Lords Sitting of 4 June 1930

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
TEES (NEWPORT) BRIDGE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to the first Order on the Paper, I move the Motion which stands in my name. I think it is rather an unusual one; that is to say, it is rather unusual for a Bill to be introduced as a late Bill at this period of the Session. At the same time, the Bill deals with a very important proposal and I think it is desirable that at any rate it should be discussed in Parliament and got through, if possible, if the opposition does not prove to be of such a nature that it will take a very long time to consider. I therefore suggest this Motion to your

1373
Lordships' House. The Bill, of course, will have to come in the usual way before the Standing Orders Committee, and go through the usual subsequent stages. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th March last, "That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 6th of May next," be dispensed with, and that leave be given to the London County Council to present a Petition praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower the Council to make a new street, street improvements and other works in the vicinity of the Elephant and Castle, and to construct and work new tramways in connection therewith, and for other purposes. —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.
Petition, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, read, and referred to the Examiners.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
READING CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ASHBORNE & DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My
1374
Lords, with reference to the Ashborne & District Electricity Order, 1930, I beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SWAFFHAM GAS ORDER, 1930.
WOKING DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
REDCAR GAS ORDER, 1930:
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, with regard to the Swaffham Gas Order, 1930, the Woking District Gas Order, 1930, and the Redcar Gas Order, 1930, I beg to move that the Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Morley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH AND SLOUGH) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AYLESBURY, CHESHAM AND GUILDFORD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK AND RAMSGATE) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CHIPPENHAM AND GRIMSBY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FYLDE WATER BOARD, OLDHAM AND ROCHDALE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Defence of poor persons committed for trial.
(3) A defence certificate shall not be granted in respect of any person unless it appears to the certifying authority that his means are insufficient to enable him to obtain such aid, but where it so appears to any certifying authority, that authority—

(a) shall grant a defence certificate in respect of, any person committed for trial upon a charge of murder; and

(b) shall grant a defence certificate in respect of any person committed for trial upon any other charge if it appears to tile certifying authority, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature of such defence, if any, as may have been set up), that it is desirable in the interests of justice that he should have legal aid in the preparation and conduct of his defence at the trial.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "any" ["any certifying authority"] and to insert "the." The noble Viscount said: This is one of the few Amendments, which are practically verbal, which I wish to make to this Bill. In regard to this Amendment, if your Lordships will look at page 2 you will see that the certifying authorities are referred to in line 4, and the word "any" has crept in where it says, "but where it so appears to any certifying authority." If your Lordships look at the bottom of page 1 you will see that
1376
the certifying authority is therein defined as "such justices, Judge, or chairman" of the Court. It is quite obvious the word "any" in subsection (3) should be "the" to correspond to the definition previously given on page 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").—(Viscount Brentford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): I think my noble friend is right, and that this is a mistake that has occurred in drafting the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning of paragraph (b), to leave out "shall" and insert "may" The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will see that in subsection (a) a certifying authority shall grant a certificate. In paragraph (b) the word "shall" has crept in again. Having regard to the fact that the whole paragraph is of a conditional character, allowing the certificate only under certain conditions, I think the word "may" would be correct. I have consulted the promoters of the Bill and the Home Office, and they agree with me on that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Viscount Brentford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may say so, I agree with the noble Viscount. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Legal aid before courts of summary jurisdiction.
2. If it appears to a court of summary jurisdiction or examining justices that the means of any person charged before them with any offence are insufficient to enable him to obtain legal aid and that by reason of the gravity of the charge or of exceptional circumstances it is desirable in the interests of justice that he should have free legal aid in the preparation and conduct of his defence before them, the court or justices shall grant in respect of him a certificate (in this Act referred to as a "legal aid certificate"), and thereupon he shall be entitled to such aid and to have a solicitor assigned to him for that purpose in the prescribed manner.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out the first "shall" and insert "may." The noble Viscount said: This is the same point, and I do not think I need repeat what I have said.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Viscount Brantford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved, after "solicitor," to insert "and where he is charged with murder and the justices think fit Counsel." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter that I think may be of some importance. Your Lordships will have noticed that the real reform that this Bill makes—and a very substantial and valuable reform—is that for the first time it gives power to the justices to direct that a prisoner, when charged before them, shall have legal assistance. Before this, it was only when a man was committed for trial that the justices had power to give legal aid. This clause now gives a discretion to the justices to direct that there shall be legal aid when the man is charged before them. But in such cases under the Bill the justices only have discretion to assign a solicitor. Now in nine cases out of ten I have no doubt that would be ample, but there is a certain proportion of cases in which I think the person charged would not have effective legal aid unless it is in the discretion of the justices to assign him Counsel.
I may particularly refer to murder cases. There are some murder cases where everybody who has tried them will agree that it is essential the man who is going to fight a murder case at the trial should be in charge of the case at the earliest opportunity, in order that he should really see that the true defence is put before the justices at the earliest possible opportunity, and should also, if I may say so, see that the real defence is not obscured, and perhaps injured, by things being said and done before the justices which would impede the true defence being given at the trial. There are also some cases and some districts where, I am bound to say, it would be rather difficult to find a solicitor who had had any experience at all in murder cases. If I may take the district with which I am familiar. In my own county I do not think there has been a
1378
murder case for nearly fifty years, and no doubt that is true of other districts, where it would be very difficult to find a local solicitor who is familiar with the conduct of murder cases; whereas there is no difficulty about finding Counsel. Therefore, I propose, and I hope your Lordships will have no objection to it, that after the word "solicitor" in Clause 2, page 2, line 28, which reads "and thereupon he shall be entitled to such aid and to have a solicitor assigned to him for that purpose", there be inserted "and where he is charged with murder and the justices think fit Counsel." It is a simple reform, and I believe it would be a benefit in the administration of justice, and give an effective defence.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after ("solicitor") insert ("and where he is charged with murder and the justices think fit Counsel").—(Lord Atkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope, your Lordships will agree with the Amendment. I think the promoters of the Bill are indebted to my noble and, learned friend for pointing out a real improvement to it. Your Lordships will observe that in the first subsection there is a differentiation in the case of murder where it says that the justices shall grant a certificate in respect of any person committed for trial on a charge of murder. Murder rather stands by itself, and the experience of all of us who have had to do with these cases is that in many cases before the justices it is most important that the prisoner should be adequately represented, especially in the rather dreadful cases of poisoning, post mortem examinations and so forth. It would add but very little expense, and I am sure that the promoters of the Bill are indebted to my noble and learned friend for the Amendment. I give it my hearty approval, and I hope your Lordships will consent to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD ATKIN:: May I say a word upon this? I do not propose any specific Amendment, but I want to call attention to one feature in the Bill which does not appear to me to be quite satisfactory. It divides legal aid into two departments. One is a legal aid given, and the act

1379
begins a little late in the proceedings. The first clause deals with committal which, chronologically, comes rather late. The committing justices give what is called a "defence certificate," and there is no controversy about that. In Clause 2 the examining justices—I am dealing again with the case of murder as an instance—give what is called a "legal aid certificate," but the legal aid certificate is only given for legal aid in the preparation of the defence before them. It therefore follows that Counsel and solicitor may be assigned to the defence before the justices, and then the justices have to go through the form of giving a different certificate with a different title and involving different persons at a later stage.
I should have thought it essential in a murder case that the person entrusted with the defence before the justices should have control of the whole matter from the beginning to the end. No doubt it is contemplated that the committing justices, when giving a legal defence certificate, will see that the same solicitor is assigned as before, but the Bill makes no provision in terms as to how Counsel and solicitors are to be assigned. That is to be done by rule. There is no guarantee, unless it is to be in the rule, that the solicitor appointed by the justices for legal aid will be appointed afterwards for legal defence. I do not quite understand why it is so and it may be that there is some adequate explanation. I have no Amendment to move, but if the noble Viscount would consider the matter and see if something could be done to make it quite clear I think it would be an improvement in the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I must confess I had not had my attention drawn to the point raised by my noble and learned friend, but I will take it into consideration. Between now and the Report stage I will consult the Home Office, who were responsible in my time for the origination of the Bill, and also the Parliamentary draftsman. Perhaps the most convenient way will be for me to communicate with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and my noble and learned friend and then perhaps we can get something agreed before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps if the noble Viscount does bring up an Amendment—of course we cannot draft it at the moment—he will kindly remember that under the new Act the trial might be on a different circuit. Therefore, some laxity must be left to the justices and they should not be compelled to appoint the same Counsel, because if the case goes to another circuit it might be necessary to appoint another barrister.
LORD DARLING: I do not think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has altogether gathered the point taken by my noble and learned friend. What he said did not apply merely to Counsel who might be Counsel on another circuit, but it applied to the solicitor as well.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD DARLING: I can quite imagine that people trying to do the very best for the prisoner might feel inclined in some cases not to appoint the solicitor who had charge of the case from the first, but to appoint another, because it is perfectly conceivable that the man who came into the case at the first would not have done it particularly well. There are very injudicious people in the world, some of them solicitors and many of them Counsel. Therefore, if a person showed before a magistrate that he was very injudicious in the way he cross-examined witnesses and so on, in the interests of the prisoner it would be a very good thing that the solicitor appointed afterwards to see the case conducted at the Assizes and instruct Counsel should be another solicitor. I do not expect that we can do anything to ensure that everybody will be acquitted. Perhaps it would not be desirable that we should; but if we are going on that line I should move a little later—perhaps on Report—that the State should not only provide solicitor and Counsel but should provide an alibi for the defendant. That would do him, in most cases more good than anything.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps he will be good enough to draw up a common form of alibi.
LORD DARLING: I will think about it.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendments of 8 Edw. 7. c. 15.
(2) Subject to the regulations of the Secretary of State made under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, the costs directed to be paid by such an order as aforesaid shall include—

(a) in the case of an order made in consequence of the granting of a defence certificate, the fees of solicitor and Counsel, which shall be in the discretion of the Court, and the costs of a copy of the depositions;

and may include any other expenses properly incurred in carrying on the defence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "which shall be in the discretion of the Court." The noble Viscount said: The reason for this Amendment is rather curious. As far as I can make out from the report of the proceedings in another place, these words crept in by mistake. An hon. Member moved an Amendment and he said: "I only put the Amendment forward as a suggestion to the Solicitor-General, this being, I find, the only way in which I can raise the question of fees." He wanted to raise the question of fees and the promoters of the Bill, being anxious to get on with it, accepted the Amendment and stopped the debate. These words are quite out of place, because under the Act of 1908 costs are in the discretion of the Court, and the effect of these words, I am advised, would militate against the full discretion of the Court.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, leave out from ("Counsel") to ("and") in line 10.—(Viscount Brentford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope your Lordships will follow the advice of the noble Viscount and omit the words and stop the debate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

WORK OF THE SESSION.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, there is a short time before the next busi-
1382
ness of the House, which will be the Royal Commission, and I should like, with the permission of the House, to call to your Lordships' minds some statistics with which the Clerk of the Parliaments has kindly provided me, in order to show the very great amount of work which this House has done during the present Session. Of course I do not intend to touch on the position, or the constitution or the powers of this House. I am merely dealing with the question of the quantity of work, and that is very remarkable. In the Session of 1928, from February to August, there were 76 days on which the House of Lords sat and that does not include merely formal sittings. Those occasions are excluded, and I am giving only the days on which the House sat for substantial work. As regards the present Session we have sat 105 days, which I am told is 38 per cent. increase, and of course our work is not nearly completed. As everyone who is cognisant of the work of your Lordships' House knows, in the late days of the Session we have the hardest and most continuous work.
The statistics supplied to me appear to me to be of very great importance as showing the great amount of work which has been done by this House and which I do not think could have been carried through really by any other means. The number of public Bills which we have already considered is thirty-seven and the number of Bills originated in this House is fourteen. I may remind your Lordships that we have had the Road Traffic Bill, the Mental Treatment Bill and the Land Drainage Bill, all Bills of great importance and necessarily occupying considerable time, with the result that on the analysis before me we have given a considerably larger amount of time to each Bill, because they have all been more important, than on previous occasions. I also have the statistics for last Session, but that was curtailed, to I omit them, except to say that in that Session we sat only on sixty-six days. I thought it might be an encouragement to your Lordships, if I may say so, if I quoted these statistics, merely to show how willingly your Lordships have worked in a very busy Session and how much, so far as the number of days is concerned, we have done to perform our duties as a Second Chamber in assisting in a con-

1383
stitutional manner the legislation of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all have listened to the Leader of the House with a feeling of great satisfaction. He has been able to tell your Lordships how well we have behaved, and I felt a sort of glow of satisfaction, which I am sure all your Lordships felt, at the warmth of his words. It is all the more gratifying to us to think that it has fallen to the lot of a Government which, though very distinguished, is not particularly favourable to the general atmosphere of your Lordships' House, to produce so much work for the benefit of the country. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord. I think it reflects great credit upon us and that anybody who has been present at our debates, whether as a member of your Lordships' House or as an onlooker, must have been satisfied that the work was done with great business capacity and without undue delay. That is very satisfactory and I am sure we shall all be glad. I can only hope that the results of our work may be not only satisfactory to ourselves but permanent in their character. That does not altogether depend upon ourselves, but after what the noble and learned Lord has said I am sure that he for one will do his utmost to make our work permanent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord who leads the House for the figures that he has been good enough to give us, but I cannot help wishing that he had been good enough to give them to us upon another occasion. To explain to your Lordships how well and hard we have worked upon an occasion when we are having an unusually short sitting and when the House is unusually empty seemed to me, perhaps, to be choosing an inappropriate moment. In thanking the noble and learned Lord for the figures, I should like to say that I look forward to being able to examine them in some detail. As I understood him, the comparison covered the period from the beginning of 1928 to the end of the Session of 1929, which is not quite a normal period, since the General Election took place—
LORD PARMOOR: In the figures I gave I purposely omitted that. I took the Session before, so as to have a complete Session for the purpose of comparison.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to tile noble and learned Lord. That only shows that, until one has the statistics before one, it is very difficult to make sure what they really mean. I do not want to say more except to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would consider the question of examining the records of your Lordship' House with regard to the number of people who attend each Session? I believe we should find that the members who attend regularly are much more numerous than they used to be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Since the noble and learned Lord has taken an interest in the records of your Lordships' House and the amount of work that we do, I think it would also be interesting if he would investigate those figures also at his convenience and give them to us on some future occasion.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I shall have to ask the authorities to supply the figures for which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has asked. I think they can be obtained, and they shall be obtained. I should like, by way of precaution, to say in regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess that I gave these statistics merely as statistics and did not draw all the inferences from them which he seems to think may be drawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills, and Measure passed according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, received the Royal Assent:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blandford Forum Extension),

1385

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Guildford and West Kent Main Sewerage District),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Fylde Water Board, Oldham and Rochdale),

Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation,

Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation,

Coquet Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation,

Boston Oyster Fishery Order Confirmation,

East Surrey Water,

Selsey Water,

Bristol Corporation (No. 1),

Liverpool Exchange,

Wakefield Corporation,

Derby Corporation,

Portsmouth Water,

Great Western Railway,

Tees Valley Water,

Scottish Central Electric Power,

Milford Docks,

Malvern Hills,

Barnsley and District Light Railways (Abandonment),

Faversham Oyster Fishery,

1386

Falmouth Water,

Borough Market (Southwark),

Great Western Railway (Docks),

Newport Corporation (No. 1),

Newport Corporation (No. 2),

Metropolitan Railway,

Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board,

Mid Kent Water,

East Kent District Water,

Sutton Coldfield Corporation,

Birkenhead Corporation,

Coventry Corporation,

Croydon Corporation,

London Electric, Metropolitan, District, Central London and City and South London Railway Companies,

Tees (Newport) Bridge,

Clergy Pensions (Older Incumbents) Measure, 1930.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock till Tuesday, June 17.