Commons Sitting of 24 April 1931

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Landon Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill (by Order) (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (City of Worcester) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 15 and 16 Geo. 5. c. 84, S. 9 (4).)
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out Subsection (2).
    As hon. Members may imagine, I do not move this Amendment with any intention of pressing it, but merely in order to get some definite information from the Solicitor-General. It is not my intention, in any way, to press the Amendment, but it is desired to have some explanation of a point which at present appears to be a little doubtful. In view of representations which have been made to me and which show that a little anxiety exists among certain industrialists in the country on this point, I wish to ask the Solicitor-General to state his views on this Sub-section which makes the Bill retrospective in character and to say, whether, in his opinion, this Sub-section only brings within the purview of the Bill, those cases which were ruled out by the decision in the case of Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Company. I wish to know if the Sub-section does that and nothing more. If so—and I believe that that is all it does—then the position is satisfactory and the Bill ought to be retrospective in character to that extent. It is obvious that the Bill only makes plain the intention of the original Act, and, as the insurance companies must have adjusted their premiums to cover the risk involved in the original Act, they will not lose by this Bill being made retrospective. In order to give satisfaction on this point to certain people who are at present a little doubtful, I ask the Solicitor-General to state his view on the scope and effect of this Sub-section.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The right hon. Gentleman has raised a question which, I think, was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, but which at that stage was not apparently answered quite as definitely as he and his friends desired.
    1302
    The object of the Bill, of course, is to put right the effect of the decision in the case of Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Company, and, as far as I can judge, the Sub-section which is now being substituted for Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, has that purpose and that purpose only. The Sub-section which the right hon. Gentleman has moved to omit merely says that as from the passing of this Act the provisions of the substituted Subsection (4) of Section 9 of the original Act, shall apply in any case where the accident happened on or after 1st January, 1924. The effect of that provision, in my opinion, will merely be that, as from that date, the true intention of Parliament in its original enactment of the Act of 1923 will be carried out. That is to say, the Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Company judgment will not any longer be applicable, but, instead, what I think was generally understood to be the true intention of Parliament in passing the former Act will be carried into effect. That is the only effect, in my view, which that Sub-section will have.
    Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: To those of us who have been watching this proposed amendment of the law very carefully to see how far it would go, there seems to be no doubt that it was the intention of everybody who took part in the discussions on the original Act of 1923—which was consolidated in the Act of 1925—that a man should be compensated within the priciples of that Act, where lack of employment could be said to be the result of his injury. It might result from the injury in many ways, but the effect of the decision in Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Company was to cut down materially what had been everybody's idea of the scope of the Act. As far as I can see this Bill merely restores the position to what everybody thought it was on the passing of this Section of the 1923 Act and I venture to join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the view that the only effect of this Clause is to say that in all these cases, where everybody previously thought the Act applied, it shall apply, notwithstanding the fact that the Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Company's decision has intervened.
    Mr. ROWSON: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) and the hon. and

    1303
    learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) are putting forward a point of view which I can hardly accept. They have put before the House the view that this Clause is giving us what the original Act of 1923 was supposed to give. I differ somewhat from that view. The Bevan case was the case of a man who was certified to be suffering from miner's nystagmus in 1919, and the action was taken in 1927 under the Act of 1925. It seems to me that this Clause, despite what has been said on the other side, is much more limited than the original Section, in so far as it makes out that no case of accident or industrial disease arising before 1st January 1924, can be taken under it. Under the original Section, in my view, cases could be taken, say, under the 1906 Act. I wish to put forward that point of view. I do not want the House to understand that we are getting here all that we expected to get or all that the original Act was intended to give. I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether he does not agree that this Clause is much more limited in its effect than the original provision.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: We seem to have got into some confusion and before this Amendment is withdrawn or decided upon, we ought to know clearly whether cases which occurred before 1924 are dealt with in this Measure or not. As I understand the Solicitor-General, the Clause only applies to cases which occurred after 1st January, 1924. I think that is the position which the Government hold on this matter and it is a very definite position but the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) seemed to infer that cases occurring prior to that date, might be brought within the scope of the Bill. I understand that that would not be so but I think it is just as well that we should have these matters made plain here, rather than in the courts. It saves considerable expense and time. I am not disputing in any way the suggestion that the original Act of Parliament intended that these people should come in but I think we might be told if the Government have any estimate of the number of people who will be entitled to compensation now, and who were not entitled to it previously, owing to the decision to which reference has already been made. I conclude from what the hon. and
    1304
    learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) said that the majority of cases went as the law was thought to be but some cases did not, and I think the House would be interested to know how many people will now be likely to get compensation who accidently have been deprived of it before. Many of us look on these matters from a human point of view, and we would like to know how many people we are actually helping on this occasion. If I could get any figures of that kind, I should be very much gratified, and I should be relieved to know that there is no possibility of anyone being left out who ought to be brought in.
    Mr. TINKER: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) brought up this point, because it has troubled many of us on this side. I had thought of putting down an Amendment, but that might have defeated the whole purpose of the Bill, which we do not want to do. The Bevan versus Nixon's Navigation case altered what we thought the Act of Parliament meant. Up to that time we had thought that the employer was bound to find work or provide compensation. The decision taken in the High Court displeased everybody, I think, both on that side of the House and on this, and it was generally felt that something ought to be done to put the matter right. From that time there have been attempts to get the Act altered. Within a week the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) brought in an amending Bill, under the Ten Minutes Rule, to put the law back exactly as we thought the Act of Parliament meant. That was in 1928, and three years have gone by now in trying to alter that state of affairs.
    We have now got very near to the point of putting it right, but this Bill does not carry out wholly what we want. I had thought it was the intention to get right back to the position that we occupied before, and that would mean that all cases cut out by the Bevan decision should have a change of being reviewed. As I understood the Act of 1923, which was incorporated in the Act of 1925, it included all cases prior to the 1923 Act that could be judged under Section 16 of that Act. That is not disputed, I believe, and if that is so, I think the House of Commons should really put the Act back where we thought it was. Since the

    1305
    Bevan case, many men who were injured prior to 1923, with the loss of an arm or a leg, or who were physically incapacitated through industrial disease, have been treated under the heading of the Bevan case and have been discharged with only a little compensation. That is because of the Bevan case. If they have acted upon that assumption, surely it is for the House of Commons to put that matter right now. Why should the Bill be limited to 1924? Why should it not go the whole way?
    Some people have said to me, "You have done very well to get any retrospective Clause in the Bill at all." I admit that we have done very well in getting that in, but once having gone on the way, why not do the thing properly and give all these men what they are entitled to? For three years these men have been deprived of something that has gone to the benefit of the insurance companies and the employers. Nothing can be got for those three years, but when cases are reviewed, as they must be reviewed if this Bill passes, why not bring in those poor men who have been excluded in respect of disabilities prior to 1923? I appeal to the House of Commons. It is not often that we can get the House to do the big thing, but here is a chance under this Amendment. I know it is not the intention of the right hon. Member for Chorley to exclude anyone under his Amendment, and the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has constantly assured me in private that he wants to put the law back to where it was thought to be in 1925.
    If that is so—and I think he will not dispute what I am arguing now, that the cases prior to 1923 would have come under the Act but for the Bevan case—then in all fairness the House ought to say to-day, "Very well, we will put in a Clause to cover all the cases from July, 1907, instead of from January, 1924, only". It would not cover very many, but there would he no case of injustice left. I appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House to let us act in harmony in this matter and to say "It is obvious that we have overlooked a certain point, and we agree to put in an Amendment to cover all cases that were
    1306
    struck out because of the Bevan decision in the House of Lords."
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I want to say that I think it is a very big thing to have got a retrospective Clause in this Bill at all. It is very difficult to get this House to consent to retrospective legislation of any kind, but perhaps it would assist hon. Members opposite if the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department could tell us why this particular date of the 1st January, 1924, has been put in by the draftsman who drew up the Bill, because I am sure it has not been done without reason; and if the House really understood why that date has been chosen, I do not think there would be any further trouble on this Amendment.
    Mr. HACKING: I am quite satisfied with the explanation, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. May I point out that if the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) required me to press this Amendment to a division, and supported me in the Division Lobby, he would lose the retrospective character of the Bill altogether. I, therefore, ask him to agree that I should withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. LAWTHER: I want to express our thanks in relation to this Bill. I believe that in one of the first speeches made in this Parliament the desire was expressed by the Prime Minister that the House should on certain matters resolve itself into a Council of State. The fact that we have been able to get a great measure that in the opinion of members of the legal profession, would help us to get over the Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation case, at least means that so far as this Bill is concerned we have been a sort of Council of State. We believe that, while the Bill does not give us all the Amendments of the Compensation Acts that we on this side desire, the objective which we set out to attain, namely, to put back on the Statute book what was the intention of those who were responsible for the 1923 Act, which came into operation on the 1st January, 1924, has been accomplished in so far as it is possible to put into written words what is desired. Further, the difficulty that

    1307
    we have been faced with, and that has been caused by this decision, and has taken up the time of the House on four previous occasions in an endeavour to put the matter right, has been that unfortunately in this country, in contradistinction to other countries, it is the habit of those whose duty it is to interpret the law that they do not take cognisance of what might have been the intention of the Legislature but rather of what is actually on the Statute Book. We believe that this form of words that is now incorporated in the Bill does express what was in the minds of those responsible in 1923.
    I should be lacking in common courtesy if I did not express, as the promoter of this Bill, thanks for the valuable help that we have received in trying to pass this Measure from the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. H. W. Samuel), the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). I also want to express acknowledgments to the Solicitor-General and to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) in helping us to get this Bill on to the Statute Book.
    Mr. ATKINSON: I should like to say how glad I am that a difficult and controversial question has been settled by agreement. I would like to reply to a point raised in the discussion on the Amendment. It is true that the 1923 Act, which in certain cases intended to provide for compensation where the inability to get work was due, not directly to a physical disability resulting from the accident, but to a man having a more limited field of employment, was retrospective; but of course in so far as it was retrospective, it was unfair to the employers and the insurance companies. If we put the present date further back than 1924, we should be perpetuating something which was not quite fair, but as since the 1st January, 1924, the insurance companies have arranged their premiums on the basis of what was intended by that Act, there is, by going back to 1924, no injustice inflicted upon anybody. If we should go back further, there would be ground for complaint. It would be an illustration of unfair retrospective legislation. At any rate, the Bill goes back for more than seven years. It is an extremely
    1308
    satisfactory way of settling the problem, and I want to pay my tribute to those responsible.
    Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I want to congratulate the hon. Member who brought this Bill forward on the success which he has attained. I think the House might also express its great thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for the care he has taken in connection with it. The difficulty has always been to try and get what really cannot be done in the House itself, and that is just a small committee which can deal with the thing and thrash every point out, and then bring forward something which can be dealt with without any detailed discussion on the Floor of the House. We owe a great deal in this matter again to my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. H. W. Samuel), who has helped tremendously to come to a decision on this matter. The Bill illustrates what this House can do if Members will only leave on one side some of the suspicions which have got into their minds, and remember that, when we are dealing with a Measure of this sort, in which no political principle is involved, but which is carrying out principles which have been accepted by the whole nation, there never ought to be any difficulty of coming to agreement. This Bill is an illustration of that; it also may be a good omen, for we may on future occasions be able to come to similar agreements without indulging in the acrimony which has unfortunately characterised same Measures in the past.
    Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I have never in the whole of this matter been suspicious of anything except of the soundness of my own original draft of this Bill. When I introduced it, I had been in the House only three months; it was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, and I have never pretended that the words of my Bill, which have been followed on subsequent occasions, were really the correct ones. It is only right to say that on that occasion the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sir Vivian Henderson, was quite sympathetic with the objects of the Bill, but he could not go on with it in the form in which I introduced it. At last, we got what we always wanted, the assistance of expert draftsmen to express what we all intended, and it is a great satisfaction to

    1309
    me to think that, whatever else may happen, my maiden effort in attempting legislation has now some chance of reaching the Statute Book.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I do not think that to-day is the time for too many eulogies and for the handing out of bouquets. I will give my eulogies to all concerned when I have seen this Bill tested in the county court. I am not quite as satisfied as some hon. Members that the Bill will do all that they say it will, and I shall only be satisfied when I see it tested in the county court.
    I am pleased to see the hon. and learned Member for West Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) in a new räle. We have sometimes reason on this side to criticise him harshly, but this morning we are not going to do that. He has done his best to try and get what he could in this Bill to provide for the injured workman who cannot get work because of his injury, but I am somewhat doubtful whether a certain type of case will get through under this Bill. These cases have been turned down in Lancashire, and they are well known to the hon. and learned Member for West Norwood. Because of that, I suggest that we are in danger this morning of too much eulogising and of handing out too many bouquets from one to the other. I am not so sure, when the day comes for the Bill to be tested in the county court but that we shall feel that these eulogies ought not to have been paid.
    I regret that the Opposition have not gone one stage further. Take the case of a man injured before 1st January, 1924, who is on light work along with another man injured just after 1st January, 1924. Both men find themselves in exactly the same position, but one gets compensation granted by the court and the other is cut out of compensation. That can happen under this Bill. Not many cases are involved before 1924, but there are far more involved later than 1924, and the Opposition might have been more generous in going back to an earlier date.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not want to interfere in this bouquet-throwing competition. It is a pleasant thing to watch, and I sincerely congratulate everyone concerned. I would like, however, to join with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr.
    1310
    G. Macdonald). Anything which can be done to enable a man, who has received some slight injury which does not make him wholly incapable, to carry on in his old work, although on a lighter task, should be done. If it is not, a grave injury will be done to him. My sympathy will always be with the endeavour to help the employer and the man to come together on this matter, because it is only by good will on both sides that that can be done.
    There are two principles concerned with this Bill which we ought to consider very carefully. First of all, there is in this Bill retrospective legislation. It ought to be clearly and definitely stated in the House of Commons that retrospective legislation should take place only one one occasion—this is the occasion—when, clearly, some Act has worked out in a different way from what Parliament intended. When that happens, you can have retrospective legislation, and, from that point of view, one is enabled to vote for this Bill. Otherwise, I should not do so, because I disapprove of retrospective legislation except for that one reason.
    The only other point I would make is, that unless you have the fullest and most careful consideration of these complicated and technical Bills, accidents such as these arise, and the House of Commons has its time taken up in bringing in amending Measures. That is why I have always been strongly in favour of giving proper and adequate consideration to every part of a Bill, particularly where it involves complicated questions of law, and where it is necessary that you should have the best legal opinion. I put a simple question to the Government just now, although they may find it difficult to answer, but before passing the Third Reading, I would like to know if any estimate can be given of the number of people that this Bill affects. If the exact information cannot be given, I would, at any rate, like a promise that the Government will endeavour to give me an approximate estimate. On the clear understanding with regard to retrospective legislation, I can support the Third Reading of a Measure, which, I hope, will remove certain very genuine and very real grievances.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I desire to endorse the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend as to the

    1311
    advisability of seeing how these cases are affected. All of us who sit for mining constituencies are continually met with cases of hardship which, to some extent, this Measure meets, and I make this suggestion to the Government that if, as is very probable, we are approached by individual cases which do not come within the scope of these compensation Clauses, we shall have the strong feeling—I hope the incipient promise—that the Home Office will deal with the whole question of compensation on a far bigger and broader basis at a very early opportunity. I, personally, am distressed, as I think many other Members are, when they receive applications for assistance, and find the fixing of an arbitrary date; indeed, in this Measure some people are on the right side of the line and others on the wrong side of the line. We have, for example, in connection with our Widows' Pensions Bill, a great many cases of that kind, and it is difficult to explain to those who think that they have an equal claim that the date of an Act of Parliament makes all the difference whether they get satisfaction or not. Therefore, I content myself, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), with the hope that if experience of the working of this Bill shows there is any considerable number of cases of hardship, that they will be put right in a comprehensive compensation Bill, where this problem, and a great many other problems, can be amended in the interests of what, we believe, are the interests of the working classes.
    Mr. ROWSON: As one concerned in the negotiations with the other two parties when this agreed Bill was accepted, I want to say to those on this side who are offering a little criticism, that it is necessary to realise that we who are behind the Bill are fully conscious of its shortcomings. It does not need anybody to tell us that this is not like the original Bill, but it is as much as we could get with the House of Commons as at present constituted. I would remind those who have spoken on this side above the Gangway, that they seem to criticise, on the one hand, the lack of benefits that will be conferred on the injured workmen, and, on the other hand, complain because it does
    1312
    not apply to cases before 1923 in order that the benefits can be conferred on those cases. It seems to me somewhat illogical. As far as I am concerned, I have some doubts as to what will be the outcome when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, but I think all must agree that it is a definite advance on the Section as it appears in the 1925 Act. It is not always the cases that you take into court which determine the situation, but if we can get only one case under this Clause, it means that the employers take a different standpoint altogether, and we shall find that the employers will not throw these partially incapacitated men on the scrap-heap, but will make a greater attempt to find them work than they do at the present time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  SHARING-OUT CLUBS (REGULATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, which I introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, and which was granted a First Reading without any opposition. The House, I think, felt that it was a very simple, unobjectionable and non-controversial method of dealing with scandals which, I am afraid, occur regularly every Christmas. I am in no way hostile to the formation or the operation of these clubs. It is a very excellent way in which poor people can put aside a small sum of money every week for a few weeks before Christmas, with a view to having a little money saved which they can spend at the Christmas holidays. Unfortunately, many of the people who organise and contribute to these clubs are not experienced in any way in keeping accounts. Very often somebody is elected as secretary who has no knowledge whatever of accounts, or accounting or keeping balance sheets. A large sum of money accumulates in the hands of such persons, and they are not used to the responsibility of such a sum. They may be pressed on a sudden emergency.

  1313
  They may, perhaps, indulge in racing of some sort, and, without thinking of the result, which may, and inevitably does, occur, they spend some of this money. They get further into debt in trying to get the money back, and when the sharing out day arrives they find there is a huge deficit which they cannot possibly make up. I have had a great deal of correspondence about this Bill from all over the country, and I am glad to say that it has met with really no adverse criticisms. One or two communications I have received will show the real necessity for this Bill and the unanimous opinion in favour of it. The Trustee Savings Bank Association has sent the following Resolution:
  "The Executive Committee of the Trustee Savings Banks Association learns with satisfaction that efforts are being made by Members of Parliament to introduce legislation which has as its object the protection of the people's savings entrusted to the care of slate clubs, holiday funds, and other dividing societies of this character. It views with alarm the losses incurred by contributors to many of these funds through maladministration or defalcations, and it strongly urges Parliament to insist upon such safeguards being imposed as will render losses of this character impossible. It deprecates the growing misuse of the words 'savings bank,' which should be confined entirely to institutions functioning under the Savings Bank Act or other statutory authorities affording due protection to the depositors."
  The National Conference of Friendly Societies sent me the following letter:
  "Dear Sir—I am much obliged to you for forwarding me a copy of your Bill to ensure proper financial control and management of sharing-out clubs, and for your letter of the 13th inst. which accompanied it. There appears to be nothing in this Bill to which any reasonable person could object."
  Then I have a further communication from the Magistrates' Association, which was written to me just before Christmas:
  "Dear Sir—In rather less than a month from now we shall have the usual crop of defaulting secretaries of these clubs, and although it is rather late I was wondering whether it would be any good if you would write to the 'Times' pointing out the likelihood and possibility, and also suggesting that where clubs are conducted on licensed premises it might be as well if the owners of the premises, usually the brewers, took cognisance of the club, and, through their staff, made sure that the money was still intact."
  I could quote any number of instances of officials of these clubs being short in their accounts and being sentenced by the
  1314
  courts to long or short terms of imprisonment, but as other hon. Members will probably quote from their own personal knowledge of cases I propose to give only one instance. In passing sentence of six months' hard labour on Alfred Legge, of Romford Road, Forest Gate, for stealing £1,200 belonging to the Royal Oak Loan Club, the magistrate said:
  "The time has certainly arrived when something should be done to regularise these clubs. Time after time this happens, and poor people looking forward to having money to spend at Christmas are rendered miserable at the thought that it has been lost."
  The unfortunate secretary or other officer who has lost the money had, at the outset, no intention of spending money which did not belong to him, but, unfortunately, he has got into debt and used the money, and there have been several cases where a good character extending over 30 or 35 years has been ruined. We must also consider the feelings of the poor people who have subscribed this money but find, at Christmas, that there is nothing to come to them.
  In drafting this Bill I have not proposed any difficult form of registration or the granting of licences. All I suggest is that all money subscribed must be paid into a savings bank or other similar institution in the joint names of two of the members and of the secretary of the club. The trouble in the past has very often been that the man who collects the subscriptions has kept the money in his own house, or in the local public house, or wherever it is the meetings are held. There is an equally simple safeguarding arrangement for the withdrawal of the money. No money can be withdrawn from the place where it has been deposited except on the joint signature of one of the members appointed for the purpose by his fellow members and the secretary of the club. If all these sharing-out clubs are compelled by law to insist on these precautions, then a great many of the scandals and troubles which have occurred in the past will be avoided. I hope the House will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I think it is a non-controversial Measure. It is in a similar category to the Bill we have just passed, when Members on opposite sides thanked each other for

  1315
  assisting the proceedigs and for getting something through the House which was non-political and non-controversial. If hon. Members will treat this Bill in a similar way there will be no difficulty in passing it, and one day I shall have the honour and pleasure of seeing it on the Statute Book.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
  It will be noticed that my name is not on the back of the Bill, but I am seconding it in order to help my hon. Friend in an endeavour to pass legislation which is in the general interest of the community. It is not often that I am in the position of endeavouring to get legislation on the Statute Book, and I should not do so now but for the fact that, so far as I can see, the Bill will impose no cost on the Exchequer. I believe the Bill will have a general welcome from all who have any knowledge of these sharing-out clubs. My hon. Friend has already told us that it has the support of such institutions as the Trustee Savings Bank Association and other bodies. Two methods are open to Parliament in dealing with a matter of this kind. We can prohibit these savings clubs, although, to my mind, that would be a monstrous interference with the liberty of the subject, or we can endeavour to safeguard them. This Bill seems to be simple and to safeguard those who put their money into these clubs. I do not say that it is always in the best interests of people to join these clubs, but in many cases, undoubtedly, they are helpful to them, if only the people can feel sure that when the time arrives for sharing-out they will get their money.
  The first Clause of the Bill introduces the safeguard of requiring that the money must be put immediately into a savings bank or the Post Office. The second Clause is merely a definition Clause. The third Clause is the penalty clause. The penalty fixed is a sum not exceeding £5. It is not intended to make the penalty of a vicious or ill-natured character, but to keep it reasonable. If there are any details of the Bill which hon. Members think ought to be altered, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be prepared to consider Amendments they may put down at a later stage. On
  1316
  the other hand, unless there are serious objections of that kind I would like the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. The Measure is brought forward in the definite interests of a good many people in this country, and I ask hon. Members to facilitate its progress in every possible way. It is an entirely non-party Measure, and one which is strictly outside the limits of party controversy.
  Mr. HAYDAY: While I support the principle of this Bill, I do not commit myself to all its details, because I feel that it is necessary to protect persons against themselves. In the course of a lifetime spent in industry one witnesses different methods adopted in matters of this kind, and we have all observed the reports which have followed from general looseness in the promotion of sharing-out clubs. In a factory or workshop somebody may suggest the holiday fund idea. A collection of weekly contributions is arranged, and the loss on earnings is not felt so much when it is contributed in that way. It often happens that a fellow workman is chosen as secretary, in some cases without any previous experience. The man may have illness in his family, and in very distressing circumstances he may be tempted to use the funds of the club in the hope that he will be able to repay the money before the sharing-out takes place. Unfortunately, the illness continues and the man finds that he is unable to repay the money, with the result that those who have set aside weekly contributions for their annual holiday or for the Christmas festivities find that their money has gone, and, instead of being a festive season for them, it becomes one of real hardship.
  No one starts clubs of this kind with the deliberate intention of becoming a defaulter. The people in charge of these funds, who sometimes need temporary loans, ought to be protected against themselves. When these contributions are paid over, the trust of these people is so simple that no balance-sheet or quarterly or monthly statement is asked for, and therefore it seems to me that the method suggested in the Bill is right. I think that the Bill is necessary, but I would suggest that the penalties might be made to appear rather less of a criminal character and more like a deterrent to make people more careful in these matters. It is not as though

  1317
  penalties were necessary because of some deliberate defalcation. I hope that the House will accord a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) appears now to have become a convert to a different kind of tactics than those which he generally displays in regard to Committee work. It seems as if some sudden reformation has taken place when he comes forward and asks that facilities should be given for the passing of a Bill. The Bill will protect the people concerned and will provide a check which I am certain will prove beneficial to all those connected with clubs of this kind.
  12 n.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I have been asked by some of my hon. Friends to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I am pleased to hear that the Measure is receiving the support of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who once told us that he never needed a reason for making a speech but only an excuse. This is a useful little Measure, and it has fallen to the lot of a Member of this House to bring in a Bill which he can draft on the basis of a copybook maxim. The Bill has been based on the maxim that "prevention is better than cure." The Measure operates both ways. It prevents in a simple way temptations being placed in the way of the man responsible for the funds and it also prevents the serious trouble which would follow to those who would suffer if the defalcations took place. Sometimes defalcations take place in the case of a little village club where there is often a great deal of friendly feeling between the members, and some protection is required in such cases because the clubs suffer from the inertia of the ordinary members. As a rule, you cannot get the ordinary member of a club of this kind to turn up at meetings unless there is the prospect of a row. For these reasons, I hope that the House will give wholehearted support to the Motion for the Second Reading.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I desire to give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill. There is one specific matter to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the way in which the penalty Clause is drafted. It might be construed as a contravention of this Bill if a bank clerk allowed money to be withdrawn from a
  1318
  bank simply on the authority of one signature. If he obeyed those instructions of the people who opened the account, he would still although he might not know it, be committing an offence under this Bill, and obviously you cannot put a man like a bank clerk or a Post Office clerk in that position. I hope that in committee those who have brought in this Measure will see that the penalty Clause does not apply to such people acting bond fide in the execution of their office. I support the Bill because it illustrates another motto of our youth—"Penny wise and pound foolish." If you make a man wise with the pennies that are contributed by putting them straight away into an account, he cannot be foolish with the pounds and spend them on himself.
  Mr. ATKINSON: There are two points that I want to raise for the consideration of those in charge of the Bill. It will be noticed that the only savings bank mentioned in the Bill is the Post Office Savings Bank, and I suggest that words might be added including trustee savings banks. There are 107 of these trustee saving banks, with 500 branches throughout the country, and, as they are established for the convenience of poor people, they are generally conveniently placed. They have £78,000,000 of funds, and there is, of course, no question whatever as to their safety and security.
  Another point that ought to be considered is with regard to the word "immediate." The Bill provides that the money shall be immediately placed in the bank, and when one remembers that an offence may be committed whether it be done intentionally or through ignorance or accident, I think we ought to be a little more definite about that word. Suppose that the money were collected at a club on a Monday evening, and were not paid in on the Tuesday, because, perhaps, the man has to leave home for work before the bank is open. Suppose that it were not paid in until Wednesday. Has an offence then been committed? I do not know exactly what the word "immediately" means. Supposing that it is not paid in on the Tuesday or the Wednesday, but on the Thursday, has an offence been committed? I suggest that it might be thought wise to substitute something quite definite, such as a period of 48 hours or

  1319
  something of that sort. The word "immediately" might give rise to a good many difficult questions. It might also be thought wise to insert after the word in question, whatever it is, some such words as, "without good excuse." A man may be ill, or he may be unable to go, and I doubt whether it is quite wise to create a criminal offence and impose a penalty without any regard to the circumstances in which the breach has been committed. I know it may be said that these matters can be taken into consideration in considering the penalty, but you do not want to commit a man for an offence, even if the penalty is only small, unless there has been something deliberate or intentional. I raise these points for the consideration of those in charge of the Bill, because I do not want to see the Bill made unjust in any way or create resentment among those who will be affected by it.
  Mr. MARCH: I desire to put a question or two with regard to the banking of the amounts collected. I happen to have been treasurer of a loan club in my Division for the last 20 years. We take our money on the Saturday night, and the secretary hands it over to me, but I cannot bank it on the same night, because the banks do not keep open till nine or 10 o'clock. Therefore, I have been in the habit of banking the money on the Monday morning. Some latitude ought to be shown in that connection. Further, I would ask the promoters of the Bill whether any power is to be given to the trustees and treasurer to obtain repayment from people who have had loans and forgotten to pay. We find some difficulty in connection with that matter. Of course we can take an I.O.U. for the amount lent, but that is merely on paper and does not help us very much when we find that sometimes the people have moved away, or sometimes they do not intend to pay, and that it will cost more to take proceedings to obtain the money borrowed than the actual amount involved. There ought to be something in the Bill whereby people obtaining loans can be compelled to pay in accordance with the conditions under which the money is lent, and to give facilities to the trustees or treasurer to get the money back. We have no difficulty with regard to the bank clerks. We put our money
  1320
  in the bank of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. The bank takes the signatures of the trustees and the secretary, and notice has to be given to them, when the account is started, as to who is to be entitled to withdraw money from the bank. Therefore, we find no difficulty whatever in that matter.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I think the hon. Member has rather missed the point that I made. The point was that, whatever be the bank, even if it were the Co-operative Wholesale Bank, if those opening the account gave the bank authority to pay out money on one signature, and yet it was a loan club, the bank clerk, in law, could not pay out the money on one signature, although those were his instructions, and, if he obeyed the instructions of those who opened the account, he might be liable, in whatever bank he might be, under the penal provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. MARCH: I really cannot follow that. If the withdrawal notice is given to the bank, when the account is started, as to who is entitled to withdraw money from the bank, surely the bank would see that its servants carried out those instructions. We have to get a withdrawal form from the bank, and it has to be filled in in accordance with the resolution sent in when the account was started. If you fill it in in accordance with your own instructions, there cannot be any way to go wrong, and, if anything does go wrong, the bank must be held responsible for the default of its secretary or clerk or whoever it may be. We have had no difficulty for 20 years in connection with this matter.
  I approve of the Bill, and shall hope to see it go through. There may be some little difficulty in connection with the coming into force of the Act. It may be found that some societies will have difficulties in getting another secretary in place of the present one, who might not be prepared to accept these terms. Probably some latitude will be allowed in some way in order to give the societies an opportunity of making a reappointment of officers if it is necessary and if it is desired.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: This Bill seems to me to be a most useful one. In hundreds, and I dare say thousands, of

  1321
  these cases, the amounts dealt with are extremely small, and very frequently they are collected in public houses in remote rural districts. In such cases it is extremely difficult for the collector immediately to bank the money collected, and therefore I would ask that the procedure should be made as simple as possible, so that collectors may not be liable to penalties for not immediately disposing of the money as is provided in the Bill. I have had some considerable experience of these slate clubs in rural parts of my constituency, and in the towns as well, and I may say that I have never known a case of defalcation among them. The collecting is done very carefully, and, as a rule, a balance-sheet is issued, but it is in some cases very necessary to protect people against themselves, and I congratulate my honourable namesake on having promoted a very useful Measure.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): It is always a pleasure to be present in the House of Commons when unanimity prevails. The general public is largely ignorant of the fact that there are many useful Measures promoted and carried through to a successful issue without any controversy arising thereon. Unfortunately it is only when heat and sometimes vigorous controversy arises that the public become aware of our deliberations at all. I have always tried to correct the impression that prevails outside these walls that the only business we do is of a controversial character. No one who reads the Bill or has listened to the Debate that we have had can be doubtful as to the beneficent objects of the Measure, and I thoroughly endorse what has been said by the Mover, that there is nothing in it to which any reasonable person could object. I certainly invite my friends to support the Second Reading and if it came to a vote, I should undoubtedly give my vote in favour of it. Having said that, however, I feel that I ought to utter a certain note of warning.
  Although it seems so exceedingly simple, in reality the Bill raises a number of important technical points, and, if it is to become law, it will need a very considerable number of Amendments on points, some of them of major and some of minor detail. Some of the questions that will arise have already been put, but a really large question which has not been
  1322
  raised to any extent is to what kind of bodies the Bill shall apply. I am informed that the definition which the promoters have inserted is in some respects too narrow and in others too wide. As I understand it, the Bill confines itself to societies which share out, but there are other societies which confer benefits in which defalcation can take place which would not come within that definition and, if the Bill is to have considerable valuable effect, I am afraid in that respect it is very much too narrow. On the other hand, it does not confine itself to unregistered societies, and there are a large number of societies which would come within the terms of the Bill which are at present already registered and are, therefore, regulated as required by the existing law. So that, on the question of definition and of specifying the precise societies that are involved, there will, if the Bill is to be carried on to the Statute Book, have to be an Amendment.
  There is another difficulty in the way of the effective working and enforcement of its provisions. It is clear that, if a secretary means to be fraudulent from the start, he has many opportunities of evading the law, but his real crime will not be that he evades this Act but that he defaults with the money. On the other hand, it is only in exceptional cases that the Secretary starts out with the intention of defaulting. For that reason, the provision which protects the secretary and all the members against themselves is a valuable one. The Bill will not obtain such publicity that it will be brought to the attention of these small bodies, and a good many will form themselves into slate clubs and will not know of the Act and will not carry out its provisions, and it will be just those hole-and-corner bodies which will get into trouble. In Committee it will be very important for us to see whether some change cannot be made which would enable the Bill effectively to work and not merely be a Bill on paper which never comes to the attention of the people concerned until its provisions have been broken and the default has actually taken place which it is the object of the Bill to prevent in advance.
  I hope, by these remarks, that I have not damned it with faint praise. I wanted to warn the House that in its present form it is not fully adequate to attain

  1323
  the purpose which the promoters desire. In Committee, there will be an opportunity of moving Amendments and considering alterations, and, whether it reaches the Statute Book or not, this Debate will have had valuable results in giving publicity to the desirability of action being taken. I am glad, therefore, that the Debate has taken place. I wish the promoters all success, in the sense that I hope a useful Bill will emerge either in this or in a later Session from their efforts, and I trust in the circumstances that the House will give unanimous support to the Second Reading.
  Mr. MILLS: I have had some experience of workshop clubs, and I know to what an extent decent people have been victimised at the most critical period of that year—Christmas time. I would suggest that, between now and Committee, consideration should be given to the possibility of seeing to it that by some means or other those who propose to form this kind of club shall voluntarily pool a sum which will enable them to insure, as has been done in very many workshops, where it has been found to work satisfactorily because it insures the people who are putting the money in against any possible defalcation.
  The great value of this morning's discussion is that it will give some publicity, although the facts of life are so different from what many Members imagine. The widespread success of the Irish sweepstake is proof positive that, whatever we do, there are under-currents in the social life of our people which no legislation will ever touch. The danger to the community is that in the poorer districts, up every side street in every area, you get what are elegantly termed "diddlum clubs." They embrace everything. They embrace the share-out on the Derby, the share-out at Christmas, the share-out on a "beano" and the share-out for the August holidays. In fact, it is like the things that happen in this House. They share out on every excuse, just as certain Members speak on every excuse without any reason. I join with those who have spoken in commending the Bill to the House, and hope that the experience of the effect of the voluntary insurance bond of those about to engage in sharing-out
  1324
  clubs may be found to be one of the solutions of the problem to which I have just referred.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill marks another step in the endeavour which is being made at the present time to remove the disadvantages from which poor people have suffered in the civil and criminal courts. As far as the criminal courts are conerned, there used to be two forms of disadvantage. One was that they had no legal assistance. They could not afford to pay for their lawyers. The other was that they had difficulty in making appeals. The first disadvantage arising from not being able to afford legal assistance, has been got rid of by the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930, under which a poor prisoner can get legal aid when appearing before the magistrates, and can have legal aid upon his trial if he has to go before quarter sessions or assizes.
  There still remains the injustice with regard to poor persons and their appeals. The poor person who is convicted before a court of summary jurisdiction has to enter into a recognisance or bond and give two sureties, if necessary, or pay a certain amount of money into court, for the purpose of securing the costs of the prosecution if the appeal is unsuccessful. In the case of the ordinary prisoner, there is no difficulty. He is probably a person of fair means. He gets a couple of friends to enter into a bond with him, or, if necessary, he can pay money into court, and he has his right of appeal, and the appeal proceeds. The poor person, however innocent he may be, is placed in a very serious position, through not being able to secure two persons as sureties, and he cannot produce, owing to the very nature of his position, the money to cover the costs of the prosecution at the trial. I am asking the House in this

  1325
  Bill to remove that injustice and to put the poor person into a position of being able to prosecute his appeal. The position is dealt with under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. In Part II., Section 31, Sub-section (3) it says:
  "The appellant shall, within the prescribed time, or if no time is prescribed within three days after the day on which he gave notice of appeal, enter into a recognizance before a court of summary jurisdiction, with or without a surety or sureties as that court may direct, conditioned to appear at the said sessions and to try such appeal, and to abide the judgment of the court of appeal thereon, and to pay such costs as may be awarded by the court of appeal, or the appellant may, if the court of summary jurisdiction before whom the appellant appears to enter into a recognizance think it expedient, instead of entering into a recognizance, give such other security, by deposit of money with the clerk of the court of summary jurisdiction or otherwise, as that court deem sufficient."
  The Bill before the House seeks to add to that Sub-section the following provision:
  "Provided that if such court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied that the appellant is unable, through poverty, to pay the costs of an appeal, the recognizance or deposit or other security shall not be conditioned as to the payment of such costs as may be awarded by the Court of Appeal."
  That is to say, the justices may make a person sign a bond that he will proceed with the appeal and attend at the court, but he shall not enter into a security to pay the costs of prosecution if he fails. The other part of the matter is dealt with under Sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of 1879. At the end of that Sub-section it says:
  "The Court of Appeal may also make such order as to costs to be paid by either party as the court may think just."
  This Bill provides that at the end of that Sub-section, there shall be added the following words:
  "Provided that where, under the proviso to subsection (3) the court of summary jurisdiction has dispensed with a condition as to costs, the Court of Appeal shall not order the appellant to pay costs unless such court is satisfied that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay such costs."
  The matter is in a very small compass. It simply means that if you have a poor person who wishes to appeal from the conviction of magistrates, he shall not be prevented from doing so simply because he has not the money to give security for the costs. It is a simple proposition, and the matter need not be
  1326
  laboured. I think it is in the good faith of everybody, and especially in keeping with our idea of English justice, that this anomaly should be removed. It is time that the burden which has been placed upon the shoulders of the poor person, who may be perfectly innocent, should be no longer continued.
  I suppose that the only answer to the Bill would be that it might lead to frivolous appeals and that there might be a number of appeals brought by people simply for the purpose of delaying their sentence and without any really serious idea that they hoped to win the appeal. That may be so. But I think that in Committee we may look to the Home Office to provide us with the safeguards which may be thought necessary under the circumstances. Personally, I would rather have 50 frivolous appeals than that one innocent man should be convicted, and, because of his poverty, should not be able to appeal. I confidently recommend the Bill to the House and hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
  Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to second the Motion.
  I wish to say something about the practical position regarding appeals. At the present time, as a result of the Criminal Appeal Act, if a man is convicted either at assizes or at quarter sessions, where, in the main, he has a trained tribunal, he can appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and, when he appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal, he does so without let or hindrance. He appeals without giving any security, and there is provided for him and for the court, a complete copy of the shorthand notes of his trial. He does it without any expense. Apart from everything else, by application to the court, counsel can be assigned to him under the Criminal Appeal Act, and counsel acts for him, and also a solicitor, without any cost to the appellant. That is in every case where a man is convicted by the superior courts administering the criminal law. It is true, if you put it in one way, that every man who is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction has a right of appeal, but he has not a right of appeal which is equal to that which is given to the man who is convicted by the superior courts.

  1327
  When the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill was brought forward it was stated that:
  "An appeal against conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction is sufficiently provided for at present, and is not dealt with by the Bill."
  The Lord Chancellor of that day said:
  "In small, insignificant cases tried before the magistrate, where three months' is a possible penalty, there is an appeal. In small cases, where a man can only be fined …there is an appeal to Quarter Sessions —and very properly, too."
  What the learned Lord Chancellor omitted to point out was that while there is a right of appeal it is a right of appeal which cannot be exercised by a poor man. I have here a book written on the Criminal Appeal Bill, one author of which, Sir Harry Poland, unhappily, has passed from us, had an almost unprecedented experience in the criminal law. The other author, Mr. Herman Cohen, happily still with us, has done a great deal of public work in connection with prisoners through the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies and also in the administration of the criminal law, and he points out that the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions against summary conviction is absolutely useless to the poor man. Further, and he gives his reasons for this view, he says:
  "It is obvious that to a poor man this right of appeal is absolutely useless."
  Why does he say that? He says that because where a man is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction and he wants to appeal he has first of all to give notice within a very short period of time. That notice has to be very carefully drafted and when he presents it he must also be prepared to give security for the costs of the other side should his appeal be unsuccessful. The recognisances are contingent upon his entering and carrying out the appeal. How are those recognisances calculated, and by whom are they calculated? They are calculated by the magistrates against whose decision the man is appealing, through their clerk. I did not put a question in this House in regard to this matter, but I did get some information two or three years ago with regard to the average rate of security which is asked for. When security is asked for it does not always take the form wholly of recognisances.
  1328
  It is open to the magistrates to say that the form of security shall be a deposit of money.
  I was informed, and I am certain the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will bear me out when I say, that the average amount which is asked for is something like £45 in an appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction. I have known one case in my experience where the security asked for was as low as £10. The reason for that was that there were three magistrates who sat on the case and the chairman, who disagreed entirely with the conviction, was able to use his influence to make the recognisances as low as possible. His two fellow magistrates disagreed with him but they were not able to exercise quite the same influence on the recognisances, and the result was that the security was put at £10. The appeal was taken and was successful and a sentence of two months' imprisonment which had been passed upon the wife of a railway guard for a wholly unfounded offence, was set aside. In many cases the recognisances instead of being £10 are as high as £60 and £80, and that in the case of very poor people. Can anyone say, with these facts clearly before them, that the right of appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction is other than absolutely illusory in the case of a poor person?
  There is an official view in regard to this matter. It is no use being blind to that fact. I have no doubt the Under-Secretary if he makes inquiry will say to the House, on the information of those who provide the information for him: "there is really no injustice. We never get complaints, and in these circumstances there is no necessity to interfere." I do not know in what form they would expect to get complaint. A poor person who is sentenced improperly to 14 days' imprisonment does not after coming out of prison walk to the Home Office and say: "I have been wrongfully convicted; there ought to have been a right of appeal." He comes out of prison and passes or tries to pass from a very horrible memory, but the fact remains that he has suffered the injustice of imprisonment that he ought never to have suffered.
  May I give two small illustrations of cases which happened within the last four or five years. A poor man whose

  1329
  only offence, so far as I could find out, was his poverty, had befriended a cat. In the course of time the cat became a little obnoxious and he turned it out. A certain society prosecuted him. Whether or not, there was any cruelty was very doubtful, but that poor man, who had a perfectly good character, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, without the option of a fine. It so happened that he was a Jew. I say in all sincerity, and with the greatest regret, that if that man had been a Christian I believe he would have served the whole of his sentence. We all know that the Jewish race keep very careful watch over their poor and give help to their poor very readily. The result was that within a day of that man being sentenced the Jewish community found it out, some of the wealthier Jews came forward and provided the recognisances and the money for the appeal. The man was able to get out on the recognisances, his appeal was prosecuted with success and there was an end of the whole thing. If he had not been a member of that race and had not been one who was looked after he would have suffered 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour, without any real reason for it. That cannot be a right position.
  I know of another case of a man belonging to the same race, who had committed one of the most technical breaches of the alien law that one could possibly imagine. He was about 40 years of age and had a lifelong character of honesty and respectability. On the merest technicality he was sent to gaol for a month, without the option of a fine. Again, only because the Jewish community look after their poor, his ease was found out, the recognisances were forthcoming and the man was able to prosecute his appeal successfully. In the other case of which I spoke, that of the wife of the railway guard, a man who was in court was so struck with the injustice of the conviction that he came forward and offered the recognisances. If it had been left to the woman and her husband to find the recognisances they would not have been able to find them and the woman would have suffered two months' imprisonment.
  Wherever we go we can find many cases where these injustices are occurring. You cannot get statistics with regard to them; and it is impossible to judge this
  1330
  matter by statistics. With regard to the superior courts there is a clear right of appeal which every poor person can exercise, but with regard to the inferior courts grave cases of injustice can arise; the conditions are such that they actually prohibit any appeal at all on the part of a poor person. It is time that this state of affairs was brought to an end, and there is only one way of doing that, and that is by getting rid of the system of recognisances as far as poor people are concerned.
  There may have to be some provision in the Bill to stop frivolous appeals, and I should be anxious that there should be some provision of that kind. Some of us in this House might have to spend a large amount of time in dealing with frivolous appeals if there is not some safeguard. But there are means and methods of dealing with frivolous appeals. There is one method employed in connection with poor persons cases in civil matters. There you have a committee which inquires strictly into the case which comes before the poor persons department and reports whether it is a, proper one to be dealt with, and I can see no reason why there should not be a committee of justices to deal with cases where an appeal was threatened against the conviction. It would have to be done quickly. There is another method used in connection with poor persons cases. One of the things which might easily give rise to difficulty is that if you had a completely unrestricted appeal there might be cases which were speculative. In the case of poor persons this is dealt with carefully and under the poor persons procedure there can be no speculation. If the poor person is successful the only costs his adviser gets are those which cover out-of-pocket expenses, and there is therefore no temptation to speculate. There may be in these appeals some provision of this kind, which would do away with the smallest possibility of there being speculative appeals.
  If the Home Office are in any difficulty let the Bill be given a Second Reading and they can then inquire before they put forward their amendments in Committee as to what method there is of stopping frivolous appeals. I hope they will not put the official view as to the great difficulties there are and that therefore they cannot do anything with

  1331
  it. Here is a crying grievance. The poor people of this country are in a position, as far as the inferior courts are concerned, in which they never should be put, and I ask that all the emphasis one can employ that the Home Office will advise the House to give this Bill a Second Reading so that the matter can be thrashed out and a real disgrace to our criminal procedure removed.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON, Junr.: I support the Second Reading of this Bill if only as another step in the direction of removing the penalties under which poor people of this country suffer to-day in regard to the administration of justice. Those of us who have to pass some part of our lives in the courts of this country know from our own personal experience the large number of cases in which men and women have been unable to appeal against decisions given in the summary courts of jurisdiction owing to the requirement of the law as to recognisances. I believe that this Bill, if passed, will do something to remove a sense of injustice which prevails in this connection. On the other hand, I anticipate the difficulties which will be put forward by those responsible for the official point of view and it is idle for any Member of the House to deny that those difficulties may not arise. There are certain categories of cases which are determined in the police courts of this country, affiliation cases, where it would be unjust, from the other point of view, if it were possible for a man who has had an order made against him in the police court, without giving any security, to take the case to quarter sessions and possibly lose his case there, without having to incur any financial obligation in respect of the additional costs imposed upon the party on the other side. If that was encouraged, I think, it would have unfortunate results.
  The suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) might provide some means of dealing with what are called frivolous cases. If a discretion was given to the magistrates to determine—I think it will be agreed that this is not going to be easy—if it were possible for a discretion to be vested in the magistrates to decide whether a particular case was frivolous or not, and if they came to the
  1332
  conclusion to refuse to put the provision into operation by insisting upon the party desiring to appeal to enter into recognisances, it would perhaps counteract effects which might arise from the provisions in the Bill.
  There is another point which the promoters seem to have overlooked. Section 3, Sub-section (4) of the 1879 Act gives a discretion to the magistrates to release a prisoner from custody provided that he has entered into recognisances or has given such security from which the Bill seeks to release him on the ground of poverty. If we are not careful we may find the position in some respects worse under the Bill than it is at present. If, on the ground of poverty, the would-be appellant is to be released from any liability to enter into recognisances or to give the required security, if he can only be released from custody pending an appeal provided that he has entered into such recognisances or given such security, we may have a bench of magistrates saying "we are quite prepared to release you from such recognisances but if you desire to be released from custody it is not in our power to do so unless you enter into such recognisances." I hope it will be possible within the scope of the Bill to remove any doubts which may exist on that particular point.
  There is one other point, a drafting point really, to which I should like to refer. The Bill refers to the Court of Appeal and uses the capital "C" and the capital "A" to indicate that the Court of Appeal, which is the court midway between the High Court and the House of Lords, is the court to which appeals are taken from the police courts of the country. That is not the position. Appeals are taken from the police court to quarter sessions, and I suggest that this can be put right by using a small "c" and a small "a" as I have no doubt is the intention of those responsible for the Bill. Subject to these qualifications, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Bill and allow it to get a Second Reading.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I also wish to support the Bill. Anyone who has been associated with the administration of criminal law in this country must appreciate the fact that in this connection the poor man is placed at a con-

  1333
  siderable disadvantage compared with the man who has a certain amount of money. In recent years, for instance, we have seen a very large number of appeals in all parts of the country by motorists who have been convicted by courts of summary jurisdiction. In almost all these cases the defendants have been men of some substance who have been able to appeal to quarter sessions, and in a very large number of cases, although they may not have succeeded, upon the facts, in getting the conviction reversed, they have succeeded in inducing quarter sessions to modify the penalty inflicted by the justices. Anyone who has appeared for a large number of years in the police courts knows that a fair number of persons might appeal with success to quarter sessions against a decision of the courts of summary jurisdiction, but that immediately the question of an appeal is discussed the question is asked "What money can you find?" or "What persons can you find who are prepared to enter into recognisances on your behalf?" In my experience before the War the figure in many of the country districts was £30. After the war the figure almost invariably increased to £45, £50 or £55. When a defendant is told that he has to find security for £50 or £55, or recognisances to that amount, he has to reply that it is hopeless, and he has to submit to the decision of the justices, even if there be a reasonable chance of getting that decision altered on appeal.
  One suggestion that has been made in the Debate is that something should be done to discourage frivolous appeals. I fear that if a decision on this point were entrusted to the justices who had convicted, it would be very difficult to get those justices, who have already concluded that a man was guilty of an offence and that he deserved a term of imprisonment or a substantial fine, to conclude, immediately after the hearing of the case or two or three days afterwards, that there could be any possible ground for appeal. If there is to be any body called upon to decide upon this matter I think it should not be the court before which the case was originally heard. A few weeks ago in this House reference was made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. F. Owen) to a case which came before a bench of justices in Herefordshire. I do not wish to go into the facts
  1334
  of that case, but one is justified in coming to the conclusion, on the facts stated by the hon. Member, that if this proposal had been in operation that man would have been in a position to appeal and would probably have appealed against the sentence of the justices. It is conceivable that he would not have succeeded in his appeal as to the conviction, but anyone who is acquainted with the facts of the case as placed before the House could not help coming to the conclusion that an appeal to quarter sessions would have resulted in a very different penalty.
  1.0 p.m.
  In some respects the Bill is too wide and in other respects not wide enough, and when the Bill goes before a Committee I hope it will be extended and restricted as may be necessary. Section 33 of the Act of 1879 deals with the case of appeal from the court of summary jurisdiction by special case. That is where an appeal is taken on a point of law. The experience of many of us is that these are the cases which give the greatest difficulty. A person is convicted by a bench of justices; certain points of law have been raised and submissions have been made to the court that the justices were not empowered in law to convict. In those cases the proper procedure is by a case stated to the High Court. Here again the poor defendant is face to face with the same difficulty as in an appeal to quarter sessions. As a rule in appeals to the high court the amount of recognisances asked for is very much greater than in the case of appeals to quarter sessions. Wealthy men have no difficulty in going to the high court, but this avenue is absolutely closed to the poor man, who has first of all to give recognisances or security for a considerable sum, and to find the necessary sum for engaging solicitors and counsel to conduct the case.
  I trust that in Committee it may be possible to add a proviso to Section 33. I know that the Clause does not actually deal with the question of procedure, but the question of procedure in these cases is laid down by rules of the High Court. In other respects I think it is desirable that there should be a slight restriction of the right given to poor persons under this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. A. Henderson, junr.) referred to appeals against orders in bastardy. In the Act of 1879, under

  1335
  which such appeals are made, provision is made for an appeal from a conviction or order of the court of summary jurisdiction. I think everyone will agree that as far as convictions are concerned the poor man who has a genuine ground for appeal ought to have every possible facility to appeal, and ought not to be penalised by the fact that he has not funds, or cannot get anyone to become a security or enter into a recognisance on his behalf.
  On the other hand, if persons against whom certain orders are made—orders, for instance, in bastardy cases—are unable to appeal in pursuance of this Bill it may cause a great deal of hardship. After a fair amount of experience in the courts I find that what happens in such cases is this. A man has been adjudged by a court of summary jurisdiction to be the father of an illegitimate child and an order is made against him. In a very large number of these cases the mother of the child has difficulty in finding the necessary fees to proceed with the case. If the putative father desires to appeal to quarter sessions he can do so, but he has to enter into a security or get satisfactory recognisances. That is the only way in which you can ensure that the mother, if she succeeds on appeal, is going to be reimbursed for the cost to which she is put in engaging counsel and solicitor at the sessions. Under the proviso which is to be added to Sub-section (5) a court of quarter sessions if they thought the defendant was a poor man would not be in a position to award the costs of the appeal to the successful respondent—as for instance to the mother in an affiliation case. I think the Bill ought to be confined to convictions and that orders of the kind to which I refer should be excluded. Otherwise where you have one case of hardship at present of a man against whom an order is wrongfully made you will have 20 or 30 cases of hardship applying to mothers who have succeeded before the justices but have afterwards been taken to the quarter sessions on appeal by the putative father. Subject to those observations, I support the Bill and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
  Major LLEWELLIN: Anyone who practises in the courts must speak in support of this Bill. This Section of the
  1336
  Act of 1879 requires to be amended much more drastically than is proposed in the Bill. The Bill does not do very much. The Section says that an appellant shall within the prescribed time enter into a recognisance to do three things, first, to enter and prosecute the appeal, secondly to abide the judgment of the court of appeal thereon, and thirdly to pay such costs as may be awarded by the court of appeal. This Bill provides that the security or recognisance entered into shall not be conditioned by the cost of the appeal but the court may insist that the man who wishes to appeal shall put down a sum of money, perhaps quite a substantial sum of money before he can prosecute his appeal. The Bill is not wide enough to cover all the cases which I think its promoters wish to cover. I, personally, know of a case in a court in the northern part of this country, in which the ordinary practice is to demand that security shall be put down beforehand. In this case the security asked was £70 and the man had to place it in court within three days. It seems to be monstrous that it should be possible to fix so high a sum, and I should like to see this Section of the Act of 1879 altered in such a way that some limit will be put on the amount of security which can be demanded from an appellant.
  There are one or two other matters in connection with the same section which might well be cleared up since we are dealing with it. I think it is a moot point whether the security has to be deposited within three days or not but I say no more on that subject, because I understand that a case dealing with the point is shortly coming before the courts. There is another respect in which I should like to see the Section amended. At the present moment it is necessary to enter into the recognisance within three days after giving notice of appeal. In my view, a period ought to be fixed from the date of the trial. A man who is not very well instructed may give his notice of appeal at once, and he has then only three days in which to get the security if it is demanded. A man who is better advised will go to the end of the seven day period before entering his appeal and he will thus have ten days in which to give any security which may he demanded. There seems to be no reason for the limit of three days from the notice of appeal and I suggest that it should be ten days from the date of trial.

  1337
  As the Title of the Bill is wide, I hope we shall try to amend this Section of the Act of 1879 in those particulars also, and deal with Section 33 at the same time. Subject to those remarks I strongly support the Bill. I think it is an effort in the right direction and I only wish to see it go rather further than it goes at present.
  Mr. EDE: I support the Bill. In my opinion, as a justice of the peace who frequently attends petty sessions and quarter sessions, this reform of the criminal law is most necessary in order that the law should be regarded by all parties as working equally between man and man, irrespective of social status. I disagree with the view put forward by the hon. Members for South Cardiff (Mr. A. Henderson, jun.) and Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) with regard to withdrawing orders in bastardy and similar orders from the working of the Measure. An affiliation order made against a man is probably the heaviest penalty which the law, at the moment, inflicts upon the poor man in the way of continuous financial obligation, and these cases are almost invariably very difficult to decide. They almost always depend upon whether some alleged conversation, or letter, or some rather remote circumstance, can be taken as corroborative evidence of the woman's statement.
  I am bound to say that, in my experience as a justice, a decision in cases like that has given me more grounds for doubt than any other decision which I have had to take. One knows the way in which men persistently, year after year, say, "The order was unrighteously made against me; I am not the father," and decline to pay anything and have almost cheerfully gone to prison time and again in order to wipe out the debt and as a constant protest against the decision originally reached. I am bound to say also that if you exclude the man from appealing without a recognisance, you will hive to exclude the woman from appealing also, and there again, owing to the very difficult nature of these cases and of finding out exactly what the corroboration is—a thing that is not known, after all, very well to these girls when they are bringing their actions, often without any skilled advice—I think it would be unjust if one allowed appeals generally from courts of summary juris-
  1338
  diction and withheld them in these particular cases.
  Perhaps these cases do not present the same difficulty to the legal mind as they do to the non-legal mind of the magistrate who has to reach a decision after the two lawyers have done their best to confuse him. I have always thought in these cases that the lawyer on each side is very certain that the piece of evidence that he is putting forward is corroboration or that the evidence that he has to rebut is not corroboration, according to the side he is on, leaving the bench still to decide whether it is corroboration or not.
  I support this Bill mainly because I believe it is a very necessary act of justice to the young poor person. After all, the young poor person has probably more at stake in a conviction, especially a conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment, than most persons who appear in the courts. They have nothing to lose but their character, and once having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, that character is gone, and nothing that they do in after life ever fully rehabilitates them in the mind of the community. I had an instance brought to my notice that brought it home very vividly to me. My own bench of magistrates, on a day when I was not present, convicted the son of an old schoolfellow of mine, and sentenced him to a term of three months' imprisonment. I ought to say, in justice to them, that it was not a first conviction, but it seemed to me, when the father detailed to me all the circumstances, that it was eminently a case in which, not the conviction, but the sentence should be appealed against.
  The man came to me and told me that when he asked if he could appeal he was told that he must put £40 down. He said to me, "You know me; I should be a lucky man if I could put 40d. down"; and but for the fact that he was able to enlist my help and that of some others, because I could not put £40 down for him, but three or four of us clubbed together and put the money down, he would have been in great difficulty. The appeal was heard, and the man's sentence was reduced to the term of imprisonment that had been served prior to the date of his release on the appeal. It seems to me that these instances, and those given by the hon. and learned Member for

  1339
  Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), show how necessary this reform of the law is and how desirable it is that we should be able to convince ordinary persons appearing in the courts that, as between man and man, justice will be done quite evenhandedly.
  There is the case of the motorist that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Flint. The kind of motorist who could put down the money is generally the kind who motors for pleasure, not for the pleasure of other users of the road, but his own pleasure, but when he gets his licence suspended, it is not nearly as serious to him as to the ordinary man to whom motoring is a means of livelihood, and I have known cases where those licences have been suspended, and where only with the very greatest difficulty has a man been able to raise the money in order to prosecute his appeal, although his whole livelihood perhaps for a year or possibly even longer may be at stake unless he can successfully prosecute an appeal.
  I felt last year, when we were discussing the Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill, that this was an even more necessary reform of the law, if one had to choose between the two, than the other. I hope that what is called by the hon. Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) the official view of the Home Office will not be allowed to prevail to-day, and I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not presume on the Noble Lady's absence to make a speech that would draw down on him her very just castigation if she had been in her place to deliver it. This is one of the few occasions when I regret that the Noble Lady is not here to keep a watchful eye on the Under-Secretary of State while he is delivering his speech, but I hope it will be generally recognised that this is a matter that calls aloud for speedy treatment and that we shall not err in circumscribing too much the liberties of appeal that we give even in the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend below me and the hon. Member for Flint.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) on the pleasing bedside
  1340
  manner with which he introduced the Bill. I know of no one whose manner in matters of this kind is better calculated to disarm hostile criticism and to remove opposition. Whatever may be the provisions of the Bill, he has indeed brought to our notice one of the most difficult problems associated with our criminal procedure. It is a problem which has exercised the minds of many persons, including those who have a wide and general knowledge of the administration of the law, and of which up to now no really satisfactory solution has been found. I am not here to say that the existing system is ideal and that there are no flaws in it; indeed I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose and the objective of this Measure.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) referred to the official view. I had not been in office many weeks before I called attention to the need for some change in the law respecting this matter, and had a consultation upon it. It is only fair to say, in relation to what may be termed the official view, that I did not find any opposition, but plenty of sympathy in so far as the grievance exists and that a remedy is desired, but I did find a recognition on the part of those whom I consulted of the difficulties associated with the finding of any remedy in connection with this very intricate and complicated question. Indeed, though we have only had a few speeches to-day, almost every speaker has called attention to some aspect of the problem not covered in the Bill or, if it is thought to be covered, on which some further Amendment is necessary, or an appeal has been made that we should go much wider and further afield than is suggested in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge University indicated what was the law upon this question as set out in the Act of 1879, and the various Sections, and I think the law is so well known, at any rate to those who have listened to this Debate, that there is no need for me to recapitulate those Sections. It is clear that the object of the Bill is to provide that a poor man shall not be required to enter into recognisances or deposit a sum of money conditioned as to the payment of such costs as might be awarded by the Court of Appeal, and that he should

  1341
  not be liable to pay the respondent's costs. While having every sympathy with the purpose of the Bill, I have, however, to call the attention of the House to certain difficulties which appear to me to arise. For instance, reference has been made to the question of frivolous appeals. I have only to remind the House that in 1928, which is the last year for which statistics are available, 604,000 persons were found guilty of offences by courts of summary jurisdiction, and of this number only 22,000 were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Further, 59,000 persons were found guilty of drunkenness, of whom only a, few were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
  Those figures, in themselves, indicate to some extent the nature of this problem, If we were to give, as it were, a free right of appeal without any safeguard, without any conditions, then, as the hon. and learned Member for Norwood properly anticipated, he and many of his friends who have to adjudicate upon our benches would be overwhelmed with cases, and the administration of the law in this country would he seriously handicapped, although I would say that that, in itself, is not a convincing answer, because if justice is to be done, and if we intend justice to be done, it is desirable that the machinery of the law should be of such a nature and of such a volume as to cope with the vital and just needs and requirements of the people affected.
  There are one or two other points I would make briefly, and, in putting them to the House, I am not doing so at all in any antagonistic spirit, but rather to indicate the nature of the problem, and to enable the House to see that my right hon. Friend and the Department which he represents have not overlooked some of the difficulties associated with this matter. I will run over rapidly some six or seven of the chief points which have occurred to the Department in relation to this Bill. Should the Bill apply to all appeals in criminal cases, that is, appeals by the prosecutor and appeals by the defendant, where a private person is the prosecutor? I would point out that under a few Acts the prosecutor may appeal against the dismissal of a
  1342
  charge by a court of summary jurisdiction. Then, it should be remembered by the House that further criminal proceedings can be instituted in England by private persons, and it may be doubted whether it is right that a person, who has been convicted in proceedings instituted by a private person, should be able to put the private prosecutor to the expense of resisting a frivolous appeal, and whether such a liability is indeed in the interests of justice. A private prosecutor who has been injured is as much deserving of consideration as the aggressor Should it equally apply whether the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment, fined, or dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1927?
  These are considerations which we shall have to take into account if we are seeking to remedy the law, or remove an admitted grievance. I hope the House, as I said when I was going to put these points, will understand that I am putting them only in order that the House and those who read this Debate outside may realise that there are difficulties with which the hon. Member for Cambridge University has not thought fit to deal. Should it apply to persistent offenders as well as to first offenders? Should it apply equally to appeals against sentences as well as to appeals against convictions? Should it apply to civil as well as criminal cases? Should the principle of the Bill be restricted to poor persons? Should we legislate on this question merely for poor persons? Every one in this House, we know, has full sympathy with the object of this Measure, in so far as it seeks to come to the assistance of poor persons. But, on this question of right of appeal from courts of summary jurisdiction, I doubt whether, if we are to deal with it, we ought not to go much farther, or find some other methods of dealing with this question. Then, of course, there is the final question which occurs to me, as to whether the respondent should be liable to pay the appellant's costs. There are many other questions of like importance, which I know those who are learned in the law have in their minds, if they have not attempted to deal with them in this Bill.
  I indicated at the outset of my remarks that there is no lack of sympathy for this

  1343
  proposal, so far as the existence of a grievance and the need for some radical remedy is concerned. My right hon. Friend was approached some time ago by the hon. Member for Cambridge University in relation to this Bill, and he indicated that there was no doubt that a great deal could be said in favour of some amendment in the law. He stressed as I have stressed the complicated character of the problem, and also indicated that, owing to the pressure of public business, there was little likelihood of any legislation being tabled—that is, I presume, from the Government side—but he expressed his willingness to set up a small departmental committee to consider the whole question in relation to this Bill and the larger problem to which I have addressed myself. I am not invit-
  1344
  ing the House to reject the Measure, but I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to satisfy the House as to the attitude of the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  RETAIL MEAT DEALERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Two of the Clock, until Monday next, 27th April.