Lords Sitting of 31 March 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.

EAST RETFORD GAS ORDER, 1938.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (FINCHLEY BOROUGH ORDER).
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be now approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act and laid before the House on the 16th instant be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, and may I, in doing so, crave that indulgence which I understand is always accorded to members of your Lordships' House who address your Lordships for the first time? After ten years of silence in the Whips' Office in another place, I feel that my task is certainly more diffi-
544
cult. The object of the Bill is to enable local authorities to close certain suitable streets at certain suitable times, in order that they may be used as playgrounds for children. The Bill was introduced into another place on December rip last by Mr. Perkins, the Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire, and it there received unanimously a Second Reading. At the end of some eight speeches the Minister of Transport addressed the House and said that the Ministry would welcome the Bill.
Before coming to the details I would say a word about the problem which has given rise to the need for some such legislation as is proposed. In all the big towns and cities of the country, especially in the North of England, there are hundreds, nay, thousands of children of poor parents who, because there are no playing fields near their homes, are forced to go out and play in the streets. It is the fact that it is not from any choice on their part, unless it be Hobson's choice, that they have to do this. The simple reason is that there are no playing fields or playgrounds near the homes where they live. It is easy in such circumstances to picture the haunting fear of the parents day by day, and all day, lest some calamity should befall them. Nor is that haunting dread an idle one, if one looks at the figures of streets accidents. I have made inquiries, but there were certain figures given in the debate in another place which I will take. In the ten years from 1924 to 1933 inclusive, over 12,000 boys and girls under fifteen years of age were killed in the streets in England and Wales alone, and over 300,000 mutilated or injured. This Bill may prove to be no solution of the problem suggested by these terrible figures, yet I think it will make some contribution towards reducing these figures and allowing children to play in greater safety. There is no new principle in the Bill, because three of the largest towns—Birmingham, Salford and Manchester—have already been to Parliament and asked for provisions similar to those contained in this Bill. They did so by Private Bill legislation, and one of the main purposes of the Bill now before your Lordships is to enable all local authorities to have those rights which this measure, if passed into law, will give them, and to be saved the task of bringing in Private Bill legislation.

545
May I now turn to the Bill itself? Clause r sets out the local authorities which are concerned. In England and Wales, except for London, the councils of counties, county boroughs, boroughs or urban districts are the local authorities involved. In London it is the council of the Metropolitan borough which may be concerned, because it is the highway authority; and in Scotland the county council and the town council of a burgh. There is a proviso at the end of subsection (1) of Clause r to which I very much wish to draw your Lordships' attention:
"Provided that an order made under this section with respect to any road shall make provision for permitting reasonable access to premises situated on or adjacent to the road."
That I conceive to be a very important proviso, more especially when you remember that a little later on in the Bill there are certain penalties. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 provides a second safeguard for the ordinary user of the road. It says that the Minister himself must confirm the order before it becomes operative, and your Lordships will notice that the Minister may confirm the order either with or without modifications. Subsection (2) also provides a second safeguard—namely, that after the local authority has made an order closing a street to be used as a playground it cannot be confirmed by the Minister of Transport until twenty-eight days have elapsed. This is in order that all reasonable objections may be heard and considered, and that, if necessary, a public inquiry may take place. Clause 1 (5) imposes a maximum penalty of £5 for a first offence and £10 for a second or subsequent offence on any person who uses a vehicle or permits a vehicle to be used in contravention of an order made under this clause.
Clause 2 enables the appropriate authority to make by-laws to secure the proper and orderly use of any street in respect of which an order has been made under Clause 1; and by subsection (2) of Clause 2 these by-laws must also be con- firmed by the Minister of Transport. That is important because it not only makes an additional safeguard, but I submit that it would tend to give us that uniformity throughout the country which will be of great importance. Clause 3 contains provisions as to public inquiries, and I am told that the first two sub-
546
sections are based on subsections (2) and (3) of Section 290 of the Local Govern-merit Act, 1933. The remaining subsections follow subsection (2) of Section 47 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, which deals with the costs incurred in connection with inquiries held by the Minister. Clause 4 governs the Bill in its application to Scotland, and Clause 5 is the short title.
I will sum up now what may be said in favour of this measure. In the first place, I submit that it will make a great contribution towards enabling the children of poor parents to whom I have referred to play in greater safety. Secondly, I think it will reduce the number of fatal accidents, which at present number well over 1,000 a year, in addition to the children who are maimed and injured. I submit that there are proper safeguards in the Bill. It may be that more are needed, in which case they can be considered in Committee. These safeguards are, first, that the Minister of Transport himself must confirm, not only the order but every by-law made by every local authority in the country; secondly, that a period of twenty-eight days must elapse before the order by the local authority is confirmed by the Minister; and, thirdly, that the proviso in Clause 1 gives a proper safeguard for reasonable access to the roads, enabling anyone who lives in a road which is shut up to arrive at his house, to depart from it, to enable the doctor and various other people, who may quite properly want to use the road although it has been closed, to gain access to it. This Bill has passed through another place, where it was held to be non-controversial, and I hope very much that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading to-clay. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to say that we support the Bill, as our honourable friends did in another place, and I am very happy indeed to be able to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech and on the very efficient and lucid way in which he has introduced this measure. I am sure I carry all your Lordships with me in saying what an acquisition the noble Lord is to your Lordships' House, and we hope that after having broken the ice he will take the plunge many times. With

547
regard to the Bill I have only two things to say. One is that of course it must be recognised that this is no substitute for proper playgrounds and playing fields, and I am sure the noble Lord would be the last to wish to see any slackening in the efforts made to provide adequate space for children to play in. I know I carry the President of the Board of Education with me in that. The second thing is this. I am always horrified when I see young boys on roller skates on the public roads. It is a terrifying sight, and if I am motoring I begin to shiver the moment I see them. But you cannot put old heads on young shoulders, and the police (and you cannot blame them) turn a blind eye on this misdemeanour—for such it is. Of course, the children have nowhere else where they can take their recreation. I hope, however, that when sufficient of these suitable streets are closed there will be a tightening up of the law, because I am sure this practice must lead to accidents. When the Bill comes into operation and certain streets are closed I hope that the local police will he more stringent in preventing the use of other streets for this very reprehensible practice.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches I desire to say that we also support the Bill. There is one important point which I hope the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government will deal with when he comes to speak. The Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Associations, which represents the authorities concerned with the supply of gas, water and electricity, has to be certain that they will have reasonable access to these scheduled streets for the ordinary maintenance and repair facilities which they need. This of course also applies to telephone lines and cables and sewers. In order to avoid putting down an Amendment to the Bill we understand from the Ministry of Transport that they will be prepared to give an undertaking now, that in any Provisional Order made under the Bill the common form which is used under the Road Traffic Act will be employed on the following lines:
"Nothing in this Order shall prevent the driving upon the said road of any vehicle which is being used in connection with the maintenance, improvement, or reconstruction of the said road, or the laying, erection,
548
alteration or repair in or near to the said road of any sewer or of any main, pipe, or apparatus for the supply of gas, water, electricity, or any telegraph or telephone wires, cables, posts or supports."
If we are given an assurance that the Provisional Orders shall include such a proviso it will obviate any necessity for putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am quite ready to welcome the introduction of this Bill, and would congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he has introduced it. He was not very specific about a point which is puzzling me, and that is just what roads this will apply to. I think of the roads I know, and find it very hard to pick out one—I am referring to country roads—and say, "This road can he closed for several hours every day to be used as a playground for children." If my noble friend is dealing with the matter at any later stage, I hope he will be more explicit as to the class of road to which this is going to apply. A point was raised about roller skates. I am afraid it is not going to make very much difference to roller skaters. The last thing I can see the users of roller skates doing is confining themselves to a small area used as a playground. What I particularly want to say is that I have a certain number of Amendments here that I am going to put down on behalf of the County Councils' Association, and I hope my noble friend will give them favourable consideration.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I also venture warmly to support this Bill. It is very refreshing to have a Bill which is not a Party measure and one in which the whole House can join in support. It is undoubtedly a very useful little Bill. Fresh air and good food seem to go together, and this Bill would undoubtedly be a great advantage to the children concerned. If I may say a word from the motoring point of view, I believe the motoring community as a whole welcome the Bill because it will tend to keep children out of the streets and out of danger to some extent. I would like to couple with that observation that wise discretion must, of course, be shown as to which roads are going to be closed, and it must be made perfectly clear in the Bill that Class 1 roads will not be

549
scheduled. From one point of view this Bill is not an experimental measure because, as was pointed out by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, the principle has been adopted and put into operation successfully by certain of our larger corporations. This Bill really gives us food for thought. If we are going to have a national housing policy, we ought to have a national playground policy in due course. This is part of a child's life, and great attention ought to be paid to that side of the question.
So far as I have been able to see, there are only two objections to the Bill. One is the objection of noise. We associate health in youth with considerable noise. The more noise, perhaps, the greater pleasure and probably the greater good for the child, but it does not follow that it will bring greater satisfaction to the householders living in a street which has been closed and is being used as a playground. The other objection that I see in it is that this power might be used by certain local authorities to close a street or two and thus evade their right and proper obligation to provide the children with suitable playgrounds. It is utterly appalling to think that no fewer than 12,000 young children have been killed in the years between 1922 and 1933 and over 300,000 seriously injured. That alone seems to justify the introduction of this Bill. Then there is the other side of it. According to the criminal statistics for 1935, over 2,000 young persons under the age of seventeen were found guilty of playing in the streets. What an offence! Found guilty of playing in the streets! It does really constitute a reproach on us and on our system of government that no fewer than 2,000 young persons can be officially found guilty of playing in the streets.
The noble Lord who preceded me referred to certain amendments which ought to be made in this Bill. I do not want to take up the time of the House in referring to them at any length. It is quite clear that classified roads should not be used for this purpose, or any road that forms a link between two important roads on our highway system. I must say it is unlikely that such a road would be chosen, but that sort of point ought to be made clear in the Bill. Then, again, certain small local authorities like urban district councils, with a population of round about
550
20,000, will have the power to close certain roads subject to certain safeguards. Money for these roads generally comes largely out of the county council's purse, and therefore I feel not only that the county council, as the larger authority, should be consulted but that the consent of that body should be required. Then all persons affected ought to have an opportunity of expressing their views. I expect a good many of them would be opposed to closing, but even if they be over-ruled in the interests of the community as a whole, they ought to be allowed ample opportunity of expressing their views. In conclusion, I would, with great respect, congratulate my noble friend on this non-controversial measure which he has introduced in his maiden effort and thank him for doing so and heartily support the measure.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, like the speakers who preceded me, I am delighted to welcome a Bill of this sort, provided the need can be proved and provided other consequences of a more serious nature do not follow in its train. Every one of us who is a road user of any description must sympathise with the small children who have nowhere to go except, perhaps, a back street for the playing of their various games. We must all of us be anxious to see that they have just the same sort of facilities to play their games as the more fortunate of us had when we were young. Everybody must want to see adequate playgrounds. But I confess to a certain doubt as to whether it would be a good thing in principle that children should get into the habit, as they may well do under this Bill, of playing on the highway. We all know the terrible casualty roll. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill referred to the number of road accidents to small children. That number is sufficiently serious to make us think. Anything that gets small children into the habit of playing more on the highway than they do already might be followed by very serious results. The best we can do is to hope that it will not.
There are several questions arising on the Bill. The noble Lord who introduced it told us this plan had already been tried in Manchester, Birmingham, and Salford. That is so, but he did not tell us what the results of these experiments have been. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is going to speak for the Government will be able to say what the

551
results of these experiments have been in these great cities. The Bill has also been tried in London—that is to say, certain streets in Paddington have already been brought within the ambit of the Bill. I understand that the experiment in Paddington at any rate has not been an unqualified success. I am told that it has met with the most whole-hearted opposition from many of the householders who are affected by it. I do not know whether that has been the experience of the northern cities to which I have referred. In Clause 1 of the Bill a "vehicle" is alluded to. What is a vehicle under this Bill? Is a bicycle a vehicle, and if so are the streets to be closed to cyclists? Is it proposed that cyclists who live in them are not to be able to use their cycles in the street either to get to work or to get home again? I should rather have liked to hear what is meant by a vehicle. I presume a bicycle would be covered by that expression.
Another point is this. Will these streets be sign-posted? That is very important in a large town like, say, Salford, where the experiment has been tried. Have any sign-posts been put up in Salford, Birmingham and Manchester to direct traffic as to whether streets are subject to closing, and if so what streets? I think a great deat depends in this Bill on the way in which the Minister carries out his obligations under it. The Minister should be careful to see that on no account, as the noble Lord who preceded me has already said, is any through route, any Class r road subjected to this Bill and closed under it. If this Bill merely refers, as I think it probably will in its working, to the back streets in our great cities, I dare say there is a good deal to be said for it. At the same time I think we want to be careful that we do not make things worse by trying to make them better. There is one other point that I am particularly anxious about, and that is that due notice should be given of any intention to close a road, and, as the noble Lord who preceded me has said, that all interests, the householders and organisations generally that may be affected, shall have every opportunity to put their case forward. I dare say it may be that from time to time orders made under this Bill may have to be subject to revision. I am not going to oppose the Bill, but I may have to
552
put down one or two Amendments later. It rather depends upon what the noble Earl who replies for the Government is able to tell us.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I happen to live in a back street which might be considered suitable for conversion into a children's playground, but I do not for a moment oppose the Bill. I welcome it, and I welcome the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. At the same time I trust I shall not seem unduly neglectful of the interests of children if I seem particularly sensitive of the feelings of the inhabitants who dwell in the streets concerned. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would consider putting into the Bill a provision as to the maximum number of hours during which a street might remain open as a children's playground. I would request the noble Lord to consider what would happen during the school holidays if the street is open, it may be, for four or five hours during the day. It will be an excessive hardship upon the residents in those streets, especially if they are aged or infirm, and more especially if they are sick. I would therefore suggest that he should give his earnest consideration to the insertion of a provision limiting the number of hours during which a street could be used as a children's playground specifically to, say, three or four a day. The noise made by children playing in back streets is already quite considerable, and those who are in good health are able to take great delight in the noise they make. It is pleasant to hear children enjoying themselves. But, as has been stressed from various quarters of the House, the strain upon one's patience becomes rather acute when the noise continues for a very long period. I have brought forward these suggestions for consideration by the House with a view to the possible amendment of the Bill at a later stage.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on his very admirable maiden speech. I am glad to give the assurance for which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, asked, that exemptions will be included in orders made under the Bill in all appropriate cases. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me if these playing grounds will be sign-posted.

553
I can assure him they will be sign-posted. I am not absolutely certain whether they are sign-posted in the towns where the experiment has already been tried, but I can assure him that they will be sign-posted. I am not able at this short notice to give him an answer to the question as to what results have come from the places where this experiment has so far been tried, but I rather gather that it is a case of the children going off the main streets, which are being used by traffic, into a safety zone, as it may be called. I think that is a fairly sound argument against his argument that it would be a source of danger to have children playing in the road.
I am confident that the Bill will commend itself in principle to all members of your Lordships' House. It will help to secure some facilities for recreation in areas where they are most needed and where the more adequate provision for this purpose which we should all like to see cannot, for the moment, be made. I am sure we would all like to see facilities of that kind made. As I have already said to my noble friend Lord Howe, in addition this Bill provides a contribution towards the safety of children not only by affording them security in any streets which may be set: aside as play streets, but by attracting them from other streets where they are more likely to come to harm. I think that the safeguards in this Bill against any arbitrary or unwise exercise by local authorities of the powers proposed to be conferred on them are adequate, but this in any case is a matter to be discussed in Committee, if necessary. On behalf of the Government I support the Second Reading of this Bill, and confidently hope that it will pass without difficulty through all stages in your Lordships' House.
EARL HOWE: Could the noble Earl tell us whether the policy of the Minister of Transport will be not to apply this Bill to through routes, Class 1 roads?
THE EARL OF ERNE: Definitely, yes.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD THANKERTON: My Lords, in 1933 we in Scotland for the first time had provision made by Act of Parliament for the establishment of a General or Central Council for solicitors. That had been known in England for a very long time, and in Ireland for a considerable number of years. We also had established under the same Act a Discipline Committee for the solicitors, controlled, of course, as in England by the Court. It also provided that the General Council was to look after the necessary examinations and admissions of people to become solicitors and to keep a roll of solicitors. I suppose it was because we are a cautious country that we did not at that time adopt all the provisions of powers given by Statute to the Law Society in England. We thought it was wise to get the General Council fully established before we got some of the further powers. The purpose of this amending Bill is to confer on the General Council powers which already exist in the case of England in Statutes passed to that effect. After that premise I think I can deal fairly briefly with the provisions of this Bill.
The first ten clauses (in Part I) transfer from the general care of the Court to the General Council the issuing of certificates enabling solicitors to practice. That has long rested, I understand, with the Law Society in this country. No change is made in the necessity for getting a practising certificate. The Bill merely provides that the issuing of the certificates and the keeping of the roll of practising solicitors shall he under the General Council. Any case of refusal to give a practising certificate is always subject to appeal to the Lord President of the Court of Session and he controls the whole matter. Otherwise the clauses are almost an identical reproduction of what is provided by the Solicitors Act of 1932 in this country. I pass now, if I may, to Part II which deals with rules for professional conduct. It has been thought advisable in Scotland, as already is the case in England, to give authority to the General Council to make rules as to the opening and keeping by solicitors of accounts at banks for clients' money—a not unimportant matter—and as to the keeping by solicitors of books and accounts with regard to monies received, held or paid by them on account of clients and any general matters which are

555
necessary with regard to professional practice. These Clauses, 11 to 14, are almost identical with—in fact I think they are an identical reproduction of—the provisions in the Solicitors Act for England of 1933. I think there can be no question that they are very essential for the profession as a whole and will be welcomed.
Part III contains what are described as general provisions. There again we have added to the powers of the General Council powers which already rest in the Law Society of England, under the Act of 1936, to make sure that apprenticeship is a real apprenticeship. We have had cases where a solicitor to whom a clerk is articled or apprenticed has left the country or disappeared, and there have been great difficulties in the discharge of the indenture of the apprentice and in getting him carried on, so to speak, by another solicitor. This Part of the Bill gives power of general control to the General Council to see that an apprentice shall not suffer from any such untoward occurrence. That covers Clauses 15, 16 and 17. Clause 18 is a new power to enable the Discipline Committee, if they are of opinion that a complaint before them is frivolous or vexatious, to order the payment by any party of expenses. That again seems a very proper power. It is subject to the control of the Court which may or may not grant the necessary warrant for execution with regard to these expenses. Clause 19 is a general one giving the General Council power to apply any monies they have to the expenses of the Discipline Committee. Clause 20 gives a general power to take into consideration and make recommendations with regard to any matters of importance to solicitors in Scotland.
The remaining provisions, with one exception, are really purely drafting provisions consequential on the preceding clauses of the Bill. The exception is Clause 23, which includes, by way of amendment of the principal Act, among the parties who are entitled to make complaints or send representations of misconduct, the Lord Advocate. I think that was merely an accidental omission from the previous Act. It is quite clear that he is a party who ought to be expressly included. I think that what I have said covers everything in the Bill
556
and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Thankerton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, the Government have given consideration to this Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord. As he has pointed out it makes a number of alterations in relation to the Scottish law as affecting solicitors. Perhaps I may say that I have had the advantage of reading the Bill, and as far as I am concerned, if it were left to me, I should be perfectly willing to give it a blessing. What I am authorised to say is that so far as the Government are concerned they think that the Bill is one which merits full consideration and that, therefore, they have no objection to its receiving a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATING AND VALUATION (POSTPONEMENT OF VALUATIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to postpone the next quinquennial valuation, which should come into force in 1939, to 1941. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that in 1925 considerable reforms were introduced into the rating machinery of the country by the Rating and Valuation Act of that year. The principal object of that Act was to produce uniformity in the basis on which assessments were made. With that object assessment committees were constituted for districts comprising several rating areas, and county valuation committees were set up to supervise the work of these area committees. Finally, their work was examined by a Central Valuation Committee, representing the whole of England and Wales. That Central Valuation Committee consists of persons nominated by the various associations of local authorities, with a minority of nominees of the Minister of Health. It has the important function of advising the Minister of Health particularly on points affecting uniformity.
I think everybody will realise how important it is now that rates should be levied on more or less the same basis all

557
over the country. In the old days it was not a matter of such importance, but now that the block grant has been introduced the situation is entirely different. Your Lordships know that the loss on derating is made up by the Exchequer and redistributed plus other Exchequer money on a somewhat complicated formula which provides for the appropriate needs of different authorities in the country, and one of the most important items in the formula is rateable value. Considering that some authorities may be administering an income of which up to some 75 per cent. may come in various ways from the Exchequer, it is obviously very unfair if those calculations are made on widely different bases. This process of equalising rating assessments has been spread over a considerable period, and although during it two revaluations have been made, I cannot say that uniformity has been reached. As your Lordships know, the whole system of our rating is highly complicated and has often been criticised, but it is rooted in history, and the problem of substituting something else in its place is very large. As it is working fairly efficiently, and as such a great amount of our social legislation depends upon it, we feel that we must go steadily ahead and eventually reach the equilibrium contemplated by the Act of 1925.
However, steady progress such as we should like remains very difficult, in spite of the efforts of all these various expert committees over this long period. For instance, the Rent Restrictions Act has introduced one abnormal factor into reassessment calculations; the lack of housing which is now being met by various Government measures is another factor, and the variation in the value of building land is yet another. The Central Valuation Committee has been endeavouring, in spite of these difficulties, to do its duty and to procure, as I have suggested, the gradual approximation of all these local authorities to the intention of the 1925 Act. In June of last year they sent out a circular which represented the most comprehensive effort that they had ever made in that direction. The reactions to that circular have been somewhat mixed. Whereas some local authorities have welcomed it, various bodies representing the ratepayers have submitted that if the recommendations of that Committee are put into effect, very considerable hard-
558
ship will arise. In fact, so widespread has that complaint been that the Central Valuation Committee have felt bound to advise the Government to investigate the position. Moreover, they feel that a sufficient time should be allowed to enable this investigation to be made properly. They have therefore recommended the postponement of this coming valuation until 1941, and the Government have accepted their advice.
Of course, I am aware that this decision must mean some dislocation in the plans of local authorities and in their estimates. For instance, in two counties and in part of a third the work of revaluation is practically complete. However, even there, to show that the idea of postponement is not entirely unpopular, I can say that those authorities themselves applied for orders of postponement. Admittedly there are certain unfortunate results of this decision, but I think the House will agree that if the work has been found too much for the rating authorities, it is much better to delay matters rather than to cause unnecessary hardship by forcing through imperfectly considered assessments. We do not think that the money which has already been spent by some of these authorities will in effect be wasted. There is obviously a tremendous amount of detailed work to be done in connection with each revaluation, and a great deal of the work which has already been done in connection with the present scheme will be available for the 1941 assessment. Every extension of building, as your Lordships know, has to be sanctioned under town planning and under the by-laws, and it should therefore be a fairly easy matter to ascertain what new premises require surveying and measuring. Also it must be remembered that this postponement should not interfere with the ordinary work of making amendments in current assessments.
One of the advantages of this postponement will be that thereby all the rating areas in England and Wales will be revalued simultaneously. As your Lordships may remember, London, although it is excluded from the Bill, has always contemplated making its next revaluation so as to come into effect in April, 1941, which is the same date as will now apply to the rest of England. Of course, I cannot make any prophecy as to what the Government will do as a result of this in-

559
vestigation. I can only say that the preparatory work which has already been done and the test valuations which have been made provide figures which will be of great value in enabling them to reach a decision. If the Government had decided to have this revaluation at an earlier date, they would not have had these figures to go on. I can only conclude by saying that this Bill has been considered in another place and has received unanimous welcome there, as indeed I hope it will in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am to say that the Opposition Peers have no objection to the Bill at this stage. It only remains for me to thank the noble Viscount for his very clear explanation of a somewhat complicated subject.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, the county councils are not objecting to this postponement; and might I also accentuate what the noble Viscount has so well brought out: that this revaluation is very badly needed? It is quite worth while giving a little extra time in order that it may be done properly. There is a good deal of feeling now that it works out badly as between county and county, and there are certain counties which are—I will not say systematically, but constantly under-valued. Their rateable value is under-estimated, and according to the present method of Government grants, as far as I have been able to ascertain, by that under-valuation they are able to gain a considerable pecuniary advantage in Government grants. That ought not to be, and if by delaying this matter the Government are able to put the basis of the valuation more fairly than it is put at present, then this delay is very well worth while.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Extension of jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions.
(2) For the purposes of this section a person shall not, in relation to any Court of Quarter Sessions, be deemed to be a legally qualified Chairman of the Court unless he is—
(b) a person who is or has been a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a Judge of the Supreme Court, an Official Referee attached to that Court, a Railway and Canal Commissioner, or a Judge of a County Court, and who has been elected by the Court of Quarter Sessions as Chairman or Deputy Chairman thereof;
(3) Where at any session of a Court of Quarter Sessions having a legally qualified Chairman no legally qualified Chairman is present, the Court shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to try a person charged with any of the offences specified in the First Schedule to this Act if the Court is presided over by a justice of the peace for the county deputed to preside at that session by a legally qualified Chairman of the Court with the approval of the Lord Chancellor:
LORD ROCHE LORD ROCHE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out all words after "a person who is or has been" down to and including "County Court" and insert "the holder of an office mentioned in the next following subsection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know what the convenient course would be, but I have an Amendment which to some extent covers the ground of an Amendment by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. It goes further, however, and I do not know whether he would like me to deal now with my Amendments, which stand or fall together. I can explain to your Lordships very shortly what they are. They all depend upon one matter. When the Bill was before your Lordships in Committee, a clause was inserted giving a list or category of persons who were to be deemed to be legally qualified for the purpose of having the extended jurisdiction conferred on certain Quarter Sessions under the Bill. I ventured to suggest, for the consideration of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that that category should include King's Counsel, and my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin suggested that it should at any rate include Recorders of boroughs, whether they were sitting in their own boroughs or whether they were sitting, as they very often do, as Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. The Lord Chancellor most kindly consented to

561
consider those matters, but it was very obvious, I think, from what he said at the time, that he felt difficulty about accepting them, and thought that the suggestions were wider than he would be able to adopt. The result of his consideration, which I am sure was very mature, appears to have borne out that conclusion.
I have ventured, so to speak, to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lord Atkin with a modification, and I am suggesting in these Amendments that the category should include the Recorders of the important boroughs in the country, which of course includes cities. That is a suggestion which I hope the Lord Chancellor will he able to accept, and I gather that he may be able to do so. The division is in a sense logical enough, because, as your Lordships probably know, there are a very large number of Recorders in this country. Many small places which were once of much greater relative importance possess the privilege of a Court of Quarter Sessions, and so you have towns of five and ten thousand inhabitants who have their Recorders. They are remunerated on a scale which dates from earlier times and you will not be surprised to know that the most experienced members of the profession do not hold those offices. Apart from that, it is quite obvious that these Courts as a whole are not fitted for dealing with such serious cases as forgery and perjury, if only for the reason that the jurors are drawn from a very limited body, and as they know all about the matter already it is not surprising that you will not as a rule get the most satisfactory verdict.
I have therefore ventured to restrict my Amendment to boroughs containing, according to the last published census, a population of not less than 50,000 persons, the Recorderships of which are held by criminal lawyers of great experience of circuits, who have gone through the Recorderships of minor towns, and are therefore well equipped for dealing with the matters entrusted to them under this Bill. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It is really consequential on my second Amendment, because it is a definition clause, which I am happy to say has received the attention and care of the Parliamentary draftsman, who was good enough to look at my Suggestion, and this is the form in which
562
he thinks my Amendment can be presented to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("been") to the end of line 11, and insert ("the holder of an office mentioned in the next following subsection").—(Lord Roche.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have had an opportunity of carefully considering the two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roche, which, as he has already told you, result only in this: that the number of persons who are to be legally qualified to be Chairmen of a Court of Quarter Sessions is in some measure extended. It is impossible to get everybody to agree as to the precise persons who will have sufficient qualifications to act as Chairmen of the Courts of Quarter Sessions for an extended jurisdiction. It is very largely a matter of discretion. But on the last occasion I listened with care to the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend and by Lord Atkin, and I am prepared on behalf of the Government to assent to the two Amendments which stand in his name and therefore to omit altogether as unnecessary and futile now the second Amendment on the Paper which stands in my name. The Amendments are not otherwise than unimportant in the true sense and I think I might even venture to put the Amendments together.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, at the beginning, insert ("in the case of the Court of Quarter Sessions for a borough containing according to the last published census for the time being a population of not less than fifty thousand").—(Lord Roche.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) The offices referred to in paragraph (b) of the last: foregoing subsection are the following offices, that is to say, member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Judge of the Supreme Court, Official Referee attached to that Court, Railway and Canal Commissioner, Judge of a County Court, His Majesty's Attorney-Genera], His Majesty's Solicitor-General, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Recorder of any borough containing according to the last published census for the time being a population of not less than fifty thousand").—(Lord Roche.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "with the

563
approval of the Lord Chancellor" and insert "and the justice so deputed is either a person who holds or has held one of the offices mentioned in the last foregoing subsection or a person approved by the Lord Chancellor as being qualified to act as such a deputy." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the next Amendment is an Amendment almost entirely of a drafting character. The reason for it is this, that it is designed to make the approval of the Lord Chancellor to a particular Chairman unnecessary where the member who is to be charged with the duty of presiding at that session is already one of the persons who holds or has held one of the offices mentioned in the above-mentioned schedule. In other words, supposing the Chairman legally qualified is unable to act and a legally qualified Chairman is not present, the Court shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to try persons charged with the offences mentioned in the First Schedule if the Court is presided over by a person who holds or has held one of the offices entitling him to act as a legally qualified Chairman and the justice so deputed is either a person who holds one of the offices mentioned or a person approved by the Lord Chancellor as being qualified to act as such a deputy. It is not much more than a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("from Court") to the end of line 40, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Provisions as to appeals from the Mayor's and City of London Court.
15.—(1) An appeal from proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court not within the jurisdiction of a County Court shall lie to the Court of Appeal in all cases in which such an appeal could have been brought if the proceedings had been in the High Court; and subject to rules of court, an appeal from any such proceedings may be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in like manner in all respects as if the proceedings had been in the High Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
".—(1) All appeals from causes and proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court shall be to the Court of Appeal.
(2) In the case of any such cause or proceedings as aforesaid in which, in accordance with Section eight of the Mayor's and City of
564
London Court Act, 1920, the procedure of the Supreme Court (as applied or modified by the rules made for the purposes of that Section) has been adopted, an appeal shall lie in the like circumstances in all respects as if the cause or proceedings had been in the High Court; and in the case of any other cause or proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court an appeal shall lie in the like circumstances in all respects as if the cause or proceedings had been in a County Court."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to leave out subsection (1), and to insert two subsections relating purely to proceedings in what is commonly called the Mayor's Court, which is the technical name for the Mayor's and City of London Court. The Bill as amended in Committee dealt with these proceedings in the Mayor's Court, and drew a distinction between the cases which were within the jurisdiction of the County Court and those which were not. There was a little difficulty there because Clause 16 of the Bill extends the powers of the County Courts and, having granted that extension of jurisdiction, it was necessary to determine how we were to deal with appeals from the Courts and whether, when we drew the distinction between those which were within the jurisdiction of the County Court and those which were not, we were bearing in mind Clause 16, which extends the jurisdiction of the County Courts but only subject to the qualification that the jurisdiction so extended was permissive in this sense, that the defendant was entitled to object.
The position at present is that if a plaintiff brings an action for more than £100 in the Mayor's Court, the defendant has a choice between allowing the action to proceed as if it is a County Court action or adopting a procedure similar to that of the High Court, and that has been in existence for many years. The proposal of this Amendment is that if the defendant chooses to allow the action to proceed as a County Court action, an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be governed by the provisions applicable to an appeal from the County Court. Therefore in that respect the Mayor's Court would be treated just the same as the County Court. But, if on the other hand the defendant, as he is entitled to do, chooses to adopt a procedure similar to that of the High Court, then an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be treated just as if it were governed by the same provisions as an appeal from the decision of a High Court Judge. I

565
may mention that the City authorities approve of this proposal.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Extension of jurisdiction of County Court.
16. The amounts by reference to which the jurisdiction of a County Court in actions of contract or tort or for money recoverable by Statute is limited by Sections forty and forty-one of the County Courts Act, 1934, shall be increased by two hundred pounds, and accordingly for references in those sections to one hundred pounds there shall be substituted references to three hundred pounds:
Provided that if the amount claimed exceeds one hundred pounds, the defendant may within such time as may be prescribed by County Court rules give notice that he objects to the action being tried in the County Court, and, where such notice is given, the Judge shall order that the action be transferred to the High Court.
LORD CARNOCK LORD CARNOCK moved to substitute "one hundred pounds" for "two hundred pounds." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved simply in consequence of an Amendment which I brought forward during the Committee stage. It was an Amendment originally to strike out Clause 16 altogether on the ground that the increase in the jurisdiction of the County Court from £100 to £300 would put an unfair burden on the County Court and bring a different type of litigant into the Court, which was never intended. On the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I withdrew my Amendment and have put down the present Amendment, which is to the effect that the jurisdiction of the County Court should be raised to £200, and not to £300 as originally proposed in the Bill. The Amendments in my name to the Second Schedule are to produce the same effect.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40 leave out ('"two") and insert ("one").—(Lord Carnock.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I indicated on the previous occasion when this somewhat important alteration of Clause 16 was moved that I would give it the most careful consideration. My impression then was—and it is now—that on the whole it would be wise
566
to accept this Amendment. As I have previously mentioned in this House, I think it is of vital importance that the proceedings in County Courts in reference to poor persons and the speedy disposal of matters with which they are concerned shall not be in any way delayed by any amendments which the Legislature may make with regard to the jurisdiction which County Courts at present possess. There is a danger that if the County Court jurisdiction were extended from £100 to £300 there would be a certain number of actions which would continue in the County Courts with the consent of the defendant and would last a substantial time, and which might in some cases interfere with the speedy disposal of poor persons' actions. As your Lordships know, poor people bring actions very often for quite small sums—£10 or even less, and often find it very difficult to attend the Court. They are not represented by counsel, and it is most desirable that nothing should be done that might tend to put those persons to any disadvantage.
It is for those reasons that I am prepared on behalf of the Government to accept this limitation of the extent to which the jurisdiction is being enlarged, and to make it a jurisdiction only up to £200. That is £100 more than the present jurisdiction, it being still the case that the defendant can object. This increase of jurisdiction is to some extent tentative. It will have to be carefully watched. If it is found in fact that it leads to no bad consequences, such as we must all be anxious to avoid, it might be a reasonable thing to go a step further and to add the extra £100. But I think it is safer in making an experiment of this kind to limit it in the way which the noble Lord proposes and, on behalf of the Government I accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Carnock.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert:
"(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to causes and proceedings in the Mayor's and City of London Court, and in Section one

567
hundred and eighty-six of the County Courts Act, 1934, the reference to the jurisdiction of a County Court shall be construed accordingly."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat technical matter, and I would like to explain it as shortly as I can, but it involves a rather curious state of things. The Mayor's Court already has jurisdiction without any limit whatever in all cases where the whole cause of action arises within the City. Therefore, the main part of Clause 16 increasing the County Court's jurisdiction from £100 to £200 is not needed at all so far as the Mayor's Court is concerned, and the proviso is inapplicable to an action where the whole cause lies within the City. But if the clause were to be applied to the Mayor's Court, the plaintiff would be for the first time entitled to bring an action in that Court exceeding £100 and going up to £200 where only part of the cause of action arose within the City. The difficulty is this. The right of the defendant to have an action transferred to the High Court in such a case would depend on whether the cause of action arose wholly within the City or only partly within the City, and this would introduce a fresh complication into a jurisdiction which is already complicated enough. It has been thought, on careful consideration, that it is desirable to insert the additional words which are in the Amendment standing in my name in order to prevent this increase of jurisdiction applying to cases and proceedings in the Mayor's Court for the reasons I have stated. In regard to actions arising wholly in the City it is not wanted, and with regard to causes of action which only arise partly in the City there is no provision at present in the Mayor's Court rules to restrict the bringing of actions against defendants resident outside the City.
In the County Courts, as I dare say your Lordships know, since 1937 a working man resident outside the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be subject to an action commencing in the County Court which is not in his own district. In other words, in regard to a working man, a different system applies to that which applies in other cases. You have to find your defendant and sue him in the County Court of the district in which he resides. The Mayor's Court in the City of London has
568
not that provision, and having regard to the curious fact I have stated as to the unlimited jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court in cases where the cause of action arises wholly within the City, it has been thought best, at any rate until the Mayor's Court rules in respect of suing defendants are somewhat altered, to insert the provision that nothing in this clause is to apply to that Court and that in Section 186 of the County Court Act, 1934, the reference to the jurisdiction of a County Court shall be construed accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Second Schedule [Consequential and minor amendments]:
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, the Amendments to this Schedule are consequential, and I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
Page 17, line 19, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Carnock.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

DOGS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULATIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords he appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the

569
said Bill. That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

M. Aberdeen and Temair,

V. Chelmsford,

L. Bishop of Peterborough,

L. Stanmore,

L. Marley,

L. Rea.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of
570
Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint six members to be joined with the said Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.