Lords Sitting of 8 March 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Abergavenny—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

WEST SURREY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the West Surrey Water Bill. Perhaps I might explain that this is what is known as a Company Bill, to which the consent of the proprietors or members of companies named as directors is required under Standing Order No. 71. This was referred to the Examiners after the First Reading in accordance with the practice of your Lordships' House for report before Second Reading. The Standing Order which I am asking your Lordships to dispense with requires that Bills of this kind must be read the second time not later than twenty-eight days after the First Reading. The Bill was read a first time on February 1, and we did not receive the certificate from the Examiners until last Tuesday, just a little bit over the time. Therefore it is necessary to ask your Lordships to dispense with Standing Order No. 105. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
CHATHAM ROCHESTER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1937.

  FORT WILLIAM ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1937.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Erne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS ORDER, 1938.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (CARSHALTON URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).

    SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (WALTON AND WEYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
    THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders made by the Secretary of State and laid before the House on February 1, be approved.
    Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act and laid before the House on 1st of February last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  DOGS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short and, I think, desirable Bill which has passed through all its stages in another place. The object of it is to remove a doubt in the existing law. Section 2 of the Dogs Act, 1871, enacts that where a court of summary jurisdiction has found that a dog is dangerous, the court may make one of two orders. First, it may say that the dog is to be kept henceforth under proper control; secondly, and in the alternative, it may make an order that the dog be destroyed. There is a doubt as to whether there is or is not any right of appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction to a Court of Quarter Sessions against an order that the dog be destroyed, on the ground that the order does not constitute a conviction. Therefore, it is said in some quarters, there is no appeal from it. In actual experience some Courts of Quarter Sessions have not only decided that an appeal does lie, but have heard the appeal and even allowed it. On the other hand, other Courts of Quarter Sessions have said at the outset of proceedings that they have no jurisdiction to hear any appeal. That is an unsatisfactory position, and one
  4
  which this Bill seeks to remedy. The short purpose of this Bill is to state beyond doubt that there shall be an appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction to Quarter Sessions against an order that a dog be destroyed.
  Since 1871, when this Act was passed, conditions have materially changed. I understand that at that date rabies was very common in this country. It was therefore very important that the law should be strictly observed, and that any dog which was in the least bit dangerous should be destroyed. Again, in those days, the value of dogs was a good deal less than it is to-day. I am told that in these days a figure up to £1,000 may be realised for a valuable pedigree dog, and it will therefore be appreciated that in the case of some owners the matter is one of moment. Your Lordships also will be aware that in some cases, even if the dog is not particularly valuable nevertheless deep sentiment attaches to the relationship between the dog and its owner, and it can be truly stated that a life is at stake, although it may be only an animal's life. It is submitted that there will be no harm in making it quite clear that there is a right of appeal against such an order.
  Before I sit down I should like to say that if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading there will be moved, on the Committee stage, a series of Amendments. These Amendments have been suggested by His Majesty's Government, and will be wholly agreed to by the promoters of this Bill; indeed there is no sort of dissension at all that these Amendments are desirable and acceptable. In the first place an Amendment will be moved to recast Clause 1, to simplify it and make it clear that the appeal which is to be given by that clause applies only to an order for destruction and not to an order for the clog to be kept under proper control. I think the reason for that will be obvious, because nobody can be aggrieved logically by the order to keep his dog under control. Secondly, an Amendment will be moved making it quite clear that, pending the hearing of the appeal, the order for the destruction of the dog which has been made in the court of summary jurisdiction shall be construed as if that order was one that the dog should be kept under proper control, so that in the intervening period between the date of the

  5
  order and the hearing of the appeal the dog will have to be kept under control by its owner. A further Amendment will be moved to make it clear that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. There will be two further, I think purely technical, Amendments, dealing with the application of the Bill to Scotland and in order to bring it into line with the provisions of the Scottish law. As I have already stated, the promoters of the Bill are entirely in agreement with the proposed Amendments, and I should like to say that they are very much obliged to the representatives of His Majesty's Government who gave suggested the Amendments, which it is thought will materially improve the Bill. I submit that this is really a non-contentious measure, and I now move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES (PROHIBITION) BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be now received.
  Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, on the Committee stage of this Bill I brought forward an Amendment designed to allow the importation of docked horses from abroad for a temporary period of time for the purposes of exhibition, and I also included breeding. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, agreed to that Amendment, I think, in principle, but he had some objection to the actual wording of it. The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, intervened to say that the whole of Clause 4 would have to be redrafted if the Bill was to become law, so I withdrew my Amendment in Committee with a view to bringing forward an agreed Amendment at this stage. I understand now that the Ministry of Agriculture feel that they would prefer to bring forward their redrafting of Clause 4 at the proper stage in another place, and I consequently felt it undesir-
  6
  able to weary your Lordships with any Amendment on my behalf. I hope that the Ministry's decision means that its views as to the ultimate fate of the Bill are such as I should desire.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this Bill is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment to the main Insurance Act. I hope it will be as non-controversial here as it was in another place. Your Lordships may remember that when the National Health Insurance Acts were consolidated some minor Amendments were introduced, and one of them was to prevent a practice, which had grown up, whereby certain elderly persons owning a business transferred that business to a relative and so became themselves employed and insured persons and entitled to insurance benefit, and that, after a very short period of insurance. Everybody agreed that it was desirable to stop this practice, and that was accordingly done in the Insurance Act of 1936; but the words that were adopted to prevent the practice went very much further than was actually intended, so that various people were taken out of insurance very abruptly without being given the right of a free insurance period and the option of becoming voluntary contributors. Thus a great deal of unintended hardship has been caused, not only to the people at whom the section was aimed, but to other people who were perfectly genuine employees. This Bill affects only a few hundred people, but one of them recently before the High Court gave evidence that these cases of hardship did exist. Accordingly this small drafting Amendment has been introduced. Your Lordships will notice that it deals not only with future cases but is retrospective as well. I hope that after this brief explanation your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  BLIND PERSONS BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Duty of local authorities to promote welfare of blind persons.
  2.—(1) For subsection (1) of Section two of the Blind Persons Act, 1920 (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
  In determining, in the case of any blind person, whether or not, or to what extent, to provide financial assistance under the preceding provisions of this subsection, the council shall take into account not only the needs of the blind person, but also the needs of any members of the household of which the blind person is a member who are dependent on him, and the rules laid down in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) of Section thirty-eight of the Unemployment Act, 1934 (which require certain assets of the person concerned to be disregarded), shall be complied with in computing the resources of any person in order to determine his needs for the purposes of this subsection.
  LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in the paragraph beginning "In determining," after "subsection," where that word first occurs, to insert "any old age pension payable to the blind person under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, as amended by Section one of this Act shall be disregarded and." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my Party I have been asked to move this Amendment. As your Lordships see, it is quite simple. It is an instruction to the local council, in assessing the means of the blind person who is to receive financial assistance, to ignore the old age pension if the blind person is receiving it. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a humane proposal, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 15, after ("subsection") insert the said words.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment was moved in a somewhat different form in another place and was rejected there
  8
  after a Division. Therefore I think the noble Lord will not expect me to accept it here. Looking at the matter in the simplest possible way, what the noble Lord suggests is that the blind ought to be given more money than they are being given at present. That is to say, he does not think they are getting sufficient at present. The question whether extra money should come from the pocket of the taxpayer or the ratepayer is an important question, but still it is a subsidiary question of machinery. I suggest that if it is proposed to take more money from the taxpayer or the ratepayer to give to the blind, some case ought to be made out for the view that they are not having enough already. As I said on Second Reading, we are not aware of any case where the blind are being treated ungenerously or meanly. My noble friend opposite has not been backward in the past in bringing to light cases of scandal or abuse and I am sure he will continue in that very admirable function. I can only say that I have never had any such case brought to my notice by the noble Lord or by any member of his Party.
  We none of us would like to be in the position of depriving a blind man of his just due, but I must say that our conclusion is that the present system is working perfectly well, that the blind are getting sufficient to live on, and that the small changes made by this Bill will not affect that situation at all. I must further point out that the effect of the Amendment would be to create a certain disparity between various classes of the blind. If a blind man is earning ten shillings that would be taken into consideration, but if he is receiving a pension of ten shillings that pension would not be taken into account under the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not know whether I have satisfied the noble Lord as to the reasons why we cannot accept his Amendment, but the main point is that so far as we know the blind are being properly treated at present and we see no ground for introducing this complicated and, as we think, unnecessary alteration in the law.
  LORD ADDISON: I would ask the noble Viscount to give a little more consideration to this matter. None of us have ever contended that anything in the way of improper treatment of the blind has prevailed, but we are dealing

  9
  now with a very important extension of the Act of 1920. Under that Act it was optional for a local authority to provide certain services to help the blind, and local organisations for the assistance of the blind, where they were efficient, were recognised and in some cases promoted. But in many areas no such organisations existed and were not brought into being. Under this Bill it will become the duty of the council of every county or county borough to make arrangements as provided by Clause 2 (1). That is a very important and most welcome extension of the Act of 1920. If the noble Viscount looks at the subsection to which the Amendment relates he will see that the duty of the councils will include the provision and maintenance of workshops, hostels, homes and other places, mainly, no doubt, for training and for varied forms of help to the blind in the way of teaching them to read and in many other ways. These services, instead of being optional, row become—and we welcome the change—the duty of the authority in question. We think it is reasonable that, so far as there is an extension of facilities to persons already receiving help under the 1920 Act, no account should be taken of pensions. This Bill contemplates additional and extended forms of assistance, and I would urge on the noble Viscount that the proposed Amendment is entirely fair. I hope he will see his way to reconsider his decision.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: I will certainly look into what the noble Lord has said, but I was under the impression that the obligations of local authorities were being carried on by this Bill.
  LORD ADDISON: Extended.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: Only in a very slight degree. I think I am right in saying that under the 1920 Act they have the duty of providing for the welfare of the blind.
  LORD ADDISON: I do not like to interrupt, but I had to deal with this matter when I was in another place and I would point out that the provision of assistance was optional and not compulsory and that it could be given through local organisations. Now it becomes compulsory, and we welcome it.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: I will not pit my knowledge of the subject against the
  10
  knowledge of the noble Lord, who had to administer the Act when he was Minister of Health, but I was certainly under the impression that we were merely continuing a service; that we were giving greater facilities to the local authority but nevertheless were continuing a principle which had been in existence since 1920. The noble Lord referred to institutions but the Amendment goes a great deal further and would affect ordinary domiciliary assistance. I will certainly give further consideration to what the noble Lord has said, but I cannot for the moment hold out hope that there is much chance of the Amendment being accepted.
  LORD STRABOLGI: In view of the noble Viscount's promise to look into the matter I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division. I will only say that I am not greatly impressed by one of his arguments, that the matter was fully discussed in another place and divided upon. Many noble Lords will bear me out when I say that another place makes very grave errors in legislation, and sometimes the greater the majority the greater the error.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

  POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, the four draft Orders which are before you to-day without exception make amendments to those which have already been passed by Parliament, and, generally speaking, on comparatively small matters which experience has shown to be required. They have been approved by the India and Burma Special Orders Committee, and I now beg to move that the first of these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee

  11
  on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVERNOR'S SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
  THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
  THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (INDIA- BURMA FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT) ORDER, 1938.
  THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  THE PROPOSED CLUBS BILL.
  LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a further statement as to the date of the introduction of the Bill relating to clubs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name, I may remind the House that in November last I asked a similar Question of the Government. The noble Lord who replied for
  12
  the Government then stated that the Government fully appreciated the importance of the subject and that it was their definite purpose to carry out their promise to introduce the Bill during the present Session. Since I put my Question in November nearly four months have elapsed, and I think the Government will not be surprised that those who take a special interest in the measure feel some concern about the delay which has taken place in its introduction. Now let me say again, as I said when I put the Question on the previous occasion, that I fully recognise the difficulties facing any Government in a crowded Session. I know from long experience something of what those difficulties in the fitting of business into a crowded Session must be. The noble Lord will perhaps, however, allow me in a sentence once more to emphasize one or two points which give this particular Bill a special significance and importance.
  First, there are few Bills for which there is such general support from all sections, or most sections, of public opinion. Then, again, as to the weight of the support behind this legislation: the necessity for an amendment to the present law relating to clubs has been year after year, for a great many years, pressed by the Magistrates' Association. I cannot help thinking that in relation to this measure especial importance should be attached to a body representing the licensing justices, who are mainly responsible for the administration of the licensing laws in the country. Another point which I ventured to bring to the notice of the House in November in asking this Question was that the recent Licensing Commission had gone very thoroughly into the question of the law relating to clubs and had made certain recommendations in support of the necessary amendment of the law. These recommendations have had the support of many other public bodies in the country. I am not going to take up any more of the House's time in emphasizing the importance of the Bill, but I should like to say that I have had a considerable experience of Parliamentary business in both Houses, and I do not remember a Bill relating to licensing which has had such a measure of support behind it as this Bill.
  Before I sit down, there is one other consideration which perhaps I ought to emphasize, and it is that of urgency. Year by year, month by month there is a

  13
  steady increase going on in the number of registered clubs, and the difficulties and abuses with which this legislation is intended to deal grow in weight and seriousness as time goes on. I therefore hope that it may still be possible for the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government to give me some assurance as to the possibility of introducing the Bill relating to clubs in the course of the present Session. I would venture to ask also whether, in view of the fact that at the present time and possibly for some weeks to come the pressure of business in this House is not very great, it would not be possible for this Bill to be introduced in this House. I beg to ask the Question that stands in my name.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I first of all reinforce the last part of the explanation of the noble Lord: I suggest that there are many Bills that could well go through the harrow of this House first. I believe we should have made a much better job of it if we had had, for example, the Films Bill first through this House, where we are not so subject to pressure by the thousands of theatre owners all over the country. But to return to the noble Lord's Question; I took a great interest in working men's clubs for a great many years, and I still do. While we welcome on this side of the House any just legislation to remove anomalies and misunderstandings about clubs, what we do resent is any sort of legislation which can be described as class legislation. What the working men feel about their clubs now—hundreds and thousands of them are regular clubmen—is that their clubs are their homes just as much as are the Carlton Club, the Reform Club or any other of the great clubs in the West End of London to their members. They resent the idea that their clubs are not properly conducted. The vast majority of working men's clubs are most respectably conducted. In many of them there is a weekly night when their wives and lady relations and friends come, and the whole of the proceedings are absolutely decorous in every way. There are just a few black sheep who run gambling clubs and what are nothing less than drinking clubs, but that is no reason why there should be anything like class legislation against the great mass of working men's clubs, and I want to put this consideration before members of the Government opposite.
  14
  In the ordinary working-men's clubs no women can enter unless on a particular night, or unless accompanied by the husband or the brother, or unless they are properly introduced. In the case of a public-house, which is the alternative, women of a certain class can come in, and unless they are too notorious they cannot be refused admittance. At a working-man's club the husband knows he is amongst friends, and he is not subject to the same temptations from unscrupulous females as he would be if he were in a public-house, and I ask the noble Lord who has asked this Question, and others who are inclined to harry the working-men's clubs, to remember that. The members of working-men's clubs may perhaps sometimes drink too much beer, but that is the only temptation that they will fall into in a well-conducted workingman's club. They are hard working, highly respectable men. They get very angry indeed if they think there is anything like class legislation against the working man, and if they cannot get in their clubs the same privileges as are provided for some noble Lords at the Athenaeum, or the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, at the Reform Club.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I fear it is not possible at the present juncture to add anything to the reply given to the noble Lord by my noble friend Lord Fortescue, in November of last year. As he then informed the noble Lord, it is the purpose of His Majesty's Government to carry out their promise to introduce a Clubs Bill during the present Session, but they are not in a position to give any information as to the date of its introduction. I will certainly convey the specific points raised by the noble Lord opposite to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who will, no doubt, consider them carefully before drawing up the Bill. I will also convey to the Leader of this House the suggestion that we should, in this House, have other Government Bills introduced before they go to the House of Commons. I fear that I am not in a position to add anything further, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, will realise that the Government intend to introduce the Bill as soon as possible.
  VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I think the answer of the noble Earl, although not unexpected, is rather disappointing. We have had this Bill

  15
  dangled before us for about three years, and it is really time it was dealt with. The noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench need not fear that there is going to be class legislation. All that is desired is to wipe out bad clubs. The noble Earl is so young and inexperienced that I do not suppose he has ever been in a night club, but there are some which are really very bad. I was recently walking down Shaftesbury Avenue when I passed a line of four sandwichmen bearing boards on which were the words "Come to the So-and-So Club—No Entrance Fee. No Subscription. Good Dinner for 1s. 6d." That seems to me not to be a right use of the word "club." You lose the whole meaning of the word if you turn the place into a cheap restaurant. There are a good many of these bad clubs in Westminster. As I have told the House before, I am Chairman of the largest bench of licensing magistrates in Westminster. We constantly have people coming before us and asking for an extension of the supper hour. When they are asked if they have an entrance fee, they say "No." When they are asked if they have any subscription, the answer is also in the negative, and so also when they are asked whether they have a committee. That class of place very frequently is damaging to the neighbourhood. In a large place like Westminster you have frequently more clubs than you have licensed premises. The licensed premises pay for monopoly value and for compensation allowance, and the clubs pay nothing at all. Such competition is unfair to the decent licensed victualler. I think that if the noble Earl would convey to the Secretary of State a suggestion that a Bill of this nature should be introduced
  16
  in this House, the objects of the Government in this connection might be accelerated.