CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 22 April 1937)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill there are one or two observations which I think I ought to make to your Lordships. There is a clause in this Bill whereby, in effect, the status of a trustee stock is given to certain stocks issued by the Corporation of the City of London. I think that clause requires a little explanation and justification. A clause giving such status to stocks, municipal or otherwise, is not altogether unprecedented, but at the present time it is anomalous and, indeed, it is contrary to the declared policy of Parliament. In 1928 the then Lord Chancellor appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Justice Lawrence, as he was then, and that Committee reported at length on the subject. I do not think I need read more than one or two points from the Report. They said that the contents of the list of investments possessing trustee status were eminently a matter to be dealt with by 1037 Public General Statute and not by special legislation dealing with private or local interest. That is, such stocks should be given trustee status by a Public Bill and not a Private Bill.

I think the reason for that is obvious. It would be very inconvenient to those dealing with these matters if they had not some clear explanation of the general law as to what is or is not a trustee stock. If they had to look through numbers of Private Acts to ascertain in what stocks they were justified in investing it would cause inconvenience and trouble. Therefore I think your Lordships will agree that such a clause can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances. I have had the great advantage of consultation with, and the advice of, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and I have his authority for saying what I am going to tell your Lordships. As your Lordships are very well aware, the City of London is in an entirely different position to any other corporation, not only in this country, but I may say in the whole world. It is, of course, common knowledge that the financial resources of the City are very great and its credit very high. But I do not think that that particular fact would justify such a departure from the Report of the Lawrence Committee as this. There are other corporations whose resources are great and whose credit is high. There are, however, other considerations which, having regard to the high position of the City and its credit and resources, make it very desirable to give them, if possible, the opportunity they desire. That involves a long and difficult legal question and, unless your Lordships wish me to go into a long detailed explanation of it, I would venture to suggest that your Lordships might be pleased to accept the careful examination to which it has been submitted and agree that the City may well be entrusted with the powers it seeks for the reasons which have been so carefully examined.

In my opinion—and, I think I am right in saying, in the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount—it would be impossible to refuse to consider the proposal the City has made. It ready only places the City of London in the same position as a borough having a population exceeding 50,000 inhabitants. The only objection—and it is a very strong objection—is that the proposal comes forward by way of 1038 Private Bill and not by way of Public Bill. I do not think your Lordships, save in exceptional circumstances, would treat such a matter at all lightly. There is, I think, one point on which we must all agree. If it were taken by any other corporation that this clause in the City of London Bill creates a precedent a very difficult situation would arise, especially in view of the declared policy of Parliament. It is not necessary to labour that point because it is obvious. For the very good reasons which the City is able to advance for this proposal I hope your Lordships will see your way to accept it, but I hope also that your Lordships will agree that it is absolutely essential that if it is accepted it shall not be regarded as a precedent. I beg to move.