sheriff for an order or orders. The week-day order provides for permitted hours of 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. instead of the proposed standard hours. For Sundays, the alternative hours will be 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. The general prohibition of Sunday

  1365
  off-sales is written into the provisions of such an order. A club which wants both Sunday and week-day alternative hours can have these in a single order.
  The sheriff is obliged to grant an order if he is satisfied that a club meets certain conditions set out in the subsection which follows. As in the case of the club registrations, he is not given a general discretion to grant or refuse the application but he must grant it if certain matters are proved to his satisfaction. This seems to us appropriate, since the sheriff is a judge of a court of law and, unlike the licensing court, is not an arbiter of social questions.
  Subsection (2) sets out the conditions which the club must meet. These are that the clubhouse must be genuinely used for facilities in connection with athletic games: that one or more of the games is outdoors and needs daylight or artificial light; that the clubhouse is used for such facilities for such a daylight game during the winter; and that the standard permitted hours are not suitable for the times at which the games are played. These are the main conditions in the subsection.
  Subsection (3) provides for objection by the chief constable on the ground that any one of these conditions is not satisfied. Subsection (4) provides that the effect of the order should be coterminous with the currency of the club's certificate of registration—that is, until the annual expiry of the certificate by virtue of section 172 of the 1959 Act. Subsection (5) defines the winter period as 1st October to 31st March. This seems to be adequate to cover the period during which athletic clubs will be hampered by shortage of daylight.
  The Amendment to Clause 5 provides for the extension—that is, an hour's extension to the permitted hours for drinks with meals. The Amendment alters Clause 5 so that the hour's extension is applied to the alternative permitted hours for athletic clubs.
  Mr. William Ross Mr. William Ross(Kilmarnock)
  rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call some of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). If another hon. Member wined to speak to the new Clause
  1366
  before the Amendments were moved, it might be inconvenient for the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to begin moving Amendments now.
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order. 1 should then be precluded from speaking about the Clause as such and should be limited to a discussion on the Amendments.
  Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member can speak to the Question, That the Clause be read a Second time. No doubt in the course of that speech he would deal with such of his Amendments to the new Clause as have not been selected. I did not want him to preclude himself from moving an Amendment by something which he was about to say. Subject to no one else desiring to speak, I am willing to call the hon. Member for Kilmarnock at this stage, but I did not want him to be misled into a difficult situation.
  Mr. Ross: Then I will move my Amendment, Mr. Speaker, if you will indicate which Amendment has been selected.
  Mr. Speaker: We have first to get the Clause read a Second time before we start amending it.
  Mr. Ross: In Committee, I was inclined not to vote against the Government's intention in this respect, because I thought that the least we could do was to wait to see what they said about what, on balance, was a reasonable case—that in respect of certain clubs this might well be justified from the point of view of the short daylight hours in the winter. But at that time the position was very different from what it now is. That was at a much earlier stage and it was only later that I discovered how gutless the Government are about their own proposals—and I have chosen my words carefully.
  It is one thing to agree to a proposal when the Government are supposedly standing by other proposals relating to the supervision of licensed premises, albeit clubs, and quite another when, without a satisfactory explanation, the Government allow the provisions for that supervision to lapse. They cannot expect me to look with exactly the same eye as earlier on the provisions now before us.

  1367
  The Government have not given any definition of an athletic club, nor the extent of such clubs. It is obvious that this revision will not apply to cricket clubs, although to meet these provisions cricket clubs could erect a practice net outside the clubhouse and play there in the winter time. But I am not satisfied that even with floodlighting such a club would come within the Clause.
  However, I gather that golf clubs would be included. I have one apology to make about what I said in Committee when we discussed another plea of registered clubs and when I said that I had heard little about it. The plea about which I had heard nothing was for the sort of 'provision which we now have before us. I have had letters from at least two golf clubs, neither in my constituency, but both clubs which people from my constituency would be likely to visit—the Irvine Golf Club and Kilmarnock Brassie Club.
  The Government are concerned about the hardship of golfers in the winter time who, having finished a game of golf before the hours of darkness, would be precluded by the present permitted hours provisions from getting the solace of a drink. That is to say, they would have to wait until five o'clock. One of the first arguments about this proposal was that clubs would go out of business if they did not have licences and that we had to bend every effort to ensure that they had the maximum right to purvey drink to the "drouthy gowfers".
  If that is true, there is one obvious defect in the Clause, for the hours of morning will not be affected and any change which is necessary should not be made in the morning. But the Government are changing morning hours from 11 to 2.30 to 11 to 2, their only justification being to allow another half an hour in the evening drinking period. Yet that is the time when no one playing any game, golf, or anything else, will be worried about the light. Such a person would be concerned to get an extension in the earlier part of the day.
  The sheriff has no discretion at all and must give this alternative permitted hour permission in respect of any club which satisfies the conditions in paragraphs (2, a), (2, b), (2, c) or (2, d). If a club
  1368
  does not satisfy the conditions of paragraph (a), it should not have a licence in the first place. That paragraph is completely redundant. The other conditions are:
  "(b) that one or more…sports…are usually carried on…and when so carried on, can (unless artificial lighting is used) only be carried on during the hours of daylight;
  (c) that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used "—
  whatever that means—
  "during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on…
  (d) that having regard to the time at which the said sport or game is usually carried on by members of the club and their guests, the permitted hours…are not suitable for the supply of exciseable liquor in the said premises to persons who participate in that sport or game."
  Is it only the people who participate in the sport or game who will have the benefit of this change?
  4.15 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant)The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ross: Evidently not, for the Lord Advocate shakes his head. In that case, why are those people present? Is not this provision simply window dressing?
  Mr. F. J. P. Lilley: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will appreciate that there will be members of the club, who, possibly through infirmity, are no longer fit to use the privileges of the club, but who still keep their membership going. Are they not entitled to the same benefits?
  Mr. Ross: But they will not be concerned with the motives which have prompted this change, because it is only the people who have been playing and who, because of the natural consequence of daylight not lasting as long in the winter as in the summer, will not be able to finish a game, or will have to finish it so early that they will have to wait an hour or an hour and a half to get a drink. That would obviously not apply to people who, because of infirmity, could not play the game anyway.
  I am not at all satisfied with the wording, but my much more serious objection is that the granting of the

  1369
  order by the sheriff is more or less automatic. In some cases that might be justified. If my Amendment is called—I do not know which Amendments are being selected for discussion——
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I made great efforts and I thought that the list of provisional selections had already been paraded for the hon. Member's attention.
  Mr. Ross: It may have been paraded, but it has not reached me yet, Sir. The fault may well be mine, but as the parading of lists is a fairly irregular Parliamentary practice, and subject at all times to any decision by the Chair, it is not for ordinary Members to anticipate whether their Amendments will be selected.
  Mr. Speaker: I desire to help the hon. Member, not to interrupt him, but I will tell him which I propose to select. They are in line 6, after the first "and", to insert "half-past"; in line 7, to leave out "half-past"; in line 29, after "daylight", to insert "during the winter period"; and in line 36, at the end to insert:
  (e) that having regard the location of the premises the public interest as represented by the desirability of maintaining uniformity of permitted hours in the locality will not be undermined by the making of the order.
  but none of the others. I hope that that helps the hon. Member.
  Mr. Ross: I was hoping that instead of saying "none of the others", you might have said, "and in line 44", because that is consequential on the Amendment in line 36 which you have decided to call. It is to leave out "(d)" and to insert "(e)".
  Mr. Speaker: I have indicated what my selection is at present. If it needs amendment because of something that happens, I will make it.
  Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  No latitude is given to the sheriff and if the applicant satisfies the tests, the granting of the order is automatic. The only person who can make an objection is the chief constable, and he can object only on the ground that a condition in (a), (b), (c) or (d) is not satisfied. He has no say about public order or the desir
  1370
  ability of having such an order at all. In fact, he has no power. All that he can do is to lose money for the county, because if the sheriff turns down his objection he can be ordered to pay the costs, and presumably this would mean them being paid by the town or county council.
  I am not satisfied with the new Clause in its present form. In view of what the Secretary of State for Scotland said about supervision, I do not think that he has made out a case for the new Clause. The more we depart from uniformity and the standardisation of hours of drinking, the greater is the need for police supervision. So long as I knew that there was to be adequate police supervision I was prepared to accept this change, but I am not now persuaded that it would be in the interests of Scotland to allow this new Clause to be read a Second time.
  Mr. William Hannan: I, too, want to voice my opposition to this new Clause, and I do so for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in his last few sentences.
  The Guest Committee, in paragraph 76, strongly recommended the standardisation of permitted hours. If we depart from the principle of uniformity, the Secretary of State for Scotland will have to deal with applications for all sorts of exceptions. Indeed, there is already on the Notice Paper a new Clause for an exception in which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is interested, but I will not pursue that point. This is symptomatic of the trouble in which the right hon. Gentleman will find himself. He will be faced with applications to make all sorts of exceptions from the general principle.
  The Guest Committee's Report says, in paragraph 76:
  "Almost all of the organisations from whom we have received evidence have urged on us the desirability of there being standard permitted hours throughout Scotland, that is to say of a system whereby the same permitted hours will be fixed by statute for all areas and individual licensing courts would not have power to vary them."
  The Report then goes on to deal with the importance of such a decision.
  What does the Secretary of State mean when he talks about athletic clubs?

  1371
  There are many clubs which will use this provision to open the door a bit wider to provide drinking facilities, and, although the intention may be to include golf clubs in this provision, I want to know what it is proposed to do about other types of clubs. Certain junior and juvenile clubs have the title, "So-and-So Football and Athletic Club". There are hundreds of such clubs which may wish to join in this liberalising campaign which is being conducted throughout Scotland to provide more facilities for drinking, and this is supposed to be a progressive movement. Like golf clubs, some of them can claim that they are in need of money.
  In opposing the new Clause, I want to point to some of the pitfalls with which the right hon. Gentleman may be confronted in the future. What I have said relates not only to junior and juvenile football clubs, but to senior clubs, and in his efforts to help one type of club the right hon. Gentleman may find himself faced with applications from many different types of clubs for the facilities which he proposes to grant in this new Clause. I am opposed to it because it runs counter to the recommendations of the Guest Committee that there should be standard permitted hours for drinking, and that no exceptions should be made.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, it is astounding that the conditions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) should obtain in any case, and it appears from paragraph (d) that if the time of the game does not coincide with the permitted hours for drinking we have to make those hours coincide with the playing of the game. This begs the criticism of the Guest Committee, that one of the greatest criticisms of clubs is that one of the primary purposes of being registered as a club is that it exists not primarily for drinking purposes, but in this new Clause the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make it possible to make the hours of drinking coincide with the hours of the game. The whole thing is preposterous and I shall be disposed to vote against the new Clause.
  Mr. William Baxter: I, too, think it desirable that there should be some uniformity in the hours during which people are permitted
  1372
  to drink. We in Scotland have been plagued with this problem for many years. One licensing area permits an extra half-hour, or hour, in which to drink at night, while its neighbour does not, with the result that a great deal of trouble and inconvenience is caused to the police because people are able to go from one area to another to continue drinking.
  The provisions set out in the new Clause may be slightly different, but they still represent a departure from the principle of uniformity, and the Lord Advocate seemed to imply that it was not necessary to be a member of a club to enjoy the facilities of drinking in it. Apparently somebody can call himself a member of a club and thus enjoy an extra half hour's drinking.
  The Lord Advocate: When I nodded just now I was dealing with the question of whether those who participated in the game were entitled to take drink during those hours. I indicated that participation in the game was not necessary, provided the person was a member of the club. He has to be a member, unless a member stands him a drink.
  Mr. Baxter: If I happen to be in a club of which the Lord Advocate is a member, and is present, and the police come in to see whether the club is complying with the regulations, all that I need do is to say, Well, Mr. Lord Advocate, I happen to be your guest", and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a reasonable man I have no doubt that he would accede to my request for a drink. It is very simple to overcome the strict letter of the law. We have a duty to see that the law is applied equally to all sections of the community, and I say that it is a bad principle to depart from uniformity in permitted drinking hours.
  4.30 p.m.
  I counsel the Secretary of State with all the sincerity at my command to try to maintain as far as possible the uniformity of licensed hours. I could argue the merits or demerits of permitting an extension of drinking facilities, but that is not my duty My responsibility is to urge that uniformity of treatment should be given to all people, and that it is very bad to depart from this principle of uniformity, even in what may be regarded as a small way

  1373
  The Minister will be well advised to cast aside his preconceptions and revert to the idea that in all clubs and licensed premises the hours of drinking should be completely uniform. That would make things much easier not only for chief constables but also for the Minister of Transport, who deprecates the drinking of liquor when driving motor vehicles because of the numbers of deaths on the road which are caused by this practice. If persons have had a certain amount of drink and know that within a very short distance they can carry on drinking for even another half an hour many of them will be tempted to rush by car to that place, and this is likely to cause accidents.
  I therefore implore the Minister to give great consideration to this matter before he departs from the principle of uniformity and of providing equal facilities for all persons.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate will explain subsection (5) of the new Clause. I should like to know why winter in Scotland is defined as beginning with 1st October and ending with 31st March. What is the precedent for this? What has happened to autumn and spring? Are we to understand that the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State has made a study of climatic or lighting conditions in Scotland? Why should winter in Scotland occupy half the year? Is there anything alcoholic in this?
  Any farmer in my constituency would regard the proposition that winter begins in October and ends in March as thoroughly unsatisfactory. I should like to know why these dates have been inserted in the Clause.
  The Lord Advocate: I remember the story of the American who, after spending a year in Scotland, said, "The one thing that struck me about the Scots climate was the way in which spring merged imperceptibly into winter."
  Mr. Hughes: That is no explanation. If it merges so imperceptibly, why has the Lord Advocate fixed these very perceptible dates?
  Mr. Hoy: In Committee, we had a considerable discussion on the subject of licensing hours for registered clubs,
  1374
  especially sporting clubs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has reminded us, the plea was then made that the bar of such a club really financed it. I have never accepted that argument. It may be that the bar provides a fair supplementation of the funds of a club, but I have never regarded it as affecting a club's whole economy.
  In our proceedings on the Bill we have endeavoured to keep licensing hours fairly regular throughout Scotland. One of the great complaints about Scottish licensing hours—and the same complaint has been made south of the Border—has been that the licensing hours vary from one area to another, and that people are accordingly tempted to move from one area to another. That has made it very difficult for the police to exercise supervision of licensed premises.
  That argument has been widely accepted. It was because of this that the Government introduced the Bill, creating uniformity of licensing hours throughout Scotland, so that people would know what those hours were, no matter in what part of Scotland they happened to be. This would make police supervision much simpler. It is against that background that we are now considering the new Clause, which is designed to meet the request made by a certain section of the Scottish community. It has been argued that because of the sporting activities in which some persons participate the licensing hours of clubs should be altered to meet their requirements, so that they may have a drink immediately they have finished playing a game.
  I doubt whether that is a strong enough argument for changing the general rule about licensing hours in Scotland. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that such people should be prepared to wait from four o'clock until five o'clock, rather than expect the licensing hours to be changed by 30 minutes in order to suit their convenience. The Lord Advocate knows quite well that golfers who finish a game at four o'clock are not going to rush straight to the bar. Most of them will at least want to change, and by the time they have done so it will be nearer five

  1375
  o'clock than four. I regard the case put forward on behalf of these people as being very slim. I certainly do not regard it as strong enough to warrant any alteration of the general rule.
  I want to ask a question concerning the conditions which must be implemented before the granting of a licence by a sheriff. One thing that disturbs me is that the sheriff is a fairly highly placed legal dignitary. He is the equivalent to an English county court judge; in fact, he would consider himself rather higher, since his powers in court are much greater than those of a county court judge. In these circumstances, it seems odd that there should be so little freedom of choice on his part to decide whether or not he should grant a licence.
  Are these provisions taken from another Act? It is strange that we should provide that if all the necessary conditions are complied with the sheriff shall have no say in the matter, and will be compelled to grant a licence. This is a fairly wide departure from the normal practice. I do not know whether it has been attempted before.
  Since the new Clause will break the general licensing hours in Scotland and will confine the power of the sheriff very greatly, I think that we ought to have an explanation. If the Government cannot give a better explanation than the one they gave for the change of hours, then it will be for my hon. Friends to decide what they want to do. Whatever else happens, the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate should make a statement about the powers of the sheriff in Scotland and explain why the Government have found it necessary so to curtail them.
  The Lord Advocate: I think that it will be convenient if I deal, first, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), because it is part of the background to the problem which we are discussing. His complaint is that the sheriff is left with no discretion. This is nothing new in our licensing law. For many years—since 1903 in regard to clubs—we have proceeded on the basis that the sheriff can take into account objections only if they come within the terms of what is now Section 174 of the 1959 Act; in other words, he is, so to speak, limited to considering those particular
  1376
  matters. If no valid objection is made in relation to any of those, he has to grant the certificate. Accordingly, in saying in the new Clause that he must have regard to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), we are keeping in line with the principle we already have.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) spoke about clubs becoming drinking clubs. I stress that any club which applies for registration can have its registration objected to on any of the grounds set out in section 174 of the 1959 Act, and they are lettered from (a) to (s), quite a number. Accordingly, an athletic club has to get over two hurdles. First, it must qualify under Section 174. Secondly, it must qualify under the four heads of subsection (2) of the new Clause. It cannot just get in under subsection (2). It must be a bona fide club within the meaning of section 174.
  Accordingly, even though it satisfied the conditions under subsection (2) of the new Clause, if the sheriff thought that it was conducted in a disorderly manner or used mainly as a drinking club, then he could and would not merely refuse the alternative hours, but refuse registration altogether. It is a double hurdle. A club is not given a loophole to escape the existing provisions of the law.
  Mr. W. Baxter: How is the sheriff to be advised about what is taking place in any club, be it an athletic club or any other? What power has the chief constable or his police officers to go into the club to see what is going on?
  The Lord Advocate: I think that that takes us on to a different matter. I know that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have, as it were, tied the power of police inspection with the provisions of this new Clause, but the point is that it is up to the club to satisfy the sheriff that the conditions prescribed in subsection (2) here are satisfied. The order can be made only if, in the sheriff's opinion,
  "the conditions set out in the next following subsection are satisfied".
  There are two points. First, the onus is on the club to satisfy the sheriff. Secondly, the chief constable has a right to object. If he goes to the sheriff and

  1377
  says that he tried to find out what was going on, that he asked politely if he could investigate and was told that lie could not, the sheriff would, in fact, be very unlikely to say that he was satisfied that these conditions were fulfilled.
  Mr. W. Baxter: But once a club has satisfied the sheriff that it is a bona fide athletic club, which it can do in the first place quite simply, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) has said, it can possibly be turned into little less than a drinking den. How is one to prove that the main purpose of the club when it was registered originally for licensing purposes has been changed if the power of inspection is curtailed?
  The Lord Advocate: I think that the answer lies in subsection (4). Any order made in regard to the granting of alternative hours expires on the date when the certificate of registration expires, that is to say, annually. The registration certificate has to be renewed annually and, equally, the sheriff must be satisfied annually that the club is still an athletic club and not a drinking den.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I am sorry to trouble the Lord Advocate again, but has he or the Secretary of State any practical experience in the administration of the law relating to licensed premises? Do they recognise the difficulty in obtaining the true information which is necessary for even a licensing court to come to an unbiased and clear decision on these matters?
  The matter is more difficult when it reaches the sheriff. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any experience of these matters, he will know that, once clubs have been granted licences in the past, it is very difficult for the police to be able to report to the sheriff about what is happening in those which have become drinking dens and departed from their original purpose, and he will know how difficult it is, as a practical matter, to take away a licence once it has been granted.
  The Lord Advocate: Most licensing offences are dealt with in the burgh or the J.P. court and not in the sheriff court. For that reason, I do not normally come in on the prosecution side,
  1378
  so that I have no wide experience. I have appeared both for and against publicans in the course of my experience, with equal impartiality and, I think, equal lack of success. Also, I have been a member of the committee of management of a club.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been a member of a licensing court?
  The Lord Advocate: No, I have not had that misfortune, or fortune, whichever the hon. Gentleman calls it.
  The operative point is this. If the sheriff is left in doubt, then he is not satisfied. If he is not satisfied, he cannot grant these alternative hours. I think that it would be undesirable, and probably out of order, if I were to attempt at this stage to go into the more general question of a club becoming a drinking den. But, undoubtedly, if the police considered that an athletic club which has got the alternative hours was turning into a drinking den, they could object, even if they did not take any proceedings beforehand, at the next renewal proceedings in order to have the extension of alternative hours refused. As I say, the onus is on the club all the way through to show that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.
  Mr. W. Baxter: But the onus in asking the sheriff to disallow a licence previously granted on the ground that the club had not been conducted to the satisfaction of the police rests upon the police, not upon the club. The police must go to the sheriff and prove that the club has not been conducted in the manner contemplated when the licence was granted. There is here an obvious difficulty, reading further into the Bill, if the police have no right to inspect.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member is mixing up two things which I am trying to keep separate. When it comes to the registration of clubs in general, whether they be athletic, railwaymen's, working men's, educational, Conservative or Socialist the onus is on the objector to show that one of the grounds laid down in Section 174 of the 1959 Act is valid. But under this new Clause, the onus is on the club to satisfy the sheriff that the conditions are fulfilled. In one case the onus is on the objector and

  1379
  under the new Clause it is on the club. This also applies to renewal because of the provisions of subsection (4) since the order lapses at the end of the year. Therefore, the club has to start again and to show that the conditions are satisfied.
  I now deal with one or two matters raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I made a note of them on my copy of the proposed new Clause.
  Mr. Ross: I said that subsection (2, a) was redundant.
  The Lord Advocate: I disagree. The premises have to be bona fide used for club premises, but the operative words are:
  "wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests of athletic sports or athletic games."
  In effect, that means that the premises have to be suitable for the carrying on of such activities by members. It applies to the ordinary golf clubhouse, football pavilion, and so on, registered as a club and used for the carrying on of outdoor sports.
  Mr. Ross: The Lord Advocate will appreciate that we start with a registered club. It has already got its certificate of registration and its permitted hours. All that it is asking for is renewal. It has satisfied the sheriff in the first instance and has withstood all the possible objections. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want me to read the objections in paragraphs (a) to (s) of Section 174. One of the possible objectors in respect of any one of these things is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own Department.
  I was surprised to hear how little experience his Department has in this matter, because the procurator fiscal is a possible objector. Condition (d) is that
  "the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club."
  Having cleared that hurdle, surely it is almost impossible to find any difficulty in clearing this one.
  The Lord Advocate: I do not wish to go into technical details, but that just will not do. Many of the former pupil
  1380
  clubs of the Scottish schools—Heriot's, Glasgow High School, Edinburgh Academicals, and so on—hold the registration certificate for the premises where games are played, but, in the main, they do not carry on athletic activities as clubs. These are carried on by the rugby club, the football club, or the cricket club. Further, it must be made clear that, although the premises of the club may be adapted for the purposes of a club, only if it is an athletic club and the premises are suitable for athletics can it get these alternative hours.
  The second point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock concerned the phrase in subsection (2, c):
  "or are intended regularly to be used".
  I think that we thrashed this matter out in another context in Committee. The object of these words, as it is in another Clause, is to cover the case in which new premises are being built and the club wishes to know its position before it commits itself to building.
  Mr. Ross: In that case, it would not come under this new Clause because it would not be a registered club.
  The Lord Advocate: It may be a registered club, but it may wish to build new premises or a new pavilion and to take advantage of the new Clause.
  I confirm what I have said about the final words of subsection (2, d), namely,
  "persons who participate in that sport or game."
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether members could entertain their guests. That is so. On the other hand, a guest is not allowed to pay for his own drinks.
  Generally, although uniformity is a good thing in many cases, we have this trouble, that when a person comes in after having played a game of football or golf, or whatever it may be, in the winter he is probably in by four o'clock. I do not think that the hon. Member for Leith is right in suggesting that the man will be happy to change his shoes for an hour before he has a drink. He may get into more trouble on the way home by driving off to a public house and getting "sozzled" there.
  Mr. Hoy: I did not say that he would take an hour to change his shoes, but

  1381
  surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that he will run up the stairs in his football strip to have a drink?
  The Lord Advocate: Certainly. When I used to play rugby football, thirty-one years ago, I was kept alive in the last five minutes by the thought of having a
  large shandy when I got back to the pavilion; and I did not change until I got it.
  Question put,That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided:Ayes 186, Noes 43.

  Division No. 243.

  AYES

  4.58 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Noble, Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Batsford, Brian

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harrison, Col- Sir Harwood (Eyre)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Parker, John

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Biffen, John

  HIM, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Peart, Frederick

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Percival, Ian

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

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

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Holland, Philip

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Blyton, William

  Hollingworth, John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bossom, Clive

  Hoosen, H. E.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pym, Francis

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Box, Donald

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R, (B'pool, S.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Roots, William

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  James, David

  Seymour, Leslie

  Buck, Antony

  Jennings, J. C.

  Sharpies, Richard

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Shaw, M.

  Burden, F. A.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

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

  Channon, H, P. G.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Smithers, Peter

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kirk, Peter

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Lawson, George

  Speir, Rupert

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Collard, Richard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Cooke, Robert

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lltchfield, Capt. John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Coulson, Michael

  Longbottom, Charles

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Temple, John M.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lubbock, Eric

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

  Curran, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)

  Turner, Colin

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C E M.

  MacLeod, John (ROBS &amp; Cromarty)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Doughty, Charles

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Duncun, Sir James

  Maltland, Sir John

  Wade, Donald

  Eccles, Rt. Hon Sir David

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Eden, John

  Marshall, Douglas

  Walker, Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Emery, Peter

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon. Sir Derek

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wall, Patrick

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mawby, Ray

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Whitelaw, William

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Fraser Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mills, Stratum

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Wise, A. R.

  Gilmour, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Morgan, William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gower, Raymond

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Worsley, Marcus

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Neave, Airey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Green, Alan

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Mr. Gordon Campbell and

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Mr. Rees

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Awbery, Stan

  Cliffe, Michael

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Forman, j. C.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Hunter, A. E.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Small, William

  Gunter, Ray

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Upton, Marcus

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Healey, Denis

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Moyle, Arthur

  woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Mulley, Frederick

  Hilton, A. V.

  Oswald, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hoy, James H.

  Owen, Will

  Mr. Hannan aod Mr. Ross.

  Hughes. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 6, after the first "and", to insert "half-past".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It will be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in line 7, leave out "half-past".
  Mr. Ross: These are simple Amendments. The first would mean a period of from 11 a.m. to 2.30 in the afternoon and that the period from 4 p.m. to 9.30 would be changed to a period of from 4 to 9 p.m. In other words, we would add half an hour in the morning and take off half an hour in the evening.
  Hon. Members will wonder what is the reason. We were told that the reason for the proposal in the Clause concerning athletic sports or games, which evidently cannot go on without liquor for those who have been hard at it in the field, is that daylight ends rather quickly in the winter, and, therefore, the time in the afternoon must be brought forward. There was no trouble about the morning hours, which, according to the permitted hours, are from 11 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. The Bill as printed gives the period as 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., but I believe that there is an Amendment to change 3 p.m. to 2.30.
  If there is no difficulty about mornings, why make a change? Let us keep this slight measure of uniformity and retain what uniformity there is concerning the morning. The difficulty evidently arises only in the afternoon, because daylight lasts such a short time. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not present, because he would tell us that daylight ends much earlier in that part of Scotland in wintertime. I had experience of that during the war, when one of the wild Scottish units with which I was connected—the Highland Light
  1384
  Infantry—spent some time in that part of Scotland, and in winter daylight ended about lunch time. Therefore, any pretence that the change is for the greater benefit of all the people of Scotland is considerable eyewash. Is there any reason why, in making a change in the afternoon, we should interfere with the morning? I suggest that if a change has to be made in the afternoon it should be balanced by taking off an equal amount of time at the end of the day.
  The two Amendments to the proposed new Clause go together, and I suggest that they really are sensible and in keeping with what the Under-Secretary of State told us in Committee he was proposing to do, that he was going to bring forward the club's hour of opening in the afternoon but lop off time in the evening. Actually, many people want it both ways. I thought that really a further compromise and that there would be made a change in the standard hours in the morning, to save the extra half hour in the evening. Instead, we are only getting this slight change.
  I think that there would be no difficulty at all about this half hour change. I do not think that any golfer is worried about the state of play at nine o'clock at night, at the coming down of darkness. According to the arguments presented to us in Committee, evidently the only reason why anyone plays golf in the winter is that after the eighteenth hole he can go on to the nineteenth. No one in a golf club or any club that has not a licence is very much worried about the permitted hours, but for those in the hallowed golf clubs who cannot go on without a drink we must change the standard hours—to suit them. If we must make this change, let us do the decent thing about it.
  The whole new Clause is shoddy and hardly worth discussing. I wish that the Secretary of State had paid a little more

  1385
  attention to what went on in Committee about this, because the behaviour of the Government on the question of the clubs has been disgusting. Let him keep the one promise he did make, which I was prepared to support, that if he brought forward an earlier time in the afternoon he would take equal time off in the evening.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, but all the same I think that we ought to stick to the hours set out in the new Clause, and I will tell him our reasons. Admittedly, the Amendment he proposes to the proposed new Clause would give the clubs half an hour at a time which would seem useful for the purposes which we are aiming at in these new provisions, but if we accepted his Amendment to the proposed new Clause we should be saying that the afternoon closing hour in the alternative set of provisions should be 2.30 while the opening hour would be four o'clock, which would give only a 1½hour break in the afternoon.
  It has been argued in other connections that the two-hour break is advantageous from the point of view of the staff. I freely accept that that argument is not as strong an argument as regards clubs as it is in the case of other licensed premises—
  Mr. Ross: It is not an argument at all.
  Mr. Brooman-White: But in the case of other premises we are going a little further to try to give what the people concerned regard as adequate time in the afternoon. We shall seek to do that by a later Amendment which I cannot now discuss. That is to provide a break for the staff. We feel that there is a considerable amount to be said for maintaining this much of standardisation, the two-hour break between the afternoon closing time and the time when the premises open again.
  5.15 p.m.
  To close at 2.30 p.m. might represent a relaxation, but from discussions we have had with Scottish sporting clubs we are assured that the hour of two o'clock would be adequate to avoid any
  1386
  major inconvenience to their members, and we have set out to do what we could to avoid clubs having any grave inconvenience in making the maximum standardisation we could. As we want to maintain an adequate break for the staff in the afternoon, I suggest we leave the hours as they stand in the proposed Clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 29, after "daylight" to insert "during the winter period".
  This is purely a drafting Amendment to ensure that these facilities are for games actually played during the winter period and to safeguard the definition of what it is for which these alternative hours are provided. I am not very happy about the wording. I would gladly listen to the Lord Advocate on this question and be prepared to accept his judgment on it, but I thought that my Amendment to the proposed new Clause would tighten up the definition and interpretation and make it watertight.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I can, I think, reassure the hon. Gentleman on this point. Our intention is precisely as he has stated it. I am advised that the phrase "during the winter period" in the subsection is adequately governed by what follows and that it would be tautological and unnecessary to insert the phrase again at the later place, and that that might, indeed, make matters a little more obscure. I think that what the hon. Member wants is ensured by the new Clause as drafted, and I hope that he Will accept this assurance.
  Mr. Ross: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman or the Lord Advocate would look again at the terms of subsection (2, C):
  "that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used, during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on…of the club"
  and so on. I realise that we are no longer in Committee but are at the Report stage, and so I will not seek to press the point further, but I am not particularly happy about this wording and I hope that the Lord Advocate will have a look at it. In the meantime, I beg to

  1387
  ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 36, at the end to insert:
  (e) that having regard to the location of the premises the public interest as represented by the desirability of maintaining uniformity of permitted hours in the locality will not be undermined by the making of the order.
  I was hoping, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that with this would be taken my consequential Amendment to line 41, to leave out "(d)" and insert "(e)". However, I am sure that if the House accepts this Amendment the Government will be prepared to accept the consequential one.
  This is by far the most important of my Amendments to the proposed Clause because it would allow the sheriff a new criterion on which to judge whether or not an order in respect of alternative hours should be granted, and the consequential Amendment, in line 41, would give the chief constable, in carrying out his duties, a wider and, to my mind, far more reasonable field of objection in which he could, if he thought fit, object to the proposed order.
  My Amendment suggests that a judgment should be made on the effect which the granting of an order would have upon the place in which it would operate, and the judgment should be based on the public interest as represented by the desirability of having standard hours in the locality. I state "locality" quite definitely because I do not mean a wide area. I am thinking of a small area. The Guest Committee recommended—and I think that at this stage of the Bill the Government accept the desirability of this in respect of licensed premises in Scotland—having uniform hours all over.
  I think that the reasons were obvious. Whether English or Scottish hon. Members like it or not, when in adjoining towns there was half an hour's difference in closing hours late transport was at a premium. People actually went from one place to the other to get the extra half hour's drinking time. I think that the Government accepted the
  1388
  advice of the chief constables that it was desirable to put a stop to this and to have uniform hours.
  We are now opening up the position again by the change we are making in the new Clause which has been read a Second time. I want to put this to the Minister. Is it right or desirable that on, for instance, Sunday, we should now have the position where the permitted hours for licensed hotels, restaurants or any other place with a restricted hotel licence should be 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. whereas in the club it should be from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.? In other words, a person drinks in a club until 2 p.m. after which, if he likes, hr-, can go to a hotel and drink for an extra half hour. He can then go back to the club at 4 o'clock, two and a half hours before the other places are open, drink till eight and then go out of the club to a hotel and have another two hours' drinking. Therefore, he will have an extra three hours' drinking time in this way.
  Some people may think that this is far-fetched. There is quite an important game going on at Troon at the moment. I am concerned how Eric Brown is doing. I do not know how many hon. Members know Troon clubhouse which, I assume, is licensed. As far as Eric Brown is concerned, the game is mare important than the drink. Just next door to the clubhouse—I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Lilley) will recollect this—is a licensed hotel. It is only a dozen steps away. Here we are going to have permitted hours in the one place and alternative hours in the other.
  The variation is not just half an hour. In the case of a Sunday afternoon it is two and a half hours, with an additional two hours at the other end. When a person finishes drinking in the clubhouse all he has to do is to walk a dozen steps in order to have another two hours' drinking time. It may be said that people will not do this. True, they may not do it in Troon, but they will do it somewhere else. The fact is that we took steps to standardise licensing hours just because people moved out of Ayr into Prestwick and out of Glasgow into somewhere else. This happened all over Scotland where there was a variation of

  1389
  licensing hours in two adjacent places. This is what is going to take place in small areas.
  I wonder if the Government have thought of the desirability of having uniformity of hours in the public interest. There may be areas in which there are clubs where it would not happen at all. I can think of many clubhouses which are miles away from anywhere, and I am quite prepared to believe that people will not jump into their cars and go as quickly as possible elsewhere to get a drink. The fact is that if next door to a clubhouse, where the people have been drinking from teatime till 8 o'clock, there are licensed premises which remain open for two hours after the clubhouse is shut, one cannot blame them for taking advantage of the facilities which have been made available to them by the Government. I think it undesirable in the public interest that that should be so. I am sure that every other hon. Member can think of such——
  Mr. Lilley: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend gave the hon. Gentleman an instance. His constituency has a main street, one side of which is dry and the other wet. Does that not prove that we are trying to clear up the whole position?
  Mr. Ross: We are not trying to clear it up in this connection. That is covered by the principal Act. I do not know to which hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman was referring, whether he meant his hon. Friend sitting beside him or some other hon. Member, but what he said is quite irrelevant to the discussion of this Clause. If he thinks it an anomaly and thinks it undesirable, then why should he seek to multiply the anomaly in different parts of Scotland by introducing these alternative hours? The logic of what the hon. Gentleman has stated in his intervention is that he should have voted with me the last time to ensure uniformity. I hope that I have said enough to the hon. Gentleman to show why I think that a change of the kind I propose should be made in the Bill.
  This would enable the chief constable to raise an objection in relation to this kind of problem within a narrow area. It is only in certain places that it may arise. I think that the Government, having decided to depart from the
  1390
  original idea of the Bill, should at least have this measure of get-out in relation to problems which may arise in certain localities.
  Paragraph (e) extends the criterion for the sheriff. It gives him this measure of latitude. It is reasonable that the chief constable should be the judge in relation to whether or not there might be such scope for drinking as between the alternative hours and the permitted hours as to cause offence in the public interest, and thus make the objection to the sheriff. It would then be up to the sheriff to decide.
  I think that this is a very reasonable Amendment and I sincerely hope that even if the Government do not like its actual wording—I plead guilty to having prepared it rather hurriedly over the past few days because I did not see the new Clause until Monday—they will, if they think that its object should be inserted in the new Clause, have it put into proper legal language. I feel that the reasons why we initially set out to get uniform hours are equally valid in a more local sense in relation to the problem which the Government have now created by their departure in respect of alternative hours for athletic clubs.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hannan: I wish to support the Amendment. By the acceptance of the new Clause a breach has been made in the principle of uniformity in respect of licensing hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is right in trying to persuade hon. Members that, although that principle has been breached, an attempt should be made to maintain it within a certain area, on a narrow front to use his term.
  I am sustained in this view by what appears in the Guest Committee's Report. The Government must not object if hon. Members on this side of the House refer constantly to the Report of the Guest Committee because, so far as I can judge from the debates, this Report was their Bible during the proceedings on the Bill. In paragraph 78 the Report states:
  "We are in entire agreement with the, suggestion that permitted hours should be made standard. In regard to the rush between neighbouring areas at closing time"—

  1391
  The Committee admits that rush—
  "we feel that it would be invidious to single out particular examples in case it should be thought that we are directing criticism at the actions of individual licensing courts, but we are quite satisfied that real abuse occurs…."
  The Under-Secretary of State and his hon. Friends will be living in cloud. cuckoo-land if they do not recognise that the acceptance of the Clause will lead to abuses. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has cited an example of what could happen within his area. The Amendment asks that regard should be paid to the local licensing rules within an area, and that at least the principle of maintaining uniformity, which has been forsaken by the Government, should be preserved on a narrow front. I hope that we have convinced sufficient hon. Members that this reasonable Amendment should be supported.
  The Government ought to look at this matter again. They will not lose anything by doing so. They have secured the new Clause. It is only now a question whether in a given area opportunities should be provided for the misuse of the facilities for drinking during permitted hours and the new athletics clubs and, I predict, before long to a great many other kinds of clubs. Why should not there be allotment association clubs? Tending an allotment is a pastime which takes place in the open air. I can think of a host of organisations whose members would wish to avail themselves of the opportunity which is provided and will find reasons for making application. If the Government are sincere in their statements about the importance of the Guest Committee's Report, they should at least agree to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I am sure that many hon. Members will live to regret the fact that they voted in favour of the new Clause because a breach has been made in the basic principle on which the Bill was based, namely, that there should be uniformity in the Scottish licensing laws. This was the recommendation, more or less, of the Guest Committee on which the Government have, apparently, based their ideas. Now that we have made the breach it would be only reasonable and equitable to accept the Amendment.
  1392
  A chief constable has a definite responsibility for maintaining law and order and it would be unwise for the House of Commons in any way to seek to undermine that responsibility. We shall be making it much more difficult for a chief constable to maintain the law unless we give him, or the sheriff, power to curtail in a given area the extent of the violation of uniformity in the licensing laws. This is a reasonable suggestion. It is not unreasonable to expect the Government to regard reasoned Amendments with care and consideration.
  I asked what exeperience the Lord Advocate had of licensing courts or the work of licensing committees. I also asked whether the Secretary of State had had much experience in that respect. Some hon. Members have had considerable experience of the work of licensing courts, and of police committees charged with the responsibility of keeping law and order. Some hon. Members are justices of the peace and they have the duty of trying to enforce the laws which we, as legislators, seek to put upon the Statute Book. In view of the general agreement that the licensing laws should be made uniform, it ill becomes the Government to breach that principle.
  Here we have a set of circumstances where, in a confined locality, there might be a differentiation in the licensing laws and that would mean ultimately that law and order would be undermined to a certain extent. I counsel the Government to be extremely careful about the road along which they seek to travel. Every organisation in Scotland, the temperance organisations and others, extended a welcome to the Bill in some degree. Although in principle some of the organisations may be opposed to extending facilities for drinking, they welcomed the Bill because of the principle that the licensing laws would be made uniform. It is a great calamity that a breach has been made in that principle and I consider that many hon. Members who voted for the new Clause will live to regret their action. As one who has had a reasonable amount of experience, I counsel the Government to give serious consideration to this Amendment.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I fully appreciate the cogency of the arguments

  1393
  which have been advanced in favour of standardisation. As was said by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter):standardisation is one of the major factors in the Bill which led to its acceptance and the general welcome to it in Scotland. The Bill has achieved standardisation between various areas and its provision will prevent the movement of people from area to area in order to continue drinking. The Bill's provisions would impose standard hours on clubs. Previously, within a wide bracket, clubs could select hours which suited their members. Acceptance of the Bill's provisions has not been achieved without causing inconvenience to various people who had hitherto selected permitted hours to suit themselves. But we thought it right that, in the pursuit of standardisation, a certain degree of inconvenience should be accepted by some.
  We have departed from the principle of standardisation in this single instance where because of the principal activity of the clubs concerned—outdoor games—we felt that a greater degree of inconvenience would result. That we have tried to put right by the Clause which has been accepted. This Amendment, for reasons that I well understand, asks that, within a certain area, discretion should be given to the sheriff to make a selection between sporting clubs which qualify for the alternative set of hours granted under various arrangements, provisions and safeguards which we have been discussing. It asks that the sheriff should be able to make a selection not only on the merits of a case which could be advanced by a club, to prove that it fairly qualified through the nature of the pursuits carried on there to apply for the exceptional hours, but also on the circumstances of the location of the club.
  If one golf club has a perfectly good case and, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is no pub near it, there can be no objection to granting it the alternative set of permitted hours. But another golf club may stand absolutely four-square on the merits of the case, and its members
  1394
  may have just as great a cause for wanting this provision but, because it happens to be next door to a pub, there might be a temptation for the members to go next door. It does not seem right that that club should be denied this choice. Any scope for abuse is extremely limited. This provision would apply only to members of the club and their guests.
  There is a second consideration of a slightly more esoteric nature. The Amendment would place on the sheriff the burden of making a choice, not of ascertaining a fact. As a matter of social judgment he has to decide whether in the interests of an area this should OT should not be done. I understand that that is not the sort of decision normally placed upon a sheriff. I hope that on reflection hon. Members will feel that the degree of danger in this proposal is so small and the degree of inequity between one sporting club and another would be so great that we would not be justified in accepting the Amendment.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: The reply of the Under-Secretary was no case at all for rejection of the Amendment. We lost on the question of principle in the last Division. The Clause has been read a Second time.
  We are told that there are two reasons why the Government have decided that they cannot accept the Amendment. The first is that it would lead to differentiation between one club and another. I have had all the literature sent to me that other hon. Members have had. I have had the pressure which has moved the Government to introduce this Clause; all of us have had it. The Government have made it quite clear that they have introduced the Clause so that those taking part in outdoor sports will be able if they wish to buy a drink for themselves and their friends after whatever game they have been playing has finished. That is their one main case for this Clause. If the Amendment were accepted it would still be possible for those members to buy a drink for themselves and for their friends.
  The Under-Secretary said that the sheriff would have to decide that one

  1395
  club could have these extended hours and another club could not have them.
  Mr. Brooman-White: In case this is misunderstood outside, I should point out that they are not extended hours; they are alternative hours.
  5.45 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: They are the permitted hours for these sports clubs. The sheriff is a most responsible person in Scotland. In this new Clause little or no discretion is deft to the sheriff. It seems that almost automatically he would have to grant this permission to clubs merely in order that these people should have a drink. If in the view of the sheriff there are other licensed premises near the club, in the locality of the club, if they wish to have drink they can still have it in those other premises. It seems very wrong that the Secretary of State should reject this simple Amendment.
  The Minister said that it was not a matter of fact which has to be decided, but it seems to be a clear matter of fact. If it is confined to a locality the sheriff has to decide whether or not there are licensed premises in that locality. One of the main points made by the Guest Committee was that there should be uniformity of permitted hours so that there should be no rushing from one lot of licensed premises to another. If the Clause is not amended, that may happen. If it is not amended there could be the real abuse about which the Guest Committee spoke.
  Very little is asked for by this Amendment, but it is something which might have serious results in a particular area. There is a golf club in my constituency from which the sportsmen could transfer to a hotel within five minutes. Many of them do not play right up to the last minute of their permitted hours. If they had been drinking and felt that they should be able to drink for a further time there could be serious consequences. I ask the Under-Secretary to think about this again.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF PERMITTED HOURS IN THE AFTERNOON IN CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS.)
  (1) This section shall apply to any premises for which a certificate (other than an off-sale certificate) is held or to the premises of a registered club—

  (a) if the holder of the certificate or, as the case may be, the club gives notice of the application of the section to the premises in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, and

  (b) as from such date as may be specified in the said notice:

  Provided that, in the case of premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held or the premises of a club, the certificate-holder or the club, as the case may be, shall not give notice of application as aforesaid, and this section shall not apply to such premises, unless the licensing court for the licensing area within which the premises are situated are satisfied that the premises are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises.
  (2) While this section applies to any premises the effect shall be that, for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection, on weekdays the permitted hours in those premises in the afternoon, as fixed by section four or, as the case may be, section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) of this Act, shall be increased by the addition of half an hour at the end thereof.
  (3) The purposes referred to in the last foregoing subsection are—

  (a) the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of exciseable liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal; and

  (b) the consumption of exciseable liquor so supplied.

  (4) While this section applies to any premises, then for purposes other than those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, or in parts of the premises other than the part so mentioned, the permitted hours shall be the same as if this section did not apply to the premises.
  (5) This section shall cease to apply to any premises on the expiry of the twenty-seventh day of May in any year if the holder of the certificate or the club, as the case may be, gives notice of the disapplication of the section from the premises in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection:
  Provided that this section shall cease to apply to premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held, or to the premises of a club, at any time on the licensing court ceasing to be satisfied as mentioned in the proviso to subsection (1) of this section.
  (6) A notice of the application of this section to, or of the disapplication of this section from, any premises—

  (a) shall be in writing;

  (b) shall, in the case of a club, be given by the secretary of the club on its behalf;

  (c) shall, in the case of a notice of application, specify the date from which the section is to apply to the premises and, in the case of a notice of disapplication, state that the section is to cease to apply to the premises on the expiry of the twenty-seventh day of May next following the giving of the notice;

  (d) shall be served on the chief constable not later than fourteen days before the date specified as aforesaid, or not later than fourteen days before the twenty-seventh day of May, as the case may be.

  (7) The secretary of any club to the premises of which this section applies shall notify the licensing court for the licensing area within which such premises are situated of any reconstruction or extension of, or alteration in, the premises which affects the facilities available in the premises for the provision of the customary main meal at midday, and if the secretary of any club contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
  (8) The holder of the certificate for premises to which this section applies shall keep posted in some conspicuous place in the premises a notice stating that this section applies thereto and setting out the effect of its application, and if any person contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House to consider this new Clause with the Amendments in Clause 4, page 5, line 41, to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two"; and in page 6, line 6, to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Brooman-White: The case which I have to put to the House is simple. In a discussion in Committee on permitted hours, we undertook to look again at the situation. One point struck us as a reasonable change to make. The present closing hour is 3 p.m. It was represented to us strongly that this was not suitable from the point of view of the convenience of the staff working in licensed premises. By the time they had completed washing up and cleaning the premises, and had gone home for
  1398
  something to eat, it would be almost time for them to return to get the premises ready for opening again. It was represented that this would be a considerable strain on them, and we saw the force of that argument.
  We looked again at the reasons why the Guest Committee recommended 3 p.m. as the closing hour. There were two. The first was that in the majority of licensing areas in Scotland, although there were variations between areas, the closing hour was 3 p.m. But we reconsidered this from the point of view of the number of public houses, and we found that only about 35 per cent, closed at 3 p.m. and that 65 per cent, closed earlier. We felt, therefore, that the argument based on the practice of licensing areas was not very strong in this case and, in fact, had led us the wrong way.
  The second argument was that it would be a substantial inconvenience to travellers and others to have an earlier closing hour in the afternoon for drink with meals. We fully accept the validity of that argument, and the new Clause, as opposed to the Amendments, is concerned with meeting that point. It is a rather elaborate piece of machinery to secure a simple objective. All the new Clause, read with the Amendments, does is to say that the closing hour for bar drinking should be 2.30 p.m. instead of 3 p.m., but that the provision for drinking with meals should remain unchanged. The procedure is, of course, complicated, but it is based on our own provision for an extension and on arrangements made in the English Bill by which in certain areas the closing hour is 2.30 p.m. and a similar provision is made for the continuance of drinking with meals until 3 p.m.
  If the closing hour of 2.30 p.m. is accepted rather than 3 p.m., it means a slight reduction in the total number of hours available for bar drinking in Scotland, but the half-hour between 2.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. is not in wide demand by the public, and it imposes inconvenience on the staff in licensed premises. We think that it is a reasonable change to make. If so, and as a corollary, we think that the new Clause should be introduced to ensure that the Amendments do not curtail the existing provisions in the Bill for drinks with meals in those premises which make application under the provisions of the Clause.
  Mr. Hannan: May I offer an apology to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the Under-Secretary of State in that there was some distraction at the beginning of the debate when I was trying to ascertain the Amendments under discussion. Am I right that we are considering the new Clause "Extension of permitted hours in the afternoon in certain licensed premises and clubs" together with the Amendment in page 5, line 41, to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two" and the Amendment in page 6, line 6, to make a similar change?
  Mr. Brooman-White Mr. Brooman-White indicated assent.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I interrupt the hon. Member in the interest of clarity. As I understand it, the two Amendments which are being discussed with the new Clause are those in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland in page 5, line 41, and page 6, line 6.
  Mr. Hannan: That is as I thought.
  I feel that the Minister's explanation is acceptable to those hon. Members on this side of the House who have been watching the Bill closely. If I understand the Under-Secretary of State correctly, we have to provide this long new Clause to keep the hours as they are, with the exception that during the afternoon they are changed from 3 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. I agree that that half-hour is not in great demand although, on the other hand, it might be looked upon as an attractive half-hour which would decide a man whether to go back to work or business or to continue drinking. I understood the Under-Secretary of State to say that this made no difference to the total number of hours available for drinking.
  Mr. Brooman-White: There is half-an-hour less in the total bar drinking hours, but no change in the hours for drinking with meals.
  Mr. Hannan: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that explanation, which makes me still more enthusiastic about the acceptance of the Clause. But it is extraordinary that, to make a change of this character, the Government having departed from the principle, they give the draftsmen and the Department all the trouble of creating a frightful-looking Clause of 70 to 100 lines in order to make such a simple Amendment as this.
  1400
  As the explanation is acceptable at least to myself, I do not intend to delay the House longer. I think that I can say for some of my hon. Friends, too, that it is acceptable.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(SALE OF EXCISEABLE LIQUOR IN REGISTERED CLUBS TO MEMBERS OF OTHER CLUBS.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, the rules of a registered club may provide for the admission to the premises of the club of persons who are members of another club, and for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor to such persons by or on behalf of the club for consumption on the premises, if—

  (a) the other club is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed; or

  (b) both clubs exist for learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature; or

  (c) each of the clubs is primarily a club for persons who are qualified by service or past service, or by any particular service or past service, in Her Majesty's Forces and are members of an organisation established by Royal Charter, and consists wholly or mainly of such persons; or

  (d) each of the clubs is primarily a club for persons who carry on the same trade, profession or occupation, and that trade, profession or occupation is the same in the case of either club; or

  (e) each of the clubs is a working men's club (that is to say, a club which is, as regards its purposes, qualified for registration as a working men's club under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and is a registered society within the meaning of that Act or of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893).

  (2) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, the authority of a certificate or licence shall not be required for such a sale of exciseable liquor as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection and, where the rules of a club provide as aforesaid, exciseable liquor may be supplied in the premises of the club to such persons as are mentioned in that subsection and their guests for consumption on the premises, as it may to members of the club and their guests.—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The new Clause involves, if it is accepted, the consequential Amendments to Clause 15, page 15, line 22, after the first "the" to insert "sale

  1401
  or"; and in line 27, after "the", to insert "sale or".
  The reason for the new Clause is that I gave an undertaking in Committee, when Amendments were moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) in regard to what I might call club affiliation; that is to say, where clubs give honorary membership or receive into their premises members of other clubs. The hon. Member for Dundee, East had in mind two types of clubs. The first were clubs like the staff club at St. Andrew's University which entertained visiting professors and lecturers from Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh and had to enrol them as honorary members.
  It was found that the sheriff in the neighbourhood took, if I may respectfully say so, a slightly different view of the law to that which I take. As a result, the club had to go through the whole formality of electing these visiting professors and lecturers as honorary members. The second type of clubs he cited was railwaymen's clubs, like those in Perth, and the hon. Member for Govan raised a similar question in regard to working men's clubs.
  My view—although I do not claim to be infallible and I realise that certain sheriffs disagree with me—is that under the law as it stands it is perfectly proper to have affiliation arrangements with another club so that members of that club can come in and be treated as members and have the privileges of members, for example, in buying their drinks and introducing guests. But in view of the doubt which has arisen, the Government have felt it right to bring in the new Clause, which is basically founded on part of Section 28 of the English Licensing Act, 1961.
  The new Clause is designed to make it clear in what circumstances members of other clubs can be received into what I might call the receiving clubs and have the privilege of buying drinks and entertaining their guests in them. There are five types of affiliation, or pairing arrangements, which are specifically covered.
  Sub-paragraph (a) deals with the position of a club which is temporarily closed. That may happen, for example,
  1402
  during the holiday season when the staff are away. Club A may be closed for a fortnight in July while club B might be closed for a fortnight in August so that the clubs can exchange their staffs during those periods. They may also be closed for redecoration or reconstruction, and so on.
  Paragraph (b) deals with the club like the St. Andrew's University staff club which exists for learned or educational purposes and it also covers clubs like Conservative or Labour clubs which have political objectives. Paragraph (c) deals with the arrangements by members of clubs in the Royal Naval Association, the British Legion or the Royal Air Force Association under which the members of the club of one branch can have entrance and facilities in another club. That has worked perfectly reasonably in the past and I do not see why it should not continue to do so.
  Paragraph (d) covers the type of club like the railwaymen's club in Perth. Paragraph (e) deals with working men's clubs, the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan. I do not see that what I have stated represents any change in the law. The new Clause is merely designed to clarify the law although, admittedly, not every lawyer and sheriff agrees with me.
  It seems reasonable to clarify the law in this way when these facilities are specifically laid down in England and appear to have worked well without abuse. Equally, in many parts of Scotland—where the sheriffs have thought fit—similar arrangements have worked without abuse up to now.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Why is it necessary to clarify the law if it has been operating satisfactorily up to now? As there is a certain amount of doubt on the part of certain sheriffs and lawyers, does not what the Lord Advocate has said mean that greater difficulty will be caused?
  The Lord Advocate: When one clarifies the law one does not try to make the position more confused. The position is that certain sheriffs now accept the provisions of the Clause as being the existing law while others think that it is not. I am merely saying that I hope the law will be regarded as it is stated in the Clause.

  1403
  The Amendments, which are consequential to the new Clause are designed to insert the words "sale or" before the word "supply", because the people with whom we are concerned will be coming in not as members and, accordingly, the drink is sold to them and not supplied to them. This is a purely technical matter.
  Mr. Hoy: I was pleased to hear the Lord Advocate say that the new Clause is designed to clarify the law. Apparently at present the sheriffs cannot make up their minds about the matter. If so, it means that some get justice in Scotland while others do not—depending on the sheriff who is trying the case. The Lord Advocate said that some sheriffs agreed with him while others did not——
  The Lord Advocate: The difficulty in this case is that there is no right of appeal. There is a single judge, the sheriff, whereas in 99 per cent. of cases there is some sort of appeal.
  Mr. Hoy: I made that point in Committee. I raised that precise matter with the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I thought that under the law there was some method of appeal against a decision. However, I was informed that there was no right of appeal. Therefore, some sheriffs interpreted the law as being one thing while others took a contrary view. I suppose that it was thought that if 50 per cent. of the sheriffs went one way and the other 50 per cent. went the other, on balance justice was done. However, that thought did not bring any satisfaction to the people on the side of the wrong sheriffs.
  If the new Clause helps to clarify the law we shall all be grateful. Any contribution which the Lord Advocate can make resulting in it being less likely that lawyers will be employed will meet with satisfaction.
  Mr. Hannan: If there have been differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the law, presumably there will be even more differences of opinion when the new Clause is enacted. Although it is said that the new Clause will clarify the position, we shall be back where we started, and since the Lord Advocate represents the Law Office fin Scotland, can he say how this matter is to be resolved?
  1404
  This provision means that there will be inter-visiting by clubs, in the spirit of bonhomie,good fellowship, good comradeship—all these fine words that are prostituted for the sake of participation in this sort of business. Paragraph (a) says that if
  "… the other 'is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed …"
  its members can be admitted to another club, but the premises may have been closed by the action of the law. Are the members of that club still to have this same facility? If a club is closed by police action, can its members find the same facilities in another club——
  The Lord Advocate: That arises under an Amendment to this Clause which may—I do not know—be discussed later. As soon as the premises are closed by law, the club ceases to be a registered club, and paragraph (a) does not then apply to it. It must be a registered club and, therefore, still open.
  Mr. Hannan: Then let us turn to paragraph (b), where
  "… both clubs exist for learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature…"
  That means that the St. Andrew's clubs are to be used as an example for opening up in a wider field. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is not here because he, too, is interested in educational objectives.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State told us that youth clubs had accepted the recommendations of a committee in respect of licensing and temperance, and I hope that they will not be 'brought into this. The Lord Advocate assures me on that score, and I am relieved to know it. On the other hand, those clubs are in need of money, and if there is this liberalising, civilising object of making drinking laws wider and wider, I must ask, facetiously and ironically, why not youth clubs? If the permission is good enough for clubs into which young people of between 18 and 19 go, why is it not good enough for young people of 16 and 17?
  I am not very happy about the terms of this new Clause because it seems to widen the faculties for people to drift from one club to another and for a

  1405
  bigger congregation of people to go from the cities into the country to visit like-minded clubs existing for these
  "… learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature …"
  Those words will be quoted. Ex-Service men's clubs, British Legion clubs, clubs whose members keep pigeons and all the rest, will find some pretext or other to visit clubs in the country areas, and we shall have the ugly scenes that we are trying to stop. In that respect, we shall aggravate the situation.
  I do not yet know what my hon. Friends will say about this new Clause, but I personally have these doubts and hesitations. I should feel somewhat happier if the Lord Advocate could reassure me that youth clubs will not in any way be involved under paragraphs (a) and (b).
  The Lord Advocate: It would be open to youth clubs to become registered clubs. In practice, they do not, and there are restrictions on the selling of drink to young persons in clubs. I do not know of any youth club that is a registered club, and I doubt whether any ever will be. I do not think that the Clause will have any effect upon them. As to clarification, we are saying that certain views that certain sheriffs have had should no longer be operative, and that these particular reciprocal arrangements should not bar a receiving club from continuing as a registered club.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in paragraph (a) after "closed" to insert:
  "for reasons outwith a court order".
  The new Clause begins by saying that
  "… Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, the rules of a registered club may provide for the admission to the premises of the club of persons who are members of another club, and for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor to such persons by or on behalf of the club for consumption on the premises, if—
  (a) the other club is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed; or …"
  1406
  A special case is being made in relation to clubs in the locality of another club that is temporarily closed, and we have no amplification of what "temporarily closed" means.
  I apologise to the Lord Advocate for not being present when the Second Reading of the new Clause was moved, but I believe that he suggested that if a court order had been made the club was automatically disqualified, and was no longer a registered club. I am not altogether happy about that. I have seen in the Press that a club was to be closed for, say, three months in which case, presumably, the club would be temporarily closed and, on the face of it, it would come under the provisions of paragraph (a). When it reopened, its members would automatically resume their membership, without all the business of registration, and the like.
  There is no limitation here as to cognate subjects of interest between members of learned, professional or political clubs. One could presume that if, for some reason or other, the Liberal Club in West Lothian were closed down, its members could use the Conservative Club there. They probably do. They probably have a new affinity now, in that candidates of both those political parties lose their deposits in by-elections.
  Again, there is no mention of proper control of the size of the premises. A very small club might be open and a very large one temporarily closed, the premises of the smaller one being quite unsuitable in relation to the membership of the other. I am not sure that much thought has been given to this Clause, which automatically confers a right in relation to clubs temporarily closed. There is nothing said about premises being suitable or adequate, or anything like that. Little thought seems to be given to some of the other things that are additionally allowed because, under another paragraph, an open club can receive members of other clubs that are temporarily closed.
  I think that it goes far beyond the original intention of the Government, and I am sure that it requires clarification. I should like to be absolutely clear as to the limitations of "temporarily closed". A club may be closed because it has run out of money and is going bankrupt. Then there is always the

  1407
  possibility that the mineral water has run out; that there is no longer any water in the area and people have to go elsewhere for their water.
  The position is not clear to me. I think that the Government are far too generous in this respect. We need a tightening of the law. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell me that if the courts have temporarily closed a club its members would not automatically get the benefits which they are denied in their own club by going to another. Can he give me some idea of the circumstances which led him to insist on this being put in the Clause, so that people should not have to endure hardship, even unto death, by being denied, for a short time, the facilities of their club? I am not convinced that paragraph (a) is either desirable or necessary, or in the public interest.
  The Lord Advocate: The reason why this was inserted was that there are doubts about the law. It is common practice for two clubs in the same locality during the holiday season or when the premises are being reconstructed, redecorated, or the like, to have an arrangement under which the members of the closed club are accepted as members of the club that is open. I have experienced it frequently myself. In my experience, there has been no overcrowding, no unsuitability, no disgraceful behaviour, or anything else to which anyone could take exception. I felt it right that to meet the case of the education clubs or the railwaymen's clubs this particular matter, which is dealt with in the English Act of 1961, should be mentioned in case doubt should rise over what is a well-known, respectable practice.
  It is quite true that in Edinburgh a Conservative club can came to an arrangement with a Liberal club during some period of the year—I will not say which—and members of the one can use the other. I have dined exceedingly well in a Liberal club before now, but at the expense of my host and not at my own.
  Mr. Ross: Section 173, paragraph (k) of the 1959 Act states:
  "… unless on the invitation and in the company of a member and that the member shall upon the admission of such visitor to the club
  1408
  premises or immediately upon his being supplied with such liquor, enter his own name and the name and address of the visitor in a book …"
  There are considerable limitations there and someone has to keep sufficiently sober to sign the book.
  The Lord Advocate: My host signed the book. That is not to say that he was the only sober member of the party. It is a reasonable, well-known practice.
  The hon. Member raised a perfectly valid point about the closing of club premises. To repeat what I was saying when he came into the Chamber, if a club ceases to be a registered club it does not come under paragraph (a). The hon. Member will see that the other club must be a registered club. There are two provisions in the main Act. One is for the cancellation of the certificate of registration. Once that is cancelled the club ceases to be a registered club and cannot have the benefit of paragraph (a). That is under Section 175 of the Act of 1959.
  The second provision, in Section 176. deals with what, I think, the hon. Member had in mind. Where the sheriff has either refused the renewal of or cancelled the registration under Section 175, he may in addition disqualify the premises from being used as a club. I think that this is referred to rather loosely as closing the premises for a period. It is up to twelve months on a first offence and five years on the second. That is quite separate from the cancellation of the registration.
  The phrase "closing the club" is rather loose. In fact, it has no legal foundation. The question is whether the certificate has been cancelled or not, and if it has, or it has not been renewed, the club ceases to be a registered club until a new certificate is obtained.
  Mr. Ross: The paragraph says:
  "… whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed."
  We are dealing with premises temporarily closed and outwith the court order. That is my Amendment. It is exactly the situation to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred just now.
  The Lord Advocate: If the club is a registered club its premises cannot have been closed by a court order. So long

  1409
  as it is a registered club, the sheriff cannot close its premises. The sheriff can do two things. First, he can cancel the registration. If, but only if, he either cancels it or fails to renew it can he also disqualify the premises from being used for the purposes of a club. So long as the club is a registered club, its premises are not closed and cannot be closed by the sheriff.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I am not quite sure what is the position of a town or a community such as Kirkintilloch in this matter. Under the local poll it has voted to remain dry and have no "pubs" in its locality. Has the sheriff power under this Clause to grant a club licence in a town or locality such as I have indicated, which has decided that it does not want "pubs" of any description in its area? I have not seen any indication whether or not a restriction is placed on the sheriff to have regard to the fact that the whole of the people in a particular locality have voted against having "pubs" in their area.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not see how the hon. Member's observations are relevant to this Amendment.
  Mr. Baxter: I cannot say that they are relevant to the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, but I ask for your indulgence, as I could not find a peg on which to hang my argument.
  Mr. Hoy: May I put a further question to the Lord Advocate? I do not think the Lord Advocate dealt with the point relating to a club in respect of which the sheriff has the right to suspend a licence for a period for misbehaviour. Can he suspend the licence? Can he cancel or suspend it for a period of say, three months? If he is able to suspend it for a period up to twelve months, I interpret that to mean that he can do it for not more than twelve months. If he is able to suspend a licence because the law has been infringed, my hon. Friend wants to know whether that would automatically disqualify a member from using the alternative club for the same period or whether it applies only to the premises.
  The Lord Advocate: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I am sorry that I did not make that point
  1410
  clear. There are two matters to consider. One is the cancellation of the certificate—or, as it is sometimes called, the licence. That is a complete cancellation and not a suspension. The club can at a later date ask for a new certificate but the cancellation is permanent, as it were, and not temporary. What is temporary is the additional penalty which the sheriff can impose of disqualifying the premises from being used as a club for a period up to twelve months for the first offence and five years for a second offence. If the certificate is cancelled, that club ceases to he a registered club. It is not temporarily closed; it is "out". I think that that is the point that the hon. Member has in mind.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(PUBLIC DANCING.)
  (1) No certificate for the sale of excisable liquor shall be granted by a licensing court, under the powers conferred upon them by the principal Act or by this Act, for the sale of such liquor in a public dance hall.
  (2) The form of certificate for a public house specified in the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall be amended by inserting the following condition:—
  "(14) the certificate holder shall not permit dancing in the premises".—[Sir M. Galpern.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Myer Galpern: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  During the Standing Committee proceedings on this Bill the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), whom I have notified that I would be referring to him this evening, sought to move an Amendment the effect of which would have been that a special licence would be created for public dance halls. He argued his case very cogently, but I am glad to say that the Under-Secretary of State resisted this additional form of licence and the Amendment was not accepted.
  As a result of what transpired in the Committee proceedings and the explanations given to public dance-hall owners as to what course of action they could take in view of the fact that this restricted licence had not been granted, I have

  1411
  put down this new Clause. I was prompted to take this action because the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West made the following statement in the Standing Committee:
  "The public house is completely unsuitable for that"—
  that is, the type of licence which I am trying to prevent being granted—
  "and what I am asking the Committee to consider is something very much less than the ordinary public house licence, but which would give the patron of these places the opportunity of taking alcoholic drinks if he or she felt inclined to do so. The reason why I consider that the ordinary public house licence is unsuitable for this purpose is that the whole conception of a public house licence is the sale of drink. That is the main business of a public house, but it is not the main business of a dance hall…"
  The hon. Gentleman said later:
  "I must make it clear that there is nothing whatever to prevent a dance hall proprietor from applying for a public house licence under the present law, and is it because I consider that any tendency along those lines would be extremely undesirable that I move this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Scottish Standing Committee,10th May, 1962; c. 5–6.]
  That is precisely what I am attempting to do.
  It could be reasonably argued that a case could be made out for a restricted licence for a dance hall if the existing law was of such a character that something far worse and of a greater detriment to the young people who frequent dance halls could be applied for and granted. In Committee we went over all the arguments against even the granting of the restricted licence, and when it was shown clearly that there was no demand for this in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred and that the Guest Committee on the Scottish Licensing Law had not even addressed itself to this problem, the Under-Secretary decided not to accept the Amendment.
  A very unusual thing happened during the Committee proceedings when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West indicated that dance-hall proprietors could, under the existing law, apply for a full public-house licence. The Under-Secretary of State drew attention to the fact—I suppose to show that he was anxious to remain in the good graces of the dance-hall proprietors—that there was
  1412
  nothing to prevent them from applying under the 1959 Act for a full public-house licence. The dance-hall proprietors, and especially a few in Edinburgh, when asked for their views said, "We are disappointed that this restricted licence has not been granted. We shall certainly accept the advice of the Under-Secretary and will apply for a full public-house licence under the 1959 Act."
  If the sponsor of the restricted form of licence feels that it would be completely wrong that there should be a possibility of such a full licence being granted, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West will be one of my strongest supporters in making certain that no dance-hall proprietor will be able, under the new Measure, to apply for a full public-house licence.
  It has been clearly established that the incidence of drinking among the population under the age of 21 has trebled since 1946. We know that drunkenness among young people is on the increase, and, unfortunately, the prophecy is that it will continue to increase, because young people have more money to spend and the drink interests are spending far more money on advertising media to attract some of that surplus cash to themselves.
  We also know that the vast majority of people who frequent dance halls—and I make clear the distinction that we are dealing with public dance halls—are young people largely under the age of 21. Some of the girls who go to these dance halls go unaccompanied, that is, they may go there in twos and threes but they are not accompanied by a male escort. Parents feel that they are quite safe in allowing their teen-age daughters to frequent these places because no drink can be supplied in these places of public entertainment. But the whole position will alter if the threat materialises—and I think it is much more than a threat—by the owners of public dance halls, because they are unable through their spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West to obtain a restricted licence, that they will apply to the licensing courts for a full public-house licence.
  We shall be told that this is the law at present and that they could have applied for such a licence even if no Amendment for a restricted licence had

  1413
  been moved. But the fact remains that, so far, no application has been made, possibly because they felt that they would he able to succeed with the restricted form of certificate. Now that they have been thwarted in that desire I feel certain that their threat will be transplanted into reality and that there will be a flood of applications at the next licensing courts from public dance-hall proprietors seeking a full public-house licence. Such a licence means that they will have something which they could not have had under a restricted licence, namely, a public drinking bar.
  I remind the House that when a licensing court receives an application for a public-house licence it can only grant that public-house licence. It cannot grant a restricted form of licence. It will, of course. be entitled to grant a restricted licence to a restaurant. The only thing that the court will be able to grant to the applicant will be a public-house licence and the recipient will be entitled to operate just as if he were operating a public house with a bar, a cocktail bar, and all the other things which are associated with the granting of a full public-house certificate. I submit that the Government ought to support even at this stage my proposed new Clause if they feel, as they have felt, that it is wrong to grant a restricted licence. They ought to support a proposal to deal with an infinitely greater danger to the morals of young people than would have been involved in a restricted licence.
  There has been quite a controversy over this proposal to have a licence for public dance halls and I shall be told that the licensing court can refuse such an application. That is quite true, but I have had experience of licensing courts. I was once chairman of a licensing court and I know just how the composition and membership varies every three years in Scotland and how some members step out annually and new members come in their place. Unsuccessful application in one given year can easily become a successful application two or three years later.
  There is a classic case of one applicant—not in Glasgow—who applied for a public house certificate unsuccessfully on eleven separate occasions. He was so disgusted that he sold his premises. An individual who acquired the
  1414
  premises made the twelfth application to a new licensing court and it was promptly granted to him. I do not know why that was so, but that is a fact. Therefore, knowing full well that it is open to a licensing court to refuse to grant an application, and knowing also the operation of licensing courts from the inside, I should be afraid that, not at the coming licensing court but at some subsequent one, the first breach might be made in this refusal to grant a full public-house licence to a public dance hall and that once that breach was made there would be no stopping the flood of applications which in all reason and logic would have to be granted. We should then have brought within the reach of very young people a situation in which they could go to public dance halls and, if they so desired, engage in all the facilities which are provided by a full public-house licence.
  6.45 p.m.
  I have received more correspondence on this subject during my short period in the House of Commons, from anxious parents when we defeated the proposal to have a restricted licence, than on any other subject that has come before Parliament during my membership. I shudder to think what these same parents in Scotland will feel if we fail today to accept this Clause which is designed to deal with something far worse than that dealt with by a restricted licence and which will cause justifiable fears and worries in the minds of parents about their teenage children frequenting public dance halls where public-house licences are in operation.
  As for subsection (2) of the Clause, there are in existence some public houses where dancing is permitted. I submit that it wrong that dancing, for which no charge is made and for which the only qualification for entry is that one buys a drink, should be available in public-house premises. But, unfortunately, they exist and especially, and surprisingly, in the great city of Edinburgh, where there is quite a number of such establishments. One can think of the type of females who will go to these places to become the partners of the males who go there.
  A duty is laid on the licensee to ensure that no women of low repute repair to his premises, or, at least, to ensure that

  1415
  he does not allow them to enter knowingly, but we should consider how this situation might develop. In Scotland the tradition is that wives do not accompany husbands into public houses. I hope that the tradition will long continue. At present, therefore, the male individual goes to the public house where there are facilities for dancing, and I ask hon. Members what type of women we could expect to be frequenting a place where there was a public-house licence in order to accompany for dancing men who had entered the premises without partners. What type of woman should we epect to go to these places as dancing partners?
  Young people, too, are enabled and entitled to go into these places and engage in dancing if these facilities are provided. It is wrong that this should be permitted. A public house is either a public house or it is a place with a restaurant, and it is quite wrong that people should be admitted without payment and be permitted to engage in dancing. in establishments in which the prime purpose is the sale of drink, and in which the more drink that is sold the merrier become both the owners and the patrons themselves.
  Therefore, subsection (2) seeks to prohibit public dancing in public houses. I know that there will be arguments about hotels and so on, but I put those places in a different category. My main concern, as the result of our deliberations in Committee, is that we should at least prohibit or prevent an application coming before a licensing court for a full public-house licence for a public dance hall. The situation which I have envisaged will arise very soon because of the threats made by the owners of public dance halls, and also because of the fact that such a licence could quite easily be granted by a licensing court.
  There is far too much nowadays of businesses changing their main purposes. I read in the newspapers recently that the Scottish Greyhound Association was switching from greyhound racing—because the profits have been falling heavily owing to the declining numbers attending this sport—to bowling alleys, licensed restaurants and all sorts of other things. If the licensing courts began granting public-house licences to dance
  1416
  halls that were beginning to feel the pinch of competition—because that is why they would turn to it—we should be reduced to a very sorry state of affairs indeed.
  In conclusion, the best thing I can do is to quote some words of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, because he was most anxious to have this provision and was one who realised the danger that I am seeking to prevent. He said:
  "I am very much afraid that if a licence of the kind I suggest is not provided there will be an undesirable tendency for the provision of licences under public house conditions. There would be much greater difficulty in control. The primary object of the licence holder would be the sale of drink, not the provision of entertainment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Scottish Standing Committee,10th May, 1962; c. 8].
  The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West knows exactly what he is talking about, and he is keenly interested in getting this reform. He knows full well that what he said in Committee is likely to materialise if we do not approve this new Clause.
  Mr. John Henderson: I am in complete agreement with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). I represent a constituency in the City of Glasgow, which is a great industrial centre, and during my weekends at home since this Bill was produced I have honestly and sincerely tried to find the pulse of a great many of the people in that city.
  I have interviewed a cross-section of the community, from ministers and social workers to people engaged in the realm of sport and in many other aspects of life. I have never yet come across any parent of young folks, or even young folks themselves, who ever anticipated that the day would dawn when applications for liquor licences would be submitted in connection with dance halls. I do not think there is the slightest demand for it, or that a step in this direction was ever anticipated.
  I have received many communications from various agencies, and I was interviewed by the proprietors of two of the biggest dance halls in Glasgow. They used the argument that their income was being reduced and that they were being faced with a certain amount of financial loss. One of the arguments

  1417
  which they put forward was that good hotels in the city on certain nights of the week, generally Saturdays, were organising dinner dances, and that they were attracting some of the young folks who generally attended public dance halls. Consequently, their business was suffering. I suggest that there is no comparison between the public dance hall and the hotel dinner and dance, because those who go to hotels to enjoy dinner and dancing are generally accompanied by their partners. Very often, young people are accompanied by their fathers and mothers, and it is sometimes a family affair, which is entirely different from the circumstances in the public dance halls in big cities.
  In order to become acquainted with all the circumstances, I visited two of the dance halls in Glasgow. There were at least 700 young people in these halls, land the procedure which is adopted there is that the young people stand in groups of generally up to a dozen, the young men in one group, and, a little distance away, a similar number of young women. Very few of them go as partners, and when the dance band strikes up, a young man looks around him, selects a partner, and, after the dance is over, rejoins his friends in the group, which may be up to a dozen or a dozen and a half.
  Think of a bar being introduced here, and of liquor being supplied to young people. Let us think also of a young man taking more than is good for him and losing complete control of himself. He may not be drunk or anything like it, but he bas now become a big man and is somebody. He goes forward to a young lady, whom he has never seen before and to whom he has not been introduced, and requests her to have a dance with him. She notices the smell of liquor and is not too pleased with his general appearance, and so she says, "No, I do not want this dance."
  I am told that this very seldom happens, as a matter of fact, because it is not looked upon as the right thing to refuse a dance. Therefore, the young man feels aggrieved, and that begins a row. He becomes a little bitter, ungentlemanly in his conduct, someone else takes the young lady's side of the argument, and, sooner or later, there is a good deal of disturbance. This
  1418
  sort of thing may not take place in the country districts, but it is certainly a possibility, and indeed a probability, in the big industrial cities in public dance halls.
  It has also been stated that the question of parental control comes in here. Very many parents have spoken to me about this after it was discussed in Committee. They were alarmed that in these days, when there are sufficient temptations to destroy family life in the big cities, and, perhaps, in the countryside too, that this additional vexatious question of supplying liquor in public dance halls should now arise.
  7.0 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Shettleston no doubt has great experience of this matter. Having been Provost of the City of Glasgow for a number of years he must have intimate knowledge of the circumstances that I have described. He must also be familiar with the situation in licensing courts, having been a member of one, as I have. He will doubtless agree that, very often, a bench may be composed of individuals who are anxious to play their full part on behalf of the city they represent, but within eighteen months or two years—or, at the most three years—there is a complete change in the personnel of that court. In those circumstances it can easily happen that although the court had originally refused a licence, the same court, composed of new members, grants a licence in spite of all objections.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston that if the Clause is not accepted there will be demands by countless people in the big cities for licences equivalent to public-house licences. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the difficulties that may arise in those circumstances and will support the Clause in order to maintain and try to improve the moral standards of the people living in the big cities.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I support the new Clause. It would be one of the worst things that the House could do to permit dance halls eventually to become mainly suppliers of liquor. Ballroom dancing is a delightful pastime, and I do not want to see it cheapened. I do not

  1419
  want to see the creation of institutions which will drive out the lovers of ball-room dancing and attract the wrong sort of people in their place.
  Many hon. Members will know of dance halls which have acquired licences because it was believed that cheaper dancing could be provided if liquor were sold. I know of three dance halls—not in Scotland—where this was done. Eventually those dance halls went out of existence, because they attracted un- desirable elements who drove out the lovers of ballroom dancing. Only one of those dance halls has been re-established, and that one is not now licensed. It has built up a new reputation, and has attracted back lovers of ballroom dancing.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) stated that golf clubs could not continue unless they were permitted to sell liquor. He said that the economics of golf clubs were such that they had to make profits out of liquor in order to provide golf. All I can say is that it would be a shocking state of affairs if we had to depend upon selling alcoholic liquor to teen-agers in order to make dancing available for them.
  My children and I are able to enjoy dancing because the church of which we are members created facilities in its church hall. I wish that that sort of thing were done on a greater scale. It would be far better if social activities were centred round a church rather than a dance hall, especially one which can sell alcohol.
  A further most undesirable possibility is that teen-agers will come out of these dance halls, after having taken alcoholic liquors, and drive away in cars. That would be most undesirable. The temperature in a dance hall is fairly high, and the atmosphere is a little stuffy, and I am told that although it is possible to drink whisky for hours indoors and to feel quite all right, When one goes out into the fresh air one gets a shock. I do not know whether that is so. I have no experience of the matter. Perhaps some hon. Members opposite can confirm this.
  Mr. Ross: The shook comes before that—when one gets the bill.
  Mr. Bence: If that is true in the case of a person who comes out of a hotel or a licensed house, how much more must it be true of one who comes out of a dance hall, having spent three or four hours there? I should have thought that it was rather a stupid thing to take alcohol and to dance at the same time. If I tried it I am sure that I should be flat on my back. From what little experience I have had of the matter, and from what little I have seen, drinking in dance halls is more likely to cause friction and trouble inside than outside.
  Lastly, I am told that although most of them have no particular views on drinking, 80 per cent. of the young women who go to dance halls will refuse to dance with a stranger if they believe that he has been drinking. I have been told that more rows, fights and serious disturbances are caused in dance hails over the refusal of a young lady to dance with a man than over anything else. A man may have had only one glass of beer, but his breath may smell, and a young lady may refuse to dance with him. Does the Secretary of State want to encourage disturbances arising from this sort of thing?
  A young lady may fear that a man Who has had too much to drink may tread upon her expensive shoes. When a man has had a few drinks he is liable to knock his partner's shoes about when he dances, and shoes are rather expensive, as are nylons. In such circumstances things can become very difficult. There are some young men on both sides of the House who may have experience of these things. I have no doubt that they could confirm or deny what I am saying.
  I 'hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Clause. I am sure that its purpose is supported by the vast majority of the people of Scotland. They do not want to see the creation, throughout Scotland, of institutions which provide cheaper dancing and plenty of liquor to go with it. It may be desirable for a hotel or a well-equipped club to provide other amenities; there are institutions where drinking is not the only occupation. But where there is dancing it would be quite undesirable to permit liquor to be sold.
  Mr. Ross: I had hoped that, by this time, the Secretary of State would have

  1421
  shaken himself from his silent lethargy and uttered the magic words that he was prepared on this occasion to accept the new Clause. Seemingly, he is not so stirred. I am disappointed because, if there was one thing which was exhibited during our proceedings in Committee, it was the feeling of the people in Scotland about drinking in public dance halls. Yet haw near we were to this "gutless" Government giving in to their own back benchers. But for the fact that we carried the debate from a Thursday over the weekend to the Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate would have been prepared to sell the pass. It was only the reaction of the Scottish people displayed during the weekend on radio and television and in the Press which prevented them. Why did not the Under-Secretary of State seize the chance to get up and answer the debate earlier when, time after time, members of his own flock were pushing the interests of those who wanted to introduce drinking into Scottish dance halls?
  I am surprised that we have heard nothing today from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) who started all this, and for the best of all reasons, because he wanted to prevent public house licences in dance halls. If the hon. Gentleman wants to prevent public house licences in dance halls, he can join us in the Lobby tonight. Where is the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)?
  Mr. J. Grimond: Dancing, I expect.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman may be nearer the truth than he thinks. The hon. Member for Ayr will be doing the Parliamentary "twist" as usual. The hon. Member gave us a speech in which he supported the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West not on account of tales of what happens to young people in dance halls which have public house licences but because the dance halls were facing competition from dinner-dances and so on, and his hon Friend's proposal offered them a way to keep alive.
  This was not the hon. Gentleman's last word on the subject. I am one of his constituents. I was born in his constituency, I live there, and I read the
  1422
  local paper. On the following Friday, to my surprise, I read a letter to the editor of that paper from the hon. Member for Ayr explaining that he had supported his hon. Friend's proposal originally because he was worried about public house licences being granted in ballrooms—something which he had never mentioned in his speech here—and apologising for what he had done. I presume, therefore, that he, too, will join us in the Lobby to fend off the bogy which he has raised.
  The dangerous consequence of the tactic adopted by hon. Members opposite is that, if people had not been thinking previously about getting public house, licences in ballrooms, they are thinking about it now. One thing which the Under-Secretary of State did when replying eventually to the debate—it took about four hours before he rose to his feet—was to clear away any misunderstandings which might have prevented people from applying. I think that he will agree that I am not being unfair about this. I will read his words if he likes, but I think that he will be prepared to accept my paraphrase.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State said that there had been some misunderstanding and ballroom proprietors may have thought that they were under an obligation to keep their premises open for the full extent of permitted hours. He said that this was not true, and the Government were taking pains in Clause 3 (4) to put this into print. If there had been any misunderstanding, this would clear it up. Secondly, he said that, in adjudicating on whether or not such a licence should be granted, a licensing court had no need to take into consideration whether there were plenty of licensed premises in the area. This applied particularly to Glasgow, of course, where the public ballrooms are generally in the centre of the city where no one could say that there was any lack of public house facilities round about. All that, he said, can be set aside by the licensing bench, more or less clearing the way and giving an indication to the licensing magistrates that the Government were not averse to that course being taken.
  I know that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us tonight that we can rely upon the good sense of the licensing

  1423
  magistrates. I have not seen his brief but I am fairly sure that that is what it will be. So far, in the greater part of Scotland, the magistrates have not been so foolish as even to countenance any such licences, except in Edinburgh, of all places. I think that this is right. As I recall it, there are only 12 or 13 such places, and most are in Edinburgh.
  Sir M. Galpern: All in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Ross: All in Edinburgh.
  I shall not start rushing to Edinburgh right away. The place to go for dancing is Glasgow. We take our dancing seriously. We take a pride in our dancing. We glory in it. There is a great deal of fun for young people in dancing; it is an excellent relaxation and enjoyment. This is what the youngsters want. They do not want drink mixed up with it. As I said in Committee, they want Mr. Acker Bilk but they do not want Johnnie Walker.
  The other point about the licensing bench is that we are due to have another Bill about licensing. No doubt, many hon. Members do not look forward to this prospect with any great joy. This further Bill will deal with the licensing bench. My guess is that it will eventually wipe out the powers of magistrates in relation to this matter and hand them over to some other authority. We do not know who that other authority will be. Although we know what licensing benches have hitherto done and what their attitude has been, we have no guarantee that the replacement will be as good. But we shall be tied to what is decided in regard to the possibility of public-house licences in public ballrooms.
  I myself was not worried about this subject until the hon. Gentleman raised it. However, if the seed was not there, it is there now firmly planted in the minds of some ballroom proprietors. One ballroom proprietor, one of the best known and most highly respected, with considerable experience of every aspect of ballroom work in Glasgow and in Scotland, has said that the introduction of drink into the ballroom will lead to a lowering of the moral tone of the ballroom.
  With all these factors in mind, apart from the powerful objections raised by
  1424
  my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), I ask the Government to judge the merits of the new Clause. How can the Under-Secretary of State reassure us now about the dangers which were enough to rouse many kirks and sufficient to stir Conservative Members to turn in their tracks and vote against their own proposal—that is what happened between the Thursday and the Tuesday—and then send letters to their constituents apologising for their original sin? How can he assure us that the dangers are not ever present and will not increase because the hon. Gentleman clarified the law and made it easier by Clause 3 (4) for the ballroom proprietors to have this licence?
  I regret very much that the discussion on the Bill, which I hoped would be non-controversial, got off on the wrong foot and that the Under-Secretary of State submitted to the pressure behind him and to the organised gang which was prepared to support the brewers. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what the hon. Member for Ayr said in his closing words on this matter:
  "I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will have the judgment and good sense to accept them"—
  that is, the Tory Amendments asking for drink in ballrooms—
  "because otherwise I am afraid he is in for some trouble."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Scottish Standing Committee,10th May, 1962; c. 38.]
  If ever there was a threat, that was it. Of course the hon. Gentleman got trouble, and he backed down in relation to clubs. However, I hope that he will face up to his hon. Friends now and will appreciate the danger of ballrooms having public house licences. I hope that he will rise to the occasion and, for once, will listen to my hon. Friends and will accept the new Clause. If he does not do that and things take the turn which his hon. Friend said they would take, then we are in for trouble; and goodness knows the Secretary of State is in deep enough trouble at the moment.
  Mr. Maclay: I cannot remember an occasion in the last 5½ years when I was not in trouble.
  Mr. Ross: This is an occasion when the right hon. Gentleman can lighten his

  1425
  burden of trouble. He has had other opportunities in the past and has failed to take them. Let him take this one and accept tie new Clause.
  Mr. Brooman-White: For the gratification of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), let me endeavour to answer this case without the brief. Let me first deal with some points which the hon. Gentleman raised about the conduct of the discussion on this Clause upstairs. He saw some rather sinister significance in the fact that the winding-up speech was not made until the debate had run for a considerable time. Let me tell the Committee—this is perhaps unusual for someone who is an ex-Whip—what was in my mind in rising late in that debate. We were anxious to make progress with the Bill, and we were having the co-operation, which we appreciated, of hon. Members opposite. A lot of hon. Members wished to speak.
  It will be the experience of hon. Members who know the practice and atmosphere of Scottish Committees that often an intervention from the Front Bench, rather than curtailing discussion, merely gives substance on which further speeches can be founded. It is always a matter of judgment at which stage one can intervene most effectively to get the business through and at the same time to have a reasonable, proper and sound consideration given to matters, which the Scottish Committee always gives to its affairs. There was nothing more sinister in it than that. We have no intention of accepting the Amendment, which we had considered very carefully beforehand. I took the trouble to make some investigations into it beforehand.
  Hon Members opposite believe that there is a danger of a substantial number of certificates being granted to dance halls if we fail to make an alteration in the existing law. If we thought that there was any possibility of those things occurring which hon. Members fear, we should be just as worried as they are. We do not think that there is any such danger. It is not for me to speculate on teenage reactions—I am getting a little out of touch with them as the years go by—but I am fortified by the view of a number of hon. Members which coincide with mine, namely, that one has the impression that most teenagers do not want drink in their dance
  1426
  halls. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to men who ruined their dance halls by allowing people to take drink into them. If we felt that there was any serious prospect of drink being available in teenage dance halls, we should be deeply concerned and would deplore any such development. But that is not what we are concerned about.
  The problem which was put to us was that there is a certain number of dance halls in Edinburgh which traditionally have catered for an entirely different clientele. They are frequented, and have habitually been frequented for a long time, by young and middle-aged married people and provide facilities for dancing very similar to those provided by the hotel lounge. The dance-hall proprietors argue, with a certain amount of justification, that, because people can go to a hotel lounge and find that type of music and atmosphere and have a drink, they tend to slip away to the hotel lounge for a drink. They say that if this sort of facility is available in a hotel, why should not it be available in a dance hall? Under the existing law, if a dance hall can convince the local licensing court that no danger will arise, it can have a public-house licence.
  The second leg of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir. M. Galpern) suggests that dancing in public houses is an evil which should stop. I know that in certain areas of Scotland—for instance, in Glasgow—local action is taken and music is not permitted in public houses. In other areas, such as Edinburgh, there is dancing with facilities for drink in public houses. The hon. Member for Shettleston drew a very gloomy picture of what might occur if drinking connected with dancing were allowed. This has not been the experience in Edinburgh, where the police assure us that there has been no undue disturbance in public houses which have dancing and drinking. These places have not presented the police with a problem.
  The police also assure us—this weighed very heavily in our consideration—that they feel that there is a limited number of dance halls in which no public danger would arise if there were facilities for drink. These are dance halls which cater for an elderly, "square" clientele

  1427
  which do not want teen-agers in because they would disturb their clientele. Teen-agers would be extremely unlikely to go to them because the atmosphere in them appeals not to teen-ages but to "squares". The view of the police in those areas is that danger will not arise.
  We can see no likelihood of trouble which would justify us in making any change in the existing law. I think that the fears which have been expressed are unfounded. I hope that people in Scotland will accept this and will find that those fears are unfounded. We have had no advice from those who should know which suggests that any change in the law in this respect is necessary.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal a little more carefully with some of the points which have been made. He has talked loosely about certain dance hall proprietors and the clientele that frequent the dance halls. I take it that he was referring to the larger dance halls that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson). The Under-Secretary spoke as if the clientele and the proprietors did not want the teen-agers. Was he saying that they would exclude the teen-ager? Of course they would not. We know that large crowds of teen-agers go to many of the large dance halls.
  There is an age limit for the supply of alcoholic liquor. Presumably, if the Government get their way, alcoholic liquor is to be available in the dance halls. What precautions are there in the Bill to ensure that under age teen-agers who would be in a dance hall would not either be served with, or get from their friends, liquor which could be procured by those who are over age in the dance hall? This is a new danger to which teen-agers will be submitted by an extension such as is proposed by the Government.
  Mr. Brooman-White: There would be no greater danger than now exists in other places where there are facilities for dancing and drinking. As regards the exclusion of teen-agers, a number of dance halls which cater for an older
  1428
  clientele display a notice saying that people under the age of 21 are not admitted. If that were violated, the licensing court having granted a certificate on the assumption that a dance hall was not frequented by teen-agers, the fact would, no doubt, be brought to the notice of the court by the police and it seems to me to be inherently unlikely that the certificate would be renewed. That would, therefore, be a safeguard.
  Miss Herbison: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettlestan (Sir M. Galpern) will press the Clause to a Division. I say this because, again, the answer of the Under-Secretary has not been convincing. He has told us that if he felt that the fears which have been expressed on this side of the House and by only one hon. Member opposite had any basis, he would be worried, as we are. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about dance halls in Edinburgh for the young married people and the middle-aged married people, but those who have spoken in the debate are extremely worried about our young people. We know from the result of the debate upstairs that many parents in Scotland are also extremely worried.
  Today, parents can be happy to know that when their sons and daughters, but particularly their daughters, go to a public dance hall, they are going to one where no drink will be available. Naturally, these parents are worried about what might follow the taking of drink in dance halls. When we are legislating, we ought to take the greatest care for our young people.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is not present. It is also interesting that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has not spoken in the debate. It seems to me that the Government rejected the Clause in Committee only because they were able to convince their supporters that what they had been trying to get all along could have been got by the dance halls. It was as a result of that debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston put down the Clause, because he wanted to ensure that these dance halls, where our young people should be able to go freely, their parents knowing that they would be in good, happy surroundings, should not be licensed.

  1429
  am certain that the majority of our people, even those who are not teetotal, including many parents who themselves may have a drink, would not want their young people to go to dance halls where drink was provided. The majority of Scottish people will, I feel sure, support the Clause. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that my hon. Friend had painted

  Division No. 244.

  AYES

  17.36 p.m.

  Awbery, Stan

  Hilton, A. V.

  Ross, William

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hooson, H. E.

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Bence, Cyril

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

  Fitch, Alan

  Lubbock, Eric

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Harper, Joseph

  Manuel, Archie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mason, Roy

  Mr. Hannan and

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  piummer, Sir Leslie

  Sir Myer Galpern.

  NOES

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Biffen, John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Noble, Michael

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Osbom, John (Hallam)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

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

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Box, Donald

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Brewis, John

  Hobson, Sir John

  Percival, Ian

  Brooman-White, R.

  Holland, Philip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hollingworth, John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Buck, Antony

  Hornby, R. P.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Burden, F. A.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  James, David

  Rees, Hugh

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Roots, William

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Seymour, Leslie

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sharpies, Richard

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth.W.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Skeet, T. H, H.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Collard, Richard

  Lambton, Viscount

  Smithers, Peter

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Talbot, John E.

  Coulson, Michael

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Tapsell, Peter

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Longbottom, Charles

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Curran, Charles

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'str, Moss Side)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Temple, John M.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thatcher, Mrs, Margaret

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McLaren, Martin

  Thornton-Kemsley Sir Colin

  Donaldson, cmdr. C. E. M.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  du Cann, Edward

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Walder, David

  Duncan, Sir James

  Marshall, Douglas

  Walker, Peter

  Eden, John

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Wall, Patrick

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, William

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Gilmour, Sir John

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Montgomery, Fergus

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Mr. Michael Hamilton and

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, William

  Mr. Batsford.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  too lurid a picture. I do not think so. For that reason, I hope that we vote on the Clause.
  Question put,That the Clause be read a second time:—
  The House Divided:Ayes 35,Noes130.

  New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO INSPECTION OF CLUBS BY POLICE.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the chief constable of a police force may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

  (a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration, being one of the grounds of objection specified in section one hundred and seventy-four of the principal Act; or

  (b) that an offence under the principal Act or this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;

  authorise a member of the said force, who shall not be below the rank of sergeant, to enter and inspect the premises of the club at any time or times.
  (2) A member of a police force may, when acting by virtue of an authority given under subsection (1) of this section, be accompanied by another member of that force.
  (3) If any person fails to admit a member of a police force who demands entry to the premises of a registered club by virtue of, or of an authority given under, this section or obstructs the entry to the premises of such a member, or if any person fails to allow a member of a police force who has entered any such premises by virtue of, or, of an authority given under, this section to inspect those premises or obstructs such a member in inspecting the premises, he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
  (4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the provisions of section one hundred and seventy-nine of the principal Act (which empowers a justice of the peace or a magistrate in certain circumstances to grant a warrant authorising a constable to enter the premises of a registered club, to search those premises, to seize documents and to take the names and addresses of persons found the re).(Sir M. Galpern.)
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this new Clause we can take the next two, that in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) (Police inspection of registered clubs), and that in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) (Police inspection of clubs), and we can also consider the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to the Second Schedule, in page 28, line 46, after "(1)", to insert "(a)", and in line 48, at the end, to insert:
  "(b) after the words 'off-sales certificate is in force' there shall be inserted the words or the premises of a registered club' and at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following proviso:
  1432
  Provided that, in respect of registered clubs, a member of the police force below the rank of inspector shall not exercise any power of entry conferred by this section unless he has previously obtained the authority in writing of a justice of the peace, magistrate or member of a police force of or above the said rank and shall not exercise such power later than eight days from the date of such authority and shall exercise it at such time or times only as may be specified in the authority"
  There can, if necessary, be a Division also on the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
  Sir M. Galpern: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I am glad to see the Secretary of State in his place to listen to what I think is a very important consideration in connection with licensing. There has been a remarkable volte face on the part of the Government. Upstairs in Committee the Government moved a new Clause which was to replace the ill-fated Clause 16 and which carried out, more or less, the recommendations of the Guest Committee regarding the inspection of registered clubs. For some reason or another best known to the Government they decided that that was too drastic a measure. We know that as a result of colossal pressure brought to bear upon them by their own political interests, members of their Tory clubs and related clubs of that kind, they decided not to proceed with Clause 16 and brought in what they thought was a compromise Clause.
  It was the most fantastic compromise Clause one could have had. I think that they knew before they started that the new Clause which they proposed in Committee was one which would never receive the support either of those in favour of inspecting clubs or of those against the inspection of clubs, and, as was anticipated even by the Government, the Clause was ultimately defeated.
  Having introduced, first, Clause 16, which was a reasonable Clause, which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) seeks to reintroduce with a minor amendment, and having then dropped it, and then having introduced a compromise Clause on which they were defeated, why do the Government take no action at this stage to introduce a Clause which would in effect carry out what, I think, were the most decisive recommendations of

  1433
  the Guest Committee? It was a Committee which was sot up by the Government themselves, and they charged the Committee with several duties among which was consideration of the question of the supervision of registered clubs.
  A serious aspect of this problem is that the number of registered clubs has grown from 700 in 1938 to 1,245 in 1959. That is a remarkable increase. I shall not now deal with the reasons for the increase. Suffice it to say that they are mainly there for the purpose of selling drink and that to that extent they are welcomed by the drink interests and encouraged in all their various activities.
  But that increase is staggering and the Guest Committee itself said:
  "As we have already indicated, we have received a considerable volume of representations to the effect that there is a type of club which exists primarily for the supply of liquor on Sundays."
  The Committee went on to deal with the question of supervision, saying:
  "It is equally important in our view that they should be subject to the same supervision by the police."
  That is to say, the same supervision as that to which ordinary public houses and hotels are subject at present.
  The Committee went on:
  "This is a matter on which we have received a great deal of evidence and we are entirely satisfied that the existing law makes it unduly difficult for the police to exercise adequate control over the conduct of clubs."
  At present, the law says that only by the granting of a warrant by a magistrate authorising the inspection of a club, or the seizure of documents in a club, can that action be carried out. For some reason or other clubs have been completely exempted from the kind of supervision exercised by the police over respectable hotels—some of the most respectable in the country—and of the most outstanding, modern and contemporary public houses.
  Why do not the Government act in the light of the evidence, and of the recommendations of the Guest Committee? Having made two attempts, why do not the Government make a third attempt, in the hope that something can be done? The Government seemed keen to do something, but now I understand the position to be that, having failed in their efforts, they propose to leave the whole
  1434
  business alone and to take no further action. Is that a reasonable attitude for a Government to adopt over an important matter, they having referred it to an outstanding Committee which gave the matter great consideration? It is not as though, at the outset, the Government rejected recommendations on these lines. They have had two "stabs" at it, but, because they were unsuccessful in respect of both they are now proposing to act in a childish fashion. They are, in effect, saying, "If you do not want it the way we want it, we will not play with you any more."
  The Government make no effort to try to introduce something which would prove acceptable to the House as a whole. Even the Under-Secretary of State said in an offhand way, "Well, we are going to defend this new Clause", as if to say, "If you do not want to have it, we will do nothing at all about it." Why did the Minister fail to pay attention to the recommendations of the Guest Committee, which said, in paragraph 60 of its Report:
  "Under existing law, however, there is already a police right of entry into even the residential accommodation of licensed hotels of the highest standing and repute, and no evidence has been put before us to suggest that this is generally resented or leads to undesirable consequences. We understand in fact that it is very seldom that fault is found with the method of police supervision of that type of establishment; no doubt this is because the police show a considerable measure of tact and discretion in performing this duty. In our view the genuine club would not find police supervision burdensome and would have no more reason than the genuine hotel has to resent a police visit from time to time, whereas"—
  and this is very significant—
  "we can conceive of no more salutary method of preventing breaches of the law in the less strictly conducted type of establishment."
  The new Clause submitted by the Government during the Committee stage was not accepted because it was a farcical proposition. Under its provisions. a chief constable, having satisfied himself that club members were misbehaving, would issue a warning twelve weeks in advance, and for no shorter period than eight days, that he was proposing to send somebody to inspect the club if they did not behave themselves. If there was still reason to believe that the misbehaviour was continuing, a police sergeant would appear on the scene.

  1435
  Obviously, after a warning of that kind over such a length of time, the club members would have had an opportunity to "pull up their socks" and become paragons of virtue, so that no one would be able to find fault with them. Afterwards, they could misbehave themselves again and the chief constable would have to go through the same warning procedure all over again. There was no limit to the number of warnings which could be given. It was not a case that, having given one warning, a second one would not be given. It was necessary for the chief constable to go through the same procedure, using the same machinery, each time.
  My Clause represents a compromise. I seek to embody within its provisions some of the features of the "substitution Clause" introduced during the Committee stage by the Government, and recommendations of the Guest Committee. I have compromised with the terms of the old Clause 16 which gave free entry to a police inspector into licensed premises without any warning whatever, by introducing a proviso that such inspection shall not be authorised unless, as it says in the new Clause, a chief constable,
  "has reasonable grounds for believing … that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration …"
  I am "marrying" the old Clause 16 to this new Clause—in an endeavour to produce an "offspring" which will be acceptable to the Government—by saying that there will not be indiscriminate, unregulated free entry to clubs by police officers, such as the Guest Committee recommended. I am narrowing it to the extent that only if a chief constable had reasonable grounds for believing that misbehaviour was occurring would he authorise an inspection by someone not below the rank of sergeant, not an ordinary police constable as at present. I am glad to be able to move this Clause, because I wish to overcome the present difficulties and desire that the recommendations of the Guest Committee should have some bearing and be recognised by the House during the formulation of the provisions in the Bill.
  We know that quite a lot of unseemly conduct and a great deal of misbehaviour—to put it mildly—occurs in a number of registered clubs. Are we,
  1436
  in effect, to say in the Bill—the Guest Committee having recommended supervision by the police of public houses and licensed hotels—that the clubs are to be told, "You are such well-behaved boys that we shall not even inspect you"? That would encourage club members to defy every form of the licensing laws. Quite a lot of misbehaviour goes on, but it is difficult to establish that fact. I hope, therefore, that attention will be paid to the recommendations of the Guest Committee and that the desires of the Government, thwarted as they were during the Committee stage proceedings, will be resuscitated. I hope that the House will agree that this may be achieved by enabling a police officer, of no lower rank than a sergeant, to visit these clubs.
  I am not saying that I am happy about the wording of the Clause. I prefer the original Clause 16. But I am anxious to effect a compromise and to be helpful. I agree that there should be some supervision; and that where a chief constable had reasonable grounds for believing that a misdemeanour had been committed, or misbehaviour was occurring, he would, without the warning originally proposed—which was a stupid proposition—authorise a member of the police force, not below the rank of sergeant, to carry out an inspection. That would contribute to the proper and better operation of the provisions pertaining to registered clubs, especially in view of the many additional facilities which they have been given by the new Clauses introduced by the Secretary of State.
  In view of the mildness of the provisions in the Clause, and the desire to weld opinion on both sides of the House, I hope that hon. Members will agree to give the Clause a Second Reading.
  8.0 p.m.
  Commander C. E. M. Donaldson (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): There are certain traditions of this House which relate to the occupancy of the Chair, not only in the main Chamber but in the Committee on a Bill upstairs. I am well aware of the fact that if an hon. Member is designated to occupy the Chair for the Committee stage of a Bill upstairs it is not considered appropriate or proper that he should address

  1437
  the House on Second Reading of a Bill. I was in that position in relation to the Bill we are considering. Therefore, on Second Reading I deprived myself by precept of the House from declaring my feelings in relation to police inspection of clubs.
  Being the occupant of the Chair in Committee upstairs, naturally I had to consider points of order during discussions which ensued over what appeared to me a very long period of sittings. If it had been a precept of the House that those who had occupied the Chair in Committee should also be considered to be acting somewhat improperly if they addressed the House when it considered the Bill on Report and Third Reading. I would not have taken part now. That, however, is not a precept of the House, nor is it considered that anyone on the Panel of Chairmen must by precept refrain from speaking on Report.
  Had I been able to speak on Second Reading and not been the occupant of the Clair in Committee upstairs in the deliberations on this Bill, I would have spoken and voted against Clause 16 as it was originally introduced. I should have found it difficult to agree to the Government's substitute new Clause which was introduced when the original Clause 16 was suspended during the consideration upstairs. I should hesitate to rise even now in relation to the new Clause put before the House by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) if I did not feel deeply on the subject or if I were in any way inhibited by the rules of the House.
  I have based my thinking, however, not necessarily on the observations of what may or may not transpire in Glasgow where the hon. Member has his seat and where he has held the distinguished position of Lord Provost. I have based my thinking, as one is inclined to do, on my own constituency. In Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles there are 41 registered clubs. I have had representations from more than 30 of those clubs, all of them reputable and all of them comprising members who are people in various walks of life.
  In particular I draw the attention of the House to the clubs in the largest town in my constituency, Hawick. I
  1438
  had representations from nine clubs in Hawick. They were united in feeling resentment against Clause 16 as it was originally introduced. The members of those nine clubs are 3,000 of my constituents. In the main they would be considered in other clubs to be members of working men's clubs. They felt resentment that their clubs should cease to be private and should be open to inspection as any licensed hotel may be.
  I do not propose at this stage to go into detailed argument why they felt as they did, but they certainly represented their feelings strongly to me and I represented them to my right hon. Friend. Once I was nominated for the Chair of the Committee it was not right or reasonable that I should take further action, but I rise now to oppose the proposition and the new Clause put forward by the hon. Member for Shettleston.
  Sir M. Galpern: May we take it that Jedburgh is in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member? I had a letter from a minister in Jedburgh supporting inspection of registered clubs.
  Commander Donaldson: That may well be. Jedburgh is certainly in my constituency. I wonder, however, if the hon. Member has received any communication from Jedburgh Conservative Club, which in the main consists of what he would think are, and I believe are, decent, honest working folk. They work in the mills of Jedburgh and they resent the thought of police intrusion in a private club.
  I am not competent to speak about Glasgow, for I do not know the conditions of some of the registered clubs there, but I do know the conditions of clubs in my constituency. I am sure that if the House were to reverse the decision taken in Committee there would be even more resentment, not only against the Government, but against hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported a new Clause to allow police to intrude in private clubs. I have in mind the remarks of the Lord Chancellor in another place when the English Bill was going through Parliament. I should have thought that Scots Members of Parliament would have thought deeply before they imposed a condition which was not applicable in

  1439
  England and was excluded from the English Bill.
  It is my firm belief—my right hon. Friend may wish to consider this when he replies to the debate that there are already provisions in Scottish law which are quite competent to deal with the recalcitrant club whose members abuse the law. I am certain that the law in Scotland is much more easily enforced than the similar law in England. I am convinced that there is ample provision to deal with the misconduct of clubs or members of clubs. They can be dealt with adequately by chief constables and other members of the police force in Scotland. Therefore, I must raise my voice against acceptance of this new Clause.
  Mr. Ross: If things were as easy as the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) suggests, he may take it from me that we should not be pursuing this battle on the subject of inspection. It is not so easy for chief constables or police forces to act as he would wish the House to believe it is. Will he tell me Why the chief constables, including the chief constable of his area, request that this power should be granted to them, and that this change should be made?
  The hon. and gallant Member will be aware of the existing power Which is provided in Section 179 of the principal Act, which states:
  "If a justice of the peace or magistrate is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
  (a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of of its certificate of registration,…"
  or,
  "(b) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;
  he may by warrant authorise a constable to enter the premises of such club …"
  and so on. It is not so easy to get a warrant because evidence has to be obtained on oath. Secondly, proceedings in relation to a club taken under that provision would be very much more offensive to the people of Ha wick, and certainly to people in Kilmarnock, than what is recommended in the procedure suggested by this new Clause.
  Commander Donaldson: The operative words, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) underlined, are, "on oath". I should sooner that the members of clubs in my three counties and the troubles to which they are subjected were dealt with by information on oath than by what might well be considered to be information by tittle-tattle or such other things as come to the attention of the police. It was on that point that my constituents felt deeply. The point on which my constituents mainly object is that of the police entering clubs without warrants and without proof.
  Mr. Ross: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is being unfair to the police and his constituents. The alternative to a procedure such as this is that the police get into clubs in disguise and we have snoopers getting information in that way before proceeding to get evidence. That is a most undesirable procedure, and we want to get rid of it.
  I am distressed by the Government's actions in this respect. The Secretary of State was the first to appreciate that the Bill aroused less controversy in Scotland than anyone had expected. One of the reasons for that was that there was give and take between people holding very strong views one way and another; there was more or less a balance of compromise. People were asked why they supported a Bill which permitted considerable extensions of Sunday drinking in Scotland. Even the Churches were prepared to accept the Bill. This was because the Government were accepting this recommendation of the Guest Committee. But by their action now, the Government lead me to feel that I must vote against the Bill, because they have upset that balance of compromise and have done so in a shocking way.
  Here I should apologise to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) who interrupted earlier when I was speaking about clubs and about letters which I had received. I mistook this Clause for the earlier Clause dealing with a change of hours. I received letters from clubs inside and outside the constituency in relation to this matter. I wrote to them and said that I was prepared to yield to the balance of

  1441
  argument, but in fact we never had a chance to consider Clause 16. A day or so before we reached it the Government presented us with a new Clause, and the decision on that new Clause was taken before we discussed Clause 16. The new Clause was unacceptable to people who did not want inspection of any kind and unacceptable to people who wanted inspection to be a reality. Those of us who did not like the new Clause because inspection would not have been a reality, accepted certain tactical advice, otherwise we should have voted for those members of the Government who were prepared to accept an unacceptable Clause and it would have been in the Bill today. But when he was asked what his position would be in relation to Clause 16 if the Government's new Clause were not carried, the Under-Secretary of State did not give us a clear answer but left us guessing about whether they would stand by their original Clause. In the event, the Government's new Clause was voted down—and I detected no dismay on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I was in a certain difficulty—and I accept the hon. Member's comments on that—in not knowing how far it would be in order for me to anticipate what our attitude would he when we reached the original Clause 16. If my memory serves we well, I said that one could not have an each-way bet. I said that the new Clause was, we thought, the best which could be devised in the circumstances, and that was the Clause which we defended. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee did not misunderstand the position. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who wound up the debate, said that if it were a question of having the new compromise Clause or nothing, he would sooner have nothing.
  Mr. Ross: If the choice were between that Clause and nothing, then we would s000ner have nothing, as I said myself. But the Government had already put up a Clause which they had defended in another place. On Second Reading and elsewhere they had proclaimed their determination to have inspection by the police.
  1442
  8.15 p.m.
  I will leave that part of the argument and come to the merits of the case. Some people have said that we cannot have two separate laws, one in England and one in Scotland, but, whether we like it or not, that is what we have. It is part of our pride as Scats that in 1707 we were guaranteed our separate legal system, and in many aspects of the law we have entirely different proceedings in Scotland from those in England. We should glory in the difference and certainly not use it, as certain people have used it in this case, to get our own way. Taking the whole social history in relation to licensing, it is little wonder that we have separate previsions in England and Wales from those in Scotland, and it will be a long time before we have one code applying to all three countries.
  We are passing another Licensing Bill, which applies certain legal standards to behaviour and to hours in respect of clubs. Having laid down the law in relation to clubs, is it outwith the bounds of justice to ensure that the law will be kept? It is as simple as that. How often have we said that it is no use passing a law which cannot be enforced? Having amended the right of the police to ensure that the law could be enforced, it is absolute nonsense for that position to he defended by hon. Members merely for the sake of flattering a few constituents. I expect far more than that from hon. Members, otherwise I have no respect for them.
  As I have said, I have received some letters, which I am prepared to read, but I hope that people will respect me for my principles. I am stating clearly what I feel about the matter. We have laid these legal obligations upon clubs. Why deny the police the right to ensure that they are enforced? There are no other premises, licensed or unlicensed, dealing with food which are not subject to inspection by the police. We have the ordinary public houses and the ordinary hotels—and let it not be forgotten that the ordinary hotels include such places as Turnberry and Gleneagles. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite ever feel uncomfortable when they are in Gleneagles Hotel because they know that it is open to inspection by an ordinary constable without a warrant?

  1443
  The public house, hotel, licensed restaurant and licensed canteen are all open to inspection by the police at any time. So is the off-sales shop, although there is a difference to off-sales premises because the police must have reasonable cause for entry. Hon. Members may have read the proposed new Clause I have tabled on this subject. I propose to insert, after dealing with off-sales premises, the words:
  "… shall apply to registered clubs …"
  That is, that the police will be allowed to go into registered clubs and such premises only if they have reasonable cause for thinking that there has been a breach of the licensing laws. That seems fair enough. Surely there can be no objection to such a proposal.
  I leave the treatment of these licensed premises as they are at present affected by Section 184 of the principal Act and go on to consider Section 185. In that Section is laid down the power of entry of the police to premises like temperance hotels, shops that sell food, ordinary restaurants, tea rooms, and so on. The only person who can enter without a warrant as a superintendent. If he does not enter, the person doing so must obtain a written authority—call it a warrant if you like—from a magistrate, a justice of the peace, a superintendent or a chief inspector. That written authority will give the time and date on which the call must be made. The visit must take place and the authority be exercised, within eight days of its being granted.
  I propose that this is how the entry of clubs should be administered. Can there be any hardship in that? I should have thought that such a proposal would meet with agreement from all hon. Members and I urge the Secretary of State to give this his serious attention. If he does it will save him a lot of trouble in thinking up a new Clause of his own when the Bill reaches another place. I assure the Lord Advocate that the legal language of my proposal is impeccable because it is lifted from the statutes, a part of it from Section 184 and another part from Section 185 of the principal Act. The Lord Advocate may pick holes in my proposal but that is no guarantee that it is wrong. In fact, it is probably a guarantee that it is right.
  1444
  The proposal I have made would seem to be a reasonable compromise of the fears expressed by those in clubs who think that they will be descended upon and their lives made miserable. Such fears are groundless because, as we know, what they fear does not happen in the case of public houses or hotels. As I have explained, an inspection could be carried out only by a superintendent or, if by someone else in authority, only after receiving the necessary permission to inspect.
  Clubs should realise that plenty of safeguards would exist for them and also that they are in a privileged position. They should not, therefore, exaggerate the dangers and difficulties that would be involved. I am aware of the outcry there has been from hoteliers about this but from the point of view of simple elementary justice, they have been concerned that there should be inspection of clubs. The majority of clubs in Scotland, including the registered ones, are well run and well behaved. Any club that is well run would probably not see a policeman and if one did enter—probaby to make inquiries about a parking offence or something like that—I am sure that it would not be considered an untoward occurrence.
  As I say, the fears that have been expressed about this are exaggerated, especially all this nonsense about the club being an extension of the home. There must be some strange homes. Many people live in residential and temperance hotels in Scotland. Should they be subject to a greater degree of inspection by the police than the few people who live in clubs, for there are very few residential clubs in Scotland—and I am comparing these premises with clubland in London.
  Like other hon. Members, I, too, have received a number of letters. I will read one of them. It states:
  "Clause 16 of the above Bill which gives the Police right of entry to registered clubs without a warrant, gives great concern to members of this Club. who regard the right as a serious inroad into the liberty of the subject."
  There is then a reference to the English position and the letter goes on:
  "If the Clause was not acceptable by the Government for England why should it be acceptable for Scotland? The inference would seem to be that members of clubs in Scotland are not able to conduct themselves so well as those south of the border … The club is

  1445
  an extension of a member's home and in certain clubs he may in fact reside there. The members of this club and so far as I know of all other clubs in Scotland are very considerably perturbed at the Government's proposal and we trust that at the Committee stage of the Bill you will do your utmost to have the Clause deleted."
  The letter is signed by the chairman of the club, and it is significant to note that it came from the Kilmarnock Conservative Club. That is where most of the pressure came from. We do not have a single working men's club in Kilmarnock.
  We do not have labour clubs in Scotland in the same way, or to the same extent, as they have them in England and Wales. There are great stretches in Scotland where there is not a single political club that is registered and has a licence. The whole political roots of the Latour Party and the I.L.P. in Scotland were anti-drink—anti-brewery. Those who are concerned about nationalisation would do well to look up one of the unfailing resolutions of I.L.P. Conferences fifty years ago, which was the nationalisation of the drink trade.
  8.30 p.m.
  As I said in the Committee, I am convinced that in this respect the Secretary of State bowed to pressure from his own hack benchers, but it was pressure that he could have resisted with the support of the great majority of the Scottish people and the Church of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles spoke about his constituents in Hawick. Had he looked at the petitions addressed to the Secretary of State in respect of one particular section of the Guest Committee's Report he would probably have seen quite a number of Hawick names amongst the 203,000 people who voiced their opinion.
  What does the Secretary of State feel about the opinion of going on for a quarter of a million people who took the trouble to sign a petition on this subject? Surely, their interest, too, should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had the full support of a majority in this House who were concerned about the original Clause 16, with some amendment. I regret that in throwing away that Clause the right hon. Gentleman threw away the whole principle.
  1446
  I suggest that the Secretary of State should accept one of the three new Clauses. Naturally, "wir an weans are aye the best" and, unblushingly, I declare myself in favour of my own Amendment, impeccably drafted by the draftsmen of the bygone days of the Scottish Department. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will think again, accept the principle of inspection and be less afraid than he has been of all these rather exaggerated claims about intrusion, invasion, and the rest. They can be met by this reasonable compromise, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir James Duncan.
  Mr. Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood you to say earlier that the new Clause in my name was to be discussed.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Discussed, yes.
  Sir James Duncan: I want to be consistent, but hon. Members opposite are making that a little difficult, because none of these three new Clauses is the same, or very much the same, as those we discussed in Committee. Hon. Members who were on that Committee will remember that I was in a minority, and supported the Government on the revised Clause 16. They will also remember that I was one of a much smaller minority that voted for the original Clause 16. Therefore, I want to be consistent.
  Each of the three new Clauses has a small fault in it. I do not like the idea in the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) of police having the right to enter at any time or times. I should like that altered. In the new Clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the right is left to a constable——
  Sir M. Galpern rose—
  Sir J. Duncan: No, I cannot give way. I want to be brief—I do not want to take as long as did the hon. Member.
  Section 185 of the principal Act states:
  "… A constable may at any time enter and inspect any temperance hotel"——
  Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me——
  Sir J. Duncan: I know that there is a proviso later in the Clause, but the word used is "constable"——
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is really being unfair. I do not know whether he appreciates that a chief constable is also a constable, and the proviso states quite clearly that in this case a constable is someone of the rank of inspector. If the man is below that rank, he must carry written authority.
  Sir M. Galpern rose—
  Sir J. Duncan: No, I must get on.
  The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock provides for Section 184, not 185——
  Mr. Ross: Read it.
  Sir J. Duncan: I have read it.
  Mr. Ross: My new Clause refers to a change I make in the Schedule. The hon. Member will find the actual words in the last page in the Notice Paper.
  Sir J. Duncan: It is all very difficult to follow, but I am reading the new Clause which refers to section 184, which deals with a constable.
  Perhaps I might now refer to the last of these new Clauses, in which the authority to enter without a warrant is given whether or not a chief constable has reasonable grounds. That is in the proposed new Clause of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, but not in that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
  Mr. Ross: It is in mine.
  Sir J. Duncan: It seems to me that these are small faults and if they had been corrected I would have been very pleased to support one of the Clauses. In the cause of consistency, I find myself in a little difficulty.
  I think that the legal position has been very greatly exaggerated in this debate, particularly among those who are supporting the clubs. The position is that there is police right of entry into these clubs. It is no good the clubs getting ideas that there is no right of police entry. The only difference is whether it should be done with a warrant or without a warrant. I hope that hon. Gentle-
  1448
  ment will realise that this is a distinction. Nevertheless, it is part of the law that there is police right of entry.
  I have been impressed by the Guest Committee's Report. It takes a very strong line. I was disappointed that I was in a minority in the Standing Committee. I think that in view of the evidence submitted to the Guest Committee there is a case for police inspection of clubs in certain cases—and there are not very many cases—without a warrant. From the information that I have obtained, it is extremely difficult for the police to obtain evidence from a club of the law being broken. It means that they have to infiltrate in some way. It takes a long time. There must be more or less constant breaking of the law. The breaking of the law has to be more than accidental. It seems to be the fact that the chief constable has to apply to a magistrate, send a form to the sheriff, find a couple of magistrates to sign it and only then can he enter the club on one occasion, and on that occasion he may not find anything wrong.
  I do not believe that this is a very big problem in Scotland. There are very few clubs which break the law regularly. The vast majority of the clubs conduct themselves extremely well; but there is this minority, and Parliament throughout its history has had to deal with minorities. The vast bulk of the population are law-abiding citizens and Parliament has to deal with the minority of law breakers. We have to enable the law to be administered and carried out reasonably. In view of the Guest Committee's strong recommendation it seems to me that I should be consistent and vote for one of these Clauses.
  There is the further point, mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, that the Church of Scotland is in favour of some form of inspection. Only this morning I received a petition—I do not know whether other hon. Members received it from the licensed trade in Forfar and Kirriemuir, in my constituency, advocating and petitioning that the Government should reintroduce some form of Clause 16 as it was in Committee. I feel that I must support one of the three Clauses. You made it a little difficult for me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker,

  1449
  because you selected one Clause for Division and the others for discussion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should make it clear that it was Mr. Speaker's selection. There can be a Division, if desired, on each of the Clauses, although they are being discussed together.
  Sir J. Duncan: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood you to say that there could be discussion on the three Clauses together, but a Division only on the first one. I now have to choose——
  Mr. Hannan: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has yet to hear my speech?
  Sir J. Duncan: I have disclosed my difficulty in supporting the first Clause. I do not think that the police ought to have the right of entry at any time or times." I will further consider the Amendment to the Schedule to see whether it meets my point, and I will certainly listen to what the hon. Member for Glasgow. Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has to say in support of his own Clause. I shall support one of the Clauses, first, on the ground of consistency, secondly, because I think the Guest Committee was right, and. thirdly, because I think that the Government have made a mistake in not reintroducing some form of Clause in view of the strong recommendations of the Guest Committee.
  Mr. Hannan: I had almost given up hope that any of these Clauses would be further considered by the Government, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) for his generous support of these three Clauses.
  It would please some of us if, when the Secretary of State replies, he would wind up his speech by announcing "Those are my principles. If hon. Members do not like them they can be changed." I should like the Secretary of State to consider this point, and this is the first point that I make to the hon. Member for South Angus. This is an exact replica of the Clause which was rejected by the Government. So far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, this Clause, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion. It could not have
  1450
  a more reputable origin than from the Government benches.
  Sir J. Duncan: That is the original Clause?
  Mr. Hannan: The original Clause 16. The hon. Member for South Angus will recollect that in Committee he was about to expand on an Amendment which he had put down to insert the word "sergeant" and he will note that that word is incorporated in this Clause. I would not have the House think that we are all at variance. Indeed, we have backed the horse three ways to accept one out of the three. Our ingenuity ought to be recognised.
  I think we are tackling this matter of the clubs in the wrong way. I think that we can tackle it best from the point of view of registration and of permits to set up clubs. I recognise that I may be out of order, but I should like to quote from the Report. If one looks at paragraphs 50 and 51 one finds the real reasons which lie behind this:
  "Clubs, unlike licensed premises, do not require a certificate from the licensing courts and do not come under the same detailed supervision of that court; instead, there is a system of registration by the sheriff. The law provides inter alia that an application to the sheriff for registration must specify the objects of the club and must be accompanied by the club rules and a certificate by two members of the licensing court to the effect that the club is to be considered as abona fide club and not mainly for the supply of liquor."
  I, as a strong temperance supporter, can make the distinction which is disturbing the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) and I put it to the hon. and gallant Member and to others that we have a right to look to hon. Members opposite for some support. Generally speaking, what legislation inevitably means is that well-conducted people have to band together and look for other well-conducted people to deal with the minority. It is time that the majority of well-conducted citizens were considered in these matters. We have a right as a majority to go into dance halls and other places of public gathering, including public houses and clubs, and not be met with the horrible atmosphere of over-drinking.
  8.45 p.m.
  To come to the merits of the new Clause, the Government themselves

  1451
  introduced the Clause, word for word, in another place and the speech that was made on its behalf by the Government spokesman was tremendous. He had to meet opposition from noble Lords who normally would support the Government in this matter. The Minister said the Government recognised that there was an interference in private rights, but that was not a new principle and the Guest Committee found that the present law was being abused. This is not a defect in club law but it is a defect in the arrangements for its enforcement, and that is what we are considering.
  As a democrat I take an exception to the fact that there should be close inspection of "pubs" and hotels, including even unlicensed hotels, and of restaurants, theatres and picture houses when the only places to be left out are clubs. What is the reason for this? Allegations have been made and I associate myself with them. I believe that it is because of pressure from people closely associated with the Government that they have weakened in this matter.
  Another argument advanced for the new Clause was that the Government are satisfied that it is difficult for the police to spare the manpower for enforcement as the situation is now. The police at times had to hide behind bushes and even lamp posts, if it is possible for a policeman to do that, in order to detect offences. Then an application had to be made for a warrant and there was the timing of the raid. This is a most undignified situation in which to place responsible police officers who as an association made representations to the Guest Committee precisely on this point.
  I put this further point to the Secretary of State. I am not a member of any club myself, but from my correspondence and from those who inform me in these matters, I understand that there are some club secretaries and officials who would welcome this police inspection because, again, they are perturbed lest their licences are upset owing to the unruly behaviour of recalcitrant members. They would welcome it, and they have expressed themselves in those terms.
  I think there are members of clubs who, despite the steps which officials
  1452
  take, will go on abusing the rules. They will ignore the permitted hours, they will get drunk, and in that case they will become obstreperous and cause further friction. Moreover, the Secretary of State will have been informed that some of the stewards of these clubs will say, "I have not got a single individual to whom I am responsible. it is a committee of twelve or ten, and some of the committee men are seeking private privileges for themselves"; no doubt, in extra drinking outside permitted hours.
  I hope I have done sufficient by drawing the attention of hen. Members present to the new Clause in my own name and that of some of my hon. Friends. It is not an invention of mine. It was lifted word for word from the Notice Paper, with the substitution only of the word "sergeant" for "inspector". Since its antecedents, as far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, are above suspicion, and also as far as my hon. Friends on this side are concerned, in the sense that it seems to fulfil the wishes and the recommendations of the Guest Committee, I hope that it will receive their support.
  In conclusion, I want to mention one other thing that happens, which is personally known to me, and which I think is an affront to the kind of life that these clubs engender. I know of one case in which, on a Sunday, an ordinary worker has a £5 note to bust. In my opinion stupidly, this man says he is going to the club, and that probably he will have none of it left when he comes back. Probably, his wife has about the same sum of money on which to keep the household for a week. Hon. Members may say that this is individual liberty and that we cannot legislate for this sort of thing, but, surely, we can make it more difficult, and deal here with those clubs which are purely and solely drinking clubs affording facilities like that.
  Having said that and making the reservations and the distinction between the two kinds of clubs those genuinely trying to provide a service and the other against which the Guest Committee proposed and the police want to have these extra powers—I submit the new Clause to the House.
  Mr. Maclay: The discussion to which we have just listened illustrates some of

  1453
  the great difficulties with which we are faced on the matters with which this new Clause deals. I have listened with great interest to each of the parents of the new Clauses on the Notice Paper describing the merits of their children. I was fascinated to think that even the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) could ever conceivably have thought that he could blush over anything—but he said that he was unblushing about his own child this evening.
  I quite sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) in trying to choose between the blandishments of the three hon. Members opposite, and I certainly understand his attitude to what is happening this evening. One of the interesting about our debates on the Bill—and I have followed them very closely, although it was not found practicable for me to serve on the Committee—has been that on many of the matters raised there has not been any of the normal party divisions. The arguments have cut clean across parties, and this has meant that many of the decisions which we have had to make, or which the Standing Committee has made, have been questions of judgment.
  It has been difficult to find clear-cut principles. What we are discussing this evening is not the principle of entry. Entry is possible under the existing law, with a warrant. It is a matter of degree—a question of the way in which the entry should be handled. It is important to get that clear.
  On many occasions during the passage of the Bill I have found myself in the interesting position of having to judge what is the wise and right thing to do without the guidance of an absolute principle to help me. I have had to try to judge what it is timely to do in Scotland by means of a Bill of this kind. Han. Members will remember that one major decision was that public houses should not open on Sundays. That was a question of judgment. It went against the Guest Committee recommendation. I can assure hon. Members that I have gone against no Guest Committee recommendation without the most careful heart-searching and weighing up of the arguments adduced on both sides, trying to arrive at the right balance at this
  1454
  stage of development of our social life in Scotland.
  Hon. Members opposite have alleged that the Government have given way to pressures from one section of the community. One hon. Member said that we had given way to pressures from our own supporters. If hon. Members opposite had seen the remarkable variety of representations that I have received on this subject they would not say that the pressure had came from any one section of the community. Clubs of every description wrote to me about it, including miners' clubs, Conservative clubs, ex-Service men's clubs, working men's clubs, athletic clubs, factory clubs——
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I thought that there were no working men's clubs in Scotland.
  Mr. Maclay: There are. I met a deputation from the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, which argued strongly on this subject.
  If there has been any question of giving way to pressures—which I do not accept in the sense put to me by hon. Members opposite—they have certainly been pressures from a remarkable variety of interests, representing all sections of the Community. What is the democratic process except listening to opinion, especially when no hard, clear-cut principle or party line is drawn, and trying to judge what, in the long run, we are ready for, and what is wise?
  Mr. Ross: The Working Men's Club and Institute Union Ltd., is English, with its headquarters at No. 27, Clerkenwell Road, London.
  Mr. Maclay: But it has a substantial number of Scottish members. It is a growing movement in Scotland. It did not come to argue about English clubs.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, it did.
  Mr. Maclay: No. It argued on behalf of the Scottish clubs in its federation. It is a growing body in Scotland.
  I am a strong believer in the club principle. On the whole, the spread of clubs will lead to wiser drinking habits, in almost every case. I know that there are certain areas where, alas, conditions in clubs are not very good. That is one reason why the Guest Committee made its recommendation about inspection,

  1455
  and that is why I included it in the Bill. But I am quite clear that there is an argument for having something not so extreme and drastic as the existing powers. This was something which I thought should be argued in public—something on which we ought to ascertain the opinion of the House and of the country during the passage of the Bill through Committee and its various other stages in the House. That is what has happened.
  9.0 p.m.
  The Government have tried three different methods of doing what I myself think is not at all an unreasonable aim, that is, to give a warning instead of having to go to the extreme of obtaining a warrant and going in, in which event, when the matter comes before the court, either the case is dismissed or the club is struck off the register. For my part, I do not want that to happen, but it must be done in bad cases. I think that there is good reason for trying to give a warning to people that, if they go on as they are, there will be serious consequences, the intention being not to get them struck off but to get them into more sensible habits and ways in the club concerned.
  What I have done throughout our consideration of the Bill has been to try to find a reasonable compromise between the extreme form of inspection, which was anathema to every club member, or practically every club member, in Scotland who registered his view, no matter what club he came from, and leaving things exactly as they were. We have tried various methods and we have put them before the Committee. For a variety of reasons—I agree that it was a peculiar combination which produced this result—the last proposal we made was defeated.
  At an early stage, I made quite clear that on a number of matters we should be guided by the opinion of the Committee. On this occasion, one thing I am certain of, in spite of all the
  ingenuity and the persuasive arguments of hon. Members opposite, is that none of the versions they have produced would necessarily be likely to command a majority at this moment. This being so, I think that I must bow to the decision of the Committee and leave matters as they were before.
  Mr. Ross: Really shocking.
  Mr. Maclay: It is not shocking. It may be shocking in the hon. Gentleman's view, but he must try to put himself in my position, not accuse me of yielding to pressures. He must give me the benefit of believing at least that what I have tried to do to the best of my ability is to judge opinion on a matter in which one must pay some regard to opinion. I repeat that there is no absolute principle involved. The principle of entry still exists. It is possible to obtain a warrant and go in and deal with a club in that way. We have tried to produce a modified method of doing it. We have not succeeded in this and, therefore. I think that we really must leave the matter where it stands man said that he had to bow to opinion. What opinion? It certainly was not the opinion of the Guest Committee. It was not the opinion of the Association of Chief Constables. What opinion has the right hon. Gentleman bowed to?
  Mr. Hannan: The right hon. Gentle.
  Mr. Maclay: I was trying to say that I had not bowed to opinion. I was explaining that I have tried to sense what the right course is at this stage of our social development in Scotland when we find violently conflicting views on this question among a broad cross-section of the people of Scotland. The argument does not run along party lines in any way. I think that the right thing to do is to accept what the Committee did.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 131.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Mr. Hannan and Sir Myer Galpern.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Balniel, Lord

  Green, Alan

  Morgan, William

  Batsford, Brian

  Gurden, Harold

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Biffen, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Neave, Airey

  Bingham, R, M.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Michael

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Blyton, William

  Hendry, Forbes

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Box, Donald

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

  Percival, Ian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hollingworth, John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hoosen, H. E.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Buck, Antony

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pym, Francis

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Burden, F. A.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Sharples, Richard

  Cary, Sir Robert

  James, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

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

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Smithers, Peter

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Talbot, John E.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (portsmth, W.)

  Lebum, Gilmour

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Collard, Richard

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Temple, John M.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Garfield, F. V.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Coulson, Michael

  Longbottom, Charles

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Longden, Gilbert

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Loyeys, Walter H.

  Wainwrlght, Edwin

  Curran, Charles

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Mabon, D. J. Dickson

  Walder, David

  Deedes, W. F.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Walker, Peter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitelaw, William

  du Cann, Edward

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Eden, John

  Marshall, Douglas

  Wise, A. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Emery, Peter

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Mills, Stratton

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. Rees.

  Gower, Raymond

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clause 1.—(LICENSING COURTS MAY GRANT RESTAURANT CERTIFICATES AND RESTRICTED HOTEL CERTIFICATES.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "which", to insert "(i)".
  This is a paving Amendment for the Amendments in lines 4, 7, 15 and 20.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to take them together.
  The Lord Advocate: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  This is a matter of tightening up. The first three of the Amendments relate to the grant of restaurant certificates and the last two to restricted hotel certificates. That are designed to meet an undertaking given in Committee in regard to what I might call the fish and chip operators.
  1458
  I agree that it is undesirable that a certificate should be granted to premises which mainly cater for light meals. The Amendments ensure that the primary purpose of a restaurant or restricted hotel must be catering for main meals. If the main purpose of an establishment is merely a fish and chip business, it will not get either a restaurant certificate of the new type or a restricted hotel certificate.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:In page 2, line 4, leave out from "providing" to "for" in line 6 and insert "meals".
  In line 7, leave out "and which" and insert:
  (ii) so far as they are used, or intended to be used, for the said purpose, are principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the

  1459
  customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and
  (iii).
  In line 15, after "which", insert "(i)".
  In line 20, leave out "and which" and insert:
  (ii) so far as it is used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing meals to persons who are not residing there, is principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and
  (iii).—[The Lord Advocate.]
  9.15 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "or" to "for" in line 34, and to insert:
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person;
  (iii) to supply exciseable liquor in those premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".
  This Amendment, again, is to implement an undertaking given in Committee. I agree that the Clause as it stands is not very well drafted. I take full responsibility for that. This Amendment is designed to ensure that anybody reading the Measure has at least a reasonable chance of understanding what it means. It splits up the subsection and makes clear who is to pay for the drink. There was some difficulty as to which person was which, as the Clause stood. This Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the person who has to pay is the resident and not the guest. This is purely a clarifying Amendment and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 38 leave out from "or" to "with" in line 39 and insert:
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Amendment proposed:In page 2, line 39, leave out "with" and insert "as an ancillary to."—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Mr. Ross: May we have an explanation of this momentous change being made to the Bill?
  Mr. Brooman-White: Certainly.
  This Amendment, also, is to meet an undertaking given in Committee. Some
  1460
  hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), were concerned that when drink is provided with a picnic lunch to be taken away by a resident in an hotel, either on weekdays or on Sundays, it might be possible for that to be done in such a way that only a very small lunch would be taken away with a very large quantity of drink. We thought it inherently improbable, but, to meet any apprehensions, we propose inserting this phrase, which we have used throughout the Bill in relation to other meals, in order to make certain that the drink provided in those circumstances shall be in due proportion to the amount of food taken away for a picnic.
  Mr. Ross: May I express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for his solicitude in meeting our unjustified suspicions about this?
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 2.—(ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING RESTAURANT AND RESTRICTED HOTEL CERTIFICATES.)
  Amendment made:In page 3, line 5, leave out from first "for" to end of line 6 and insert:
  "the customary main meal at midday, or only for the customary main meal in the evening, that the premises fall within sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a)".—[The Lord Advocate.]

  Clause 3.—(APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF PERMITTED HOURS PROVISIONS.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from "requests" to the end of line 8 on page 5 and to insert:
  "and if they are satisfied—

  (a) that a part of the premises (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the off-sale part ') is structurally adapted for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises; and

  (b) that there is no internal communication to which customers have access connecting the off-sale part with a part of the premises used, or intended to be used, for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises, or that any such internal communication is capable of being closed to customers;

  insert in the certificate the following conditions, namely—

  (i) a condition that the off-sale part (which shall be specified in the condition) shall not

  1461
  be used for the sale or supply of excise-able liquor for consumption on the premises;

  (ii) a condition that any internal communication to which customers have access connecting the off-sale part with a part of the premises used for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises shall be closed to customers during any time when customers are present in any part of the premises; and

  (iii) a condition that no customers shall be permitted to use any internal communication for the purpose of passing from one part of the premises to another part thereof;

  and so long as the certificate is subject to the said conditions, the provisions of the principal Act, and the following provisions of this Act, relating to the permitted hours shall not apply to the off-sale part.
  At the general half-yearly meeting of any licensing court held in October, nineteen hundred and sixty-two, the holder of a hotel or a public house certificate may, notwithstanding that such certificate does not require to be renewed by the court at that meeting, request the court to insert in the certificate the conditions set out in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of this subsection, and in relation to such a request this subsection shall have effect as if for the words from the beginning of the subsection to 'so requests' there were substituted the words 'A licensing court shall, if the holder of a hotel or a public house certificate so requests'".
  This Amendment appears to be much bigger than it really is. Other consequential Amendments are in Clause 17, page 16. lines 21 and 24, and in the Second Schedule in line 49 on page 27.
  The difficulty which we experienced during the Committee stage proceedings related to the splitting off of the off-licence part of the premises, and an undertaking was given that we would ensure that the off-licence part, where drinks could be sold during hours when in the on-licenced part of the premises they could not, should be shut off in such a way that there was no communication between the two from the point of view of the customers. Accordingly, we have made it clear that there should be no communication by customers between the off-sale and the on-sale parts of the premises. That is the basic part of the Amendment.
  It seems to me that, as we have done it, and with the inserted conditions consequent on this, it is made clear that no customer can pass from one part of the premises to the other in order to attempt to drink out of permitted hours. This is a tightening up of the Clause which I hope the House will accept.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "him at his own expense" and to insert
  "and at the expense of, that person".
  This is consequential, as it were, on the right of the resident to treat his guest.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 4.—(PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES, REGISTERED CLUBS AND LICENSED CANTEENS.)
  Amendments made:In page 5, line 41 to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two".
  In page 6, line 6, leave out "three" and insert "half-past two".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

  Clause 5.—(EXTENSION OF PERMITTED HOURS IN CERTAIN CASES.)
  Amendment made:In page 7, line 16, leave out from "or" to "six" in line 17 and insert:
  "section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) or, as the case may be".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, at the end to insert:
  (2) Nothing in this section shall affect anything done under section one hundred and twenty-six of the principal Act before the date on which this section comes into force, but anything so done shall, if in force immediately before the said date, have effect as if it had been done under the said section one hundred and twenty-six as set out in the preceding subsection.
  The effect of this Amendment is that clubs which have a supper extension under Section 126 of the 1959 Act will be able have that extension continued under the Bill without the necessity for re-application. This is a purely transitional provision.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 12.—(PROTECTION OF YOUNG PERSONS.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out "in a bar".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this Amendment it will be possible also to discuss the following three Amendments to page 13. in lines 11, 15 and 17.
  Mr. Ross: That would be agreeable, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  This Amendment is moved in the forlorn hope that the Government will give protection to young persons. We have had representations from the Scottish Temperance Alliance and also from the Scottish licensed trade on this matter. I find it difficult to think that protection for young people should be limited to the consumption of exciseable liquor in that part of the licensed premises which is in a bar.
  The Clause says:
  "Subject to the provisions of section fourteen of this Act, in licensed premises the holder of the certificate or his servant or agent shall not knowingly sell exciseable liquor to a person under eighteen, or knowingly allow a person under eighteen to consume exciseable liquor in a bar, …"
  Why limit the protection in this way to this particular part of licensed premises? If there is danger in a bar there is danger elsewhere in licensed premises. I should prefer a much more comprehensive approach to this matter.
  We should bear in mind the new type of licensed premises which we now see, and which we shall see in future, in which the bar recedes more and more into the back room. There is the business of making drinking more respectable and civilised so that people sit in saloons and lounges and are more fastidious in their decorative tastes, but the danger to young people remains the same. The danger is the actual drink itself. I do not think that drink for young people in expensively decorated, curtained and well-furnished lounges is any less a danger than it is in a bar. It may be even more dangerous because the places may be more attractive.
  I should like to see an up-to-date attitude adopted to the protection of young people. As in so many things, the Government have been content to take a sort of mechanical attitude by readopting and vamping up old legislation. They have made no attempt to project their thought into the future about developments of licensed premises in Scotland in five, ten or fifteen years' time. I do not think that anyone can look with joy upon or take great credit for the amount of drinking which goes on among young people and the amount of drunkenness among young people.
  1464
  During the course of the Bill I have never tried to pose as a teetotaller and I have not said that we should take restrictive steps in relation to people of mature minds. But we have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything possible to protect young people from an early addiction to alcohol and all the dangers which ensue. Our consideration in giving protection in this respect ought to have gone far beyond that in the Bill.
  I do not want to elaborate the point, because we dealt with it at length in Committee, but I hope that the Government will adopt a much more constructive and realistic approach to the problem than they have hitherto.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) feels that we have not been constructive about this. We have fairly recognised the need, and have taken substantial steps in the Bill, to tighten the law in relation to the sale of drink to young persons where we feel the main danger lies—not only now but looking ahead—in off-sales to them.
  The definition of a bar is
  "any place exclusively or mainly used for the sale or consumption of excisable liquor".
  We have always felt that it was undesirable for young people to be brought into that sort of atmosphere, but it has long been the case that when of a suitable age they could have a drink of some sort provided by an adult if they were in another part of the premises. That has been the law for many years, and it has not given rise to any abuse of which we are aware, nor have we received any representations about it. We therefore feel that we should not change it. We do not want to be restrictive in circumstances in which the existing position has not given rise to abuse of which we have knowledge. In those circumstances, we prefer to resist the Amendment.
  Sir M. Galpern: The hon. Member says that he has had no evidence on the subject. What sort of evidence would he like either authorities or hon. Members to adduce? Is it insufficient when we tell him that the incidence of drinking among people under 21—as he well knows—has trebled since 1946? What

  1465
  lesson are we to learn from those figures except that all these blandishments persuading young people to go into beautifully decorated lounge bars are leading to more and mare people under 21 taking to drink? Is that not sufficient evidence?
  Mr. Brooman-White: If I may reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), with the permission of the House, I would say that if there had been drunkenness in those circumstances, we assume that it would have come to the attention of the police and that we should have heard about it. Representations have been made by the police and others about the danger of off-sales to people of this age group in view of their present financial circumstances, and we have dealt with that. If there had been juvenile drunkenness to any marked degree along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member, action would have been taken and it would have come to our notice.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 13.—(AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO SALE OF EXCISEABLE LIQUOR ON CREDIT.)
  Amendment made:In page 14, line 32, leave out from "or" to end of line 34 and insert:
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person, and if it is paid for with that person's accommodation".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

  Clause 15.—.(SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR CLUBS.)
  Amendments made:in page 15, line 22, after first "the", insert "sale or".
  In page 15, line 27, after "the", insert "sale or".—[The Lord Advocate.]

  Clause 17.—(TRADING HOURS FOR OFF SALE PREMISES, ETC.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, to leave out "ten" and to insert "eight".
  This Amendment is rather timely after the last remarks of the Under-Secretary. He said that representations
  1466
  had been made to the effect that the authorities, including the police, were worried about off-sales to young people and its giving rise to drunkenness. The Amendment should, therefore, be welcomed by the Government. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State did not think of it himself.
  According to the Clause, off-sale shops will remain open from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. With due respect to the Under-Secretary and his balancing of opinion and also to the terrible tug of war that the Secretary of State has been having with himself over this matter, I am sure that when they look at this in the cold light of reason they will agree that to open for such long hours is unnecessary and undesirable. After all, why should off-sale premises be open even before most business and commercial premises start their daily activities? From 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. gives them 14 hours in which to sell liquor.
  I realise that the Under-Secretary's answer will probably be that, while these are the permitted hours, they do not need to keep open. We shall, no doubt, also be told that an anomaly would arise in that most licensed premises stay open so that if off-sale premises closed at 8 p.m., off-sales would be permitted over public-house counters until closing time.
  We have already been told that the police are not particularly worried about the sale of liquor to young people in public houses. It has been emphasised time and again that nothing can be consumed in public houses by very young persons. The moral of this is the place in which young people are most likely to get liquor and it is, therefore, all the more desirable that off-sale hours should be curtailed.
  To suggest the closing time for off-sale premises of 8 p.m. is reasonable. Even then I would regard it as being far too late. I would rather see off-sale premises treated like ordinary shops and subject to the Act governing shop hours. However, my Amendment is a compromise which should lend itself to ordinary men. I will not exaggerate any of the difficulties involved, but merely content myself by saying that no one can suggest that people would be denied obtaining what they want if off-sale premises were open from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.

  1467
  I was prepared to support a reasonable change in the hours of off-sale premises, but the Government have gone too far. An anomalous position may have existed, but they have used that position unwisely. The Secretary of State has failed to appreciate what will happen when the Bill becomes law and what Scotland will be like in a few years' time. Not until then will hon. Gentleman opposite wake up to see what has been the result of the pressures brought upon them. There will be far more opportunities for people to drink. There will be more restaurants, hotels and other licensed premises, not only on weekdays but also on Sundays.
  Since more opportunities will exist for young people to drink there is even less reason why off-sale premises should remain open for 14 hours a day. Indeed, I think that it is desirable to impose considerably more restriction. If the Government are already worried about sales in bulk to young people, why do they not do something about it? My Amendment presents one small opportunity for them to do something.
  The whole of this Clause has been quite misconceived. Insufficient thought has been given to the problem of licensed premises, the balance of interest, justice, and the effects particularly on younger people. It is the young people who are the target today for all the advertisers, whether for clothes, cigarettes or, indeed, the sale of drink. Those people who make their living from the liquor trade are also making the young people their target, and I am afraid that, in spite of many of these Clauses, the Government will help them, wittingly or unwittingly. We have given the Government two or three suggestions. This Amendment represents a final and despairing attempt to do something, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.
  Sir M. Galpern: The main argument advanced for the extension of hours for off-sales premises was that a definite disability and penalty was placed upon the housewife in not being able to obtain liquor from off-sales shops when she was doing her shopping in the morning. That was the main argument in favour of the interminably long hours of opening for off-sales shops. We are prepared to accept that argument, but what
  1468
  argument can the Under-Secretary adduce for keeping those places open until ten o'clock at night? Surely, the Government do not expect us to accept that a housewife suddenly remembers, between eight o'clock and ten o'clock in the evening, something she needs to buy if it has not been important enough to buy during normal shopping hours.
  The hours between eight o'clock and ten o'clock at night will be the danger period for teen-agers, as I have seen so often in Glasgow. I have seen groups of young men and women carrying these containers, and bags filled with all forms of alcoholic liquor. It is during that period that they will start going into off-sales shops and then go on to parties in houses where, sometimes, a great deal of disturbance and nuisance is created. If the Government want to make it convenient for people to make purchases at off-sales premises during normal shopping hours, by all means let them do so, but how they can defend this extension is beyond all understanding.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I can see the point of the arguments that have been very cogently put by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). Clause 12 imposes a limitation on much of what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had in mind. If there is to be a reduction in hours, I entirely agree that it would cause less inconvenience to shoppers to chop time off the evening period from eight o'clock to ten o'clock. The difficulty we face is that off-sales over the counter in public house premises are permitted during those hours.
  That would mean that we would be denying to, perhaps, only a small number of premises, but nevertheless a number of premises—the wine shops and others—the chance to cater for what they have found it worth while catering for, and competing with public-house counter off-sales. We do not see any reason for that. There has been no abuse attributable to the wine shops. Indeed, the effect of the Amendment would be that anybody who wanted to make an off-sale purchase at that time of evening would have to go into a bar to do so. I should not have thought that it was desirable to force them to

  1469
  go into a bar if they do not want to. Some may not, in certain circumstances, want to, and may find it more convenient to go to off-sale premises.
  The Guest Committee in its Report pointed out that it is administratively difficult to have hours for over the counter off-sales in public house premises different from those for other off-sales premises. The gist of our case that! if off-sales are to continue over the counter in public houses up to the closing hour, it is illogical to restrict the same facilities in other premises which 'might wish to be open for off-sales during that time.
  9.45 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: It seems to me that the case that has been made by my hon. Friends is a very good one. They have put it logically and clearly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I do not know how, at this stage of the Bill, the Under-Secretary can call to his aid recommendations of the Guest Committee. We shall have in all our villages and towns, if this Amendment is not accepted, off-sale premises open as early as eight o'clock in the morning and closing at ton o'clock at night. The only answer that we were given by the Under-Secretary is that off-sale premises are in competition with the public houses and that it would be unfair to those who own off-sale premises that the public houses should have something over them. I would have thought that the Under-Secretary would have been just as concerned with what might happen to our young people.
  I have not seen the things happen in Glasgow that my hon. Friend, who lives in Glasgow, has seen, but my fear is what might happen if this Amendment were not accepted by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) is quite right. First, this was based on the housewives and on shopping and on friends dropping in unexpectedly. It seems strange that in Scotland, where we have almost rigid legislation for the hours when milk, bread and other things so important to the family can be sold, we do not find limitations on off-sale premises for the sale of drink.
  It seems to me that in this, as in many of the other matters that I have
  1470
  listened to today and in Committee, the Government have yielded all along the line, even before the Bill came to the House, to the pressure of the vested interests of the brewers and others. That seems to be quite evident to me. It is only if it suits their book that they bring to their aid the Guest Committee.
  Mr. Brooman-White: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Lady's point about young people. I do not see how this provision would help. If they are under 18 they cannot make off-sale purchases. It is illegal. If they are between 18 and 21, I do not think that there would be any advantage in their having to go into a public bar to make the purchases.
  Mr. Ross: Has not the hon. Gentleman heard that the police are worried about sales to young people?
  Mr. Brooman-White: The answer is that we have taken steps under Clause 12 to tighten up the law relating to off-sale premises.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: In page 16, line 21, leave out "a condition as is" and insert "conditions as are".
  In line 24, leave out from "the" to "as" in line 25 and insert:
  "off-sale part as defined in the said subsection (2)) of those premises".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

  First Schedule.—(NEW FORMS OF CERTIFICATE.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 21, line 36, after "to", to insert "or for".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would also be possible to discuss with this Amendment that in page 23, line 13, after "to", insert "or for".
  Mr. Ross: This Schedule contains a catalogue of do's and don'ts relating to new forms of certificate. Line 35 on page 21 of the Bill states:
  "… the certificate holder shall not sell or supply any exciseable liquor to persons who are in a state of intoxication."
  If my suggested words are inserted after the word "to", it will read:
  "… the certificate holder shall not sell or supply any exciseable liquor to or for persons who are in a state of intoxication."

  1471
  That seems to me to be reasonable. The only question will be whether or not it is possible to place this responsibility upon somebody or other.
  It amazes me when we hear how good everybody is in this trade and that nobody gets drunk. But, at least, once a person is intoxicated I am sure it ought to be possible to recognise the fact and a licence-holder should be able to take some steps to ensure that such a person gets no more to drink. That is the simple intention of these added words.
  This is about our last chance to get some crumb of comfort from the Under-Secretary. I have never known a Bill of this character go through the House with so little amendment. This does not indicate perfection in the Bill. It shows weakness and lack of confidence on the part of the Government. They do not know what they are handling and they do not know how far they can go, so they tend to leave things alone. I am sure that this is not the best of the Amendments which have been moved by my hon. Friends either here or in the Committee, but I think it is worthy of consideration. If we are going to give these new certificates it will be much easier to administer this condition than it would be in many other licensed premises.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will discard his brief and will not turn down this Amendment, telling us that it would be impossible to administer and that it would be unfair, but will accept it. If he finds that he has made a mistake he can rectify it in the next Licensing and if, on the other hand, he finds that it is a worthy addition to our licensing laws he can incorporate it in the next Measure.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I hope that I will not raise false hopes in the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) by leaving my brief on the bench, but I have been so convinced by its merits that I must deny the hon. Member his crumb of comfort. We entirely accept the object which he is trying to achieve but I do not think that the insertion of the words would help in a practical way. The licence holder is already obliged to prevent drunkenness on the premises and therefore he would be committing 1472
  an offence if he gave a drink to somebody who was drunk or to somebody who was on the verge of being drunk or in peril of being drunk.
  The Amendment would make him guilty of an offence for serving a drink which might be taken outside by somebody who was drunk or about to be in a drunken condition of which the licence holder could not reasonably be expected to be aware. If the licence holder served a drink to be handed on to somebody else who was hovering on the brink of inebriation we are satisfied that the law as it stands is adequate to deal with the situation.
  Mr. Stan Awbery: If a publican supplied a sober man so that he could give the drink to a drunken man he would be perfectly in order according to the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Brooman-White: A man might get away with it once but the publican would be very careful not to let him get away with it a second time.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Chairman: I call the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in page 21, line 41, leave out first "other", and with it can be taken the Amendment in the hon. Member's name in page 23, line 18, leave out first "other".
  Mr. Ross: I really do not think that they are worth moving.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to move, in page 22, line 3, to leave out from "committed" to the end of line 5.
  This and the Amendment in line 46 are drafting Amendments to bring the Schedule into line with the provisions of the Betting and Gaming Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:In line 46, leave out from "or" to "for" in line 49 and insert:
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person;
  (c) the certificate-holder may supply such liquor to any private friends of a person residing in the premises who are bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person"
  In page 23, line 4, leave out from "or" to "with" in line 6 and insert:
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".
  In line 6, leave out "with" and insert "as an ancillary to".
  In line 32, leave out from "committed" to end of line 33.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

  Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)
  Amendments made: In page 25, line 41, leave out "'section"' and insert "'applications'".
  In line 43, leave out "subsections (1) and (2)" and insert "subsection (1)".
  In line 50, after "apply", insert "also".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Proceedings on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Maclay.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Further Amendments made:In line 49, leave out from "nor" to end of line 4 on page 28 and insert:
  "where by virtue of subsection (2) of section three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act. 1962, a licensing court has inserted such conditions as are mentioned in that subsection in a hotel or a public house certificate held in respect of any premises, to the off-sale part (as defined in the said subsection (2)) of those premises.'"
  In page 28, line 11, leave out "section six" and insert:
  "sections (Extension of permitted hours in the afternoon in certain licensed premises and clubs) and six".
  In line 25, leave out from "or" to end of line 27 and insert:
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person, and if it is paid for with that person's accommodation".
  In line 43, at end insert:
  26. In section one hundred and seventy-nine (which confers on the police certain powers of entry under warrant into registered clubs), in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962".
  —[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have
  1474
  been discussed, and are not selected, namely, in page 28, line 46, after "(1)", insert"(a)".
  In page 28, line 48, at end, insert:
  "(b) after the words off-sales certificate is force' there shall be inserted the words 'or the premises of a registered club' and at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following proviso:
  Provided that, in respect of registered clubs, a member of the police force below the rank of inspector shall not exercise any power of entry conferred by this section unless he has previously obtained the authority in writing of a justice of the peace, magistrate or member of a police force of or above the said rank and shall not exercise such power later than eight days from the date of such authority and shall exercise it at such time or times only as may be specified in the authority."
  Mr. Ross: They certainly were discussed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the suggestion that they are not selected rather goes against what Mr. Speaker said. He said that if I wanted, I could have a Division on them.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If Mr. Speaker said that, that is so. Does the hon. Member wish me to put the Question on his Amendment?
  Mr. Ross: Yes. I beg to move, in page 28, line 46, after "(i)" to insert (a)
  Question, That "(a)" be there inserted,put and negatived.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not propose to put the Question on the next Amendment.
  Further Amendments made: In page 30, line 35, leave out from "or" to "with" in line 36 and insert
  "by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".
  In page 30, line 36, leave out "with" and insert "an an ancilliary to".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

  Third Schedule.—(REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS.)
  Amendment made:In page 33, line 58, at end add:—

  8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 60.

  The Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.

  In section twenty-six, in subsection (1), the Words "and in any condition contained in any certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959".

  —[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. J. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill has pursued a very interesting course since its origin in the Scottish Office once it was thrown on the tender mercies of both Houses of Parliament. I should like to thank most profoundly my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the most effective way in which they have handled what is by no means a simple Bill, but is, in fact, a very complex Bill. I should also like to thank, with real sincerity, all hon. Members who served on the Committee which dealt with the Bill. On a Bill which raises very strong feelings they have exercised a very reasonable degree of restraint in expressing the views they wished to express.
  I do not think that the House would want me to make a long speech on the Bill now. It is a useful addition to the Statute Book, because it carries forward the licensing laws for Scotland, though not the whole way, because more will have to be done about licensing in Scotland. I commend it to the House as one which serves a very useful purpose.
  10.5 p.m.
  Sir M. Galpern: In view of what the Secretary of State has said in approbation of the Bill, I must express my disagreement with him. The Bill will not be welcomed in Scotland. The Government have missed a great opportunity to modernise conditions in Scotland. All that they have done is to gladden the hearts of the people who sell liquor in Scotland and elsewhere. They have introduced new restaurant and hotel certificates, and have made provision for Sunday drinking in public houses which have restaurants—something that the Scottish people have not asked for.
  At the end of the day those members of the Government who have been responsible for introducing this revision of Scottish licensing law will regret it. The general body of Scottish opinion is not voiced by vested interests. In Committee and in the House the Government have yielded far too readily to vested interests, which are concerned purely with the exploitation of the sale of drink to young people. I have been told by someone who is actively engaged in the
  1476
  licensed trade in England that since the passing of the English Licensing Bill his firm has been unable to cope with the tremendous increase in demand for its products. The vast majority of the Scottish people are anxious to see some enlightenment in our way of living, but not by the means adopted by the Government, through the agency of the Bill.
  The Scottish Tourist Board is trying to attract people to visit our country. We have been told that one aim of the Bill was to provide reasonable facilities for tourists, and to enable them to enjoy the scenery with heightened appreciation. All that will happen is that in future the Tourist Board will be able to spend money advertising the beauties of Scotland and saying, on its posters, "Come to Scotland. We have the finest drinking facilities that can be obtained anywhere"—and now, thanks to the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon—"Visit our ancient monuments—our disused mines."
  10.7 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: For once the Secretary of State judged correctly the atmosphere of the House When he said that he did not think that we would wish him to say much at this stage. I am sure that most of us did not, because we feel that the Bill is still full of great pitfalls for unwary young people, and that the Government have given way to pressure both from their own back benchers and from outside interests. As a result, one of the most important matters, concerning registered clubs, is left in such a state that the recommendations of the Guest Committee upon it have been entirely reversed.
  Having listened to our discussions today, particularly those following the statement made by the Secretary of State earlier, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State had, during the past months, tried to improve our economic position in Scotland instead of giving their precious time and thought to this Measure. In my constituency, people will not be listening to the wireless at 10.45 this evening or watching television to find out what happened to this Bill in Parliament today. In the homes of many of my constituents and the homes of thousands of others in Scotland today

  1477
  people are sick at heart wondering what their future and their families' future will be.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hear, hear.
  Miss Herbison: For eleven years, the Government have had their priorities all wrong. In the working out of the Bill, their priorities again have been wrong. Like my constituents, I am sick at heart tonight thinking of what is happening to good, decent Scottish people.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). When this Bill first came before us, it had considerable support in Scotland. Many of us welcomed the fact that we were to get rid of quite a lot of anomalies in our licensing laws. Does the Secretary of State think that it is a better Bill now than it was when it began its passage through Parliament? I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who shines in these moments when he is sitting on the Front Bench far more than when he is on his feet giving us legal advice, is grousing and grumbling about just now, but I can tell him that his Bill gravely disappoints me.
  I had hoped to give the Bill wholehearted approval at this stage. I cannot. I shall not divide the House against it. I think that I have made my position clear throughout. We have missed an opportunity of examining this whole subject in the light of the problems which we shall face in the next five or ten years with the new facilities which will be available.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, I feel that we would have done far better to devote our time to considering the problem of closing pits rather than opening the "pubs" and other licensed premises. The Secretary of State, instead of sitting here listening and doing nothing about the problems which undoubtedly will arise, ought to have been interviewing the
  1478
  Prime Minister and demanding action in the industrial scene in Scoltand.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is going beyond what is in order on the Third Reading.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Hannan: I am greatly disappointed with the Bill as it now leaves the House. At the beginning, many thousands of citizens who have been striving to provide better social conditions and trying to instruct their young people in the finer qualities and ways of life, when consulted about the Bill gave way on several points in order that they could safeguard others which they held very dear. One, of course, was that the public houses of Scotland should not be opened further. They gave way on off-licences. They gave way on several other proposals so that reasonable agreement could be reached on other matters in the Bill.
  The Bill was regarded by people in the Churches and elsewhere as one which had gone as far as possible to meet their wishes. However, I fear that they have been let down very badly because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said, under this Bill drinking will be more prevalent in Scotland than ever before. I believe that many people have been deceived because the granting of restaurant and restricted licences will introduce by the backdoor the practice of drinking on Sundays. In the weeks ahead greater opportunities will be sought for licences, special licences and the rest. I regret that the Government saw fit to reject our very good proposition on dance halls.
  I add my personal protest that the Government have, for some years, spent so much time on betting and gambling Bills——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to what is in order on the Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  INDUSTRIAL DISABLEMENT CLAIM (MR. M. E. BARRINGER)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. John Eden: I am very grateful for this opportunity to discuss in the House a misfortune which has befallen one of my constituents named Mr. Barringer. It will be for the convenience of the House if, first, I set out in chronological order some of the main facts of the case which I wish to deploy.
  The story starts in November, 1959, when Mr. Barringer was employed by a glassworks. He was carrying a sheet of plate glass, which weighed about 1 cwt., when he accidentally twisted his right knee. At first, the accident did not appear to be too serious and he was treated under the National Health Service for a strained tendon. He was provided with special creams to rub in his knee and with crepe bandages, but, although he asked for it at the time, he was not given an X-ray.
  The pain persisted and ultimately at the beginning of April, 1960, about six months after the accident, he was booked by a specialist for a non-urgent X-ray examination to take place in May of that year. Mr. Barringer, however, was not happy about this. The pain was more acute than seemed natural with just a strained tendon, and, as he was anxious to get the matter settled so that he could get back to work, he went, at his own expense, to another specialist who arranged for him to be X-rayed about a month earlier, on 14th April.
  As a result of this examination, he underwent an operation on 20th April for the removal of a small piece of bone from his knee. Nine days later, he was again examined and then sent to a hospital in Southampton for deep-ray treatment of a cyst which had been found in his knee. This treatment continued until 10th June. On 1st July he was examined by a medical board which subsequently decided that a loss of faculty had resulted from the industrial accident on 3rd November, 1959, and the extent of the disablement was assessed at 40 per cent. from 3rd May until 2nd
  1480
  November, 1960. This, as Mr. Barringer well understands, was a provisional assessment. It resulted in his receiving a disablement pension of 34s. a week.
  During June and July, he regularly attended clinics at Boscombe Hospital. On 26th July, he was told that as a result of the inspections which had taken place and with the pain continuing as it had been, his leg would have to be amputated. He asked for a second opinion, which was given to him. He went to Westminster Hospital and on 3rd August the original opinion was confirmed. As a result, on 4th September his right leg was amputated to the hip.
  On 7th November, Mr. Barringer appeared before a medical appeal tribunal. The tribunal concluded that the extent of the disablement resulting from the loss of faculty brought on by the industrial accident should be assessed at 15 per cent. for the period 3rd May to 2nd August, 1960, this latter date being the day before he was given the second opinion which confirmed that his leg would have to be amputated.
  That resulted in a reduction in assessment from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. and came at a time of extreme distress to my constituent when he had just learned that his leg would have to be amputated. It meant that there had been an over-payment of about £37. Graciously, however, repayment was not requested and he was able to keep that money.
  In commenting upon its findings, the tribunal said that there was
  "a constitutional condition present before the accident, symptomless till then, which was brought to light and accelerated by the accident."
  It is this finding which I wish to challenge.
  I am quite certain that eminent people were serving on the tribunal and I do not for one moment cast any aspersions on their integrity or professional standing. Even so, how can they be sure that the constitutional condition—in other words, let us be frank about it, cancer—was present before the accident? In the tribunal's own words, it had remained symptomless until the accident occurred. The tribunal claimed that it
  "was brought to light and accelerated by the accident."

  1481
  Could it not conceivably have been caused by the accident? Is our knowledge of cancer in this country, or, indeed, in the world, sufficiently far advanced to enable anyone to be categorically certain as to its origin in any one case?
  There is a variety of opinions on this subject. I am told that the view of the Imperial Cancer Research is that
  "it is not possible to state the age of any cancer whether it be in the bone or elsewhere in the body at the time of an operation."
  These views, of a body directly concerned with the disease, are an important reflection. I underline them by repeating the view of Imperial Cancer Research that
  "it is not possible to state the age of any cancer … at the time of an operation."
  In this case, it was six months after the accident that the first X-ray examination was made. Had it not been for the pressing action of my constituent, it might have been even later had it been left to the medical authorities. Who, therefore, can be sure about what happened during those six months? An eminent surgeon has written to Mr. Barringer to say that, in his experience over the past ten years, sarcomas such as my constituent has suffered take anything from three to six months to develop from initiation. We must surely all recognise that in dealing with cases of this kind, there is room for considerable doubt and even amongst highly professional persons there can be a variety of opinions.
  The story of my constituent does not, alas, end even there. Since the amputation, Mr. Barringer has continued to suffer severe pains. During the past few months an additional scourge has been added in the form of deep-seated arthritis affecting his neck, shoulder, arm, and his remaining leg. He is receiving special treatment for this and also for a pleurisy condition brought on when he fell from an ambulance when his artificial limb failed to lock.
  In his present condition, as the House will clearly understand, Mr. Barringer is not able to work, and he has a wife and two young sons, aged 12 and 11, to support. This man, before his industrial accident, was well and fit. There was no visible cloud on his horizon. He was working actively, and keeping a happy and contented home together. Yet, fol-
  1482
  lowing the accident, apparently such a minor one, he has suffered severe physical pain and substantial loss of earnings.
  So even if we assume, as the medical appeal tribunal did, that the constitutional condition was present before the accident, are we not justified to assume that had the accident not taken place there would have remained to Mr. Barringer many years of active hard work during which the problem of supporting his family would not have loomed nearly so large and formidable as it must do now to him in his present condition?
  My hon. Friend's powers, I know, are very limited in a case of this kind. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced similar cases in which they have tried to help constituents and found that there comes a point beyond which statutorily they have no powers to go. I am aware that my hon. Friend cannot give any direction to the tribunal. Mr. Barringer himself also clearly understands this. Let me say here that Mr. Barringer and I are both grateful to my hon. Friend and to his predecessors for the sympathetic attention they have already given to this case and for the care with which they have heeded the representations which have been made to them.
  What we want now, if I may put it this way, is advice and guidance from my hon. Friend. I claim that, in view of the six months' delay, of the limited extent of our knowledge about the origins and causes of cancer, and of the subsequent serious aggravations undoubtedly brought on by the accident itself, there are more than sufficient grounds for a reassessment. Is it not perfectly clear that since the tribunal's decision there has been, to quote the words written to me in a letter by my hon. Friend,
  "unforeseen aggravation of the effects of the accident"?
  In these circumstances, even though time limits may have expired, and even though it may not be in strict conformity with the regulations, cannot my hon. Friend, without raising any false hopes, indicate a way in which Mr. Barringer could pursue his claim to have his case heard once again?
  My statement of this case has been brief. The facts are straightforward and

  1483
  the plea is easily understood. Mr. Barringer is not a malingerer or a scrounger. Over the years I have come to know him well. He is genuine, conscientious and sensible and a man who, in adversity such as few of us would wish to experience, has found an immense reserve of courage. I have the greatest respect for him and for his brave young wife, upon whom there falls a heavy burden of work and responsibility. I want to help Mr. Barringer, but I find that my powers as a Member of Parliament, as perhaps my hon. Friend finds his powers in his present office, are limited.
  Can my hon. Friend indicate any course of action or direct us to any society or organisation which would bring help to this very deserving young family in their hour of need? I feel that a case like this deserves such assistance as the State can give. I hope that my hon. Friend, without raising false hopes, can point out some course which my constituent can pursue.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Sharpies): My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) presented his case with the force and clarity which one would expect from him. There is nothing between us in our sympathy for Mr. Barringer in the very distressing circumstances in which he finds himself. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that. There is no need for me to rehearse the events. My hon. Friend set them out clearly.
  My hon. Friend referred to the Medical Appeal Tribunals and I think that it might be helpful were I to say a few words about the position of such tribunals, which are statutory authorities established under Section 38 of the Industrial Injuries Act. The function of the tribunal is to hear appeals from claimants who are dissatisfied with the decision of a medical board on medical questions involved in a claim to disablement benefit under the Act, and also to consider cases, such as the case of Mr. Barringer, where the Ministry is of opinion that the medical decision ought to be considered by a tribunal.
  1484
  My hon. Friend referred to the composition of the tribunal. As he knows, it must consist of a chairman and two medical practitioners. The appointment of the chairman, in England and Wales since the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, has been in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The medical members are invariably of consultant status and are nominated either by the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons or by the medical faculties of the universities. There is the right of appeal from the decision of a tribunal to the Industrial Injuries Commissioner only on the ground that a tribunal decision is erroneous on a point of law. But leave to appeal in such a case must be granted either by the tribunal or the Commissioner.
  As my hon. Friend knows, it would now be considerably out of time for such an appeal to be made here—in fact, about 17 months. If Mr. Barringer wished to appeal to the Commissioner he would have to satisfy the Commissioner not only on the grounds on which he wished to appeal but also on the reason why he had left his appeal so late. I put that to my hon. Friend in all fairness so as not to raise any false hopes in that direction.
  I must also in fairness warn my hon. Friend that the Commissioner cannot substitute a different decision for that of the medical appeal tribunal. All he can do, if he considers that there has been a decision which is erroneous on a point of law, is to send the case back to the tribunal for another hearing. As my hon. Friend recognised, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has no power to interfere with a decision of a medical appeal tribunal and he has no power to arrange for a hearing by another tribunal.
  Apart from the reconsideration to which I have referred on the direction of the Industrial Injuries Commissioner, a review of the decision of the medical appeal tribunal can take place only in the following circumstances. First, if a medical board is satisfied by fresh evidence that the decision was given in consequence of a non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact. Secondly, if a medical board is satisfied that since the decision was given there

  1485
  has been unforeseen aggravation of the results of the relevant injury. Prior leave by the medical appeal tribunal is required before a medical board can consider an application for such a review.
  I have tried to set out the position as fairly and clearly as I can without wishing in any way to raise any false hopes either on the part of my hon. Friend or Mr. Barringer, but there are two points to which my hon. Friend referred and to Which I wish to give particular attention. First, there is the difference of opinion about the cause of this disability. My hon. Friend himself said that this was a matter of considerable doubt and that there were a variety of opinions in the medical profession. It is precisely because of the difficulties of deciding cases of this kind that they are referred to a medical appeal tribunal.
  He also referred to the time which elapsed between the initial treatment by Mr. Barringer's own doctor for the strained tendon and the arranging of an X-ray examination. I think my hon. Friend said that might have contributed to the disability as the injury was left too long for a cure to be effected. That was a point which certainly would have been considered by the medical appeal tribunal although, as he knows, treatment is not the responsibility of the industrial injuries medical authorities. I realise only too well that cases will arise from time to time where a claimant like Mr. Barringer is disappointed with the decision of a medical appeal tribunal, but I think that the House will recognise that at some stage there has to be a body charged with the responsibility for making a decision binding both on the appellant and upon my right hon. Friend.
  Parliament has put this responsibility upon the medical appeal tribunals which as I hope I have shown are very
  1486
  qualified to exercise it. Somewhere or other there has to be finality in a matter of this kind. Bearing in mind the qualifications and the status of those who have the responsibility of sitting on these tribunals, I think it would be impossible to arrange for appeals to some other body with even more highly qualified medical members since the tribunals already have the services of doctors who are among the most eminent in the medical profession.
  I realise that what I have said may be disappointing to my hon. Friend and to Mr. Barringer, but I should be quite wrong if I were at this stage to raise false hopes. I hope that what I have said will at least go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend and his constituent that, however disappointing may be the outcome of all the work which my hon. Friend has done in pressing this case, it has been considered at the very highest level and that in any case my right hon. Friend the Minister has no power to intervene in this decision.
  Mr. Eden: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his sympathetic answer to the points which I made, even though he has not been able to give any promise to my constituent. May I ask whether the services of any of his local officials could be made available to Mr. Barringer in trying to prepare his case in the hope of getting a rehearing from the tribunal? Are there local people who could come forward to assist him in dealing with this matter?
  Mr. Sharples: If I may reply, very briefly, with the permission of the House, the local National Insurance office will give all assistance possible and will be only too pleased to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Whitworth Gloster Factory, Brockworth
  Whitworth Gloster Factory, Brockworth
  Ministry of Labour (Civil Servants)
  Ministry of Labour (Civil Servants)
  Wages (Payment)
  Wages (Payment)
  Birmingham Railway and Carriage Works
  Birmingham Railway and Carriage Works
  Steel Erectors, Scunthorpe
  Steel Erectors, Scunthorpe
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Employment Vouchers)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Employment Vouchers)
  de Havilland Factory, Christchurch
  de Havilland Factory, Christchurch
  Training and Transference Schemes (Allowances)
  Training and Transference Schemes (Allowances)
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY ACT (SECTION 3)
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY ACT (SECTION 3)
  TEMPERATE FOODSTUFFS (EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND)
  TEMPERATE FOODSTUFFS (EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EGYPT (SEQUESTRATED PROPERTY)
  EGYPT (SEQUESTRATED PROPERTY)
  CONGO
  CONGO
  FISHERY LIMITS
  FISHERY LIMITS
  EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  Council of Europe (Resolution No. 315)
  Council of Europe (Resolution No. 315)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  White Fish Authority (Loan Agreements)
  White Fish Authority (Loan Agreements)
  Fishing Vessels (Distant Water Voyages)
  Fishing Vessels (Distant Water Voyages)
  Farms (Aggregate Net Income)
  Farms (Aggregate Net Income)
  Agricultural Workers (Earnings and Payment in Kind)
  Agricultural Workers (Earnings and Payment in Kind)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ROYAL NAVY
  Personnel (Non-Naval Vessels)
  Personnel (Non-Naval Vessels)
  Malta (Labour Force)
  Malta (Labour Force)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Joint Intelligence Bureau (Staff)
  Joint Intelligence Bureau (Staff)
BRITISH ARMY
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve
  Troops, Minden (I.T.V. Programme)
  Troops, Minden (I.T.V. Programme)
  Bank of England Picquet
  Bank of England Picquet
  Soldiers, Shrewsbury (Discharge)
  Soldiers, Shrewsbury (Discharge)
  Sennybridge Camp
  Sennybridge Camp
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh (Rates)
  Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh (Rates)
  Anderson Drive, Aberdeen (Accidents)
  Anderson Drive, Aberdeen (Accidents)
  National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
  National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
  Herring Trawling
  Herring Trawling
  Fishing Industry (Subsidies)
  Fishing Industry (Subsidies)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants and Loans)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants and Loans)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Transport Aircraft
  Transport Aircraft
ROADS
  Mount Pleasant Avenue (Pedestrian Subway)
  Mount Pleasant Avenue (Pedestrian Subway)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cars (Safety Belts)
  Motor Cars (Safety Belts)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Poultry Industry (Overseas Trade Fairs)
  Poultry Industry (Overseas Trade Fairs)
  Trade with Hong Kong
  Trade with Hong Kong
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
SCIENCE
  Civil Research (Government Expenditure)
  Civil Research (Government Expenditure)
  Research Councils (Expenditure)
  Research Councils (Expenditure)
HOSPITALS
  Regional Hospital Boards (Expenditure)
  Regional Hospital Boards (Expenditure)
WESTERN SAMOA
  Independence (Gift)
  Independence (Gift)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876
  Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

LORD MABANE
The right honourable Sir William Mabane, K.B.E., having been created Baron Mabane, of Rye in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PUBLICATION OF MOLONY REPORT
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 are now in a position to announce the date of publication of the Report on consumer protection submitted by the Molony Committee.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade expects that this Report will be published before Parliament adjourns for the Summer Recess.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while wishing to be pleasant always to the noble Lord who has answered the Question to-day, might I ask him whether he is aware that it is very difficult to be so in face of that Answer, which I realise is not his fault? Does the noble Lord know that yesterday there was a firm date for this, and could he explain why that is not now the case?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lady for her compliment. I
242
am quite unaware that there was a firm date yesterday for publication of this Report.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that puts me in rather a quandary, because had I been answered by a lesser luminary on the Front Bench opposite I would have said that I thought that the person answering the Question should have been informed of the background? But I do not wish to be discounteous—I say that most sincerely to the noble Lord. Might I ask him whether he himself would not regard it as quite extraordinary to ask this House to believe that it is not possible to get a firm date for the publication of this Report, when we were told on May 29 and again on June 27 exactly what I have been told to-day? Would the House not agree that, as there are only three weeks remaining before the House rises, it should be possible to give an approximate date within those three weeks, even if it is only an actual week, when this Report might be expected?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have a lot of the background before me. I have looked into the position and I cannot agree that it is extraordinary that we cannot give a firm date to-day.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, having one last try, if I may, might I ask, in view of all this, whether it would be possible for the noble Lord to tell me when it would be advisable to put down a Question so that your Lordships might be informed of the actual date of publication?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I would not do anything to prevent the noble Lady from putting down a Question. This is the third occasion upon which the noble Lady has put down a Question, and there might still be a fourth.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Yes, but would the noble Lord help me, as well as not preventing me?
LORD MILLS: I will do my best, my Lords.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION UNDER EURATOM TREATY
2.47 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what obligations the United Kingdom would assume to provide civil and military information if the Government were to accede to the Euratom Treaty.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Euratom Treaty does not require member States or their nationals to disclose to the Euratom Commission or other member States the results of their own atomic research and development programmes. There are provisions to encourage dissemination within the European Atomic Energy Community of information about the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Except for information owned or acquired by the Commission under its own research programme these provisions in general depend on voluntary co-operation. In certain limited circumstances the Euratom Commission can order a compulsory licence to be granted for the use of a patent. If this power is used, the person granted the licence must pay compensation to the patent holder. The amount is assessed, at the patent holder's choice, either by an arbitration committee set up under the Treaty or by the national authorities in the patent holder's country.
Member States and their nationals are required to disclose to the Commission details of new investment projects in the civil nuclear field and of the operations of their civil nuclear establishments. Information about the investment projects can be published only with the consent of the person or enterprise communicating it. The Lord Privy Seal made it clear in his opening statement in the Euratom negotiations on July 3 that we are proceeding on the assumption that we shall not be required to disclose or permit the disclosure of classified defence information to the Euratom Commission or to other member States.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I suppose that covers all the present members of Euratom, including France?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, what I said covers everybody.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think I will postpone any further question until I have studied more carefully the Answer of the noble Viscount, because I am rather intrigued by what may happen in view of statements by the President of the French Republic. I will have another look at it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on Scottish economy at a suitable moment after 3.30.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
REGENT REFINING COMPANY BILL
Read 2a.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has informed me, and I am grateful to him for having done so, that he wishes to raise certain matters on Second Reading in connection with this Bill. I therefore do not propose to move the Motion for Second Reading this afternoon. Your Lordships may find it convenient to know that it has been arranged that the Second Reading debate of this Bill shall take place as last Business on Thursday, July 19.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH:My Lords, may I express my appreciation and thanks to the Lord Chairman of Committees for his courtesy and consideration in the matter, and say that I acquiesce in the proposal he makes?

NAVY ESTIMATES
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, 1962–63 (Cmnd. 1629); and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is becoming a longer and longer period of my life since I gave up the political side of the administration of the Admiralty; and, as the years go by, so, it seems to me, the size and strength of our Royal Navy continues to recede. The Explanatory Paper makes it fairly clear how very difficult it is to come to a judgment as to the adequacy of present Forces, reckoning both those in commission and available and those which are under repair or in reserve, for the kind of tasks which still remain to be dealt with by them. The most apt title that I could think of for this Paper, and indeed I think noble Lords will agree the most apt title for the White Paper on Defence itself, would be "Looking Forward", because I myself do not see that we have so much to look forward to except a lot of promises—promises, promises, year after year, but not too much achievement, not too much spread of provision, not too much alternative in technical development which would give us the confidence we all want to have that we are being properly defended. The Government's record for providing equipment for the Navy is as disappointing, I think, as in the case of the other two Forces, the Army and the Air Force; and the rather—what shall I call it?—grandiloquent language which was used in the White Paper on the Navy's world-wide tasks and commitments seemed to me to be strongly in contrast to what are the true facts.
Perhaps your Lordships would not mind (because it is some months now since the White Paper came out and we are apt to forget these things unless we specially look them up) if I quoted something about the Navy from the White Paper on Defence:
"To discharge this responsibility we need a balanced and versatile Fleet capable of bringing force to bear under the sea, on the surface and in the air. By the use of task forces with a significant amphibious capability, seaborne military and air power can be exerted wherever
246
our interests require it, to preserve or if necessary to restore peace … The great assets of seaborne power are its mobility and flexibility, which enable it to be redeployed and concentrated wherever our policies require."
Of course, I know that world circumstances have changed for us, I think unfortunately in many directions. I was saying the other day privately to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the first function I attended after becoming the first Socialist First Lord of the Admiralty in 1929 was a naval dinner presided over by the late Lord Jellicoe, who was the First Sea Lord in the years previous and who commanded the Fleet in the First Great War. I always remember his taking me on a verbal tour around the Empire, telling me of all the situations there were and what were the tasks, and he ended up by looking me quite straight in the face—the first poor little Socialist ever to be First Lord of the Admiralty—and he said to me:
"The Scripture says, 'Thou shalt possess the gates of thine enemies', and that is where we are and that is where we have got to be."
I think the language of this White Paper on Defence speaks in almost the same kind of world-wide fashion, but where are the strengths really to cover these world-wide commitments and tasks which are spoken of in such language in the White Paper? I must compliment the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the clarity in which the situation is really portrayed in the White Paper. I am again glad to see the splendid illustrations in it, but when we come to look at the actual strength, then I just wonder and wonder.
Our capital ships of to-day are air-craft carriers There are six of them. I suppose one of the oldest is the one picked out by the First Lord of the Admiralty and reported to the House as being at any rate in the last stages of her journey. I think what the First Lord says is that she is due to be replaced by 1970, but the First Lord goes on to tell us in his statement that there is no need to begin at present to think about ordering another ship to replace her. Is it intended to reduce the total number of capital ship aircraft carriers? Or is it that some sudden, new discovery of construction has come about that will enable the next aircraft carrier to replace the "Victorious" to be completed far more rapidly than any of the others?

247
If the "Victorious" is to go out finished in 1970, you have eight years left. I do not even remember a carrier of her type being completed in under nine years, and yet the time is not yet thought fit to talk about the design or the ordering of a ship of this character.
However, the First Lord will give us a better picture of that at the time. These are capital ships, large ships, very often the centre of any main operation; they must be to-day. When we think of the tremendous reliance we shall now be placing upon these six ships, I suppose the First Lord would admit that probably it would be only rarely that more than three would be in commission at any one time. I am wondering what the Board of Admiralty may be thinking about this publication by the Soviet News, on June 13, of the news issued by the Soviet Embassy to those of us who like to follow their proceedings. Here is an article attributed in its content to the Russian Admiral of the Fleet, Isakov:
"Aircraft carriers are ships of the past, just like battleships, which are obsolete in spite of the fact that they are now equipped with atomic engines and possess great speed; taking into consideration the new means of warfare at the disposal of the leading powers, and especially the progress made by the U.S.S.R. in rocket techniques and also in submarine construction, aircraft carriers are losing much of their military value."
It might be helpful to your Lordships if, during the course of his reply to the debate, the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, could tell us what he really thinks of that situation. I am quite sure from what I know of the intelligence department of the Navy they have their ears pretty close to the ground and will be aware of statements of this sort and able to give us their views upon that.
Certainly there has been a very great advance in the kind of amphibious warfare that is required in modern circumstances, as was demonstrated and mentioned in the First Lord's Statement, in such an operation as that which took reinforcements when required to Kuwait, an operation which was carried out with the first commando aircraft ship, the "Bulwark". I think it was one which brought credit to all three of the Services Which were engaged in it. But I wonder whether the First Lord
248
has considered what sort of strength he has in that kind of operation when it has to be carried out; I wonder whether he has thought about that.
I was tremendously interested to look at the illustration which he has given in sketch in the naval Statement as to What is the actual strength of the amphibious force required. It will be found on pages 14 and 15. When I look at that I just wonder in how many parts of the world at one time you would be able to provide this single and amphibious force to carry out operations at particular places; how many forces you could mount at one and the same time if you had two areas of trouble, sometimes regarded as minor trouble but nevertheless likely to lead to more major trouble unless dealt with at once. As I look at this, it seems to me you have hardly a duplication of a whole force available. You would be able, of course, to go to a fleet of 32 frigates to extract ships of that kind for inclusion in the force, but where would you get another commando carrier? You have two in your programme; one is operational; the "Albion" is under complete transformation to be a commando ship.
The First Lord seems to rely upon the fact that in the current year, 1962–3, you have both available; but if I understand the position aright, in view of the service which the "Bulwark" has done she is much more likely to be under major refit and you will apparently never have more than one commando ship available in this period ahead. And I see no sign at present of its being thought desirable, in these new days of development of this kind of amphibious warfare, to order more commando carriers. Could we be told to-day something more of the intentions of the Admiralty in this matter? I certainly agree with the First Lord; the kind of demonstration that was made at Kuwait shows it to be capable of expansion, to the general success of the work of any one of our three Services which is concerned.
When looking at the lists of ships which are shown in the White Paper, I am also concerned about the balancing and the general strength of the Fleet. Let us take, first of all, the cruisers. We have had reports from time to time in the last few years about the cruisers.

249
What is the final goal of the total number of cruisers you are going to keep? Apparently you still have eight. "Bermuda" is pretty old, is she not? I do not know about the others. "Blake", "Lion" and "Tiger" are very long since designed, but they took so long to put into service that I suppose one would regard them as fairly modern. If you look at the other list, of those under repair or in reserve, you find there is not a really modern ship among them. "Belfast" is one of the old Town class, built and designed under the leadership of Lord Mouse 11, when be was First Lord of the Admiralty between 1934 and 1935. That is a long time ago. The same applies to the "Sheffield"; she is Town class, built about 1932–3.
With the present way of setting out the ships in the Navy Estimates Report it is more difficult for Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House to be able to ascertain exactly these ages and times than it was before the war, when we had the Blue Book on Fleets, or much more detailed information, ship for ship, in the Navy Estimates than we have at the present time. But these ships are old. The "Gambia", the "Mauritius", of course, were built slightly pre-war or early in the war. Here we are, eight ships all told; all this great language about the world commitments and the world tasks we have to perform, and these are all we have. And if I take rumour to be right—sometimes rumour is right—this is larger than the total number of cruisers the Admiralty intend to keep. Is that so?
I must say, you can prevent a whole lot of trouble in a very short time if you have a cruiser with pretty heavy guns shadowing the place where the trouble is likely to be, and I have seen a good deal of that done in my time. It is a great pity that showing the Flag now would be confined to frigates and to what you can spare for the purpose of the very limited fleet of destroyers. You have twenty in commission, apart from the two special missile ships, and the others are all either under repair or in reserve. When the ordinary citizen outside looks at facts like these he must wonder to himself why on earth are we really spending (if I take the gross figure) £460 million a year to get so little, compared to the size of the naval defence
250
that we have to be responsible for throughout our present commitments. It is a good thing—and I would readily acknowledge it—if you come to think of major war or anything of that kind that there is a good deal of difference in what events are likely to be and what they were when we were preparing for 1939; that I readily admit.
It is also, of course, quite clear from the operation of the joint forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that in a world war we should have a great deal of the task on the naval side taken over by the United States, instead of our being left alone as we were in 1940 and practically the whole of 1941, having to cover practically the whole of the Allied naval defence of the world. But in spite of all that, when you come to examine the actual lists here, how poor they are…
Turning to amphibious forces (I hope the First Lord will tell us if I am wrong in my figures), so far as I can tell, you can count almost on the fingers and thumbs of your two hands the number of landing ships and tank-landing craft. There are certainly not many more, if one looks at the two lists of those actually in commission and those under repair or in reserve. This is an extraordinary feeble provision to have, not only for the actual operation as it may arise, but for the adequate carrying out of the training of troops and crews concerned.
I must say that the more I sat and thought about this, the more I felt that we were not doing as well as we ought to have done. I hope that the First Lord will not think that I am just trying to be difficult. I have a genuine desire to see that if the country grants £460 million a year—all of which the First Lord, in his Explanatory Statement, carefully explains to us is the real and not the net extent; because you are really spending the money on what is required for the Navy—our citizens ought to know that we are getting full value for our money.
I am bound to say, too, that money spent in this way can really pay dividends. It is only just and due to the Navy of to-day to remember events like Kuwait, and the relief brought there, as it was again recently in the West Atlantic when people were in trouble, and the

251
great many tasks which are undertaken by the Navy at exceptionally short notice. We are all grateful for that; but it still seems to me that we might be getting much more for their encouragement and their equipment, and in the opportunities of using adequately the defence weapons that can be provided for them.
I should like to ask especially about another class of ship which the First Lord kindly explained to us on the last occasion—the assault ships. What has happened about them? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who seemed to think that these are supposed to be a sort of glorified destroyer; but in fact they are small cruisers. I have no particulars yet about their actual armament. Apparently they will be larger and better equipped than the destroyer missile ships; but I should like to know more about them. Is it true that at present, after all the big announcements, only one has even been ordered? When are we likely to see these assault ships, and what is the actual target in regard to their provision? Will it be two or will it be six? I rather understood at the beginning that you were going to look for something like six. I should like some information upon that. The more information the Government can give us about the increased power and strength that is to be put into these ships, the better it will be for the restoration of public confidence; because we want these things to be put properly in order.
Then I should like to say a word or two about basic policy. It occurs to those of us who are not now in such close touch as we used to be, when we worry about this and the other section, or to Members of Parliament who have not had connection with the Fighting Services, that much of this muddle and deficiency, this hangover, is due to the extraordinary changes, and to the zig-zag policy that is taking place. Zig-zagging in war was a very great asset in naval operations when dealing with submarines, so long as you had the speed in the vessel. But the zig-zagging of naval policy in the last ten years just has me beaten; and it has a lot of the public worried to death.
You have gone from the policy which was carried on by the noble and gallant
252
Field-Marshal, Lord Alexander of Tunis, with great steadiness and capacity—a policy which no doubt had to be changed sooner or later, as the new circumstances of post-war opened out—through all kinds of proposals. Under the White Paper of 1957, we were going to have an actual economy in Defence expenditure because you were going to rely upon the one great deterrent, the nuclear weapon. Since then we seem steadily to have reduced our ordinary conventional weapons; we seem to be completely handicapped in any possible development on the nuclear side. And yet we are spending far more money than we were spending in 1957. People are asking exactly why it is, or why we have gone on in this curious way.
I think it is quite remarkable, in the circumstances, that when you come to look at personnel, and think of recruiting, training and the like, how well the Navy has continued to appeal to men, and women, who wish to join the Royal Navy. I think that is a tribute to their confidence in the belief that the Navy has still a tremendous amount of power left within its ambit to exercise on behalf of the country, either in its alliance in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or, if we can continue the old, good feeling with members of the Commonwealth, in the wider Commonwealth sense. When I look at recruitment, I think it is quite remarkable, in view of the size of figures that were being talked about before, and what ought to be allocated to the Navy, when there was such tremendous slashings in general Defence personnel, that the First Lord can say with confidence to-day that he budgets for a full 100,000 personnel in the ranks of the Navy. I dare say that that means that he is pretty confident about recruitment.
I do not know whether he was present while all the traffic was held up along the Embankment last night. Perhaps he did not know what was going on. But there was a very large parade of naval personnel. I looked carefully to see whether they were all veterans. And they were not all veterans; there were youngsters as well. Apparently, there was some special inspection, and the salute was being taken from H.M.S. "President". A great feeling of satisfaction was left in

253
my mind that so many of them, probably many of them volunteers, should have been on parade last night at a quarter to nine, marching past in salute and giving up their time to the Navy.
But there is one thing I want especially to mention to the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is this. If he will examine the figures (I had them in my head at one time, but I have not the details at the moment) he will find that, of the number of recruits who have offered themselves for the Royal Navy in the last twelve months, about one-third have actually been accepted. This is particularly apparent, I think, in the very much smaller forces like the Royal Marines. Having regard to the number of people who offer themselves for the Royal Marines, and even the auxiliary forces like the Territorials and the Royal Marine Auxiliary Regiment, it means that you can take only a handful of them.
As I puzzled over some of the difficulties of the Minister of Defence in getting adequate recruitment to the standards laid down in the White Paper on Defence, I wondered what sort of co-operation goes on between those who handle the personnel volunteering for service in the Navy, particularly in view of the amphibious nature of warfare. I wondered why you could not train men in the Royal Marines and expand the personnel in that service so as to use them jointly with the Army, thus strengthening the amphibious forces. Could we be told how much co-operation there is in that direction?
I want to ask a lot more questions, but I do not think I ought to do so, in fairness to the House and the many other speakers who are to follow me. I would say to the First Lord of the Admiralty that although I may have sounded rather grumbling, probing, nothing will ever take from my head and my heart my affection for the Royal Navy. I want to see that in the days that are coming it gets whatever is its proper effective apportionment of the nation's defence effort. I do not ever want to see it let down in its branches, its training, its enlistments and its equipment so that it will not be able at any time to answer any call on its services. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will be able to restore some of our confidence. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount who moved this Motion raised the question of the adequacy of the present naval forces. He went on to say that the White Paper is looking forward. I think that is quite true, but I would say that the noble Viscount himself was rather looking backward, and I do not think that the inadequacy of the Navy is quite so bad as he has painted. I think it is true to say that the guided missile destroyers and the air-strike and reconnaissance' planes have very largely taken the place of the old type of cruiser.
I think once again we can congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on his informative Explanatory Statement. The pictures and diagrams are very interesting indeed and, I think, most helpful. The rôle of the Navy in limited warfare is again set out very clearly in this pamphlet, but a veil is perhaps drawn over its potentialities in the event of all-out atomic warfare. I suppose it is true to say that no one will ever really know until that disaster—which God forbid!—takes place. In the past we have heard a great deal about the "broken back" theory after the first atomic strike has taken place, and I have little doubt the Admiralty are giving the whole matter continuous study and thought in conjunction with our NATO Allies.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, raised the question of the new type of assault ships. I understand we are building two and that it is the intention eventually to have one allotted to each task force. I understand they are nearly four times the tonnage of the present tank landing craft. I have seen it stated that the building of this ship is to take about four years. Surely that is a very long time for a ship of this class. I believe the United States built a comparable ship in 26 weeks. Perhaps the First Lord would like to say something about the construction of these vessels, and when it is intended to lay down further vessels. The fact is that until we have these ships we cannot land tanks in the early stages of an assault in an opposed landing. The present tank-landing craft we have are really only follow-up ships.
I hope the First Lord will also say something about the Polaris submarine.

255
I raised this question in considerable detail in our Estimates debate last year and I do not propose to go over the whole ground again. I would, however, repeat that it is not by any means too early to consider the next phase of naval armament apart from aircraft carriers. We cannot possibly afford everything, but I would say that the V-bomber force will one day have to be run down in numbers and replaced by Polaris submarines. There is no doubt that the Polaris submarine has now made it possible to combine the functions of the V-bomber and the functional submarine. We really must have a plan for the future—and we must have it soon.
I understand that design work for new aircraft carriers bas been put in hand for ships of about 50,000 tons, which tonnage is somewhat equivalent to that of H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "ARK ROYAL". The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, suggested that perhaps the carriers were out-of-date, but I would say that that is by no means true as yet, although the time may well come when they will be. There are two schools of thought about the plans for replacement of our aircraft carriers in the 1970 to 1990 period. There are those who think we should have the large carriers for strategic purposes as well as for use with the amphibious forces. There are others who feel that we should have a smaller carrier of the Commando type, like the "Bulwark", possibly with vertical take-off aircraft. I cannot help feeling that in the near future the long runway of the conventional aircraft carrier will no longer be necessary and that the vertical lift aircraft will become the standard type both afloat and ashore. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty would like to give us his views on this question to-day. I suggest it would be a very great mistake to launch out into the building of large carriers at very great expense when the money might be better devoted to the missile-type Polaris submarine and the smaller type carrier.
There are one or two other questions I should like to put to the First Lord on matters of detail. Is it the intention of the Admiralty to develop a rocket-assisted torpedo? I understand the French Navy now have such a torpedo known as a "Melafon", and the United
256
States also have one called the "Asroc". I also wonder Whether the First Lord can say anything about hovercraft or so-called "cushion" craft, and whether in fact the Admiralty are carrying out any experiments with it. Then, again, there is the hydrofoil craft, which has a very high speed and which might be very suitable for anti-submarine work. I understand that the Russians have built quite a number of these vessels both for commercial and naval uses.
There is no doubt that over the past few years we have built up a small but very efficient modern Navy, but I agree with the noble Viscount that it is rather depressing to realise that the operational fleet has in fact dwindled, year by year, in numbers. I believe that three years ago the operational fleet numbered 189; two years ago it was 185; and last year it was down to 177. It is true that the modern ship requires more men, which of course means more money and a great increase in building costs, and that there must be a limit to what we can afford to spend on the Navy. But I do hope that the First Lord will do all he can to reduce so far as possible the expenses, which I know are necessarily incurred in many ways, in shore-going establishments and so on, so that we can have more ships afloat in the Royal Navy as soon as possible.

THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY
3.31 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will make a statement about the Scottish economy. A similar statement is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Scottish Division of the National Coal Board are to-day making public a review of the prospects of Scottish collieries up to 1966, which they are discussing with the trade unions. It shows that a substantial number of Scottish collieries have good prospects and will increase their manpower, that others will before long exhaust their reserves of coal and will have to close down by 1966 on that account, and that there is a third group of collieries, among which

257
many have fallen short of paying their way, which have a doubtful future.
The net effect is likely to be a continued fall tin coalmining employment in Scotland over that period. But, because large numbers leave the industry each year on retirement and for other reasons, the number of men actually displaced from the industry will be much less than the total fall in employment. In these circumstances, the House will wish to know what immediate steps the Government are taking in relation to this situation; and in relation to its continuing policy of encouraging the development of new and growth industries in Scotland.
For the men who may be displaced the first endeavour of the National Coal Board will be to offer another job within travelling distance of their homes. The Board has a very good record in this respect; all but a small number of the men affected by closures in Scotland last year were placed in fresh employment within the period during which the Board pays redundancy compensation. The Board's allowances to transferred men have recently been improved and will aid those who move their homes.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour will ensure close cooperation between his local officers and the collieries, over the finding of new jobs for those displaced. As I have explained, the National Coal Board expect to be able to offer the majority of them jobs in other pits. In some cases, however, the right course may be to offer a man training in another trade, and my right honourable friend proposes to expand the resources of the Government training scheme for that purpose. He will consult… the unions in these trades, to secure their co-operation. It is the intention to increase the training allowances and the lodging allowances for those who leave home to take up work elsewhere.
As regards new industrial employment, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced that the site of the Doni-bristle Royal Naval Air Station in Fife will be developed as an industrial estate, and it has been decided to proceed at once with the conversion of the big engineering shop into a factory for industrial use.
258
The Government have also decided to acquire a further five sites suitable for future industrial development in various parts of Scotland, and in addition to build a number of advance factories. As already announced, assistance under the Local Employment Act is being resumed for the Bathgate area, which includes the new town of Livingston, as well as other districts where large overspill housing developments are under construction. This area is already providing a new growth point in the Scottish economy.
Some movement of workers, out of industries which are contracting into those which are expanding, is an essential element in economic growth and the higher living standards which that will bring. This is particularly important for Scotland. The Government's determination is to foster this economic growth and, at the same time, by looking ahead, to do all they can to meet the human, social and industrial difficulties which inevitably go along with economic change and fresh development.
3.36 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, no noble Lord who has heard the statement just made by the noble Earl will feel anything but despondency. This contains nothing of any encouraging kind to the people of Scotland, who are, on the admission of the Government themselves, so badly off for decent employment. The statement begins with the position of the coal industry in Scotland. Even the noble Earl cannot deny that the position is one giving rise to uncertainty, to alarm, to despondency, and even the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Robens, in order to try to assuage the anxiety of the coalminers of Scotland, have not succeeded in creating any kind of assurance in their minds that there is a future in the industry. Had my noble friend Lord Hughes been here, he would have told your Lordships, from his own personal experience, what the feeling is in Glenrothes—as you know, he is the Chairman of the Corporation there—about the effect of the attempt to make the coal industry any kind of hopeful industry for those who were encouraged to go and make their homes there. The picture of the coal industry in Scotland, with all the sympathetic statements

259
made by the noble Earl, will give no encouragement whatever, either to those in the industry or to those whose children would expect, and perhaps, had hoped, to follow their parents into this long-established industry.
As for the developments to which the noble Earl referred, one is almost desperately concerned about the changes which are taking place in the very nature of industry to-day when Scotland, after being almost wholly dependent for her economy upon the development of the iron and coal industries, now finds that heavy industry no longer presents any hope at all for the working people of Scotland. The Government in the years in which they have been in power have done nothing to give any feeling of encouragement; and the lighter, the more scientific industries, the electronic industries, which are making leaps and bounds ahead in almost every industrial country in the world, are showing no kind of progress whatever in Scotland.
The noble Earl told us that he will give bigger allowances for those who will be diverted from the industries in which they had been brought up to the new industries for which they will be trained. My Lords, what kind of hope can that possibly give to men and women who are as intelligent, as anxious for work, and having as great a need of a livelihood as any other section of the community? What possible encouragement can there be for them in the picture which the noble Earl has just given us in the course of his remarks? The noble Earl knows as well as any of us know that there have been Reports be fore. One has only to refer to the Toothill Report for an indication of conditions in Scotland. I would ask, therefore, what possible purpose there has been in giving us the statement which has just been made by the noble Earl. What is there in it which will give either hope or encouragement to the working people of Scotland? What is there contained in this statement? What is the purpose of making it which war rants its being read to us this afternoon? My Lords. I wish I could say something encouraging to the people of Scotland as a result of the statement to which we have just listened.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two questions, quite shortly? Can he tell us the percentage of those employed at present who they think will have to leave the industry and be trained for other industries? Further, as he has spoken of new sites, such as Donibristle and other places, I would ask whether the Government know of any firm offers from industrialists to go to those sites in Scotland? In conclusion, I would say only that if we could have those figures I believe Scotland would have more confidence, now that we have heard the worst; because a great deal of talk has gone on about the mining industry, and we have been waiting to hear what the facts are. I think there will be hope in Scotland that those mines that can go on, and can go on successfully, will now do better than they did in the past.
3.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am always very glad to hear the comments on this subject of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and I am grateful to him for making his comments so fully. I am always against any suggestion of complacency, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that he has gone unnecessarily far in the direction of despondency in this matter. I do not think that anybody who understands the Scottish economy would try to suggest that we ought to develop the future of Scotland by maintaining those parts of the heavy industries which are now becoming uneconomic, but that does not mean that we cannot develop other parts of them, perhaps with a smaller proportion of the total population employed in them, to produce a larger output more economically; and, at the same time, to introduce, as we have been trying to do—it has been our policy for many years—a greater diversity of light industries and what are called "growth" industries that is, those which are rapidly expanding) into the Scottish economy.
In view of what the noble Lord has said, I should like to remind him that since the passage of the Local Employment Act two years ago, in 1960, £41½ million has been offered by the Board of Trade under that Act to new industries. That is about 60 per cent. of the total sum which has been offered to the United Kingdom as a whole; and

261
the number of jobs which that is estimated to provide directly is estimated at just on 29,000. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, ought to recognise that, while that is not a contribution at which we ought to stop, it is a substantial one; and, of course, the number of subsidiary industries which we may expect to develop out of that is not yet calculable.
The noble Lord asked a particular question about Glenrothes. The development of Glenrothes is not tied to mining, although I know it was started in 1945 with a view to its being a mining town. But it is now tied to the Glasgow overspill programme, and there has already been considerable progress in the development of general industry in Glenrothes. All the facilities of the Local Employment Act will be available for further industrial expansion there, since the town is now included in the Kirkcaldy-Leven development district. While, again, I repeat, I do not want to indulge in any kind of complacency, I think the noble Lord should take some satisfaction and derive some hope from the development of new industries in Scotland which is going on.
My noble friend Lady Horsbrugh asked two questions, the first being about the percentage of miners who were being displaced. The only figure I have avail able here is not the number who are being displaced but the number for whom new jobs were not found during the redundancy period. My noble friend may be glad to know that during the last year there were only about 30 out of all those displaced by colliery closures in Scotland, the total number being 1,900, who were at any time receiving redundancy compensation from the National Coal Board, because we had succeeded so rapidly in providing new employment for nearly all of them. My noble friend also asked about the new factory sites. I cannot add anything to what I said in the statement, because I do not think it is wise to reveal in advance where you are thinking of buying new factory sites. We are proposing not only to get new sites such as Donibristle, which has already been decided on, but also to build more advanced factories, which we have often discussed in your Lordships' House and for which we have so far always been able successfully to find buyers.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that I am right in thinking that the mines which will still be operating after 1966 will have many years of useful life before them, so far as can be seen now? Because if this is right, I think it would encourage people who are hesitating about going into the mining industry, for they will then feel that there is a future before them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am very glad my noble friend has asked that supplementary question, because there are many coalfields in Scotland which we expect to develop in future, to increase their output, to employ more men and, also, to produce a greater output per man. The policy of the Coal Board in every part of Great Britain is to try to concentrate on those pits which are likely to expand most, and to increase their output per man.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether consideration has been given—or, if not, if it will be given—to the changes in the need for public transport occasioned by so many men having to go to different jobs in different localities?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, that is a matter which is under constant consideration among the Departments and public bodies which are concerned.

NAVY ESTIMATES
3.48 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, having satisfactorily diposed of the fears of the tribal areas north of the Border, we now return to a safer subject, the Royal Navy. We note that the affairs of Scotland are now in the hands of the Foreign Office: therefore, all will be well.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. He was First Lord of the Admiralty in war time and Minister of Defence in the immediate postwar years. Therefore, his views command respect. I should like to approach this problem of sea power and the Navy in a rather different way, and I do that

263
because I do not believe one can discuss the Navy except within the context of the Armed Forces as a whole. The three Fighting Services have to be integrated on a co-operative basis, and in the interests of financial economy we must get away from all competition between them. I believe that we must think nightly on the basic principles of organisation in our defence set-up.
I also think, my Lords, that we in this House are very apt to get led into details before we have cleared our minds on the broad principles of policy, and I should like to put the problem to your Lordships in this way. Although a major all-out nuclear war is unlikely, that possibility cannot be totally disregarded. If Russia thought she could hit us without our having the ability to hit back, we should be open to all sorts of pressures. Therefore we must be prepared and ready to play our part in the Western defence organisation, which is NATO. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to deal first with that problem, with the defence of the NATO area.
From the earliest days of my military life I learned that, whenever you can, you must always consider a defensive area from the enemy point of view. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to come with me to a viewpoint high in the air over Moscow, and from that viewpoint to look Westwards at the NATO area. Enjoying our voyage through space to this viewpoint over Moscow, we have some conversation—I do not say very much.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh…
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Too much…
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: Your Lordships make some remarks. I give it as my opinion that a commander whose flanks and rear are secure is well placed for battle. Those of your Lordships who have held high command in war will know that it is quite a simple thing to penetrate a defensive front. The enemy can always penetrate our front at any time, and we can do the same to him. But his difficulties must then begin. If my front is penetrated, I at once strengthen the flanks, having reserves ready for that pur-
264
pose. But before the battle, before the war ever begins, I ensure that the flanks of my whole area of operations are absolutely secure.
Remembering that principle, we arrive at our viewpoint over Moscow. What do we see? We are pretty high up in the air, and we have a good view. We see NATO Europe as one large peninsula, jutting out into the sea. The flanks are on the sea, from the North Cape right the way down to the south of Italy; and the rear is on the sea. And, in accordance with that principle with which your Lordships agreed during our journey through space, those flanks must be secure beyond any possibility of doubt. We also see that we have an air flank, and it is clear that we have to co-ordinate all the activities which operate in that air flank.
We then have a look at the land, and we see the enormous importance of six areas of land. Going from North to South, you have NATO. Scandinavia—Norway and Denmark. Then you have the United Kingdom islands. Then you have the Iberian peninsula—and if any of your Lordships is not clear where that is, that is Spain and Portugal. Then you have North Africa, and I should prefer to call that what used to be French North Africa—that is, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Then you have Italy; and, finally, Turkey. When dealing with Turkey, I would particularly say Anatolia, because that is part of Turkey. Anatolia is the miliary key to the Middle East. Those six areas of land must be secured. They are essential to the overall security of the sea flank, and if that sea flank were to go, we should be in very great danger of defeat in any East-West conflict.
From that vantage point over Moscow we see that if we try to hold NATO Europe, the whole area, with a rigid defence, spreading the land forces evenly, as you would spread butter on a piece of bread, and aiming to be strong everywhere, we should merely be weak everywhere, and should then be in danger of losing everything. We must hold securely the vital areas, the lynch-pins of the whole structure, and elsewhere we must fight the mobile battle. The art of war is to be able to move yourself and to prevent your enemy from moving; and if you can achieve

265
that very desirable end, you win. But your ability to manœuvre freely will depend on the absolute security of certain vital areas; because you manœuvre best around fixed points. If those fixed areas which I have mentioned are lost, then the sea flank is in danger, the air flank is weakened, the land defence disintegrates and we are at once in very grave trouble.
Now, my Lords, from that viewpoint we lift our gaze to include the whole NATO area, and we see at once the enormous importance to NATO Europe of the Atlantic and, behind it, of the American "support" area, as I prefer to call it. We see at once that, unless the NATO area is considered as one entity in defence planning, with a properly co-ordinated effort over the whole area, we cannot get any good results. If we look at it in that way, and study the whole NATO area, we at once see the enormous influence of the sea in our defence structure. If we cannot ensure the free use of the major oceans and seas, we could not survive in a major war.
The matter is really very simple: we have to confine Russia, or any aggressor, to a land strategy. From the days when we humans first began to use the seas the great lesson of history has been that the enemy who is confined to a land strategy is, in the end, defeated. That has been true since the days of Carthage In more recent times there is the example of the French Napoleonic Wars, and of the Germans in the Kaiser's war and in Hitler's war. Another example could be found in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904: Japan had sea control; she fought Russia at the end of long communications with her own shores, and she won. The Second World War, the late war, was fundamentally a struggle for control of the major oceans and seas—in other words, a battle for the control of sea communications—and until we had won that struggle, we could not proceed with our plans to win the war, as I and your Lordships know very well.
So to-day our strategy must be based on confining the aggressor to a land strategy; any other strategy is no good.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble and gallant Viscount say whether he is talking about a major war? Is the situation he is visualising before the nuclear exchange or is he
266
setting it against a background of conventional war?
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, if you are going to come down to war, in my view it would be an all-out war. I do not see a war between East and West without the nuclear weapon being used by somebody. On that interesting point, before the next five years, maybe six—I should not like to be too dogmatic on that—the main agent for delivering accurate nuclear fire power against an enemy country will be "mannedad". After that time, the number of "mannedad" craft may well decrease, but I do not agree with those who say that the manned bomber will go out of business. In my view, there will always be a need for manned strategic aircraft, for two reasons—one, to give flexibility to the overall air plan, and the other, to locate interior targets in the enemy country. For forward planning over the foreseeable future, I suggest that it should be assumed that at least 25 per cent. of our total fire power delivery capability will be the manned bomber—that is, piloted aircraft. For air defence, the best ratio for the defence force will probably be three-quarters missiles and one-quarter manned aircraft.
There is another point. The more you consider this problem of NATO defence, the more obvious it becomes that it must be handled within a global framework. There cannot be just a NATO war. If war is imposed on us, it will be global, and we have no framework of global defence for the defence of the Free World. A global framework is particularly important for those activities which go on in the air. We now have short-range missiles, long-range ballistic missiles with ranges up to 5,000 to 6,000 miles or more, with nuclear warheads. Satellites circle the earth. We must have some framework for handling all this on a global system. We must have a global early warning system. We must have centralised global planning for air defence. And I would suggest that the need is urgent for some central agency or organisation, which is above the level of Supreme Commanders, to plan and direct all these activities and to control satellites. I would go further. I would say that every day which passes without such a higher organisation merely decreases the value of the deterrent.

267
To sum up as regards NATO, we cannot fight without allies. There is no doubt that allies are most irritating, and they bring with them conditions which add to the irritations, but with our allies it is essential to have collective forces within the alliance as supreme rather than have self-sufficiency in every nation. And in our own case we should give priority to our sea and air Forces. Once we are out of Germany—and I have a feeling that the Germans might ask us to go quite soon—the Army can be relatively small, with great flexibility. The strategic rôle of the Army is to hold, and that should be the main responsibility of the armies of NATO Europe.
So much for the West. But when all is said and done, the immediate problem that confronts us here in this country is not war in NATO Europe. It is the cold war activities on the periphery, activities which could so easily lead to a bitter conflagration unless they are handled quickly and with determination. It is in that realm that we need the very greatest co-operation between the three Services, if we are going to have the right defence with due regard to economy. We cannot do that unless we have the highest possible degree of mobility, flexibility and interchange-ability. Of course, the greatest mobility will be found on the sea and in the air, which leads us to a maritime strategy. And East of Suez, where these things are most likely to occur, we must have a secure base, which is best put in an absolutely safe place, such as Australia—and Perth would be the right place. We should maintain there a division—maybe less, a brigade group—and then have operating centres in certain selected areas. The Air Force must be able to fly Army units quickly to the scene of any conflict with the right equipment. To do that they must have a large air freighter; and they have not got one.
One last word about the Army. I believe that the Army must learn to get its feet wet. The Navy are building modern assault craft, each one to take tanks, guns, vehicles and several hundred men. As they become ready one by one, I would hope that the Navy will hand them over to the Army saying, "These are your craft. Take them and
268
run them. They belong to you and if you want a few bluejackets to help you to maintain them, we will certainly give them to you."
In these inter-Service bases overseas it adds enormously to the expense to have to build married quarters for the Army. I believe that the soldier has to go abroad for one or one and a half years and leave his family in England, like the sailor has to do, and after a year return to this country, to England or maybe to Scotland, and be relieved by others.
I also consider that the Army should interest itself in commando work and not let that type of operation be the preserve of the Royal Marines. Any good infantry battalion should be just as good as a marine commando. It is merely a matter of training. I think that all things of this sort would help to do away with boredom; and it is boredom from which the soldier is very liable to suffer. One last point. I believe that there is far too much conventional thinking in Whitehall to-day. That conventional thinking wants to be given a thoroughly good shake-up before it gets stagnant.
4.9 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, to get back to the British Navy, the Explanatory Statement reminds us of the Kuwait operation, one of the peripheral matters of which the noble and gallant Field Marshal has just been speaking. Two carriers, the "Victorious" and the "Centaur" were sent to the Persian Gulf "to give air support if necessary"—I quote the Statement. These are nuclear carriers, carrying planes which are capable of carrying nuclear bombs. I want to raise the question in this debate: were these two ships at that time carrying nuclear bombs? I know that this is not in itself a question of great strategic importance, because I assume that we could at any moment we like reach Kuwait, Iraq and the Persian Gulf with V-bombers from Cyprus or Aden, but it is still a question.
We know that when the American Sixth Fleet moved up to the Lebanon in 1958, the carriers in that fleet did have nuclear weapons aboard; that was announced at the time. It is the same problem as that which now exists in

269
Quemoy and Matsu, where the Americans have howitzers which are capable of firing conventional or nuclear shells onto the mainland of China. I believe that there are no nuclear shells on the off-shore islands at the moment, but they could be flown in at short notice. You get the same pattern around the world in British and American Forces. We have the commissioning next Tuesday, I believe, at Lossiemouth, of the first squadron of Buccaneer aircraft. Where are they going? To what ship? And where is that ship going? Buccaneer is, to put a short word on it, an atomic bomber; and, of course, it is not the first atomic bomber to be held by the British Fleet. But it is faster and more efficient than Scimitar and is, therefore, an increase in the nuclear capability of these carriers.
Your Lordships might think of it like this. A nuclear Power, like Britain or America, is like a strawberry plant, and whenever anywhere in the world it sends forces which have both a conventional and a nuclear capability there goes out a sort of sucker of "nuclearity", and at the other end there springs up another strawberry plant in the form of a threat of nuclear war. This cannot be avoided; it is how it is; and it happens whether the forces are actually carrying nuclear weapons or not, even if they just have the capability to do it. And as more and more of the arms of forces become nuclearised, so are there more and more of the suckers of this strawberry plant making threats and dangers of nuclear war in more and more remote parts of the world. That is how it is, as I say, and that is how it must be once one has embarked on the extremely tricky path of giving everything a nuclear capability. But is this all right? That is a question to which I should like to have an answer from the First Lord.
What does a small Power, like Syria in the Lebanon affair, or Iraq in the Kuwait affair, do when it sees a carrier approaching which may or may not be bristling with nuclear bombs? What did Iraq actually do at the time of the Kuwait affair? I think the House will be interested to hear something about that. Did they protest to us, for instance? Is there any evidence that they thought of tunning to the Soviet Union and asking the Russians to send in a few nuclear-armed light bombers in order to
270
make a parallel show of force on the other side? Such dangers are fairly obvious. I have heard—I do not know how true it is—that the Americans are considering withdrawing the nuclear weapons from the carriers in their Sixth Fleet, or at least of ceasing so much to carry them around the Mediterranean as part of the normal armament, as they do now. Will the Admiralty be considering the possibility of the same sort of action with regard to our own carriers? Would it be a good plan in future operations of the Kuwait or Lebanon type, of which we must expect to see more, if we were to say to the world: "Here are our carriers, and though they have a nuclear capability, as you know from published works, they have not in fact at the moment any nuclear weapons on board "? Would it have done any harm to say so publicly?
What Anglo-American arrangement governs the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons from naval carriers? We know that the old neutral consultation arrangements came to an end in 1948. We know that there has been a lot of talk recently about joint strategic planning between the American and British air forces, and there is the whole tangle of command and control in NATO land forces. But what happens on the naval level? What happens about all this, not only in NATO, but in SEATO, CENTO, and ANZUS, where the power is to a far greater proportion naval than in NATO? It seems to me that these nuclear-armed carriers must be terrible "jackers-up" of tension, not only because of what they can do, but because of what they invite the other side to do: they are very juicy targets for a first strike.
I do not want to get into the argument about tactical nuclear weapons in Germany—whether they should be up front, or in reserve in higher command; but assuming it is difficult for us to withdraw atomic nuclear weapons in Germany, might it not be easier to withdraw them from the Fleet. I hope that the First Lord will be able to say something about all these questions when he comes to reply.
4.15 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, for the last two years in the debate on the First Lord's Explanatory Statement I have drawn attention to what seems to me to

271
be a grave shortage of aircraft carriers, and I believe that this shortage still exists. Indeed, this was well demonstrated in the Kuwait operation last year. When everything was "Go" and the operation began, "Victorious" was, I believe, in the Hong Kong area and started off with a handicap of minus-5,000 miles. The only other available carrier, "Centaur", had just commissioned and was on her way out to the Mediterranean to work up. Quite apart from the fact that she must have been below average efficiency (the First Lord will correct me if I am wrong), she started with a handicap of minus-4,000 miles. Indeed, if there had been a serious air opposition in Kuwait the Navy would have been hard put to it to do its job of seeing that the Army got firmly established ashore. In fact, all went well; and all credit to those who were responsible for conducting this highly successful operation. But at the same time I cannot help feeling, that, with that "all", we had a little bit of Stanley Holloway's "little bit of luck".
My Lords, operations of that sort should not, I think, depend in any way on luck. Bad luck will come sometimes, and we must be ready for it. These things do happen, and we must insure against them. In order to avoid a recurrence, I believe it is vital that we should have another carrier East of Suez. I am not going to pursue that point: I have been through it all before, and I just mention it, in passing, because it still seems to me to be a point of prime importance in our deployment of forces around the world.
Before I read this year's Statement I contemplated drawing your Lordships' attention to the great importance to the Fleet of an adequate Fleet Train. But, having read it, I see that the Admiralty are, rather naturally, fully alive to this side of the business, and the wind has been largely taken out of my sails. Nevertheless, I should like to ask this question: Is the Fleet Train, as planned, large enough and sufficiently comprehensive to support our Fleet? I realise that one cannot be precise over this: there are too many unknown factors at the moment, such as area of operations and so on, and I suppose that a well-informed estimate is probably as near as one can go.
272
A matter that I should like to probe, in particular, and which is closely connected with the Fleet Train, is the organisation for the setting up of temporary fleet bases that would surely be required in war for the accommodation of our Fleet and its forward base-support ships. In the definition of temporary fleet bases I include, of course, as always, their allied air bases. This matter is bound up with the point raised by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in the Defence debate last March. Your Lordships will remember that he then put forward a strong plea for developing our maritime strategy East of Suez—and he said this again to-day—for a firm and secure base in Australia, possibly at Perth.
It is true that a few days later the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in a debate on Foreign Affairs, put this "East of Suez" strategy in second place, and gave as his most emphatic first a secure home base, which nowadays, of course, means a secure Western Europe. I myself entirely agree with those priorities, but having built up a secure Western Europe (which was again referred to by the noble and gallant Field Marshal this afternoon) I would also agree that a permanent base in Australia is worthy of the closest study. I would, however, suggest Sydney as a possible alternative to Perth, for there already exists in Sydney a number of fine Fleet bases. The problem of temporary fleet bases is also connected with remarks made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Ampthill, in the course of the Defence debate, when he referred to the possible revival of an organisation known as the Mobile Naval Base Defence Organisation, which existed before World War II, and which in the main was concerned, as its title implies, with the defence of temporary fleet bases, as opposed to their construction and equipment, which is the matter I want to put to your Lordships now.
Temporary fleet bases, as your Lordships know, were required in the last war on a very large scale—those that were provided by the Americans in the Pacific being, perhaps, the best examples. The base at Manus, in the Admiralty Islands, is one that I have particularly in mind, partly because I had first-hand knowledge of it during the war, and

273
partly because full use was made of it by our own Pacific Fleet under the command of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape. Within about three months of capturing the Admiralty Islands from the Japanese the Americans had turned this almost desert island into a great fleet base, with alongside berths for unloading cargo, with floating docks, with a 10,000-feet airstrip, completed, they say, within fourteen days of the initial landings on the island. They built roads, storage accommodation, magazines, workshops, a hospital, clubs, canteens, and all those services which go to make up a fleet base. This was developed at top speed out of what amounted to a good natural harbour surrounded by nothing more than a few coral islands covered with jungle.
It is clearly recognised in the Explanatory Statement that in future afloat support will be an important and, indeed, a vital requirement; and the reasons for this are easy enough to understand. As was pointed out by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in the Defence debate, we have lost the use of many of our former bases around the world, and who can say that in time we may not lose more? Such bases as we may have at the beginning of another war may well be attractive targets for nuclear or, indeed, for conventional attack. We have had plenty of examples of this in the past—Pearl Harbour, Singapore, Taranto and Scapa Flow, to name only four from the last war. It follows that in future maritime operations will surely have to be carried out in areas remote from usable permanent bases. And so it is clear beyond doubt that not only shall we require afloat support, but we shall also require temporary fleet and air bases. As the area of Operations moves, so it will be necessary to move these bases, often at very short notice. Here I need quote only one example. Four days before the assault on Okinawa the Americans captured the island of Kerama Retto, only twenty miles away. They captured this island simply to pro-wide themselves with an advanced repair and supply base; and four days after its capture it was available to the fleet for the repair of action damage, refuelling and re-ammunitioning.
274
Of course, the Fleets operating in the Pacific in the last war, both the British Pacific Fleet and the American 3rd, 5th and 7th Fleets, were immensely larger than anything we are thinking about today. In 1943, when the Admiralty was considering mobile fleet bases for our Fleet-to-be in the Pacific, they were thinking in terms of 4 battleships, 4 fleet carriers, 15 escort carriers, 15 cruisers, 50 destroyers, and so on. Of course, the American Fleets were even larger. So from this angle our problem to-day is a much more modest one. Here it is, I think, interesting to recall that the purpose of these mobile fleet bases was laid down by the Admiralty at that time as being:
" the rapid provision of the facilities necessary for the sustained operation of the Fleet in an area far removed from established bases."
So, my Lords, there is nothing new in what I am saying now.
In 1943, the Admiralty also had to consider base facilities for Fleet Air Arm squadrons in the Pacific, and by January, 1945, five mobile operating naval air bases (or "MONABS" as they were called) had been formed. Their purpose was to enable captured airfields to be rapidly manned and equipped for naval aircraft temporarily disembarked for training and maintenance. But these "MONABS" did not include one vital thing: they did not include men or materials for constructional purposes; and, so far as I know, the same applied to the mobile fleet bases. So neither organisation could carry out the all-important business of building airstrips, roads, stores, accommodation and so on, and both had to rely on works that already existed—a very severe limitation indeed. We lacked, in fact, that splendid body of men who worked for the American Fleet, the construction battalions, or "Sea Bees" as they were called.
These highly trained men were a vital part of the American organisation. They were what we might call "combat civil engineers," though their own definition of themselves was "Soldiers in sailors' uniform, with Marine training, doing civilian work". They were formed at the beginning of 1942, and by the end of the war they were over a quarter of a million strong and represented some 60

275
different trades. Their jobs ranged from the building of fleet bases in the Tropics to the setting up of power stations in the Antarctic. Fleet Admiral King said of them:
"The accomplishments of the Sea Bees have been one of the outstanding features of the war. Furthermore, the Sea Bees have participated in practically every amphibious operation, landing with the first wave of assault troops, to bring equipment ashore and set up temporary bases of operation."
As recently as 1957, Fleet Admiral Nimitz said:
"The original idea of having highly skilled construction workers in uniform has developed into one of the many valuable components without which we could not maintain our Navy as we know it to-day."
In the main, the Sea Bees were armed, and on landing they at once set about clearing exits from the beaches, surveying, and so on; and as the troops moved forward they followed close behind, levelling ground, building airstrips, setting up temporary buildings, and all that kind of work. This force is still in existence to-day in peace-time America, and it is a force such as this that I believe we shall want in a future war. As I have said, they are highly trained men, and it is no use waiting for a war to start before we form such a force. A trained nucleus, however small, must be available in peace time, together with their arms, equipment and transport.
My Lords, although our territorial commitments and responsibilities around the world have decreased since 1945, the Navy's responsibility for the protection of shipping is as widespread and as vital as ever it was; and with our limited and dwindling overseas bases it is clear beyond doubt that we must be ready to set up temporary bases in or near operational areas with the least possible delay. Let us make no mistake about it: the Fleet will not operate at full efficiency without them; and for this reason we shall require a comprehensive and properly balanced Fleet Train, and (and this is my point) a fully trained force of "Sea Bees". The Americans are past masters at this sort of business; they proved it, surely, up to the hilt in the last war. Let us profit by their example, and set about forming a nucleus force of "Sea Bees" of our own without delay.
4.31 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, this is the third year running in which I have ventured to intervene in this important debate, and once again I was very glad that the debate was opened by the noble Viscount who sits on the Front Bench opposite. Although I may not agree with everything he said, as always I enjoyed the robust manner in which he stood up for the Navy.
It does not become any easier for one such as myself, a humble Back-Bencher long retired from the Royal Navy, even to attempt, let alone make, a worthwhile contribution to this debate; nevertheless, I think it is important, and a duty on those of your Lordships' House who are interested in or who have served in the Royal Navy, to make this attempt. This is the only opportunity we get in this House to debate in detail purely naval matters which are not really suitable for the wider scope of the Defence debate. I admit that the growing awareness of, and increasing emphasis on, the vital need for this country to pursue a maritime strategy makes it more difficult to discuss even purely naval matters without reference to the other Services. I do not think this is really a serious difficulty and, of course, it applies also to the debates on the Army and Air Force. I feel that these debates on the individual Services are extremely important and, with the Defence debate, form the most satisfactory method for your Lordships' House to consider matters of defence. Personally, I hope that these four important debates will not be rolled into one great omnibus debate.
As many of your Lordships will know from my previous interventions in our Defence debates, as well as in the Navy, Army, and Air Force debates, I am a fervent supporter of a maritime strategy, together with the inter-Service co-operation which that implies. Therefore, I particularly welcome the intervention of the noble and gallant Field Marshal in our debate to-day. Who knows, we may yet get him to join the Navy League? I am very glad that the noble and gallant Field Marshal has spoken so strongly in favour of a maritime strategy, and I think it cannot be emphasised too much because there are so many examples in our history, some

277
quite recently, when we forgot or ignored the priceless asset of sea power and the flexibility of manœuvre which it gives us.
The Memorandum (Command Paper, No. 1629), which we are debating is once again, in my view, an admirably concise and informative document, and I should like to offer my humble congratulations to the First Lord and, through him, to those responsible for its production. I am very glad and particularly grateful that space has been found for reference to the Surveying Service, which some of us mentioned last year. I am also glad to see mentioned the Instructor Branch. From this statement in the Memorandum and various statements in the Press I gather that this branch has moved rather far from the days when we midshipmen had to contribute something from our princely remuneration of Is. 9d. a day to augment the emoluments of the naval instructors in our ships.
To my mind, the most satisfactory fact disclosed in the Memorandum is the figures about recruiting, and, even more, about re-engagement. These are most heartening and are shown most clearly on page 17 of the Memorandum. The least satisfactory feature is the small number of ships, aircraft and men which we get for our money. Nevertheless, I believe the Board of Admiralty have done and are doing their best with the funds made available to them, that they have got their priorities right, that they are building the right sort of Navy, and that our future planning is on the right lines.
I do no intend to play the numbers game with ships, because to do so effectively it seems to me that one needs to know much more than I do about the strength and composition of the Commonwealth Navies and, of course, those of our principal Allies. One is aware of the enormous naval strength, even to-day, of the United States of America, and I have been reading lately of the substantial naval programme for these days which is being undertaken by Canada, though I fear that this may now be cut back slightly. Nevertheless, when all the combined resources are totted up I suspect we have barely sufficient to protect the world-wide sea communications so vitally important not only to us but to NATO, CENTO and
278
SEATO. Whether any general U-boat war on the trade routes is probable or not, the fact remains that our potential enemies have between 400 and 500 submarines, they have at least 12 cruisers and numerous aircraft; and I do not believe that they maintain these unless it is to interfere with the freedom of the seas. In our days the ability to assure free movement by sea at the right time and place depends not only on surface ships but also on aircraft.
This brings me to Coastal Command, which I have no hesitation in mentioning in this debate because this was intimately connected with the Navy. I must say that I view with some apprehension the present state of Coastal Command. It seems to me to be rather the Cinderella of the Services. We go on furbishing up our three or four score of old Shackletons, though I notice that other countries, including Canada, are producing new and up-to-date maritime aircraft. Unfortunately, I also saw in my Sunday newspaper that with regard to a new aircraft called the Breguet Atlantic 1150, which France has undertaken to produce for NATO, a credit of equivalent to £15 million has been withdrawn, and therefore I doubt whether that maritime aircraft will be available to NATO. I think this makes it even more important that the Minister of Defence should have a good look at Coastal Command, its aircraft and equipment, with a view to giving it a much higher priority in the shopping list, and I hope very much that the First Lord will be able to tell us when he replies that he will add his weight to this suggestion. While they are at it, I think the Ministry of Defence, and the defence staff generally, should give serious consideration to whether Coastal Command should not once again have at least a nucleus of flying boats—say, an up-to-date version of the Catalina. Earlier in this debate my noble friend Lord Ashbourne spoke, and I have spoken before, about the diminishing base factors and of the difficulties of those mobile bases, and I cannot help feeling that a few flying boats could be very useful until we had established bases.
My Lords, I propose to devote the main part of my remarks to a purely naval question of nuts and bolts, and that is propulsion machinery, but before

279
I turn to this I must say how strongly I support my noble and gallant friend, Lord Ashbourne, in his plea for a substantial engineering and construction force as part of the Fleet's train.
I myself have spoken about the need for a Fleet Train. I endorse everything that my noble and gallant friend said about the "Seabees". They were the most remarkable asset to the Pacific campaign. My noble friend spoke so eloquently about them that I need not say any more, but perhaps many of your Lordships are unaware that we ourselves had not thousands but we had several battalions of Royal Marine engineers, who again called themselves assault engineers, and who gave most valuable service in North Africa, Italy and later in France. In supporting my noble friend, therefore, I repeat the suggestion which I made, I believe in the naval debate last year, that the very least we can do is to form a Royal Marine engineering wing of the Royal Marine Fleet Volunteer Reserve. I am sure we should have no difficulty in recruiting this up to strength in a very short time.
There are two other matters before I reach my machinery questions. The first concerns the Trade Division of the Naval Staff, now represented, I believe, by one comparatively junior officer in the Admiralty. The functions of the Trade Division, I understand, have been taken over by the Ministry of Transport. Many of us feel rather disturbed about this, if it be true; and I hope the First Lord can give us an assurance when he replies that if this is the arrangement it is working satisfactorily. I personally should have thought the Ministry of Transport had quite enough on its plate without taking that on.
The other point is Flag officers' sea training. I think this is certainly the most important junior Flag appointment in the Navy. Certainly if I were a young Admiral, or just promoted to be a young Admiral, it is the command I would want. We never had such a thing in the old days. It came into being during the last war and I think it is a thing of vital importance. At the moment this command is, I believe, based on Wev-mouth, and of course there are many technical reasons why this is a very suitable place.
280
On the other hand, it has been suggested to me—and I have read it and talked about it—that sea training can be done much more effectively in a more remote spot than Weymouth Bay, where there are not the amenities, week-end leave and all those things which distract from it. I admit there are practical difficulties, but I am sure it is correct. I find that one can pull a ship's company together or a staff together if one gets them away from families and week-ends, too many of the fleshpots. Anyway, I throw that pebble in the pool. Maybe they will be forced to move from Weymouth Bay, because, as your Lordships may remember, Her Majesty's Government allowed the United States Air Force to put up a new-fangled station at Ringstead Bay, and I think it is quite likely that the sea training may suffer electronic interference I hope so, really, because my experts say it will and the Government's experts say it will not: I should like to be proved right.
I must turn now to purely nuts and bolts matters: ship propulsion. First of all, I should like to refer to the gas turbines boost machinery, the prototype of which is installed in H.M.S. "Ashanti", the first of the Tribal class frigates. I learn from the Press that reports on this machinery are most encouraging after some 3,000 hours running at sea. Nevertheless, I read in The Times of May 8 last that the Assistant-Director of Machine Engineer-ins, Ship Department, Admiralty, addressing the International Conference of the Institute of Marine Engineers, had this to say—I paraphrase: that the potential advantages of gas turbines in naval application have not been fully exploited. The Assistant-Director went on to explain that the advantages were: (a) compactness, hence great saving of space; (b) ease of control; one man can control this engine from a remote position; and (c) shipboard maintenance virtually eliminated between overhauls, thus leading to major reductions in engineering personnel carried on board. I think this is a very important advantage for more than one reason; our ships are overcrowded with men and gear as it is.
I am aware that this type of propelling machinery is being fitted not only in the Tribals but in the Devonshire class

281
of guided missile destroyers. I understand that 31 such engines have been ordered. All this sounds very good, but I am disturbed by the statement which I quoted earlier that in their naval application these gas turbines have not been fully exploited. I hope that the gas turbine will be introduced rapidly wherever it is applicable, and that we shall not have a repeat of the water-tube boiler row of 1901, which was sparked off by a Member of the other place who said:
"I say briefly that the water tube boiler for marine purposes cannot work. If you experiment more with these water tube boilers you will come to grief again."
At that time the Admiralty were really on the spot because they had 1,500 Bellville boilers on order. However, there was an inquiry and the water-tube boiler was vindicated. Certainly by 1914 all Her Majesty's ships were equipped with water-tube boilers, not necessarily of the Bellville type.
I hope that the gas turbine engine will not only have a smooth and rapid introduction into service but that high priority will be given to further development work, on it. I personally hope and expect that later marks of the gas turbine engine will be as great an improvement on the existing type as the later types of water-tube boilers were on the original Bellvilles. I did my boiler room training on Bellville boilers, as did, I suspect, my noble friend Lord Teynham. I do not know whether my noble and gallant friend Lord Ashbourne is too young. They worked, but they were very difficult and dirty to maintain. My hands have never recovered from it to this day. I think there is a lesson in this little boiler interlude. Something good can be pushed aside. I hope gas boilers will not be.
I should like now to turn to nuclear-powered propulsion. May I remind your Lordships that the American Navy has the aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. "Enterprise" at sea and the merchant ship "Savannah" on trials. The Russians have had an ice-breaker for some time. All these are nuclear powered. Moreover, the United States Navy will have by 1970, so I read, 45 Polaris-armed submarines and 70 (as they call them) attack submarines at sea, and all under nuclear power. What are we doing about this? Our submarine "Dreadnought" is not
282
at sea yet. The "Valiant" is only just laid down. We do seem to be rather slow nowadays. We did better 50 years ago. On January 3, 1905, the Admiralty Design Committee met for the first time to consider the design of the first all big gun battleship ever, an entirely new and, for those days, very complex ship. The keel of the ship resulting from this meeting was laid down ten months later on October 2, 1905. She was launched 18 weeks later in February 1906, and christened H.M.S. "Dreadnought". One year and one day from laying down she went to sea on her trials, and, for the Record, she was built in Her Majesty's dockyard at Portsmouth—and all credit to them! I merely mention this in the hope that it will spur us to a little quicker shipbuilding. It is not only the "Dreadnought". I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, also made a comment about the assault ship.
At any rate, I find it difficult to understand why the submarine "Dreadnought" is taking so long. Barrow has a reputation second to none for building submarines. The ambition of myself and contemporary submariners was to serve in Barrow-built boats—an ambition, so far as I was concerned, that was never achieved. If the reason is difficulties with the Westinghouse nuclear propulsion machinery supplied from America (as I have heard toll) one is even more mystified, because the nuclear-powered American submarines already at sea seem to be functioning satisfactorily, while others are being commissioned at regular intervals. However, important though this question of the "Dreadnought" is—land perhaps the First Lord can give us an answer when he replies—the really important question is, what are we, and in particular the Admiralty, doing about nuclear-powered propulsion for ships in general?
The Principal Surveyor of the Engineering Investigation Department, Lloyd's Register, Mr. Hildrew, in May last read to this same International Conference of Marine Engineers, a paper in which he drew the general conclusion that no reactor concept at present put forward shows any sign of being economic. He stressed the need for much more development work on land on all the systems at present under examination. This, and much else that he said, was of great interest, but I will

283
not weary your Lordships with further technical details. However, it seems clear, from what this gentleman said, that we have some way to go before nuclear-powered marine propulsion is an economic proposition in the commercial sense. Of course, purely commercial considerations are of less importance to the Admiralty that those of weight, reliability and safety; and, most of all, the need to get nuclear marine propulsion machinery into service in certain classes of Her Majesty's ships.
So far as I can ascertain, the only research work being carried out on this subject directly for the Admiralty is a contract given to Rolls-Royce, for work on improved reactors. There is also, of course, the machinery installed in H.M.S. "Dreadnought", not yet at sea, and the land-based prototype nuclear machinery at Dounreay which is also not yet functioning. It is true that the Atomic Energy Authority are sponsoring considerable research work on this subject. For instance, they have given a study contract to continue further work on a reactor system originally put forward by a consortium of Vickers, Rolls-Royce and Foster-Wheeler. Then, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport announced in another place on November 8 last, the Atomic Energy Authority have signed an agreement with a consortium of Belgian companies—they call it "Belgonucleare"—to take part in a joint research and development programme on a reactor of advanced design known as Vulcain, which is stated to be very promising for marine application.
The Ministry of Transport are obviously more interested in the commercial application of nuclear marine propulsion, and I am sure that it will take time to achieve success in this field. In the meantime, are sufficient importance and sufficient priority being given to the Admiralty's urgent need (or so it seems to me) to get satisfactory nuclear propulsion machinery, not only for our new submarines but also, possibly, for the projected new aircraft carriers? I submit that this question of nuclear-powered machinery for naval ships is a matter of great importance and urgency, and, at this time, of even greater importance than in its purely commercial application. I have no
284
more to say about the experimental work in progress on nuclear-propelled machinery for ships, but I hope that the First Lord will be able to tell us that the Admiralty are satisfied that they are getting enough priority in all these various projects, all but one of which are not under their direct control.
I mentioned the aircraft carrier as possibly being a candidate for such types of machinery. I fully appreciate the many difficulties which face the Admiralty in achieving a satisfactory design for the aircraft carrier of the future. Nuclear-powered propulsion is only one. There is the equally important and difficult question of what sort of aircraft they are to carry. Then, finally, there is also the purely policy decision, as to whether to build at all; and, if so, when. I personally agree with my noble and gallant friend Lord Ashbourne that we need another carrier at sea East of Suez as soon as possible; but at this late stage in my speech I do not propose to enter into detailed discussion of this matter. All I will say is that it seems to me that these two questions—the type of propelling machinery and the type of aircraft to be used—are fundamental in reaching any final decision about the aircraft carrier of the future.
If and when the Staff requirements are worked out, I am sure we can rely on the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, that most capable body of fewer than 200 men, to produce the best possible design, and on our shipbuilders, private or in the Royal Dock Yards, to build them. I have mentioned quite deliberately the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. They have been in existence as such for nearly 100 years, but of course their traditions go back much longer. Until 1873 the most senior constructor rejoiced in the title "Master Shipwright", a rank handed down from the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. Now, I believe, he is called the Director-General of Ships—not quite such an attractive title. But why I have mentioned this Corps is that I think perhaps occasionally they might have a reference in the Memorandum.
I want to inform your Lordships also that my naval friends who are still serving, tell me that our new ships are most beautifully designed—I do not refer so much to the hull form or the external

285
appearance as to the interior layout—no longer, to quote the argot of to-day "a dog's breakfast inside a ship." The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors would be the first to admit that these results could not be achieved without the magnificent co-operation they receive from the electrical and engineering and other departments. I am told that, both on new construction and refits, the cooperation and co-ordination between these departments is quite remarkable. Having heard that comment, my Lords, I thought I should include it in my speech.
I have nearly finished all that I have to say. In making my notes for this part of my speech it occurred to me what a wonderful thing it would be if we had a Royal Corps of Aircraft Constructors working closely with the Air Staff, as the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors works with the Naval Staff. I believe that if such existed, many problems would be solved, more quickly and more effectively than they are, including, of course, the type of aircraft to fly from our new aircraft carriers. The late Lord Fisher (better known as "Jackie Fisher") wrote:
"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. Hit first, hit hard, hit anywhere."
I think that this Memorandum on the Naval Estimates which we are debating to-day shows that we are getting a Navy, albeit too small, albeit too slowly; but, nevertheless, one which can do just that—hit first, hit hard and hit anywhere.
5.0 p.m.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, on occasions when we are discussing the affairs of the Royal Navy, I think our first thoughts must be for the officers and men of all ranks who man the Service. I should like to start by paying tribute, in all humility, to their matchless efficiency and morale. I speak as a retired Army officer myself, and I remember during the last war we in the Army occasionally grumbled, probably without justification, about the performance and efficiency of Army units or formations in which we did not happen to be serving ourselves. I remember that occasionally, in the early days of the war, we also grumbled, I am sure without any justification at all, about the support which we received from the
286
Royal Air Force. But I can never for one moment remember the efficiency of the Royal Navy being questioned. Our faith in the Navy was absolute. We in the Army had no opportunity to see major fleet actions, but in our contacts with the Royal Navy, whether we were being landed by them in hostile territory, or, less happily, whether we were being withdrawn, we were filled with admiration for their work. I am quite sure the same spirit of efficiency prevails in the Service to-day.
My intervention in this debate will be a fairly short one. I seek information on one matter only. It seems to me that quite the most important point, the salient point, in the Explanatory Statement, is the fact, clearly brought out again, that we no longer possess a Battle Fleet. This, of course, is not a new situation; it has been developing ever since the last war. But I am not sure, even now, that we fully appreciate the significance of this revolutionary deterioration in naval strength. The Explanatory Statement goes into some detail about the ships which are available to the Royal Navy. Major Fleet units would, I suppose, include the three aircraft carriers, the four cruisers and perhaps the two Commando carriers. Presently it seems that there will be another three aircraft carriers and another four cruisers in service. But even if all these ships are operational, can they in any way constitute a force at all comparable with the great battle fleets which existed before the First and the Second World Wars?
I do not want to take the comparison too far, because I know that circumstances have altered, but, to see this matter in perspective it is worth remembering that even in 1939, when the Royal Navy was none too well off for ships, it could deploy some 29 cruisers and had another 27 cruisers in reserve. This total of 56 cruisers might, I think, be compared with the 8, at the most, which are now available. I should have thought that the few heavy ships that we have now available could constitute little more than a task force, perhaps two task forces; but they would be quite insufficient to play the rôle which the former Grand Fleet did. My Lords, if we agree that nothing equivalent to the old Grand Battle Fleet really exists now, we

287
must surely consider very carefully how the functions which those fleets used to perform will be fulfilled in the future.
I myself speak as a layman in these matters, and I am very glad that a number of noble Lords with distinguished naval careers have taken part in the debate this afternoon. They are far more qualified than I am to raise these points. But I think some facts are clear even to a layman. For three, four or five hundred years our country has depended for its security very largely on a maritime strategy, and I think our forefathers were wise to pursue this policy. The proof of their wisdom lies in the fact that we have not lost a major war for 200 years, and our Island has remained secure from invasion for 900 years.
For a very long time the basis of our maritime strategy has surely been the existence of a large Fleet. I imagine that the functions of a Fleet are, broadly speaking, two. The Fleet enables us to maintain the strategic initiative in wartime; it enables us in time of war to attack our enemies in any part of the world and to land our armies on hostile territory or to withdraw them when they are in difficulties so that they can fight another day elsewhere. The very existence of a Battle Fleet, even if it remains in harbour, as it did for very much of the First World War, is a constant threat and deterrent to our enemies.
The second function of a Battle Fleet I should imagine to be the protection of our merchant shipping and trade routes. The main Fleet has always provided cover for the work of the lighter naval ships which are more directly concerned in this task—the smaller ships which escort our convoys in war time, which hunt submarines, or, in the first context, actually land or evacuate armies. Paragraph 6 in the Explanatory Statement gives a whole list of the smaller ships which are available to the Royal Navy, and their numbers are considerable. I should imagine that they could be increased fairly quickly in time of emergency.
The point I wish to make is this. Even if their numbers were two or three times as many, even if we had a huge number of destroyers, frigates and smaller naval
288
vessels, would their services be of any avail if they were to be denied the cover of a main Battle Fleet which they have always had in the past? If it is conceded that a maritime strategy has kept our Island secure for hundreds of years, if it is further conceded that the basis of this maritime strategy has been the existence of the main Battle Fleet, and if it is finally conceded that we no longer possess such a Fleet, we have to ask: what is the substitute defensive plan? We all realise, of course, that the circumstances of defence have altered radically since the last war. There has been the development of nuclear weapons; there has been perhaps our economic inability to maintain the large forces we were previously able to do. Those of us who follow the fortunes of the Royal Navy are not necessarily arguing the case for great Battle Fleets with a wealth Of capital ships. What we are anxious to know is how the vital functions which such Fleets performed in the past will be fulfilled in the future.
Do Her Majesty's Government suggest that an air strategy can replace our former maritime strategy? The Royal Air Force is now very powerful indeed, and in some ways perhaps it is our premier fighting Service. It can attack our enemies in time of war in any part of the world. But could it ever give the necessary cover to naval ships which are escorting merchantmen—not so much the ships in coastal waters and home waters, but those on the oceans—and to smaller vessels engaged in combined operations, which cover the main Battle Fleets have provided in the past? Many of us feel that an Air Force will never be able to perform these traditional functions of a strategic Battle Fleet. Surely the strategic rôle of an Air Force is rather a different one.
Is it really the case then, as I suspect, that, as we ourselves no longer possess a heavy Battle Fleet we must depend on our Allies—to a great extent on the heavy ships, the capital ships of our Allies? Is it the American Battle Fleet which is to be asked to cover the work of such lighter naval vessels as we possess? It would be foolish to condemn such a position out of hand, because, after all, alliances are two-way affairs. If we depend on our Allies more than we have had to do in the

289
past, then they in turn no doubt depend more on us. And, of course, the Royal Navy is making a very big contribution indeed to the main Allied Fleets. Nevertheless, it is a sad and sobering thought, if we are unable any longer to pursue an independent maritime strategy and if we have no plans to recreate a strategic covering fleet.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has several times referred to a "battle fleet". What sort of ships has he actually in mind?
LORD ABINGER: Aircraft carriers, my Lords. We have six aircraft carriers, but, as I suggested, I think that is little more than a task force or two task forces.
Finally, I do question the lack of information in the Explanatory Statement on this vital matter of allied co-operation. The only mention of allied cooperation is in paragraph 48 which says:
"Discussions with Allied Navies aimed at practical co-operation in research and development are beginning to show encouraging results. Collaboration, which results in a saving of both time and money, is being negotiated on a number of research and development projects."
I do not think that gets us very far.
So I would conclude by asking the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is replying in the debate, whether he is able to give us any more detailed information about the Allied Fleets, to which important elements of the Royal Navy will apparently be subordinate in time of war. Do these Fleets, for instance, include a considerable number of heavy capital ships, capable of forming a Battle Fleet to cover the work of lighter naval vessels? It may seem odd for me to inquire in this debate about ships in other nations' navies, but it seems clear that our own Royal Navy is going to require a great deal of help from these allied navies, if it is to succeed in keeping the oceans open for our shipping. I myself feel that any information about these allied ships, with which the Royal Navy is now closely associated, would be useful. I would only say that I think it is rather a tragic commentary on our own comparative weakness at sea that such a question has to be asked at all.
5.12 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure it will have impressed all of your Lordships, how deeply and sincerely—I would also say sentimentally, but without, I hope, sentimental undertones—my noble friend who moved this Motion feels about the Royal Navy. Clearly, in taking part in a debate on the Royal Navy those who belong to another Service, like the noble Lord who has just spoken and myself, feel we have to proceed with a good deal of delicacy. I may say that, now that the Royal Navy has ceased its attempts to take Coastal Command from the Royal Air Force, I am able to approach a naval debate with a less critical eye than I might otherwise have had.
I should first like to refer to one matter, about which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will tell us something; that is, the progress that he is making in regard to meeting the criticisms of the Estimates Committee on the control of expenditure. I know that some of this criticism related to the Admiralty itself, and to the size of the headquarters; and we have to take into account, inevitably, that in the headquarters, with all its responsibilities for design and research, it may prove very difficult to cut down numbers. But presumably the First Lord has been at pains to carry out the wishes of the Estimates Committe, and we should like to know how that is going.
There has been some criticism in this debate, both about the delay and about the cost of new developments. It seems absolutely inseparable from any form of Defence expenditure, that anything that is ordered costs a great deal more than was originally anticipated. Probably the worst offender in this matter is not the Royal Navy but the Royal Air Force, which has had the most prodigious increases in costs. None the less, I think that a number of people have been shocked at the cost of some of the new developments, particularly the cost of the new assault ships. It is not surprising, although regrettable, that we are not likely to have more than two of these new assault ships in the next three years, as I understand it. Depending on one's particular view of naval and military, or combined strategy, I should have

291
thought that they had a very high priority, indeed.
I would first turn to a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred briefly, and that is the Surveying Service, the Hydrographical Service of the Admiralty and the Royal Navy. It is interesting to see that, parallel with their military activities (and we have commented on this before) all three services are apt to be involved, to a very considerable and, indeed, expensive extent, in activities which serve a much greater interest than that of the particular Service—whether it is the Royal Air Force with the Meteorological Service or, most especially, the Royal Navy with the Surveying Service. I tried to discover from the Estimates (and this is one of the matters that is prompting these remarks) how large a part these purely peaceful services of the Royal Navy play in these very large totals.
It is, of course, a fact that the Surveying Service and the Hydrographer's Office of the Royal Navy are held in international esteem. However far in certain matters our powers may have declined, there is no doubt that the hydrographic work and, increasingly now, the oceanographic work, as well as the general survey work of the Royal Navy, are the very finest of any naval hydrographic service in the world. There are many great names connected with it, whether it be Admiral Beaufort; or, more recently, Admiral Edgell; or even the present Hydrographer, Admiral Irving, who have all carried on the great tradition which is being pursued throughout the world. We are undertaking this service, against, in certain respects, declining responsibilities in regard to sovereignty, for countries—some of the emergent nations of the British Commonwealth—who are not themselves in a position to undertake this. One finds H.M.S. "Cook" very suitably operating in Fiji, and it is worth remembering, of course, that Captain Cook was himself at one stage, before the Surveying Service had really developed, a very effective surveyor. Indeed, if I remember rightly, the successful assault on Quebec was largely attributable to his survey of the St. Lawrence.
292
It is interesting to note that a number of these ships have been taking part, particularly, in oceanographic work. This is a matter to which scientists, certainly, and those of us who are interested in the geographical field, attach tremendous importance. However much exploration of space there is going to be, there are still vast areas of the world which have not yet been explored, and these are in the oceans. The interest of geologists, biologists and, indeed, oceanographers is growing all the time; and in this work it is satisfactory to see the Surveying Service of the Royal Navy playing such an important part, and having to play it with more complicated equipment. It is worth noting, again, that the Royal Naval officers who take part in this are fully-trained surveyors. They are having to deal now with Decca navigators, and all this new equipment. It is also satisfactory to note that, while they are carrying out this high-level scientific work, they are also providing better and more useful charts for yachtsmen. Altogether, I am sure your Lordships would agree that we are very fortunate in the service that they render.
My Lords, we have had some discussion to-day on strategy, and I confess I have a number of critical remarks to make, with regard both to the equipment and to some of the concepts that still seem to lie behind the policy which Her Majesty's Government are following concerning the Royal Navy. I listened with great interest to the noble and gallant Field Marshal. There were moments when I felt so high above Moscow that I had difficulty in following the particular arguments that he was seeking to have with us. But it seems that the advent of the deterrent, of the nuclear bomb, has changed the picture so much that it is very difficult for any of us, the Government or anyone else, to visualise the sort of situation that would exist once a major nuclear exchange broke out. But, increasingly, the Government, urged by members of all political Parties and of none, have been stressing more and more the importance of the limited war rôle of our Defence Services. It seems to me that this is the primary rôle. It is in the prevention of war and in dealing with the

293
"brush fire", the breakout in a particular area, which is the main activity of the Navy and the Army, and the Royal Air Force except for Bomber Command—and even here they may have their part to play.
I am sure the noble and gallant Field Marshal is right in that we really do not help ourselves if we think entirely in terms of a naval or air strategy. I do not know whether noble Lords will be shocked if I say that the important concepts of the Fleet in being the sort of thing we were brought up on, Admiral Marne and so on, have to-day gone to a large extent, and we need to think in very different terms—in terms, indeed, which I am inclined to think are implicit in the Government's White Paper on Defence, in the Estimates and in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates. It is encouraging to see the sort of thing the noble and gallant Field Marshal has been urging coming out more and more in these Government documents. Personally, I do not think we have gone anything like far enough, but I would not wish to pursue this wider matter now because I want to make just a few remarks about naval equipment, about carriers and, particularly, about carrier aircraft.
Here, my Lords, we are confronted with the most enormous expenditure. When we think that a new carrier, one which is laid down for completion in 1970, 1971 or 1972, is going to cost something like £50 million, and that with all the aircraft and equipment it may well be £100 million, this is, in fact, though I admit it will not all be paid in one year, one-fifth of a single year's expenditure on the Navy. When we realise the long delays in the introduction of aircraft, then it is extremely important for the Government to make up their mind and not dither, as I really believe they are doing, on the question whether the Royal Navy is to pursue a nuclear or a conventional rôle. This has been bedevilling our defence, both in the Army and in the Navy, for the last few years. It is probably inevitable that it should be so; but we pay quite a heavy price for this. I am sure the First Lord will know that there has been serious criticism—and from within the Service—of the consequences of this, and of the type of aircraft that we now
294
have in operation or coming into operation.
I hesitate to make these criticisms, for obvious reasons. One is aware that it could be argued that they would be damaging to morale. However, these are matters which have been spoken of, and I feel I must mention them, and I hope that the First Lord will be able to answer them. It is argued that the "Scimitar" should never have been bought. I appreciate the difficulties in taking such a decision, and we are now committed irrevocably to it. It was originally intended as an interceptor. One of its important rôles now is as a nuclear strike aircraft. It is suggested that if they are to deliver conventional weapons, their capacity is little more than that of a "Fury" of many years ago. The "Scimitar", I believe, can carry something like four 1,000 lb. conventional bombs. In order to take off from certain carriers, like the "Hermes" or the "Victorious", it is necessary for there to be a windspeed of 20 knots in addition to the ship's own speed. This does not apply to the "Ark Royal" or the "Eagle". I should be delighted to hear that this is not true, but I have had this information on pretty good authority. The range, again, is something I should like to hear about, for I understand the range is only about 200 to 400 miles depending on the load.
Unkind things are said about the "Scimitar". It has been alleged, again, that it is the answer to the threat of thrust, or the wingless wonder. This may be just Service talk of a kind which is always made: people are always apt to be rude about their equipment; but we want to make sure that we are not trying to produce over-sophisticated aircraft for what is more likely to be a limited war rôle. Again, it is suggested that the insistence of the Royal Navy or of the Government on creating a nuclear rôle for the Royal Navy and the Fleet Air Arm has led to the provision of aircraft which are a great deal less satisfactory to the keeping of the peace, in which the Royal Navy has such an important part to play.
Again there are criticisms of the "Buccaneer", the N.A.39, especially with the Gyron junior engine. I know that a later version is coming along, I think with a Spey engine, which will be

295
more satisfactory. In so far as we share the views of those who are talking about an East of Suez rôle, of maintaining task forces and of providing some form of successor to the Fleet in being in these areas, is it really to be expected that they are likely to have to drop atomic bombs? It would be very much simpler if we could answer this; and it might well be much more profitable to this country to have more smaller aircraft carriers, carrying less sophisticated aircraft, able to be readily available wherever trouble arises, so that there would not be this necessity to steam 4,000 or 5,000 miles when any emergency arises.
We are well aware that the Royal Navy and the Admiralty, in particular, either had great luck or showed great prescience—I think it was a mixture of both—when the Kuwait operation came off. But they may not always be as lucky and they may not always be as prescient as they were on that occasion. I myself feel (and this has been argued quite strongly by Members of another place, belonging to all Parties; my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough made the same point in his speech, and I think the Government are hesitating on this) that we ought not to embark without a good deal more consideration on a really expensive carrier policy unless we are satisfied that there is an essential rôle for these large carriers.
My Lords, I should have thought that the important rôle for the Navy must be in helping to maintain the peace of the world, short of a nuclear war. I should like to support those noble Lords who have urged again a strengthening of the anti-submarine forces. I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that Coastal Command is in fact at a very high level of efficiency indeed. It is an extremely efficient Command, and the squadrons are doing pretty well with their old aircraft. But there is a necessity for a replacement; and this is a necessity which, as the noble Lord has argued, is of great importance to the Royal Navy.
We may be confronted with a situation in which pirate submarine activities (and by "pirate" activities I mean ones which might well be sponsored by another country, though not officially
296
admitted) may occur. There might well have been submarine activity during the Kuwait operation, and there may well be in fields other than a single area. If any Power were successful in creating real trouble for us in the world, and could make it occur in several areas of the world simultaneously, if we found unofficial or pirate submarine activities thrown into the battle I think we might find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation in a military sense. I hope, therefore, that we are not sacrificing the security of the Royal Navy and of this country in these matters by putting too many of our eggs into the basket of a few very large carriers.
My Lords, there were a number of points of extreme interest made by noble Lords to which I should have liked to refer, and I hope the Government will consider them. It is always inevitable, when money is short, that good new ideas will never really get started, People are so busy trying to maintain what they have—and this is perfectly reasonable—that the possibility of developing new activities gets very much less. But I would urge upon the Government—and I am sure noble Lords who heard the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, would agree—the importance in this situation of trying to achieve complete mobility and a maritime strategy of making Naval forces, whether they be for the Air Force or for the Army, really self-supporting, and providing the necessary constructional or other forces similar to the "Sea Bees".
I do not wish to go into the question of whether the Royal Navy should have Polaris submarines. This raises bigger issues. Personally, I have very considerable doubts, in the long run, as to how important it is that we do maintain a completely British-controlled deterrent or nuclear deterrent; but I am quite certain that the work which goes into the construction of these new types of machinery, particularly into the development of nuclear machinery, will not be wasted nationally. It may appear to be extremely expensive at the moment for us to be building a second nuclear submarine; but surely this is going to pay off in terms of marine construction, whether it be Naval or whether it be civilian, in the future.

297
I would say only this in conclusion: it is quite clear that in this House, as indeed in any British assembly, there is deep admiration and deep devotion to the Royal Navy, as there is, I hope, to all the Services. But we should like to be satisfied that the Government are giving the country value for money; that they are taking the right decisions in this new and ever-changing situation; and that we shall not see less and less return on the enormous expenditure which the country has to make on defence. I personally have a very large measure of confidence in the First Lord, and I hope that he will listen to the ideas that your Lordships have put to him to-day.
5.36 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, this is the fourth and last of the annual debates which we have on the Service Estimates each year, and we are, as usual, greatly in the debt of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for having put down this Motion. I think I have said before that there can be no doubt whatever where the noble Viscount stands in relation to the Royal Navy. He may think that the Royal Navy is too small. He certainly thinks that the Government and the First Lord are not very good. But his criticisms certainly do not extend to the officers and men of the Royal Navy, and he is as firm in his belief in the rôle and importance of sea power as ever he was.
I am glad, too, to think that this afternoon we have had, in addition to the usual and welcome speakers on Naval affairs, three new speakers. One was my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who, whenever he speaks, certainly makes us think. He made, I thought, a most interesting speech this afternoon. The only thing I would quarrel with him about is that I beg leave to doubt whether he would be quite so silent as he said, as he raised himself in his balloon over Moscow, compared with the rest of your Lordships. Then there was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who brings a quite distinctive point of view of his own. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. He asked me so many that I could not get them all down. I am sure he knows as well as I do that
298
questions of the kind he asked are never answered, and I hope he will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not do so.
Then there was my noble friend Lord Abinger, and I hope he will not compare the circumstances of to-day and the capability of the ships of to-day with those of pre-war. I hope that he will find in what I have to say the answers to some of his questions. My Lords, I do not think I can go into the strengths of the Allied Fleets, because I hardly think it would be proper for me to do so; but I might recommend to him Jane's Fighting Ships which I find to be a very accurate and interesting publication with regard to the navies of the world.
Although it is only to-day that we have turned our attention specifically to Naval affairs, in each of our previous debates the rôle of the Navy, and the part which it has been assigned in our defence strategy for the 1960s, has been touched upon. This is in itself, I think, a sign of a changed attitude towards the Navy. I must say that three years or so ago, when I first came to the Admiralty, I thought that I detected a tendency in your Lordships' House, and perhaps in the country too, to regard the Royal Navy as standing somehow apart from the main stream of our national defence. The role of the Army was always clear, and so was that of the Royal Air Force; and their two rôles were, quite rightly, I think, regarded as complementary. The movement of troops by air, and their tactical support by the Royal Air Force in battle, were concepts Which were well understood by everyone. But then there was the Navy, scattered about the world in its own separate element, the sea, detached and a little remote. The function and the purpose of the Fleet was apt to fee measured, I think, by the task which it carried out in the First and Second World Wars. Not surprisingly perhaps, when judged solely in that light, its rôle in the future did not seem entirely clear.
There were those who, remembering how close to defeat this country came in the Battle of the Atlantic, raised the alarm over the size of the Navy—forgetting perhaps our altered circumstances, our regional pacts, and the need for a balanced Fleet, as well as an antisubmarine Navy. Others saw all modern

299
warfare as a push-button, nuclear affair, which would he all over in a matter of weeks, if not days—and wrote the Navy off as a waste of money. What, for them, had hitherto seemed the main task and justification of British sea power— keeping the supply line to Britain open in a protracted war—had apparently vanished in a mushroom cloud. And I am not at all sure that six or seven years ago my noble and gallant friend behind me would not have gone some way along that road.
Since then it has come to be recognised more clearly that the Royal Navy, together with the other navies of the Western Alliance, forms an indispensable part of the general deterrent in Europe; for example, which of your Lordships could contemplate with anything but dismay a situation in which we and our Allies had to face the Soviet Union entirely defenceless at sea? It seems to me that this aspect of our Naval rôle has been put with great clarity by my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. Here I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and perhaps I may break off for a moment to say that I think the noble Lord improves with every year that passes. When I first became First Lord, I thought he started off by being rather antipathetic to the Royal Navy. Last year, he was not too bad; but this year I thought he had come on a great deal; and next year, I expect great things of him.
Few people, even three years ago, would have ventured to predict that the Navy's traditional task of keeping the oceans safe for British traffic would soon take on the new and wider meaning which the 1962 Defence White Paper has given it; though perhaps, looking back, it is easy to see now that the writing on the wall was already there—in the slowly developing nuclear stalemate between East and West, which has thrown what I might call the peripheral threat of Communism into strong relief; and in the steady growth of independent nations throughout the world, which has meant that we can now rely on fewer bases and installations overseas.
We are a great trading nation; and we have many vital national interests throughout the world which we must continue to protect, if we are to survive.
300
We have also contracted new and powerful international obligations; and, as a result, the rôle and purpose of the modern Navy, and the value of British sea power, has acquired a yet broader significance. It is to ensure that Britain can play her full part, within the Alliance of free nations, in preventing the spread of world-wide Communism, and in preserving peace. If we are to do this, we must retain the ability to deploy our military power all over the world; and with the growing number of land and air barriers to the movement of our forces, the one free highway of the sea which we can always use—provided that we can defend it—is going to figure more and more in all our military planning and thought.
It is for this reason, which I believe has now come to be generally understood—and certainly I have heard no doubts cast on the value of sea power this afternoon—that no debate on Defence, or on the Army, ox even on the Royal Air Force, can nowadays be complete without taking account of the Royal Navy. For, as my night honourable friend the Minister of Defence has said, we must begin to think increasingly of the inter-dependence of the three Fighting Services: the efficiency of one will depend increasingly on the efficiency of the other two. And certainly the policy which the Government have decided to follow, for example, for the Army, which we discussed last month, makes very little sense without a strong and efficient Navy—and Air Force—to give it reality.
There is no disguising the fact that six or seven years ago there was doubt about what shape the future Navy was likely to take. I have already outlined some of the conflicting views which were then held by eminent and responsible people. In these circumstances, the Board of Admiralty at that time decided that the wisest course was to keep something of everything: to keep alive all the arts of naval warfare, so as to be ready to expand and step forward in any direction as soon as the uncertainty cleared. I think that the wisdom of this course has been borne out by events, for to-day we have a versatile Navy, equipped to flight in all the elements: on or under the sea, in the air, and, with the Royal Marine Commandos,

301
even on land—the very nucleus of the kind of joint sea-borne task forces which the 1962 Defence White Paper prescribes.
Already the Navy has a significant amphibious capability, with the commando ships and the ships of the Amphibious Warfare Squadron; and this will grow substantially as our new assault ships, about which noble Lords have been talking, arrive. They will be called H.M.S. "Fearless" and H.M.S. "Intrepid" and will join the Fleet in about three years' time. H.M.S. "Fearless" will begin to take shape in a fortnight from now, when the first prefabricated section of the hull is laid down at Belfast. These ships are of about 12,000 to 13,000 tons and will carry a large body of troops, tanks, guns and lorries. They will be a very formidable addition to our amphibious warfare squadron.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, already the tonnage seems to have increased during the discussions on these new ships.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think so. I think that they were always supposed to be about that size. Certainly that was the impression I thought I gave your Lordships last year, when they were first announced. They have not altered in that time.
We have maintained and modernised our aircraft carriers—extremely [powerful, mobile airfields—to support and combine with the land-based aircraft of the Royal Air Force in protecting our amphibious forces against attack from the air and in providing our troops with close support ashore.
This year also sees the introduction into service—on July 17, as a matter of fact—of the first operational squadron of the Blackburn Buccaneer, formerly called the N.A.39. This is a really first-class aircraft. I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in what he said about to. I can testify for myself how it behaves at high speeds and at low altitude, since I was given a ride by the test pilot of Messrs. Blackburn at very high speed and very close to the ground during a visit I paid to Brough the other day. It was very interesting to note that, coming into land at the airfield in an ordinary conven-
302
tional passenger aeroplane, the conditions were extremely rough and bumpy, while in the Buccaneer it was very noticeable how smooth it was at the same height—a very important factor in a low-level strike aircraft. I know that this aircraft will be a very great addition to the striking power of the Navy and will give useful service for many years to come.
It will replace the Scimitar, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had some rather hard things to say. I do not think that it is right to speak in terms of an aircraft alone. I think that the noble Lord must consider the weapon system. The new air-to-air missiles, the Sidewinder and Firestreak, with which we are equipping both Scimitars and Sea Vixens, will greatly improve their effectiveness and prolong their lives. The Scimitar is about to be replaced by the Buccaneer, but the Sea Vixen is a very sophisticated all-weather fighter which, with these air-to-air missiles, will remain effective for at least the remainder of this decade.
To strengthen still further the air defence of the Fleet and of our amphibious forces, the first two of our six new guided missile destroyers, the "Hampshire" and "Devonshire", will join the Fleet early next year, with their Seaslug weapons, which have turned out extremely well. I paid a visit only a fortnight ago to the "Devonshire" at Birkenhead, where she has just completed her initial trials, and I must say that she is an extremely impressive—and handsome—ship. I hope that perhaps some of your Lordships will be able to visit her when she is commissioned. There has been an excellent report of her trials from her future captain, and I think these ships are going to be first class. The fifth and sixth ships, your Lordships may be interested to know, are to be called H.M.S. "Fife" and H.M.S. "Glamorgan", to preserve the naval connections with Scotland and Wales.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: A new "Tribal" class.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes; but we have another new "Tribal" class, as well. These two new ships will be even

303
better than the first four, because they will have an improved anti-aircraft capability.
To protect our amphibious forces against submarine attack we have built in the last ten years nearly forty modern escorts of the "Whitby" and later classes; and the new "Leander" design, of which there is an illustration in my Explanatory Statement, has aroused interest all over the world. With our nuclear submarines we are hoping to break entirely new ground in the technique of anti-submarine warfare: for these boats, with their high speed and endurance, open up for the first time in history the prospects of an underwater convoy escort with all the advantages which ability to fight a submarine enemy in his own element brings. We hope to have the "Dreadnought" at sea by the end of the year; and provided the present labour dispute is settled fairly quickly, as I hope it will be, there seems every likelihood that we shall meet this date. I thought that my noble friend Lord Ampthill had some hard things to say about the time it has taken to build "Dreadnought". I wish he would come up some time and see how complicated it is to build a nuclear submarine; and perhaps he, too, might then appreciate the different conditions which exist in our shipyards as compared with those in the United States. I do not think we have done too badly in building "Dreadnought" in the time that we have.
H.M.S. "Valiant" has been laid down, and work is going on satisfactorily. I might also add that I paid a visit the other day to the prototype nuclear reactor which we are building at Dounreay in the North of Scotland, where, after a certain amount of difficulty and delay, the work is going ahead and the reactor will go critical next year. Perhaps I might add one thing at this point. My noble friend Lord Teynham asked me about the "Polaris" submarine. I am afraid I cannot add much to what I said last year, or, indeed, to what I said in the Defence debate this year. The vehicle for the deterrent is at the moment the V-bomber, at present arming with Blue Steel and subsequently to be re-armed with Skybolt. This takes us into the next decade. We are now
304
examining what will follow, and, of course, a nuclear submarine with a ballistic missile is one of the alternatives which we are looking at at the moment.
Last, but not least, in the catalogue of what I have been saying is the fact that we can no longer rely on so many fixed installations as we used to, and we must not neglect, and we have not neglected, the afloat support which my noble friend Lord Ashbourne spoke about. As my noble friend said, I made a point of dealing with this very fully in my Explanatory Statement, because the ability to replenish and maintain a task force at sea is going to be absolutely vital to the success of our new mobile strategy. I can assure him that it is a point we certainly have not lost sight of.
So your Lordships will see that the Admiralty's concept of a balanced Fleet has paid off handsomely: none of the categories which we have built will be wasted and none can be dispensed with; each will have its essential part to play in the new strategy. And if in any one category we are not as strong as perhaps we should like to be—and as I know some noble Lords, on both sides of the House, feel we ought to be—that is the price we have had to pay in creating a balanced Navy within a defence budget Which this country can afford.
But in case 1 sound too complacent—and I hope I do not—I should like for a moment to turn to the future, where the problems facing the Government and the Board of Admiralty loom very large indeed. Perhaps I might take aircraft carriers, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, talked, as an example, but only one example, of what I mean. I spent a week in H.M.S. "Victorious" earlier this year while she was taking part in a NATO exercise called Dawn Breeze. It was a most interesting and stimulating experience. The Admiralty spent many millions of pounds in modernising this ship, and, incidentally, came in for some heavy criticism for having done so. But the result, I can assure your Lordships, is a really formidable fighting unit.
The task of H.M.S. "Victorious" in the exercise was to launch a strike against an "enemy" target—an airfield

305
—in the face of opposition which included submarines, high-speed bombers and warships equipped with surface-to-surface missiles. Our escorts, helped by maritime patrol aircraft of Coastal Command, proved more than a match for the submarines, which were never within striking range of us. Our carrier-borne fighters were able to, and did, intercept the bombers which were sent against us at a considerable distance from the ship. And with the help of reconnaissance reports from Shackletons of Coastal Command, we were able to hit the enemy's surface force, again many miles away, with our own strike aircraft, which later on completed the carrier's mission while we were still several hundred miles from the coast. I must say that I thought this was a most impressive display, first, of the versatility and striking power of the "Victorious"; secondly, of co-operation between all three Services; and, finally, of the very difficult target which a properly escorted and supported aircraft carrier presents to an enemy equipped with even the most modern weapons.
Our present aircraft carriers will last until the 1970's. But if we are to go on deploying air power around the world after this, I believe we must replace them: not to substitute for fixed land bases—for there are certain tasks Which land-based aircraft will always do batter—but to combine with them, as we did at Kuwait. But ships of this size and complexity, as the noble Lord said, take about eight years to design and build. So, if we are not to renounce here and now our ability to deploy air power by sea in the 1970's, we must start preparing to replace our carriers at once. This is what we are now doing by getting ahead with the first phase of design; this must in any case precede any question of ordering.
But it is not only eight years ahead that we must look, difficult enough as I think that is. Those carriers, assuming that we go ahead and build them, will have a life of twenty years or more, which means that they will still be operating in the 1990's. What will the world be like then? What will war be like then? What will aircraft be like then? These are immensely difficult questions; and I think we should be pardoned in the Board of Admiralty if we take a little time to answer them.
306
People may well ask: can we afford them? But, on the other hand, can we afford not to have them, if we are to remain a world-wide military power? In fact, as carriers are the only airfields that I know of which can be moved from place to place wherever they are needed, they do, I think, represent the cheapest way of deploying ait power around the world. And, again, if we have them, it must not be to the exclusion of everything else—new frigates; new ships to replace our present cruisers; nuclear submarines (for, good as our conventional boats are, we want to go nuclear as soon as we can); a bigger and better amphibious capability; greater afloat support and so on.
In short, if we are to ensure that the Navy continues to be the first-class Service which it is to-day, and maintains its usefulness in the years to come, we must keep up the balancing act which we have performed, I think with some success, so far. But because of the time-scale of shipbuilding, as well as of recruiting and training the necessary men, the balancing has to be done now, making the most intelligent forecast that we can of what the long-term future holds. And it will become an increasingly difficult task as the cost of everything—ships, weapons, equipment and even manpower—grows with every new scientific and technical advance.
These are the special problems which the Government are facing to-day in their naval policy; and although I have no doubt that they will be solved, it seemed to me that your Lordships should perhaps be aware of them, and should reflect on them when you are considering What the future of the Navy should be, and when perhaps you are inclined to feel impatient with the time which it takes to reach decisions on these vital matters.
Before I leave this part of my speech, there are two allied subjects about which I should like to say a word, and these are habitability and work study. I think I have said before in these debates that I regard it as very important that we should try to make our new ships as comfortable as possible for the officers and ratings who serve in them. I believe that for the first time we have made a real advance in this field in the two new types of ship which are coming

307
into service this year, the County class guided missile destroyers and the Tribal class frigate. With their centralised messing arrangements, their comparatively uncluttered passageways, their 100 per cent. bunk arrangements and full air-conditioning, they are a striking advance and something of which the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors—about which my noble friend spoke—can be very proud.
On work study, I may say that we have been doing this on various aspects of the Navy's work, and this has frequently helped us to make better use of our men and material. I would quote one example to your Lordships of what we have done. An investigation the other day into the usage of submarines resulted not only in an increase in operational availability of four weeks per year per boat, but also in a higher standard of maintenance in the boats themselves and a better-balanced task in the submarine bases and depôt ships. But I believe there is another field in which we can not only improve the habitability of our ships still further but also reduce their size and the complement needed to man them. We are now beginning to introduce work study into our new ships at the design stage; and it is the opinion of our own Naval Constructors, as well as of those in the American Bureau of Ships—to whom I should say we have lent a Naval officer who is a specialist in work study—that there is in this field a considerable scope for economy. I am quite sure this is one of the applications of work study which should be encouraged and, if necessary, extended.
My noble friends Lord Ashbourne and Lord Ampthill mentioned the Royal Marine Engineers, and asked whether consideration was being given to reconstituting the Mobile Naval Base Defence Organisation. As the noble Lord said, they were, at the time of their inception, a very good idea, but both the Royal Marine Engineers and the M.N.B.D.O. did very valuable and important work during the last war. But I think it began to be apparent, even during the war years, that both were to some extent a duplication of the Army, and they wore in due course disbanded. I must say, frankly, that we do not foresee the need
308
for a separate organisation of this kind in the future, particularly as afloat support will, to an important extent, replace our reliance on fixed bases, and our repair, dep¾t and supply ships and tankers will operate from a very small number of forward bases which will call for comparatively little work ashore.
If engineer assistance is needed by the Commandos on any large scale, it will be provided by the Royal Engineers, and a squadron of them will probably form part of the amphibious group in an assault ship. But there will also be in each Commando a small number of men trained in the use of mines and explosives, as well as in operating certain types of plant. In this way, perhaps the tradition of the Royal Marine Engineers can be kept going.
My noble friend Lord Ampthill asked me about the gas turbine, and he made the criticism that the advantages were not yet fully exploited. My Lords, we have only just started. I think it says a great deal for the confidence which the Board of Admiralty have in this gas turbine boost that we have decided to engine all the D.L.G.s, or guided-missile destroyers, and the Tribal class, with this machinery. I assure my noble friend that although the water-tube boiler row was rather before my day, I am surprised that I have not been blamed for it. But I assure him that we will avoid anything of the kind with regard to the gas turbine.
My noble friend also asked me about nuclear power and propulsion as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. As he knows, we are concentrating on nuclear reactors for submarines, because the advantages there are so very obvious. I think the advantages of nuclear-propelled surface ships are not at first sight so obvious as in the case of underwater vessels. As he said, at the moment there is no reactor which is anything like economic that can be put into a surface vessel. So we have decided to concentrate on research to find a nuclear reactor which is economic. Not only is the research being done, as the noble Lord has said, by Rolls Royce, but it is also being done by the Atomic Energy Authority. I am quite satisfied that we in the Board of Admiralty are having our say in what is being done.

309
My noble friend Lord Teynham asked about the Hovercraft. As I think he knows, we have been evaluating the S.R.N 1 Hovercraft at Lee-on-Solent, but the trials which we have done have so far proved inconclusive, and we hope to continue them later this year. We think there is a naval application for the Hovercraft in the anti-submarine and amphibious warfare rôles, but I think we must do a little more of these trials before we know for certain. My noble friend also asked me about the likely requirement for a long-range antisubmarine weapon. No decisions have been taken about this yet. There are various weapon systems. There is the Malafon, the American Asroc and the Australian Ikara, at all of which we are looking at the present time.
I have been speaking for some time, and I do not think I have time to go into the question of the Select Committee on Estimates, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shaekleton, asked me. He will know that we accepted a number of recommendations of this Committee, and they have been put into operation. We said that we would do what we could about a number of the other recommendations, and in fact a number of inquiries are going on at the present time. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would like to know more, perhaps I may write him a letter and tell him how things are going.
I should like to end by saying a few words about manpower, and in particular about two branches of the Navy in which we have recently introduced markedly better conditions of service. In the Medical and Instructor Branches we are likely to have some difficulty in entering sufficiently qualified officers now that National Service has come to an end. The problems of the Forces' medical services are by now well known to your Lordships. We have recently introduced a far-reaching new deal for doctors and dentists in the Services in order to overcome the serious risk of severe shortage. I said something about this in the Army Estimates debate the other week. All the measures which are being introduced to encourage the entry of young doctors into the Army apply equally to the Navy, and our situation, I am glad to say, is not quite so serious. I am quite sure that these measures which we have introduced and, incidentally, which have
310
the endorsement and support of the Council of the British Medical Association, will succeed in helping us to build up the service to meet the shortages which have been foreseen.
Next the Instructor Branch, to which I am glad my noble friend Lord Ampthill referred. In the Royal Navy we have had education officers for about 300 years, and the development of technology and the increased application of science within the Service have underlined their importance. We plan to have an Instructor Branch of about 600 officers, including a large number qualified in mathematics, science and engineering. The branch is mainly employed in colleges and training establishments ashore, but a number of officers serve afloat in both training and meteorological duties. Wherever they serve they make a full contribution to the life of the Navy beyond the strict scope of their teaching task.
I have recently reviewed the future of the branch because, with the end of National Service, the Navy is having to seek the highly qualified entrants required by the branch in a sharply competitive market. We need a steady annual entry of graduates. These are for the most part young men who are in the greatest demand in civilian life. We have therefore made three major changes in the conditions of service in the Instructor Branch.
First, we are reshaping the permanent element of the branch by restricting it to graduates and those with equivalent qualifications, and limiting its size to an extent which will enable us to promote more than half of our permanent instructor officers to the rank of commander.
Secondly, we are offering a wider variety of entry conditions. A few highly-qualified young men will be able to enter direct on permanent commissions, and other entries will be able to start on a short-service commission, with later opportunities for selection for a permanent commission or for transfer to a 16-year commission, carrying at the end of it a pension of over £500 a year. The professional qualifications of the instructor officer reduce their problem of resettlement in civil life and we believe that this 16-year commission will have a great appeal to those who want to

311
serve in the Navy on attractive terms without committing themselves to a full career.
Thirdly, we have revised arrangements for the award of seniority on entry to take into acount not only all graduate qualifications but also all civilian experience. For example, it will now be possible for an officer to enter as a lieutenant with four years' seniority and to reach the rank of lieutenant-commander four years later.
I think these changes have made a good impact, though it is early days yet. Last year only 25 officers, including 5 with good science degrees, entered the branch. This year double that number have already entered or been selected for entry, including no fewer than 35 science graduates. I think that this is satisfactory so far as it goes. Certainly we attach the greatest importance to a vigorous and highly efficient Instructor Branch, and that depends on our ability to continue to attract the good men we need.
As for recruitment generally, we are running so far this year at about the same level as last, although it is much too early in the financial year to draw any firm conclusions from this. There are of course variations between the different categories and branches; for example, we are doing particularly well with Royal Marines and with Juniors (U), that is, the youngest entrants. But I should like to see more Juniors (O), that is boys aged between 16¼ and 17½, and also young adults; and in the recruiting organisation we are making a special effort to increase these numbers. This is not always easy, because these older entrants have usually left school some time ago and will already be earning their living. But there must, nevertheless, be a number of boys who, for one reason or another, are not happy in their job or want to see a bit more of the world. From the Navy's point of view, these rather more mature recruits are a welcome stiffening if we can find them because they play a more effective part in the Service all the sooner. We would be particularly glad to see more of these older entrants coming into the technical branches of the Navy, most of all perhaps on the electrical side. I think you will remem-
312
ber that I put emphasis on this in my Explanatory Statement this year, and we are at the moment rather short of electrical entrants.
Re-engagement continues at a very satisfactory rate, at rather more than 61 per cent. over all—a really good figure. It is not quite as high as the rate we were achieving a year or so ago but, even so, it means that very nearly two men out of every three are re-engaging in the Royal Navy.
One of the effects of the new defence strategy will be that we shall tend to have more ships at sea, and this, in turn, will mean that a higher proportion of the Navy will be serving afloat. I think your Lordships will agree with me that this is a welcome trend and one which should appeal to young men who are thinking of making a career in the Navy; not—and I do want to say this—that the proportion of men serving afloat to-day is as low as people sometimes make out or, indeed, as a straightforward comparison of those numbers with Vote A would suggest. Because when you exclude those categories which inevitably spend most, if not all, of their time ashore—such as the WRNS; nurses; the Fleet Air Arm, of whom only a quarter can ever be afloat regularly; the Royal Marines, with their new and predominantly commando rôle—quite unlike the pre-war days when large numbers of marines formed part of the complement of sea-going ships; and young men doing their initial training—and consider the 58,000 or so trained general service ratings whom one expects to be predominantly at sea, you will find that no less than 54 per cent. of the Royal Navy are actually serving afloat. On average, therefore, these men serve rather more than half of their naval working life at sea and the remainder not only is spent serving in shore establishments and in ships of the Reserve Fleet, but also includes periods of training, and so on. There is a limit to the amount of sea service which it is reasonable to expect men, and particularly the older men with families, to perform, and I think this has already been reached for certain categories who play a vital part in the Navy and on whose re-engagement so much depends. Naturally, sea service means separation from wives and

313
families and it presents a special problem in the Navy which cannot be overcome by means such as the provision of married quarters as it can be in the other two Services. I think this is a point which we must not overlook.
This year there is evidence that the Navy is once more, if indeed it was not always, a useful modern fighting service materialising before the eyes of those who come to join it. They have before them the new guided missile ships, the first of which commissions in October; the first of the nuclear submarines which joins the Fleet at the end of the year; they have the first operational squadron of "Buccaneers" which forms this month; they have the first gas turbine-driven frigates of the Tribal class; the new Wessex helicopter; and many other new equipments and weapons which are now coming into service. Altogether this has been, and will be, a year of achievement for the Royal Navy; and I do not discern in what has been said, either by noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House, that there is much dissatisfaction at the present time with naval affairs.
There are those who say that the Navy is not large enough. My Lords, I have often said before that there could be no First Lord and no Board of Admiralty who would be willing to say that they would not like to see a larger Navy. At the same time, bearing in mind the high level of taxation, the rising costs in the civilian sector of our economy and the large amount of money we already spend on defence, I do not think it would be reasonable to expect Her Majesty's Government to spend very much more on the Navy. I am quite sure that we have value for money, and that we are spending the money that we are allocated in the way most likely to achieve a properly balanced Navy, skilful in all branches at sea and air warfare, and, at the same time, capable of playing its part in cold, in limited and in global war. I believe that the stage is now set for the Navy to play a larger part in the defence of this country than it has done at any time since the end of the war; and I have no doubt that the equipment and, not least, the men and women who form the Royal Navy are as good as they have ever been in the past, or are ever likely to be in the future.
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have joined me in this debate to-day, because I feel that it has been really worth while. I think it has elicited from the First Lord of the Admiralty a great deal of information, even more perhaps than we got from the printed Statement. I must confess that I did not get one or two of the answers I wanted as to what is the Government's real cruiser policy of the future; how far they are going; whether they ought not to have some chance at least of being able to deal with events in at least two parts of the world at once where they employ a task force—something which, to me, does not seem possible on the strength—and so on. Nevertheless, perhaps when the First Lord looks through the opening of the debate he will feel inclined to write to me on one or two points. I will leave it at that, because I think the First Lord has demonstrated that, like so many of his predecessors, the Navy has rather captured him. That, by the way, is the only way to be a successful First Lord.
I think he shows a competent knowledge of the very detailed and interwoven sections of the Naval Service and provisions and can be thought by the House to be doing a good job in his vastly important post. At any rate I enjoyed his speech to-day very much—more, in fact, than I enjoyed his reply to the lively debate on the Defence White Paper. And that perhaps gives an indication of exactly how I feel about it. We have at least, I think, settled in your Lordships' House to-day among the majority the vast importance of having a maritime policy in the changing conditions of warfare likely to be in the world; leaving out, in the main, sudden, widespread nuclear war. And I hope that, as the days go by, we shall have such an integration of the three Services, all following the main principle of the great strength we can gather in a maritime policy, that it will do perhaps more than anything else to nip in the bud places of trouble and thus be able to preserve the peace. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POLISH EX-SERVICEMEN'S PENSIONS
6.20 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to call attention on to the hardship imposed on ex-Regular members of the Polish Forces resident in this country by the refusal of successive British Governments to grant a pension to them; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in March of this year I put down a Question on the subject of the Motion I have on the Order Paper to-day, the subject of pensions for Regular Polish ex-Servicemen, and in view of the reply which I obtained at the time from the First Lord, replying for the Government, which I considered to be unsatisfactory, I told him then that I would raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment. I am grateful to the usual channels for giving me time to-day in order to do so. My reasons for thinking that the reply I obtained was unsatisfactory I shall give a little later, but meantime, for the benefit of such noble Lords who are not perhaps fully conversant with the Polish contribution in the last war, I might remind your Lordships of one or two things before I go on to the main part of my speech, which contains a plea to do a certain thing.
May I remind your Lordships that the contribution of the Poles in the last war in all three Services was very considerable indeed, and I believe that is beyond dispute. It was considerable in the Navy, and I rather hope for a little contribution later from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, who with his great knowledge of the Navy will remember very well what the Polish contribution was during the war from the naval point of view. Then, also, the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fraser of North Cape, who I am sorry to see has just left the Chamber, will also remember the substantial contribution which the Poles made. The sinking of the cruiser "Gram" off Narvik early in the war was one event which will still be in your minds.
Where the air was concerned, you have only to go to Northolt and look at the Polish War Memorial there and count the numbers. In Fighter Command it was said between one-seventh and one-eighth of fighter pilots in the
316
Battle of Britain were Polish. There is no need for -me to take the time of the House going over the Battle of Britain. We know what Mr. Churchill said about it. For one out of seven or eight of the pilots to be provided by the Polish Air Force was a very considerable achievement. Where the Army was concerned—and I will speak a little more about that later—there was, of course, the First Polish Armoured Division which eventually went to France with the 21st Army Group, and General Anders Second Polish Corps in Italy under the command of Field Marshal Lord Alexander of Tunis. I am again a little sorry that since in this House we enjoy the company of no fewer than four noble and gallant Field Marshals who had that Polish Corps under their command, none of them has seen fit to take part in the debate to-day. No doubt they are busy elsewhere.
I have no intention at this time of the evening of playing on sentiment. This is not a sentimental matter basically; it is a matter of fairness, of what is fair and right. Therefore, I will spare you a long list of stories about poor old men working lifts, sweepers in museums, and so on, though I could easily go on for a long time on that subject. But I will spare you that, because I want to stick to the facts of the matter. I have been impressed in the last few weeks by the extraordinary ignorance of this matter I have encountered practically everywhere. One noble Lord came up to me in the Prince's Chamber not long ago and said: "I am sympathetic to your ideas because I served with the Poles in the War, but we cannot do anything for them that we do not do for our own ex-Service men." I am not asking for anything for the Poles which is not done for our own ex-Service men; I am just asking that they should not have less.
What I really want, and what I am asking the First Lord, as spokesman for the Government, for, is a fair answer to a perfectly straightforward, fair question. Why are Polish ex-Regular personnel treated less well than their British counterparts when it was clearly laid down and understood in the Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 5, 1940, that they would be treated the same as British Servicemen in every respect?

317
The Treasury answer to this could be as follows: "Pensions precisely were not mentioned in the agreement ". But then we assumed that we should emerge the victors at the end of the War, as indeed we did, and it was assumed that our Allies, Poles and others, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks and Norwegians, would be able to return home and draw their pensions in their own countries, pensions they had earned in peace and war. That was assumed, and a very reasonable assumption it was.
But came the Yalta Conference, and at Yalta an agreement was entered into by ourselves and our American allies with the Russians, admittedly in circumstances obtaining at the time which we could not disregard. I do not blame Mr. Churchill at all for what he did at Yalta; he had to do it. But the fact remains that at that point Poland was divided, split up, and a Government imposed upon it on that day; and from that day onwards 99 per cent. of the Poles serving under British command were not able to go home and get pensions. Even if they had gone home, and a few did, though inadvisedly in my opinion, they certainly would have got no pensions and would have done well if duress did not descend upon them. Therefore—and this is what I want to make clear—as a result of Yalta they had to come to us; they could go to nobody else to get the pension, not only for their war service under our command but their pre-war service in their own country, which was of value to us eventually because we profited by it.
Again, the saving to the British purse was fairly considerable. We acquired at the outset of the war a substantial body of trained men in all three Services. We did not have to pay to train them. They were perhaps defective in modern techniques, but they were trained men with years of service behind them, particularly in the case of the Army. The 2nd Polish Corps came from Russia, as refugees virtually, under their great leader, General Anders. The British Army picked them up, fed them, clothed them, formed them into units and formations and despatohed them to Palestine for training, where I, among others, was responsible to the Commander in Chief, Middle East, for that training. An Army corps is a very large number of soldiers, and that corps had only three
318
or four months' training before they were fit and ready to join General Alexander's order of battle in Italy. A British corps would have taken two years from scratch to get to that point. Therefore a tremendous saving in money, though it is difficult to say exactly what it was, was effected to the British purse, and it is just a small part of that which these few old survivors are now asking for—a sum immeasurably less.
When the First Lord answered me in March he said that my contention that in other countries pensions were being paid to Polish ex-Servicemen was incorrect. I had, of course, taken the trouble to look it up before, but I have taken a great deal more trouble since to look it up again, and I can assure the noble Lord that, unless our sources of information are wrong in the most extraordinary way, in Canada the War Veterans have announced in a pamphlet that pensions are being paid already. It states quite clearly:
"Veterans of Canadian, Commonwealth and Allied Forces who served in World War and who have resided in Canada at least ten years will be treated the same as Canadian ex-Servicemen where pensions are concerned."
In France, the circumstances are a little different; and in any case we must remember that the French Army at the end of the war had no Polish formations under their command; neither were they signatories to the Yalta Agreement. Nevertheless, last year the French Government reached a decision by which it recognised the pre-war years of professional service in Poland, the service with all Allied Forces during the war (as we did) and the years of employment in France after the war, as forming one whole period of service entitling the Poles to the right of pension on the ground of securité sociale. As from that date such pensions have been paid in France to Poles who are over 65 years of age. That is the position in France. The point is that the pre-war service in Poland is recognised as forming part of the whole.
Finally, about a year ago in the United States a member of Congress proposed that the Congress of the United States of America should introduce an amendment to Section 109 of Title 38 of the United States Code, according to

319
which any person who served on active service in the armed forces of any Government allied to the U.S.A. in World War I or II, and who has been a resident in the United States of America for at least ten years, should benefit to the same extent as if such service had been performed in the armed services of the United States. Mr. Robert Kennedy was approached in this matter, recognised its importance and supported the proposed amendment by a letter to Mr. Gleeson, administrator of foreign matters, and that amendment was filed under number HR3546. Whether any Polish ex-servicemen in the United States have in fact drawn a pension, I am not sure; I think it is possible that they have not. But that the clear intention is that they should, seems unmistakable.
What worries me a little on all this is this: if our Government put up a stand in regard to this matter and say "No", how is it that the present Prime Minister, writing to The Times precisely eleven years ago to-day, in 1951, wrote as follows:
"We in Britain have a deep and lasting debt to the Poles. The stories of the Battle of Britain, of Tobruk, of Monte Cassino and the discovery of the V1 would have been different without them. Can we truthfully say that we have discharged that debt while Poland is under the domination of a tyrannical foreign Power, and while in this country officers with 30 or 40 years' distinguished service"—
and other ranks, I should like to add—
"go from place to place seeking employment as dish-washers or liftmen? We are asking at the moment for no special treatment for the overwhelming number of Poles now in this country"—
this was written by the present Prime Minister.
"What we do suggest is that Her Majesty's Government should consider whether a scheme could be adopted whereby the comparatively small number of ex-regulars "—
that is, Polish ex-regulars—
"should receive a military pension.…".
There is the word "pension". The Prime Minister puts it much better than I ever could. He has put my case for me. That was in 1951. He made similar remarks on the same lines in 1952 and 1954; and Sir Winston Churchill, as is, I think, quite well known, spoke in a most firm and strong manner in favour
320
of the Poles at the end of the war. The present situation therefore seems extraordinary.
What new factors have emerged to make the Prime Minister change his mind? When he advocated pensions to these people eleven years ago the sum of money involved was far higher than it is now, because during the past eleven years a great many of these people have died—many in destitution, I might say. So perhaps some new factor has emerged to make Mr. Macmillan change his mind. It is extremely difficult to know what it can be. Perhaps the First Lord will inform us in due course. The numbers themselves are very small indeed and are dwindling fast. In 1955, the latest reliable year for figures, seven years ago, there were 1,000 over 65. I am speaking now of all ranks. This has nothing to do with officers. This is non-commissioned officers and the like, and members of the Sea Service. There were 1,000 over 65, and about 3,300 between 60 and 65. That number must be much smaller now. Compare those figures with 8,000 killed and 30,000 wounded in the war. It is hard not to be a little emotional on the subject. I have heard it said, and I believe, that besides Polish ex-Service-men there are a lot of other Poles who would not be eligible, either because they never served in the Services or because they did not serve long enough. Certainly there are a great many such people.
Perhaps it is thought that unfounded claims would be put forward. I think that most unlikely. Those of us who know the Poles know that they are people who do not cheat at all. They are not that kind of people. In any case, even if a few "black sheep" tried it on, the Polish Resettlement Board have their records. They have now been passed, as I understand it, to a section at the War Office called the Polish Aftermath Section. These records are full and accurate. I have no reason to think that they are not. So perhaps if the gentlemen at the Treasury feel that this is going to be made use of by the wrong people, they are being unduly pessimistic.
Before I sit down, I should like to assure the noble Lord who is to reply that I am quite aware of the situation regarding disability pensions, grants, terminal grants—I know all about them. I have gone into them. I know that

321
considerable sums of money were paid out at the end of the war, and since, to individuals under these headings: some disability, some not. But this is not what the Poles are asking for—and you must look at it through their eyes. To be a professional in their Services is a great honour. When a man joins it is for life; it is his life, it is his profession, and he feels strongly about it, and that when he has finished his time he will be treated still as a soldier or sailor and get his pension, and he will not be "dished out" with charity. He does not want charity. I believe myself that it is not the amount of the pension that these Poles are in the least interested about; I think that it is the fact that they feel they are entitled by their service to a pension, however small. I believe that is really what they want and, upon my soul! I cannot see what conceivable ground there could be for refusing it.
I have been asked: what is the sum involved? I do not know. If the number is 3,000 or 4,000 people, and the average pension, ranking from senior officer at the one end down to private soldier at the other, came out at, say, £250 or £300 a year, or something of that sort, for 3,000 or 4,000 people, it is about £1 million, and it would dwindle fast because these men are old. I gave the last figures seven years ago, of men over 65; they would now be over 70, and not living in very agreeable circumstances, most of them. So I would say that ten years would probably complete the whole thing. What has happened to us that we can say it cannot be done? Cannot we afford it? Of course we can afford it, but we will not do it. Will it create a precedent? Not at all! The Belgians went home, the Greeks went home, the Dutch and Norwegians went home, and drew their pensions but the Poles did not go home because they had no home to go to.
Finally, before I resume my seat I should like to ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of a Polish private soldier, let us say—let us forget the General—who has fought his way up from the Battle of Cassino through Italy against the German Army. When he hears the terms of the Yalta Declaration, which comes down to headquarters, to corps headquarters, and brigade, he hears that his home town has gone, that
322
it is included in Russia, that he cannot go home. He is told that the Government in Poland will be the Lublin Committee, fifteen men of whom only one was a Pole, and he a Communist. What was he fighting for? What is the future for him? Did they come out of the line and leave a hole in Alexander's order of battle? They did not. They stayed and fought it out. If we cannot do anything for these poor old men now, all I can say is it is a very black day for this country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the reason I have taken the liberty of intervening in this debate to support the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is the fact that I had the privilege—and it certainly was a privilege—to have two squadrons of Poles under my command during the war. I do not at this hour intend to rehearse again the facts which the noble Lord has placed before your Lordships in his usual logical and lucid manner. From what he said it seemed to me that the facts are plain and speak for themselves. The Poles made a great contribution, and it seems to me that we are being at the least niggardly. The Treasury are hiding behind the letter of the law. The Treaty, as the noble Lord stated, said that the Poles would be treated the same in every respect as our own men; but the fact that the word "pension" was not mentioned is what the Treasury, in their usual manner, grab at as an excuse for this pettifogging lack of thanks to gallant men who have lost their all, and live in our country having come to our help in our time of need. If Canada, if France and if the U.S.A. can do it, surely we can. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply, if his answer is unfavourable, which I suspect it will be, to go back to his colleagues and tell them exactly what has been said in this House to-night. I beg leave to support the noble Lord opposite.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, seldom in one's life does one have to say that one is ashamed of the behaviour of one's own country, but I am afraid this

323
is one of the few cases in all my political life when I can only look on our behaviour towards some of the most gallant allies that a nation ever had with shame at the way we have treated them. In 1940 we stood alone. General Sikorsky went to Mr. Churchill and said, "Are you going to fight?". The reply was, "Yes". The General then said, "Then the Poles will fight beside you as equals". The Prime Minister welcomed them to our side as equals, and when the events of the war took an unexpected turn and it was apparent that these gallant men, to whom we all owe so much, could not go back to their own country, I remember in this very Chamber the Prime Minister saying that we would offer them British nationality and treat them as wall as we treat our own people. Those were the facts, and no amount of legalistic, administrative wriggling and jargon can get out of that great debt of honour which we owe to these men.
Some people say, "Well, after all, we must treat them the same as we treat the British, and they served under British command for only five years. The British Territorials, who would have been in the British Army for only that time, would not be treated like a British Regular." But the Briton was able to go back to his own country, back to his business, his home, his own job, back to a country where he had a civilian occupation and in which he spoke the language. These men were going to a country whose language they did not speak, with no skill to offer except the skill of their miltiary service and their swords. I cannot conceive that any officer or N.C.O. or other rank in any branch of the British Service would feel an injustice or envy if we treated these few surviving Poles in the same way as if their entire service had been spent under British command; because, as the noble Lord so rightly said, during that critical moment in the war we got the benefit of all those prewar years of training and skill which those men obtained in their own country. Nor can it be said that it would create a precedent as regards other Allies, because they all had their own countries to go back to and were treated generously by their own Governments. Those are the two main excuses
324
that will be given, but neither of them are valid in honour.
One cannot say too much about the sadness of these cases, when a general who commanded a corps has literally been working at night as a dishwasher in an hotel, when others of these men work as porters and liftmen—men Who bore high rank and who received high British decorations. The result is that these men are living in this ghastly sadness, and are now getting too old to work. They are getting to an age where they cannot continue any form of employment, and now they are just living as best they can on National Assistance and what very small funds they possess and on what private charity can be found to supplement them. If it is said, "Why cannot they go to the National Assistance Board and ask for a little extra?", my Lords, there is such a thing as pride. Pride is one of the few things those elderly and gallant officers have got left, and they cling to it.
Why could not these obligations, which the Prime Minister recognised so clearly eleven years ago, be fulfilled? I can only conceive that he is up against the very formidable machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and the Civil Service. I only pray that those civil servants who produce these logical, well-argued cases as to why we should treat these men so shabbily will not themselves, after a lifetime of serving the British Government, find themselves penniless exiles in a foreign nation dependent on such National Assistance as is available. There is a saying that we should do unto others as we would they should do unto us. I appeal to the hearts of those civil servants and Ministers, that they should consider our gallant allies and think how they would like to be treated if they were in that same position themselves, which we all hope they will never be.
What other countries have done may or may not be better than what we have done, but, my Lords, to me that is irrelevant. The Poles fought under British command at sea, in the air and on land, in their thousands. It is for us to give an example of the generous way to treat these gallant men. I cannot but pity my noble friend the First Lord if he has, as a junior Minister—or,

325
at least, not as a Cabinet Minister—to put the Treasury case; he who had a gallant war record and who knew not only by hearsay tout probably very closely the gallant way in which those Poles fought. He cannot, of course, in answering this debate, change the policy of Her Majesty's Government. All I ask him is not to close the door, but to report to his colleagues in the Cabinet the evident feeling—if I judge it aright—of the whole of this House, and ask them to think again and remember the honour of this country.
6.53 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I, too feel very strongly on this matter, and I am glad to have listened to the moving appeal which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has just made to us. He was closely associated with General Sikorsky and he has good knowledge of the circumstances. I should like to associate myself with all he has said, and particularly those moving words which referred to the sad circumstances in which many of those who fought with the Polish Forces find themselves in this country. It is indeed sad that officers who held high positions in the Polish Forces, having received high honours from His Majesty King George VI, should be in the position of having to live in the greatest austerity. But that is only a small part of the problem, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for raising this matter, because, rest asured, the appeal which is being made so well to-day is widely supported, even if it may be echoed by only a few in this House to-day. My noble friend Lord Windlesham speaks with intimate knowledge of the Service side of this subject, and I support all that he has said.
I think we can all feel sympathy with the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. We know that, with his brilliant war record, his sympathy is great, as others have said; but he has the hard task of persuading the stony hearts of the Treasury and, goodness knows! that is going to take some doing. But, as my noble friend Lord Gosford said, I hope he will return to his colleagues after this debate, whatever may be the degree of adverse answer which we shall probably receive, and convince them that it is not compassion for which
326
we are asking: it is justice, equity, and the same sort of treatment of our gallant Allies as we should wish to have meted out to our own men. My noble friend Lord Windlesham has given convincing reasons. The other nations have all recognised what their fellow countrymen did in this country, but the Poles had no country to which to return.
There is no need to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Windlesham has said, or the knowledgeable words of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. But may I ask for the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I look at the cause of this problem. Before World War I, I knew intimately what is now Poland, and I went there regularly. Let us remember that it was Poland which had to fight for her liberty after the Great War had finished. Their war went on into 1919, when they had to fight against the Soviets.
I visited Poland regularly several times a year throughout the life of the Republic. I remember, as others in this House, will remember, that at Easter, 1939, the Pact with Poland was signed. It was understood that we were going to support Poland against any possible opponents. What did we do? We signed this Pact, and it was like offering a trader a shop, saying you were going to support him by trading there, but giving him no money with which to trade. There was no support given. Even the £4 million of gold (I think it was) promised after that agreement, was withheld, through some difficulties. I remember being in Poland in August or September, 1939, and going to the great Arsenal, Stalova Vola, and seeing the Bofors guns being made under licence. We had agreed to support the Poles, but those guns were in cases for despatch to this country. I say that just from the civilian side.
I will not weary the House for long, but I want to add my earnest appeal to the noble Lord who is dealing with this Motion. My noble friend Lord Windlesham has persisted for quite a long time in his determination to put this matter forward. He will have the support and gratitude of innumerable Englishmen who knew the circumstances, as well as a possibility of mitigating the most unfortunate state of some of those whom his Motion aims to benefit.

327
Clearly, many of us feel that on our honour lies a stain of omission, and we as Englishmen should recognise the debt we owe to Poland.
7.0. p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, may I support all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate? I am filled with shame at the record of our country in this matter, as the Prime Minister was a few years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. What has happened to make him change his opinion? What has happened to make members of the Government change their opinion? There is no reason at all of which I am aware. I do ask the noble Lord who is to reply if he will let his colleagues, and especially the Prime Minister, know the feelings of all the Members of this House in the matter, and I ask only that the matter be considered again.
7.1 .p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that anybody can fail to have been impressed by the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made—or, indeed, perhaps particularly, by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Astor; because I know how he personally has occupied himself in this matter, and has got up a fund for this purpose. I suppose, too, that everybody in this House can remember the circumstances in which we went to war: the gallantry of the Poles and the Polish people; the terrible fate which overtook them; and the events which made it impossible for so many of them, after five or six years of exile from their country, fighting all over the world, and having won a reputation unsurpassed by any other troops, to return home. Those who remained in this country after the war and made their homes among us have a claim on us—a claim which Her Majesty's Government fully recognise. Sir Winston Churchill put it in this way in 1945—and these are his words—when he said:
"We should think it an honour to have such faithful and valiant associates dwelling among us as if they were men of our own blood."
My Lords, indeed we do regard it as an honour, and at the outset of what I have to say I want to make it quite clear on behalf of Her Majesty's Government
328
that we recognise our obligations and join with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in paying tribute to these men and to their courage.
I should like, if I may—and I apologise for it—to take up a little of your Lordships' time in recalling what successive British Government have done for Poles who have stayed in this country, because I think it fair, when taking into account the terms of the noble Lord's Motion, also to take into account what in fact we have done. And if I mention the sums of money which have been spent, it is not, of course, because they have been given in any grudging spirit, but because they are some indication of the importance which has been attached by successive Governments to the subject. Whatever we have been able to do has, of course, been fully, justly and honourably deserved.
The Motion which the noble Lord has before the House refers only to ex-regular members of the Polish forces in this country. I do not know whether he meant to exclude those who were not regulars, but since we are considering a simple question (if it is simple) of suffering and distress, I do not see how one can differentiate between ex-regulars and ex-servicemen generally, since the latter just as much as the former were uprooted by the war and deprived of their livelihood and of their normal prospects of a career—and, of course, their contributions to the allied cause during the war were indistinguishable. At all events, what I propose to say next applies to them all without distinction as to whether they were regulars or non-regulars before 1939.
Polish ex-servicemen enjoy all the benefits which the State provides on precisely the same terms as British subjects. There is no discrimination against them of any kind because they are, or were, of Polish nationality. Thus, provided they contribute to the National Insurance Scheme and fulfil the other usual conditions, they are entitled to benefit under it in exactly the same way as any other British citizen. In the same way, any Pole in this country over the age of 16 who is suffering need or hardship by the standards laid down in the National Assistance Act is entitled to assistance as though he were a British citizen.
Now I am afraid it is true, my Lords, as I know from a debate that we had

329
in your Lordships' House on the pensions of Forces' widows, that a great many people seem to regard National Assistance as a form of charity. I very much wish—and I am sure your Lordships do—that this were not the case. It certainly should not he so. National Assistance is part of the fabric of the modern system of social service which we have in this country, and is paid for from taxation. There must be some British citizens in similar circumstances to those to whom my noble friend has referred, and I hope that if they are in need of National Assistance they take it. I hope that no Pole who is in need will feel that there is any shame in taking what is his right.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this, as he has made that point: what, for instance, is the pension which a retired British Lieutenant-General receives, and what is the pension which we give a retired Polish Lieutenant-General—someone of equal rank? Could he give us the figures?
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps my noble friend will let me go on with what I was going to say, because I was going to come to that point. That is the first point which I want to make: that the Government have, so far as the normal social benefits are concerned, carried out Sir Winston Churchill's wartime pledge to the letter. Polish ex-Service-men are treated exactly as if they were of our own blood.
But, my Lords, we have done more than that. We recognised after the war that something more had to be done to help these men to Settle down in their new home. Your Lordships will remember the Polish Resettlement Corps, which was formed in 1946 as a unit of the British Army, and which provided a home and support for many thousands of Poles until they could be resettled either in Britain or elsewhere. The cost of the Polish Resettlement Corps was something like £28 million. A great deal of effort and expanse was also devoted to obtaining suitable jobs for the Poles. The Ministry of Labour in fact found employment for about 82,000 men of the Resettlement Corps. Nor were others neglected. Seventeen thousand dependants of members of the Resettle-
330
ment Corps, and Poles who decided not to join the Corps, also were found jobs. Special training arrangements were provided, and special agreements were negotiated on their behalf with both sides of industry.
Assistance was provided for Poles who wished to emigrate. About 14,000 took advantage of this, of whom nearly 13,000 received direct financial aid at a cost of nearly £1 million. Since the Polish Resettlement Act was passed in 1947, over £10½ million has been spent on special schemes of education for Poles in this country. That Act provided, too, for Polish hostels, largely for the benefit of ex-Servicemen Who were unable to look after themselves in a home of their own, and for families waiting for a home. In 1948 about 40 of these hostels were providing shelter for 16,500 Polish men, women and children. I am glad to say that the need for these hostels has now nearly disappeared, thanks to the success of our various resettlement measures. There are only five of them left, where 400 or so elderly and disabled persons ate fed and cared for and another 300 families are housed. Since 1947 they have cost the taxpayer £8½ million. Over £5 million has also been spent on hospital treatment outside the hostel scheme for Polish ex-Service-men and their dependants.
My Lords, this is what has been done. As former Servicemen, we have treated them as generously as we have been able to treat our own soldiers, sailors and airmen. They received war gratuities on exactly the same basis. All those who were disabled as the result of service in the British Forces, and the widows and dependants of those who died as a result of that service, received disability pensions and allowances under broadly the same conditions as British Servicemen did. About 4,500 disablement pensions and 460 widows' and dependants' pensions are now being paid at a cost of £¾ million a year. The total expenditure under this heading has been nearly £8½ million.
My Lords, this is a substantial catalogue of aid, and the cost of it has added up to the equally substantial total, up to now, of over £60 million. As I have said, we do not, of course, begrudge this expenditure, for there can

331
have been few better causes; and, of course, the service which these men rendered to this country in fighting our enemies as well as their own is not measurable in pounds, shillings and pence. But it is worth remembering, when the suggestion is made, as I think it has been made this afternoon, that the British Government have behaved with a lack of generosity or consideration for the difficulties of these our war-time Allies who have since sought refuge in this country.
Now, my Lords, I should like to say a few words about the specific proposal for further aid which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made. The pensions which we pay to our own soldiers, sailors and airmen, are not designed to alleviate hardship. I made it clear in the debate on Service pensions a year ago that they are occupational pensions; they are part of the contract entered into when these men joined the Forces. They are given for service rendered to the Crown, and they vary in amount according to the length of service given. To qualify at all for such a pension, our own officers and men must have been Regulars, and they must have given a minimum period of service which was certainly a great deal longer than the duration of the war.
It has been suggested that we ought to alter our pensions code in such a way as to take account of the pre-war service of Polish ex-Servicemen with the Polish Government; in other words, that we should assume the obligations of the Polish Government towards these men. But, my Lords, this suggestion raises a very real difficulty. For example, we do not know what these obligations were, or, for that matter, what obligations of the same kind the Polish Government may have had towards others in their service, such as civil servants, lawyers, teachers, and so on, who, although they were not Regular soldiers, nevertheless fought as Servicemen under British command during the war. Why should we single out only those who served the Polish Government as Regular soldiers, sailors and airmen?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, might I interrupt my noble friend, if he will forgive me? Perhaps he might
332
ask the people advising him to get in touch with the Canadian Government and the French Government, who seem to have solved this problem.
LORD CARRINGTON: If the noble Earl will allow me to get on with my speech, I am coming to that point a little later on. By their action in coming to Britain to fight, these others also forfeited whatever benefits they might otherwise have looked forward to from their own Government, and it seems to me that we could not, and should not, draw the line where the noble Lord has suggested—to say nothing of ex-Service men of other nationalities who may to-day find themselves in a similar plight. My Lords, I really do not think it would be reasonable to expect the British taxpayer to accept as a general proposition that he should foot the bill for pensions given for services rendered, mainly before the war, to a foreign Government. In any case, as I said earlier, and as my noble friend said, this is a question of relieving hardship, and, in this case, it is quite impossible to distinguish between men who were Regulars and those who were not.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I put this point? When a Pole Reserve officer who was a doctor, or an engineer, or a lawyer, came to England, after a certain time he was able to offer something. He had something to sell; he could be a doctor, or an engineer, and make his career. In peace time, the Regular soldier who had no training except as a fighting soldier, at a certain age, has nothing he could offer. It is a very real distinction.
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that follows in some cases, but I do not think it follows in all. For instance, with a Polish civil servant, I think you would find it difficult to say that he had something to offer. Therefore I would ask your Lordships to consider whether it is really justified to treat these men, who are already able to make full use of all the facilities provided by the State for the relief of hardship on the same footing as every other citizen of this country, more generously than we have been able to treat our own soldiers, sailors and airmen. Successive Administrations have felt that they could not justify this, and I may say that these appeals have been considered, and rejected, at the highest

333
level by successive Prime Ministers. I am afraid I must confirm once again, as I did in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in this House on March 21, that this is also the view of the present Government.
Nor is the British Government alone in taking this view. In the United States, in Canada, and in France, Polish ex-Servicemen enjoy the normal disability pensions and social service benefits available to Servicemen and citizens of those countries. In addition, the United States and Canada pay certain benefits to veterans—that is, men, who may be Poles, who comply with certain conditions—who served in their Armed Forces or in the forces of their Allies. In the United States, Poles who are not naturalised benefit only if they served in the United States Forces. In Canada, the benefit takes the form of an allowance, subject to a means test, payable at 60, or earlier if the veteran is handicapped. In the United States, service with the armed forces can be counted towards retirement pensions payable under the social service system, and, in addition, allowances for those handicapped are also payable. We take the view that the men who served in the Armed Forces, whether our own countrymen or Poles, are fully covered by the National Health Service, the National Assistance, National Insurance, and Family Pensions Schemes, and, if disabled, by war pension schemes. These are comparable to the benefits which are granted by the United States and Canadian Governments.
My Lords, I hope you will not think in what I have said that Her Majesty's Government are in any way unsympathetic to the members of the Polish Forces who settled in this country after the war. I have tried to show what we have done, and to indicate what store has been set by the pledge given by Sir Winston Churchill at the end of the war. I will, of course, report to my colleagues the feelings of your Lordships, and ask them to read the speeches which your Lordships have made; but I hope that you will think that the reasons I have given for being unable to accept the noble Lord's Motion are sound ones, and that the noble Lord himself will feel that the ordinary welfare arrangements available in this country to Poles and Britons alike are adequate in this as in other cases.
7.18 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, at this time of the evening it is not right to keep you very much longer, and I shall not do so. But before I sit down again, I should like to say that my reaction to the noble Lord's reply is one not so much of disappointment as of disgust. It is a strong word, but I think that the equivocation which we have just heard is not quite up to the standard of what one expects from the Government of this country.
The noble Lord said one or two things—and I have made one or two notes here—which seemed to show that he really did not understand the point that I was trying to make—maybe it was my fault. He said that Polish ex-Servicemen are treated in exactly the same way as our own men. But, my Lords, they are not. If they were, why are they not getting pensions? I cannot put it much clearer than that. The noble Lord, of course, was referring to war-time Servicemen, and in fact there was a little applause from the Labour Bench when he said that he saw no reason why the non-Regulars should not be treated as well as the Regulars. But the point is that they would not have served long enough. Surely that is quite clear. If any Polish Serviceman has not enough service to qualify for a pension, then he does not get it. But if he has enough service, then he should get it. That is the point we are trying to make; and no amount of talk about disability pensions and grants will make the slightest difference to those of us who feel that way.
The noble Lord made great play of the fact that the pension was not meant to alleviate hardship. It may or may not. I myself, get a pension, but whether I am enduring hardship or not is a matter of opinion. The fact remains that pensions are cash, and the recipients use them for whatever purpose they think best. They have earned them in pursuit of their chosen professions. Those men who have given such excellent service in the Territorial Army do not expect pensions and do not get them, but the Regulars expect pensions and they should get them. It is as clear as that.
The noble Lord made play with the fact that in Canada and the United

335
States it was the Poles who had served in the Armed Forces of those countries who drew pensions—if he did not say that, I am sorry.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not mean to make any play with that. The noble Lord has a very suspicious mind. I pointed out that in Canada and the United States, pre-war service with the Polish Army was not taken into account.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in that case I have read the regulations wrong and will read them again. If your Lordships will read my speech in the Official Report, you will see that what I quoted as having been said in the American Congress covers the Poles who served with the Allied Forces in the Second World War and are now drawing pensions.
Finally, the noble Lord mentioned a matter of £8½ million. I am not clear over what period of time that sum had been disbursed. Perhaps he can tell us.
LORD CARRINGTON: In what context?
LORD WINDLESHAM: If the noble Lord has no recollection of the speech he has just made——
LORD CARRINGTON: I gave two figures of £8 million. One was the amount of pensions which had been paid since the war.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that means £8½ million over seventeen years—half a million a year: not a princely sum in regard to the number of people concerned. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I cannot find myself able to withdraw my Motion.
On Question, Motion negatived.

TRANSPORT BILL
7.23 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Debate resumed on the Amendment moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor, as already amended: after Clause 84 to insert as a new clause:
Temporary provision as to development of land in London
" .—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission and of the Boards to consult the London County Council as to the use of their land in the administrative county of London so far as that land is not required for the purposes of their business, and to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposals with regard to the use of that land in a manner which is consistent with proper planning and which, in particular, is consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade business and industry on the one hand, and new living accommodation (with the amenities required by a resident community) on the other hand; and in making those proposals account may be taken of living accommodation provided or to be provided on any land belonging to the Commission or the Boards which lies outside, but in the immediate vicinity of, the administrative county of London.
(2) The following provisions of this section shall have effect as regards any application made before the date certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as that on which he has approved proposals under the foregoing subsection, being an application for permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for development of land in the administrative county of London which belongs to the Commission or a Board at the time when the application is made; and the said date shall be certified by the said Minister by order contained in a statutory instrument.
(3) If on any such application for permission for development consisting of the construction, reconstruction or alteration of a building—

(a) which is designed or intended for use as office premises, or

(b) part of which is designed or intended for use as office premises and is suited for separate occupation,

permission is refused by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted subject to conditions, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the refusal or imposition of conditions under section twenty of the said Act of 1947 (which relates to development not involving an increase of more than 10 per cent. in cubic content) or paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to that Act (which relates to statutory undertakers' operational land).
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to an application for permission for development consisting of the reconstruction of a building destroyed or damaged by fire or accident.
(5) In this section references to the Minister refusing permission or granting permission subject to conditions include references to the Minister and the appropriate Minister refusing permission, or granting permission subject to conditions, under paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act of 1947."
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, as a further Amendment to the Amendment, at the end of the proposed new subsection (3) to insert:
"nor shall any such compensation be payable in respect of any application for permission for development which is inconsistent with the scheme as certified by the said Minister under subsection (2) of this section except as provided in subsection (6) of this section; "
The noble lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that we adjourned last night in order that there should be an opportunity for this Amendment to be more fully considered and for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to it. I had it in mind to ask my noble and learned friend some questions about the meaning of this clause on the first day, when he first introduced it. I did not do so, because I assumed that it was entirely my own stupidity which had caused the matter not to be entirely clear. However, I have had the opportunity of talking with a number of noble Lords, and with people outside the House who have special knowledge of the matter, and I am afraid that exactly how this clause is going to work is still extremely obscure. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly said that the purpose of this clause is to meet the points of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. At col. 11 of the Official Report [Vol. 242 (No. 100)], he said it was to meet
"!particularly his second point, that compensation involved in the refusal of planning permission might deter the planning authority from refusing permission for office development on surplus land."
On the other hand, my noble and learned friend said (col. 32):
" The new clause has no permanent effect on the compensation rights of anyone."
If that be so, the clause cannot meet Lord Silkin's point, which is also the point of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Conesford, which was
338
carried against the Government by a majority of 20 on May 29.
On this Amendment Which I am now mowing, let me put the whole problem as simply as I can. Let us suppose that the consultations provided for in subsection (1) take place and reach a satisfactory conclusion. Let us suppose that, of the 1,000 acres in the administrative County of London, 800 are made available for housing and 200 for commercial development. Let us also suppose that the Railways Board intend loyally to see that these approved proposals are, in fact, carried out. My noble and learned friend has urged several times that we should have no unworthy suspicions, and I wholly accept that. As the clause is drafted, the Railways Board will be able to claim in respect of the 800 acres to be used for housing the existing use value of that land plus 10 per cent., and the night to receive this payment could anise from the moment the Minister of Housing certifies by order that the scheme provides for a proper balance in the use of the land.
As I understand this clause and the general law, there is no ban on the Railways Board's seeking planning permission for the use of the whole of the 1,000 acres for commercial development. In this case, the Railways Board, or anyone who had acquired the land from them, could seek permission to develop, knowing that it must be refused under the approved proposals. The effect of the refusal would be to entitle the Railways Board or the purchaser to compensation amounting to the difference between the value of the land for working-class housing and for industrial purposes.
I have been at pains to inquire from the London County Council what kind of figures would be likely to apply. In the East End of London, where the greater amount of this surplus land is to be found, the difference between the price for housing and for commercial purposes might be the difference between £5,000 or £6,000 an acre and £30,000 an acre. It follows that in respect of the whole 1,000 acres the amount of compensation payable would amount to millions of pounds. If this interpretation of the clause is right, it means that the only effect of this clause as at present drafted is to require a comprehensive

339
plan to be made for the use of the 1,000 acres and to postpone the collection of compensation until after the Minister of Housing has certified that the plan provides for a proper balance in the use of the land. The cost of carrying out the development would be in no way diminished and would almost certainly be far too heavy for the London County Council to bear. The approved plan would, therefore, be frustrated by the very difficulty which my noble and learned friend has said this clause was designed to remove.
Repeatedly in his speeches my noble and learned friend has said that, under the Plan, planning permission would not be given for land which under the approved proposals should be used for housing, to be used for commercial purposes. He has, however, omitted to mention that this refusal (which I entirely agree would come about) would at once give rise to a claim for compensation. There is nothing in the clause which would make it an act of bad faith for the Railways Board to claim that compensation: indeed, it might be considered their duty to do so. As a public Board, it might be considered their duty to produce the largest possible sum of money for the land which is in their administration. I repeat my noble friend's words at column 32 of the Official Report for July 9:
"The new clause has no permanent effect upon the compensation rights of anyone."
I derive some hope that what I am asking is what the Government intend the clause to give from another passage in my noble and learned friend's speech, in the same column. He there said:
"But what they "—
that is the Boards—
"will not be able to do, if complying with the proposals, is to claim from the London County Council or the Minister planning permission which would enable them to sell the land for more valuable use, including the existing use."
I am sorry, but I do not know exactly what my noble and learned friend means by that. There is nothing in the clause to prevent the Railways Board from applying for planning permission. It will, of course, be refused; but that very refusal will provide the basis for a claim to heavy compensation. It is apparent, I think, that this clause as at present
340
drafted would enable the railways to get the best of both worlds.
Let me again give a practical example of something which is in contemplation at the present time. The Railways Board desire to build themselves additional offices over the central London stations. Normally the London County Council would refuse planning permission for this purpose; and they could refuse it without having to pay any compensation. But it is apparent, I think, that under the proposals to be approved by the Minister some additional office development of this kind should be permitted to the Railways Board. In present circumstances, this can give an immense increase in value to the land concerned. But the clause does nothing conversely to require the Railways Board to set off this increase in value against the compensation which they could claim on commercial land—for example, railway sidings—if it were to be used under the approved proposals for the less valuable purpose of housing. That is why I say that the clause as at present drafted gives the Railways Board the best of both worlds.
I know my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his extreme accuracy of expression so well that I feel quite sure that he has not, in fact, been saying inconsistent things, although I find it extremely difficult to reconcile them. All this matter of town and country planning and compensation is so immensely difficult that I make no apology for still being in a fog about it. The only way that I can think of to reconcile these quotations from my noble and learned friend is this. Does he consider that if the Railways Board have made proposals under subsection (1) which have been approved by the Minister they are thereby precluded from asking for planning permission to do something contrary to those proposals in order to found a claim for compensation? It is certainly not illegal for them to do so. And I should not have thought that it implied any bad faith at all; I should have thought it was provided for in the wording of this clause.
It is, I am told by the London County Council, a fact known to planning authorities, and approved by them, that an application for planning permission can quite legitimately be made by

341
persons who have no intention of availing themselves of the permission; the application is made solely for the purpose of providing a basis for a claim to compensation. Are we to understand that my noble and learned friend and the Government assume that the Railways Board will not do this? Do they take the view that it would be wrong for the Rail-ways Board to do so? I think the Government could, by administrative action—by a direction given by the Minister of Transport—prevent the Railways Board from acting in that way. But any action that the Government took to prevent the Railways Board from claiming compensation would not at present bind any purchaser of land from the Railways Board—and I happen to know that negotiations which would involve the whole of this question have reached a fairly advanced stage. As there is nothing in the clause to give effect to this interpretation which I am putting forward as a possible way of reconciling these various things, I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
At the end of subsection (3), insert the said words.—(Lord Molson.)
7.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it might be convenient if I say a few words in support of the noble Lord's Amendment at this stage, although there are various aspects of the clause which he has not—and rightly so—covered in his speech and which we might have to come back to later on when we discuss the clause as a whole. I think the real issue—and I fully agree with the way in which the noble Lord has put it—is this: What will be the liability of the London County Council as regards compensation once this clause has been passed? There is a good deal of misunderstanding and ignorance as to what are the general obligations of a local authority as regards compensation, and I hope the noble Lord will not think me unfriendly if I say that I believe he has put the case as to the liability for compensation rather higher than is actually the fact.
As I understand it—and I do not claim to be an expert, if ever I was one, because it is a very long time ago since I had to deal with these matters in a practical way—there are three circum-
342
stances in which a local authority may become involved in compensation in respect of the refusal of planning permission. The first is where the applicant has an existing user right. The existing user right would take the form of having a building before the appointed day under the 1947 Act which they wanted to redevelop, or which had been destroyed and they wanted to rebuild, and where they would normally, under the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act, be entitled to expect to rebuild to the same cubic content together with 10 per cent. They have not an automatic right to rebuild, but if they wish to do so and they are refused, then they are entitled to compensation. That is the first instance. Applying that to the Transport Commission, there will be many old buildings that the Transport Commission might want to redevelop for office purposes, which they could redevelop to very great advantage by providing considerably more superficial space for offices than exist together with 10 per cent. If they were refused, then the compensation might be quite considerable.
The second instance is where a person desires to build in conformity with the development scheme. Taking the case of the Commission, if they want to build offices in an area which is zoned under the scheme for commercial purposes and they are refused, that, in my view, would give rise to a claim for compensation. The third case is the case where, as a result of refusal, land has been rendered incapable of reasonably beneficial use. Then, under Section 19 of the 1947 Act, subject to various Amendments, the owner of the land is entitled to ask the local authority to purchase that land; he serves a notice under Section 19 and the local authority is required to purchase. Those are the three circumstances in which, in my view, a claim for compensation might arise.
I am somewhat puzzled by the wording of the new clause because, like the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I fail to understand what is the purpose of having disposals discussed with the London County Council, approved by the Minister and becoming operative, if, after that, the Transport Commission can either make an application which is in conflct with the proposals or make an application which complies with the proposals

343
which they have agreed upon, and then claim compensation. For instance, these proposals contemplate that there will be a balance between residential development and commercial development. If they apply for permission to carry out residential development in accordance with the agreed proposals, but it is in an area which has been zoned under the London County Council scheme for commerce, are they to get compensation in respect of a refusal, or are they to get compensation because they are not allowed to build offices? If they were to apply for permission to erect offices in such an area where they have agreed there is to be housing, are they then to get compensation in respect of the refusal to permit offices, even though they have agreed under the proposals, which they themselves have submitted, that this is to be housing land?
I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount could, first of all, confirm whether I am right as to the various cases in which an applicant can claim compensation. Am I right as to the circumstances in which the Commission might be entitled to compensation; and as to how these general rights are affected by the new clause, and particularly by the fact that they have to submit proposals which have to be confirmed, and that, presumably, they have some binding force? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that this is a most difficult clause to follow. I think I have it right, but I am not even now clear as to what is the position about compensation. If the right to compensation remains unaffected, then I think the whole of this new clause would be a façade, merely a pretence that something is being done when in fact it is not. There is nothing to stop the Commission from doing exactly what they want to do, what they would have done apart from this clause, and what they could have done after the clause, and get the same amount of compensation as they would have got under the original Clause 11 which this House rejected. I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Viscount could clarify the position.
7.49 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think it may be convenient to my noble
344
and learned friend on the Woolsack if at this stage I add such words——
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I think we ought to have a fair distribution. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say, but I think that both my noble friend Lord Molson and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have dealt with the clause very widely. I hope that we shall not repeat in the discussion on the clause exactly what we have said now, but I should very much like to hear my noble friend Lord Conesford.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I certainly shall not repeat at a later stage what I propose to say now. I am under the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right when he says that my noble friend Lord Molson has, in certain respects, overstated what would be, I think on any showing, the right to compensation. My fears, however, are so similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, fears which would be alleviated by an Amendment on the lines of that now proposed, that I think that I should say why I think that some such Amendment is needed.
In one respect the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, overstated the effect of the clause when he talked about the proposals approved by the Minister becoming operative. Nothing so decisive ever happens under the clause. The only effect in law, I submit (I am sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will correct me later if I am wrong), of the approval of these proposals by the Minister is to fix a date. It does nothing of any kind apart from that. I believe that the universal desire of all those who supported my Amendment which was carried on the Committee stage, and of all those who have considered this problem, is that the new clause of the Government shall effect a real improvement. I am sure that that is also the Government's own intention, but the Government's intention will not be achieved if the proposals approved by the Minister fix the date and do nothing else, and if, that date once past, those proposals can be torn up and nobody need look at them again for any purpose whatsoever.
The two defects to which I drew attention—the defects which the noble Lord,

345
Lord Silkin, has mentioned in the speech he has just made—would be cured substantially either by the Amendments that I moved yesterday or by the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Molson this evening. I think that there is one drafting matter which makes Lord Molson's Amendment wrong at the moment in its actual wording, because he refers to the "scheme as certified"; and there is, of course, no such thing. I think we can all guess the amendment which could be made to that; but the general line of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would cure the trouble seen both by the noble Lord himself—though I think he has exaggerated the compensation which would be involved—and by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and by myself.
The only other matter I want to mention is this. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said very emphatically on several occasions in the course of these discussions that it would be wrong to subject a public body to permanent limitations such as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself. May I say, quite briefly, why I believe my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is wrong about that? The reason I think he is wrong is that the land with which we are concerned is public land for which the public have already paid. The body at present owning that land are by this very measure being relieved of an obligation to repay the public immense sums of money. They are being relieved of immense debts. Is there really anything wrong in saying: "By Act of Parliament you are excused all those debts, and you should not have the right to claim compensation if you cannot put the land to a use which would be contrary to the public interest"? I do not think there is any sense in saying that that is wrong.
Let me put this as a test. When we say that we want to give a public Board all possible freedom, we mean that, if we give it, we give the Railways Board, for example, all possible freedom to run the railways. But would anybody have said there was anything improper, or unjust or inequitable in this measure, if it had been said that, in return for relieving them of this immense public debt, they must hand over their surplus land to the Government for their use?
346
Nobody could have said that that was utterly wrong in principle, and therefore I suggest that what we ought to do, to make this clause a reality and to secure justice, is to decide that under the Government scheme proposals should be put forward by these bodies and approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Once the proposals are approved two results should certainly follow. Any application to develop the land in any way inconsistent with those proposals should be capable of being refused without a liability to compensation, and irrespective of who is the owner at the time the application is put forward. The only exceptions I make, of course, are for some of the circumstances dealt with by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, when he pointed out that wholly new circumstances might arise—new land might come in and all that type of thing—with which Parliamentary draftsmen are most capable of dealing, but which we amateurs can hardly tackle. But the general principle should be this: that the proposals, once approved by the Minister, should be proposals which, if they are contravened, will not involve a liability on the planning authority, and that should be the case no matter by whom the application is made.
7.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have had three more interesting speeches and I shall try to deal with all the points that are raised. I am rather disappointed in that on the six occasions (I think it is) when I have tried to make the point to your Lordships I have obviously completely failed to convey comprehension to those who have been listening to me. But, as a countryman of Robert the Bruce—and it was the seventh time that the spider attempted and was successful—and with a very cheerful heart I also shall try for the seventh time.
The main aim of the Amendment is to deprive the Commission or the new Boards of compensation for refusal of planning permission for office development in land where such development would be at variance with the proposals submitted by the Commission or the Boards under subsection (1) of the new clause and approved by the Minister

347
under subsection (2). I want to deal with the points in the three stages: first of all what actually happens before the approval by the Minister, which, as my noble friend Lord Conesford has just said, fixes a point of time.
Let us look at the real problem which we, as a House, were trying to solve. The real issue, and I think the basis of the feeling created among your Lordships, was that in London we have two problems which are interrelated. On the one hand, in the opinion of most people there has been too much office building, and on the other, the office building creates transport difficulties both in the streets and for the commuters coming up. That is the problem with which we are trying to deal. Here we have—I do not want to be tied to an actual figure, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, yesterday—something between 1,000 acres and 1,500 acres of new land coming in. We have to see that that is dealt with according to a sensible view of the two problems that I have mentioned; that is, that we do not want excessive addition to office building and we do not want an addition to our transport problems.
Let us take the stage that is going on now. What is going on now is negotiations between the Commission and the L.C.C. I think that none of your Lordships who has spoken to-day, with great respect to your knowledge and ability, has really paid sufficient attention to subsection (1) of the new Clause, because that says that
"It shall be a duty of the Commission … to consult the London County Council as to the use of their land in the administrative county of London so far as that land is not required for the purposes of their business, and"
secondly,
"to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government"—
will your Lordships look again because it seems to me that your Lordships have forgotten the next words time and time again—
"proposals with regard to the use of that land in a manner which is consistent with proper planning and which, in particular, is consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade business and industry on the one hand, and new living accommodation."
348
This is the first stage in the matter. Of course, one must impute beneficial motives to two public bodies as a matter of law; I do it also as a matter of fact. Both sides will be trying to solve that problem.
At that point, until the Minister has given his certification, then under subsection (3) if an application is made
"consisting of the construction, reconstruction or alteration of a building (a) which is designed or intended for use as office premises, or (b) part of which is designed or intended for use as office premises and is suited for separate occupation"
and permission is refused, then the compensation will not be payable. What we have really been arguing about, and we have gone round in circle after circle about exactly the same point, is whether it is likely that either by themselves or the purchasers the Boards are going to apply for planning permission for something entirely different from what they have agreed with the London County Council and put up to the Minister as a proper balance. I submit that I completely demolished the practicability, the possibility, of any suggestion of that kind in the way that it was put up to me yesterday.
But my noble friend Lord Molson puts it a new way to-day and I admit that I have a new point to meet. His suggestion, summarising it, is that the Commission or the Boards might still wish to put in an application for planning permission for office development which would be quite inconsistent with the certified proposals, purely for the purpose of securing compensation for its refusal. Perhaps my noble friend was inclined to put it on the sort of general duty of protecting their assets, and I suppose he had in mind the possibility of safeguarding existing use value for office purposes in a site which they had agreed under the proposals to devote to housing. In other words, and this is what it comes to really—they might intend to use the land for housing in accordance with their proposals but at the same time feel it right to obtain compensation for giving up existing use value of the site for office purposes.
I think there are at least two reasons why that is so remote a possibility that to legislate for it would really be outside the approach of legislation. You do not legislate for remote possibilities in

349
order to attain a logical and dialectical perfection which we do not reach on this terrestrial planet of ours. I give two reasons. In the first place it could have reality only in those cases where the Commission are using existing buildings for office purposes and where, as part of the proposals under subsection (1), those buildings are to be turned over to residential use. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to note that there must be the two things, because one of the points that was worrying him was using an existing office building for office purposes. If he will follow me, I think he will agree that it could only have any reality, first, where the Commission are using existing buildings for office purposes; secondly, where, as part of the proposals under subsection (1), those buildings are to be turned over to residential use, and where there would be substantial compensation payable under Section 20 of the 1947 Act for refusal of planning permission to rebuild the office buildings in modern form with an extension up to a 10 per cent. tolerance. You have only to state these points to see that that is almost as limited a possibility as one could imagine. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will come back to his compensation points specifically at the end.
Secondly, while the new clause does not provide in terms for that remote possibility—and I do not think it should be taken into account and form part of the proposals put to the L.C.C. under subsection (1)—although it is not in the clause, clearly in the interests of both parties it would be inevitable that account should be taken of it in settling the overall proposals. If that remote possibility were likely to occur, it would be a matter which both sides would take into account, and therefore in practice any attempt would be contrary to the basic intention of the discussions.
Now I want to say one word about the questions of compensation which were worrying the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The provisions of the new clause proposed by this Amendment would, in respect of office building in London, exclude the Commission and the four new statutory Boards from all compensation, under two heads. I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford sees that I am not making a bad point.
350
At the moment I am discussing it up to the critical date. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with this: that the first of the two heads is that if any person is refused permission to enlarge, improve or alter an existing building by operations which do not increase its cubic capacity by more than 10 per cent., compensation is payable under Section 20 and the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act.
The noble Lord will also remember Chat compensation can be reduced by any undertaking of the Minister on refusing permission to grant planning permission for any other development. We all know the 110 per cent. floor space point. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on Monday, that is not a problem in relation to new office building; it applies only to existing offices. That is not really the problem which raised this difficulty in the House. We were not considering—I do not think my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford was really considering—that question, if it did arise, and I do not see how it can. That was not a problem. The problem which was worrying the House was that unused land would be devoted to office building. Compensation applies only to existing offices. I do not think that was the intention of the House, and I do not see any reason why that matter should cause us any trouble at all.
The second point is, where permission is refused or is granted only conditionally for the development of operational land, special compensation provisions apply again, as Lord Silkin remembered, under Section 35 and the Fifth Schedule, and there surely the compensation is equivalent to the loss suffered by the undertaker by reason of the refusal, including the estimated net loss of the receipts of the undertaking. That basis of specially favourable compensation is excluded by Clause 84 of the Bill, where the Commission or the new Boards wish to develop surplus land commercially for non-operational purposes. It would apply to any refusal of planning permission to build offices for railway or other operational purposes on operational land. But that is not one of the matters which we are really considering. What is done on operational land is nihil ad rem of the problem which has been troubling the House.

351
The next stage in my argument is to deal with what is really the point of this Amendment and the point which my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford made, that it is not enough to come up to this date of approval by the Minister, that this ought to go on; and, allowing for differences in the Amendments, what both my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford and my noble friend Lord Molson say is that in the future, after this date, after the agreement has been made, the Commission should not have the right to deviate from the agreement which they have made. That is really what it comes to. I have given my views on that.
There are really three points. First, I think it would be too rigid in effect. There may be changes in circumstances over the passage of time Which would make it desirable and acceptable on planning grounds for development of land belonging to the Commission or the new Boards otherwise than in accordance with proposals already approved under Subsection (1). My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, quite naturally, replies to that argument by saying," Very well; the Minister of Housing can give permission." But as I answered him when he put this point, that is not the problem which we are considering. We are considering when, in the future, for reasons entirely unconnected with the discussions between the L.C.C. and the Commission, the Minister, from his view, thinks that there ought to be certain conditions attached to a permission to build, conditions unconnected with this altogether, that the Boards are not to get compensation when these conditions are attached. I think that is wrong and that it is too rigid; and I think we disagree fundamentally on that point.
My second point, which I do not need to repeat at length, was that the effect of the Amendment might be to throw doubt on the position of additional land becoming surplus to operational requirements in the future; and my third point was that one should not freeze the matter. A future new development plan and the changing requirements and aims of the planning authority might make the original proposals considerably out of date. I really cannot see why one should put on the public Board this
352
freezing into the future. Of course, my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, as he always does, met that point; and his answer to the point is a most dangerous one. What he is saying is that under this Bill the railways, the Commission and the Boards that run the railways are getting financial advantages. There has been great argument, largely on Party lines, as to whether or not there should be relief on their capital charges. Certainly over the last seventeen years, I should have said—ever since the question came up—there has been great dispute on that point.
However, assuming that there is a basis for the argument that the railways are going to get some financial advantage, surely it would be a bad way of giving financial advantage if you were, with your next breath, so to speak, to hamstring the financial policy. If they had said "No, we are not going to consider the London problem. We are not going to consider the need for limiting office accommodation and putting up housing accommodation," then one could have said, "All right, if you are not prepared to play, we shall have to find some method of relieving you of what we think are wrongful gains." Here they are prepared to play; the two great bodies are prepared to work together. I cannot see that it would be unfair if they got financial advantages which everyone thought they should get quite irrespective of this point. They were not given to the Commission with the point in mind that they could use that fact in order to justify the position that is taken to-day.
I should like finally to say a word on the question of the quantum of compensation I think my noble friend Lord Molson realised that he gave a completely exaggerated and impossible estimate of what would happen, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, threw out a defensive line on that point at once. The situation which Lord Molson described will not apply to all the land owned by the British Transport Commission, but only to a small part. I do not know what amount of land is to be developed for office use or retained for existing office use, because that will depend on the outcome of the current discussions with the B.T.C. Those who have considered it tell me

353
that they do not think it will be a large proportion: they think it will be a small proportion. There could be no question of compensation for existing value and 10 per cent. for 800 acres. There is no compensation for refusal of planning permission unless the refusal relates to an application to add a 10 per cent. increase in the limited case I mentioned. The amount of this compensation is dependent on the existing use of a building, and the total would not be anything like the figure that was mentioned.
My Lards, I have the greatest possible respect for the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and those of my noble friend Lord Molson; and, as I have already stated, I respect anything the noble Lord, Lord Silkin says, in this field of town and country planning (I am speaking quite genuinely, and I am not saying this as a debating point); but I should like to explain where I feel the difference between us anises. We started out on this exercise with the intention of getting a proper balance for the use of excess railway land between housing and office or commercial or business or industrial use. We have put forward a method which clearly will enable that to be done. All my noble friends have forgotten the original "war aim", if I may put it in that language, and are now really prepared to oppose anything which will give the Commission the chance of compensation in the future in respect of any part of their land, whatever changes may occur. The Government accept that, and I hope noble Lords will feel that, even if they disagree with my points, I have certainly done the utmost, to the extent of my poor ability, to explain what these points are based on and the general reasons why the Government have taken this position. Therefore, I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment, and to pass the new clause.
8.25 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am sure we are deeply indebted to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the very great patience with which he has expounded what everybody, including himself, agrees is a difficult and obscure clause, dealing with a very difficult subject. I can only say, with
354
regard to the figures of compensation that might be involved, that the figures of £5,000 to £6,000 for housing and £30,000 for commercial development were obtained this morning from the London County Council as applying in the East End of London. If that does not apply to the whole of the 1,000 acres—and I agree that it does not—I did not commit myself to any figure as to what the total compensation would be. It is obviously a matter nobody knows about, although those most competent to make an estimate say that it would be a very heavy burden.
I am much relieved toy what my noble and learned friend said about the Government's intentions with regard to claims for compensation where land is used in accordance with approved proposals. My advice is that there is nothing to prevent the owner of land from making a claim for development even though he has no intention of asserting that claim. It was not exactly under this provision of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but there is a famous case where a golf club made a claim for permission to develop, while making it quite plain they had no intention of doing so, and in fact recovered compensation out of the £80 million available for that purpose. But it is quite clear, I think, from what my noble and learned friend has said, that it is not the intention of the Government that the Railways Board should exercise what I think would be their legal rights. It can no doubt toe dealt with in the proposals Which would have to be approved toy the Minister. In view of what I regard as the partly satisfactory explanation which my noble and learned friend has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Interpretation]:
8.30 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Amendment No. 81 is consequential. It inserts into the interpretation clause a definition which makes it clear that a reorganisation of the police under a scheme in pursuance of the new police clause

355
should be deemed to be a reorganisation "effected by this Act" for the purpose of compensation in Clause 79. In other words, it makes clear that if any of the officers or servants of the Commission suffers loss of employment, or toss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened in consequence of a police reorganisation scheme under the new clause, then he shall be eligible for compensation.
The eligibility for compensation applies not only to the reorganisation made by the original police scheme, but also by any amendment to that scheme made not later than six months after the scheme initially comes into effect. It may well be that experience in the working of the scheme will show the need for an immediate adjustment, because some part of the scheme was not quite right in its original form. It is right, therefore, that any such immediate change should also come within the meaning of "reorganisation" for the purposes of compensation, but that any change made after six months should be regarded as a matter of ordinary organisation and management and not part of the original reorganisation effected under the new Clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 13, at end insert ("the re-organisation effected by this Act' includes any re-organisation effected by a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act, including any amendments of the scheme made not later than six months after the date on which the scheme comes into effect.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Distribution of Commission's securities]:
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in Part V, to insert at the beginning of paragraph 2, "Subject to the following provisions of this Act". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, Amendment No. 89 might be considered with Amendments No. 93 on the Fifth Schedule and Nos. 94, 95, and 96 on the Sixth Schedule. These are incidental Amendments to clarify the effect of the Bill on the distribution as between the Railways Board and the Holding Company of the existing rights and liabilities of the Commission under agreements with bus companies.
It will be remembered from our previous discussions that under the Railway Road Transport Acts of 1928, the main line railways were empowered to run road transport services or to enter into agreements with bus companies to provide services. They decided to conclude agreements, and the principal agreements were made with the British Electric Traction Group and the Tillings Bus Group. In 1948, the British Transport Commission acquired all the shares in the Tillings Group. Agreements subsist at present between the British Electric Traction Group and the Commission, who were vested with the railway interests by the Transport Act, 1947.
There are two categories of agreement: the working agreements on co-operation between the railways and the individual bus companies and the parent agreements between the Holding Company of the bus groups and the railways, in relation to the acquisition and maintenance of shareholdings in the operating bus companies by the railways. Joint Standing Committees which were advisory in function, were set up in respect of each of the bus companies. Under this Bill the Commission's shares are to be transferred to the Holding Company, but the Bill also provides that the rights and the liabilities of the Commission in the working agreements with the bus companies are to be transferred to the Railways Board. We have come to the conclusion that the vesting provisions in the Bill are not precise enough in their operation on these agreements and the Amendments put this right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this Act").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Miscellaneous Items in the Distribution of the Commission's Assets]:
8.36 p.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, at end of paragraph 5 (b), to leave out "and". The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 might be conveniently taken together. These are minor Amendments. Under the Transport Act, 1953, the road haulage undertakings returned to private enterprise,

357
and in this connection leasehold lands and properties were sold, but there are a number of contingent liabilities left with the Commission. Under Section 77 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, there is still an implied covenant on the person who assigns a leasehold property to pay the ground rent and perform the covenants of the lease if the assignee fails to do so. These liabilities are, of course, contingent liabilities, but under the Bill as drafted they will pass to the Railways Board on vesting date. They really have nothing to do with the railways, so we feel it is more appropriate that these contingent liabilities—and they are contingent liabilities—should be transferred to the Transport Holding Company, which is to take over the road haulage companies of the Commission. The Amendments provide accordingly, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 35, leave out ("and").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 38, at end insert ("and
(d) any rights or liabilities of the Commission under covenants, express or implied, relating to land disposed of by the Road Haulage Executive on behalf of the Commission or to land disposed of by the Commission which was at any time in the possession, as between that Executive and persons other than the Commission, of that Executive").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 38, at end insert:
("6.—(1) This paragraph applies to any agreement—

(a) which was made with, or relates to, a company operating motor omnibuses or other road passenger transport vehicles, being a company which is listed in Part IV of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and

(b) to which the Commission became a party by virtue of the Part II of the Transport Act, 1947, as successors of a railway company having powers under the Railway Road Transport Acts of 1928 mentioned in paragraph 1 of Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act.

In the following provisions of this paragraph 'the omnibus company' means any such company as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph.
(2) There shall be transferred to the Holding Company any rights and liabilities of the Commission under so much of the agreement as relates—

(a) to securities issued by the omnibus company, and in particular to any right of pre-emption which may arise when any such securities are disposed of,

(b) to the raising of capital by the omnibus company,

(c) to the election or nomination of directors of the omnibus company.

(3) Any rights or liabilities of the Commission under the agreement which are not under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph transferred to the Holding Company shall be transferred to the Railways Board.
(4) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, any term of the agreement to the effect that the omnibus company shall not without the consent of directors of the company nominated by the Commission compete with railway services of the Commission shall have effect, as from the vesting date, as if it referred to the consent of the Railways Board and to the railway services of the Railways Board.").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Distribution of Commission's undertaking]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 89. 1 beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 42, after ("divided") insert ("or distributed").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this also is consequential on Amendment No. 89. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("references") in line 31 and insert ("In this paragraph references to the Board include").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment again is consequential on No. 89. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 22, leave out ("and the Holding Company").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
8.40 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we have discovered a modest and minor defect in paragraph 6 of Part II of the Seventh Schedule, which deals with the transitional arrangements for the control of passenger fares in London. This Amendment is to cure it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 45, at end insert ("for the alteration of all or any of their faxes subject to the London fares orders (whether or not all or any of those specified in the application were the fares affected by the order).
(2) Any application by the Commission in compliance with subsection (5) of the said section twenty-three (which requires the Commission to apply within a prescribed time for confirmation of an order under subsection (2) of that section) which is pending before the Transport Tribunal when section forty-three of this Act comes into force shall be deemed to have been made in compliance with the foregoing sub-paragraph, and the proceedings on that application shall be continued in such manner as the Tribunal may direct as if they were proceedings under section forty-five of this Act.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the other half of an amendment, the first half being Amendment No. 49, to give effect to certain things we wanted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 127, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert:
("11.—(1) If when the principal section comes into force there is before the Minister a recommendation of the Central Transport Consultative Committee or the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland or for Wales and Monmouthshire—

(a) with respect to any proposed closure,or

(b) with respect to any other matter,

the Minister may in connection with the closure or with respect to the other matter dealt with in the recommendation, as the case may be, from time to time give to the Commission or to any Board such directions as he thinks fit.
(2) The principal section shall not apply to a closure in connection with which directions can be given under the foregoing sub-paragraph.
360
(3) If when the principal section comes into force the Commission are providing, or assisting in the provision of, alternative services in connection with a closure which has taken place before that date, the Minister may from time to time give to the Commission or the Board concerned such directions with respect to those services, or any other services in substitution for, or in addition to, those services, as he thinks fit.
(4) The Minister may refer to an Area Committee any matter relating to alternative services provided by or with the assistance of the Commission or a Board—

(a) in pursuance of a direction under this paragraph, or

(b) otherwise than in pursuance of such a direction, if a direction with respect to those services could have been given under this paragraph, or

(c) in connection with a closure which has taken place before the principal section comes into force.

and the committee shall consider and report to the Minister on that matter.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Constitution, powers and Proceedings of the Transport Tribunal]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 98A and 98B are both minor drafting Amendments. I beg to move them both together.
Amendments moved—
Page 139, line 43, leave out from ("rules") to (" under")
Page 139, line 45, after ("paragraph") insert ("which are in operation immediately before this Schedule comes into force").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Amendment No. 99 is a continuation of Amendment No. 80, applying Clause 70 to the Holding Company. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 37, after ("Board") insert ("or the Holding Company").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHOUSE) BILL
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (DONCASTER) BILL
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SIDMOUTH) BILL
Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.