Lords Sitting of 31 March 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, in moving as I do that this Bill be now read a third time, I desire to take this opportunity of saying just a few words to commend this Motion to your Lordships. I should like to express my sense of the indebtedness which I feel to all noble Lords who have judicial experience and who sit in this House for the help they have given me in regard to this Bill. I should like to thank, in particular, my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon, who has called together an informal committee of those of your Lordships who sit on appeals in order that this Bill might be investigated not only clause by clause but line by line; and I have caused to be available for them the Treasury Solicitor and the draftsmen, to whom I have already on a previous occasion paid my acknowledgments.
  I have also bum in touch with the heads of the various Divisions—the Lord Chief justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Divorce Division—and with a very large number of other Judges who have great experience in this matter, and I think I may fairly say that this Bill receives the unanimous approval of the entire Bench of Judges. There are those who, because the Judges in Lord Ellen-borough's time took rather a recalcitrant view' with regard to certain criminal re-forms—in which, I may say, the Bishops supported them—seem to think that lawyers have always been opposed to any kind of reform. I hope that this Bill is a complete answer to any such contention. This Bill is a Bill for which the legal profession has been pressing for the
  924
  last twenty years, and I count it as a great good fortune that it has fallen to my lot to bring it forward.
  Lest it be thought that various clauses which have not been the subject of debate in the Committee stage of this Bill have been passed over without special notice, I wish to refer in particular to a question to which I mentioned on Second Reading—namely, the question of discovery. I should like your Lordships all to know that this question, as to the right method of dealing with discovery, has been the subject of most anxious consideration, and that the result specified in the Bill is the result at which we have unanimously arrived. I mention it again because I think this matter is of the first importance. During the preparation of this Bill, and in consultation with your Lordships, we have discussed this matter. I find a unanimity of view—namely, that the final decision as to whether a document should or should not be produced must be left, in the words of Lord Parker in a famous case, the Zamora, to "those who are responsible for the national security, who must be the sole judges of what the national security requires." I have heard it stated that the right thing to do in the interests of a subject who is a party to litigation with the Crown is to leave it to the Judge trying the case to say whether the document should or should not be produced. The matter has been dealt with as fully as it can be by my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon in his judgment in the Thetis case, where he quotes the opinion of Chief Baron Pollock, of Lord Dunedin and of Lord Kinnear.
  The reasons why the decision must be left to the executive are plain enough. In the first case, the Judge cannot possibly inform himself of all the relevant factors which may or may not contribute to the view that the production of a particular document would be injurious to the public interest. The interactions, for example, of policy and machinery governing the administration of the Service Departments are so complex that it would be virtually impossible to deal with a single document in isolation. I dare say—as my noble friend Viscount Simon pointed out—there is the reason that if the Crown is a party to the litigation the Court could scarcely take a decision on the question of whether a particular document ought to be produced without contravening the

  925
  elementary principle of justice that a Judge should have no dealings with one litigant on the matter in hand save in the presence of and in 'the equal knowledge of the other.
  I also stated on Second Reading that, in my judgment, the functions conferred on Ministers of the Crown in these matters are of a most serious nature. I pointed out that the administration of justice is of the greatest importance, that every relevant document ought to be produced, and it is only if the Minister really applies himself to the particular question as to whether the public interest overweighs the ordinary principle of disclosure that he is justified in giving a certificate refusing discovery. I think it would be right that I should inform the House that I have it in mind to communicate with my colleagues on this point, after the Bill is passed into law, in order—possibly by a directive of the Prime Minister himself—that the importance of this matter might be brought to the attention of all Ministers concerned. I will conclude by adding this. This Bill represents the joint effort of many of your Lordships of all Parties, and of no Party. I sincerely hope that, now that we are sending this Bill to another place, all Parties in that other place will work together to ensure that this Bill safely reaches the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  2.43 p.m.
  Viscount SIMON: My Lords, now that we are saying farewell to this measure which has been piloted through the House with such tact and ability by my noble friend, the Lord Chancellor, I think it right that we should look back on our labours and declare that they are very good. My noble friends and I are very appreciative of what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has been good enough to say about the help he has received, and he knows very well that it has been most willingly given. The Bill is a complete piece of construction dealing with a subject which in some respects is not at all easy.
  Now that we are sending it to another place I think we are entitled to remind ourselves, and anybody else who is con-
  926
  cerned in examining or criticizing it, that it has not been accepted without close examination, and that we in this House have in this field, as we have in so many other fields, members who can really claim to be qualified to form an opinion and to offer a judgment on some of the special difficulties involved. That has certainly been done in this case, and I wish it were thought proper that I should recite the names of all of my colleagues in the law who have joined me in rendering such help as we could. I think the Bill has been greatly improved in the course of its passage through this House. It was very well drafted, but when one examines these clauses one at a time one finds here and there something which could undoubtedly be changed for the better. That process has never, I think, been more carefully and thoroughly pursued than in the present instance.
  I must say one word in support of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just said about the clause dealing with discovery. As he reminded your Lordships, the provision in substance is that if what is required is the discovery— the disclosure — of Crown documents (which for practical purposes means certain departmental documents), it must be for the ministerial head of that Department to decide, after due deliberation and after weighing the matter as it ought to be weighed and as the law has laid down that it should be weighed. I am not at all disposed to favour any special indulgence to Ministers of the Crown. They are citizens like the rest of us, and they take the rough with the smooth. The law and the Judges are above them in all possible matters, just as they are above any others. We shall all agree about that. But when it comes to asking for the production of a document which is in the hands of a Government Department, very special considerations necessarily arise. After all, the public interest is something bigger than any private interest, and indeed it is to the interest of every private citizen that the public interest should be properly served. There is no contrast between the two things, but the question is, where does the public interest lie? If it is in the public interest, properly defined, that a particular document should not be produced, then it is not a question of what is ordinarily called discovery between the parties; it involves

  927
  the far higher principle of the safety and proper administration of the State.
  I remember that at an earlier stage the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor gave an example. It is one with which, in the days when I was Attorney-General, I actually had to deal in a case which was being very keenly contested. As your Lordships know, every year the commander of every unit in the different Forces of the Crown makes his annual report to the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Ministry as the case may be on the junior officers under his command. He reports as to their ability, as to their diligence, as to their suitability for their work and as to any serious defects which he has noticed in them. If you are going to have an effective Force at all, you must have that system. The question arose in the case I have in mind of whether that report could be produced in a litigation in which one of these junior officers was concerned. I may perhaps say that it would have suited the Crown very well (I represented the Crown) to have produced it in that case, but I thought it was perfectly right for the Secretary of State to refuse to produce it, and on the simple ground that if once you permit these confidential reports made annually by commanding officers to be disclosed, you can never expect in the future that you will get commanding officers to report absolutely candidly, even though their reports may contain some unpleasant or unfavourable reflections. Therefore it is in the essential interest of the State—in the public interest—that such reports should not be disclosed. Upon the claim being made in all due form by the Minister who had studied the case and examined the document, the document was not produced; and I think that was quite right.
  My noble friend referred just now to the Thetis case. It is old history now, but what was desired there by the plaintiffs was to have produced to them then and there the blue prints which would have shown exactly how the submarine Thetis was constructed. I do not say that that would not have been of some little assistance to them; it would not have been of much assistance, I think, but it would have been of some. I do not think I am disclosing any secret nowadays when I say that if those blue prints had been
  928
  produced it would have appeared that submarines of the type of the Thetis were not only armed so that they could fire forwards under the water but that there were also further tubes which could fire from behind. That was a secret and we were at war with the Germans. I have not the slightest doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty was justified when after considering this particular circumstance, he came to the conclusion that he should say, "I am sorry, but I must claim privilege for these particular blue prints." It did not in fact do the plaintiffs any harm in the end, because their case was perfectly well made out without them, but it is a very good example of what I mean when I say that you really cannot (not even in a democratic community which treats everybody as equal to everybody else, or ought to do so) simply say, "The document is relevant; therefore let the Department produce it."
  But while that is so—and my noble friend was good enough to refer to the judgment of the House of Lords about this matter, in which I took a part—it is most essential to insist upon the way in which the Minister is to claim this privilege. I endeavoured to set it out in the course of the opinion to which my noble friend has referred. Let me point out three or four things. The Minister is not entitled to say, "I claim privilege for this document because if it were disclosed things would not look very well in my Department." He is not allowed to do that. He is not allowed to say, "If I disclose this document it would get the Government into trouble." That has nothing to do with it. He is not entitled to refuse to disclose it because the document is marked "Confidential"; no end of documents are marked in that way. He has got to claim privilege because, after being properly advised, he has come to the conclusion himself, as a matter of his individual judgment, that the particular document is one, or is one of a class, which it would be against the public interest to produce.
  Once he comes to that conclusion, I agree entirely with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that that must be a matter which is decided by the Minister and that it cannot, as some people have suggested, be decided by the Judge. In the first place, I cannot conceive how a Judge could have the material to decide it. He would need to go, in effect, and sit in the Minister's chair, in his Depart-

  929
  ment. He would need to call for other documents to understand the relation of this one to others. He would need to learn the methods of the Department, and that would be perfectly impracticable. Believe me, as a matter of practical possibility, it simply could not be done. The second reason, which appeals to me very strongly, is in regard to cases where the Crown is a litigant. Just imagine the injustice which might be involved if the Judge were to say to the representative of the Department: "Will you let me look at your privileged document for a moment? "He may then begin to ask questions about it of the representative of the Department. He may ask: "What is that reference?" and say: "Show me that other document." All the time he will be conferring with the one side when, in the nature of things, he cannot show anything to the other. If he shows it to both sides it would be the same thing as disclosing it before the matter is decided. Therefore, in my judgment, it is perfectly impracticable to allow anything of the sort.
  What we have to rely on—and I would willingly devise any other method if one occurred to me—is the uprightness of the Ministers who are properly advised by skilled, fearless, loyal, independent members of the Civil Service. In common practice, I think, the Treasury Solicitor is asked to join in the consultation in cases of difficulty. For my part, I speak only of the Treasury Solicitors I have known, and I would put the greatest confidence in their complete independence of judgment. They would most certainly prevent a Minister who, from personal reasons, Party reasons or improper reasons, wanted to prevent a document from being produced. I ventured to occupy your Lordships' time a little with those remarks because I feel so strongly that while there is a great deal that may be decided by the Judge I do not believe it is a practical course, and I find that many of those who have been among the best judges realize that to the full.
  That is all I want to say in commending this Bill, except one other brief observation. I see on the Minutes that there is, among the list of Bills which are described as "Waiting for Second Reading," a little production of my own; a misshapen, or, at any rate, a very imperfect Bill, which I now assign to the
  930
  waste paper basket. I have therefore given notice to those at the Table that I withdraw the Bill, and I am here, with due solemnity but with much satisfaction, wringing the neck of this callow fledgling which I am glad to think has never for a moment delayed or obstructed the hatching and the bringing to perfection of this magnificent prize fowl which will rightly bear the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I beg to support the Motion that this Bill be now read a third time.
  2.57 p.m.
  Viscount MAUGHAM: My Lords, I wish to add only one or two words in supporting this Motion, and I do so because in the course of a long career at the Bar and on the Bench I have often come across matters which were, directly or indirectly, connected with the subject of this Bill. When it was first produced I was, I am afraid, ignorant of the callow fledgling about which we have just heard. I was interested in this Bill, and I may say that, with the assistance of my noble friend who is, I think, going to say something on the Motion, I went through this Bill more than once, with great care, and examined every word to be found in it. If I was able—and I am afraid other people were more able in that respect—to add something to the present form of the Bill, I would count myself as being exceedingly fortunate. The Bill, well as it was drafted, has, I doubt not, been greatly improved in this House, particularly in reference to the addition of the first clause of the Bill which now helps greatly to show the matters which the Bill is designed to put right.
  I will add only that the whole matter is so complex and goes back over such a distant period of English law, beginning with 25 Ed. 1;c. 18, right down to the present period, that it would be amazing if it were an example of absolute perfection. It is possible that there are one or two gaps in the Bill which will, at some date, be filled, but for myself I am perfectly satisfied that as it stands it is a most useful measure. It removes our law from criticism which has been brought against it during the last five and twenty years, and it may be commended with the greatest confidence to the consideration of another place. I thank the noble and learned Viscount,

  931
  the Lord Chancellor, for the way in which he has received all suggestions of improvement in this Bill. Whether he was able to accept them all or not, I am quite satisfied that he considered them with the greatest desire to do what was right, and to leave this Bill in the most perfect state which conditions permit.
  3.0 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I ventured to say on the Second Reading of this Bill that it seemed preeminently a measure which should have its First Reading in your Lordships' House, and I think the policy which led to its introduction in this House has been amply justified by its subsequent history up to date. As one of the lower forms of legal life, who intruded himself at a respectful distance, into the company of the eminent on this subject, I think we may congratulate ourselves on having substantially improved the Bill in the course of its still comparatively short life. I wondered a little, as I heard the noble and learned Viscount making his statement to-day in connexion with Clause 28, whether perhaps he made it in response to a certain disquiet which I think has animated the legal profession in regard to that particular clause of the Bill. I think those doubts and anxieties will be very substantially allayed by what he and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, have just said. That there was disquiet in people's minds has evidenced itself in many ways, but perhaps in one small way by the number of various Amendments which I have had sent to me, with the suggestion that I should submit them. I have refused to take any action upon them, because I was satisfied that the procedure set out in the Bill is the right one. It is essentially a question of policy, and a question of policy must be a matter for a member of the Executive and not for a member of the Judiciary.
  For the rest, what I intended to say to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, has been largely made unnecessary by the fact that he himself volunteered to see that what I was going to suggest would be done: that is, to circulate some form of memorandum, synchronizing with the coming into law of this Bill, which would bring to the minds of his colleagues their heavy personal responsibility in these
  932
  matters. It is a personal responsibility, and when the Bill says "a Minister" it means not someone in the Department but the Minister himself. I think it will bring considerable satisfaction and relief to the minds of many people, if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack finds himself able to address his colleagues in those terms. The Bill will go forward with the general good wishes of all members of this House, who hope that, once it is passed into law, it will go far to afford to the subject ampler justice than he has been able to obtain in the past.
  3.5 p.m.
  Lord SIMONDS: My Lords, I would occupy only one or two minutes of your Lordships' time. Perhaps I might invite your Lordships' indulgence because twenty-five or more years ago I was in at the beginning of this hunt. Now I see, with great satisfaction, this Bill pursuing its way to another place. I do not rise to indulge in congratulation, or even self-congratulation, in this matter but merely to assure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of one thing: that is, that I believe nobody who has had judicial experience will challenge one word that he has said on the clause in regard to which he has betrayed, I think, a little anxiety as to what will happen in another place. Nobody who has had any judicial experience would quarrel with the view that it is not for the Judge but for the Minister ultimately to decide whether or not it is in the public interest that documents should be disclosed.
  His Majesty's judges undertake great responsibility, though matters of life and liberty will, of course, ultimately lie in the hands of the jury, subject to the Judges' directions and under their grave responsibility. Matters of honour and fortune are also the responsibility of His Majesty's judges. But I believe it would be putting upon them a wholly undue burden to suggest that it is for them to decide whether or not it is in the public interest that some document or other should or should not be disclosed. That is a matter on which they cannot be competent to decide, because they have not the knowledge. It is unfair to them to ask that they should undertake that burden, and it is not fair to the public that that burden should be discharged by someone who, ex hypothesi, has not

  933
  the knowledge adequately to discharge it. Therefore, I would assure the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—I speak for myself and, I believe, for every one what has had any judicial experience—that he is wholly right in adopting the policy which he has adopted in regard to this clause of the Bill. With regard to the rest of the Bill, it has the blessing of all those who are interested in this branch of the law.
  On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

PENICILLIN BILL. [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (The Earl Of Listowel): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Marley. After the noble Lord moved an Amendment to Clause 1 of this Bill in Committee I undertook to see whether I could meet his point by drafting before the Third Reading of the Bill was reached, another Amendment which was not subject to the same objection. I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord that I have done my best. With the help of my expert advisers from the Ministry of Health, and in consultation with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, both of whom were good enough to give this problem their personal attention, I have considered with the utmost care three alternative Amendments. I regret to inform the noble Lord that each of them, if included in the Bill, would create new difficulties, more serious than those which would be overcome. I am sure it would be pointless in this House to insist on introducing any Amendment into the Bill which would invite criticism in another place and probably be deleted. I shall now ask the Department to make a fresh effort to find a form of words to meet the noble Lord's point, and I can assure him that the Minister will give this matter his personal attention. If a suitable formula can be found, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will introduce as an
Amendment such a formula during the passage of the Bill through another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I am a little surprised at what the noble Lord just said. It seems to me rather a weak way of expressing the importance of your Lordships' House to suggest that it should be a deterrent on our part to move any Amendment or to express any opinion, because it might not be acceptable to another place. I rather gathered that there was a fear that if we did something the other place might take exception to it. I am prepared to move anything here if I believe in it, and to take a chance on what they do in another place. I am a little sorry that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, cannot be accepted. I have had experience of this particular drug. Two friends of mine have very nearly been killed by it, and only last week one of your Lordships told me that he had been treated with it and had suffered therefrom. When he asked the doctor who administered the drug about it, he was told "You are suffering from penicillin poisoning." He said: "Thank you very much. You administered it hoping that it would do me good. Look at the result." Of the two friends of mine whom I mentioned earlier, one very nearly died and the other is now in the process of recovering. I do not think the former will ever have the appearance lie had before.
That shows that this drug, though it admittedly does an immense amount of good, requires to be dealt with very carefully, and should be administered with the greatest care. It is no doubt a wonderful drug but it does not suit everybody. I congratulate the Government on the Bill, for I think it was very necessary that a Bill on this matter should be brought in. I hope it will restrict the use of the drug except in cases where it is administered by those who are thoroughly
qualified to prescribe it. I support the Bill, and I sincerely trust that its clauses will ensure that the greatest possible care is used in connexion with prescriptions where penicillin is necessary, and also in the administration of the drug by medical and other practitioners.
3.13 p.m.
Lord MARLEY: My Lords, may I be allowed to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for having given so much care and thought to the problem posed by me in the rather difficult Amendment which I put before your Lordships' House. I am a little worried about what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said, because, in a way, the cases to which he referred were in fact cases dealt with by qualified people. Therefore, it might conceivably be argued that unqualified people would make less of a mess of things than qualified people. However, this is a problem for members of the medical profession to deal with among themselves. I have no doubt that a number of technical articles in medical journals will help those qualified members of the medical profession who have not had experience of the extraordinary nature of developments of which penicillin is such an outstanding example. Meanwhile, I hope very much that the words of my noble friend Lord Teviot will be borne in mind during the passage of the Bill through another place. We here are not afraid of another place. We consider that, in many ways, revision by your Lordships of measures is a good thing. But this is a House of Lords' Bill, and therefore we want to send it down in as perfect a condition as possible. It is quite arguable that if a manuscript Amendment, inadequately considered, were included it might be found capable of improvement in another, even though less unhurried, legislative Chamber. I again thank the noble Earl for the care that he has taken.
On Question Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
3.16 p.m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Lord MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. As your Lordships will have observed, it is a somewhat formidable measure, and, as you will have also noticed, it contains no fewer than 382 clauses and fourteen schedules. It represents an important instalment of the work of consolidating and clarifying the Statute Law of Scotland. Some of your Lordships who have closer knowledge of local government, and in particular of local
936
government in Scotland, than I, will, I think, agree with me that the confusion and difficulty of understanding the existing law of local government in Scotland is somewhat notorious. When I tell your Lordships that this Bill repeals, in whole, 23 Acts of Parliament and, in part, a further 149 Acts of Parliament whose existence has extended over a period of 120 years, it will be appreciated that lengthy preparation has been necessary before the Bill has reached this House.
The real father of this Bill is the right honourable gentleman who was Secretary of State for Scotland ten years ago, Mr. Walter Elliot, who I am sure we were all glad to see was returned to another place recently, as representative of the Scottish Universities. In 1937, when he was Secretary of State, he appointed a Committee consisting of representatives of the Scottish local authority associations, the three main political Parties, and the Departments concerned. The chairman was Sir John Jeffrey, a former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The terms of reference of the Committee —I beg your Lordships' pardon I believe that the phrase in Scotland is not "terms of reference" but "terms of the remit"; the terms of the remit, therefore, were:
"To consider the consolidation of the local government and public health law in Scotland with such amendments as might be necessary to facilitate consolidation and to secure simplicity, uniformity and conciseness."
By July, 1939, the Committee had completed their Report and presented a draft Bill, but owing to the breaking out of the war a month or so later, these were not published until late in 1943. Copies of the published Bill and Report were sent to the local authority associations for their criticisms and for their constructive suggestions. The draft Bill was modified, in the light of criticisms and suggestions, and in October, 1946, a Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. Time did not permit of it being passed last Session, but its publication served the useful purpose of giving those concerned an opportunity of making further observations. I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships that, in its present form, this Bill may be regarded as being substantially agreed with the Scottish local authority associations. In view of the length of the Bill some of your Lordships may doubt whether it succeeds fully in securing simplicity and conciseness. I am hound to say, speaking personally,

937
that I share those doubts, and, apparently I am not alone in that, because I note that the Government have found it necessary, in order that this model of simplicity and conciseness should be fully understood, to publish with the Bill an Explanatory Memorandum of 121 pages. In fairness to all concerned I should point out that, as I have already said, twenty-three Acts of Parliament are entirely repealed, and 149 Acts of Parliament are partly repealed by the measure. So, on balance, I think we can all agree that at least some progress Yeas been made towards the difficult ideals of absolute simplicity and conciseness.
In these circumstances, your Lordships would not wish me to attempt a detailed examination of each of the 382 clauses or of the fourteen schedules. And I can assure your Lordships that I shall be quite content not to do so. The general scope and effect of the Bill can be briefly stated. Its object is consolidation—that is to say, to bring within the compass of a single Statute a mass of law now scattered up and down the Statute Book, much of which is over fifty years old. It deals broadly with the machinery of local government, including the constitution and election of county, town and district councils, and the appointment of officers, and it provides a framework of general powers which will be available to local authorities in the exercise of functions which they already possess or which they might obtain in the future.
Yet the Bill is not purely a consolidating measure. I am advised that if it had been entirely confined to consolidation it would have been of much greater length even than it is now, and that it would have been much less intelligible. Considering that much of the legislation dealt with has been on the Statute Book for over fifty years, and some of it for twice as long, your Lordships will appreciate the need for making the amendments which are made necessary by the march of time, and by the fact that language differs from decade to decade. The alternative of a purely consolidating measure would have been an even larger and less intelligible Bill, couched in very different language in its various sections, and making confusion worse confounded. As the Bill is not a purely consolidating measure, it cannot be referred to the Joint Consolidation Committee under the familiar procedure which applies to Con-
938
solidation Bills in Parliament. The Government therefore propose to invite both Houses of Parliament to concur in appointing a Joint Select Committee for the purpose of examining the Bill in detail, subject, of course, to your Lordships agreeing to the Second Reading this afternoon. In that event, I propose this evening to hand in a Motion, which will appear on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House to-morrow, that a Joint Committee be set up, and that the House in another place be invited to nominate members to serve on that Committee. The Government hope this Committee will be in a position to begin its task immediately after the Easter Recess, and that the time will suffice to enable the Bill to reach the Statute Book before the end of the present Session.
This Bill is entirely a non-Party measure. As I have already said, it was
initiated by the Right Honourable Walter Elliot ten years ago, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He was followed by Mr. Tom Johnston when he became Secretary of State, and it was continued by his successor the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. The Bill is now in the charge of the present Secretary of State. I am advised that, except on minor committee points, it is non-controversial, and it has been warmly welcomed by the Scottish Association of Local Authorities, and in the general and local government Press in Scotland, as a most valuable measure of legal codification. It does not aim to produce a new and perfect code of Local Government Law. As I have already said, it is aimed at the consolidation, simplification, and clarification of the existing law. The Explanatory Memorandum, to which I have already referred, shows clearly which of the clauses substantially reproduce the existing law and those in which some amendment has been proposed. If this Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will soon, it will be a notable example of present-day efforts to reform the Statute Book and to simplify the practice and procedure of the law. I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second Time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
The EARL of ROSEBERY: My Lords, I would like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on the way in which he has introduced this Bill.

939
It is the first important Bill (in fact I think the first Bill of any kind) that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has introduced into this House on behalf of Scotland. It augurs well for those of us from that country that someone has gone through this Bill not only with great care but also with considerable sympathy. As your Lordships know, sometimes we feel that those of us from north of the Border have not in the past received the consideration on these controversial subjects that we ought to have received, and it gives us more confidence that when in the future we have some more controversial Bills they will be dealt with for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison.
We have listened this afternoon to the Third Reading of the Crown Proceedings Bill and, if I may say so, we have had the most eloquent example of noble and learned Lords patting each other on the back that I have ever listened to on any subject. Let me hurriedly say, as a humble member of the public, that I am perfectly certain the noble and learned Lords were quite right to pat each other on the back. That goes without saying. Every Party in this country—Labour Conservative, and Liberal—can also pat themselves on the back on the introduction of what I might almost call this awful document. I do not say that we are all responsible for the 332 pages, nor would I like to make an affidavit that a member of every Party has even read every one of these 332 pages, but we are all responsible for the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, it was a Conservative Government which started the Bill, with Mr. Walter Elliot in charge, ten years ago. The English local government legislation was consolidated in 1933—fourteen years ago, but I do not, on this occasion, lay any stress on that. I do not consider this is another case of injustice to Scotland, because it was the war that prevented this Bill from being made law, as it would have been either in Mr. Walter Elliot's time, or Mr. Tom Johnston's time, or when I was Secretary of State for Scotland.
As one who has had some experience of Scottish administration, I welcome this Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration. For many years local authorities in Scotland have been pressing for the consolidation of the law relating to local government, and I am
940
quite sure they regard this Bill as a highly desirable and necessary step in that direction. This Bill, in the form in which it was drafted, was the result of eighteen months' steady work by the very representative Committee over which Sir John Jeffrey presided. Fortunately, the Committee's labours on the part of their remit which related to the general machinery of local government were completed before the outbreak of war in 1939. While it was not possible to proceed further with the draft Bill when it was published in 1943, it has since been very fully considered and discussed by the Association of Local Authorities. The Bill, as it is now introduced, is essentially the Committee's Bill, although, as a result of these discussions which have been held by the local authorities, there are a number of changes from its original form.
The present difficulties in the law relating to the various types of local authority, even though they are probably of a minor character, are a constant source of difficulty and even of irritation. The introduction of more uniformity will be of material assistance to all concerned. For instance, it will be a help to have certain provisions relating to local elections set out in full in one place, instead of being spread out over a number of Acts as at present. I would like to say a word of thanks to the permanent officials at St. Andrew's House, whose labours on this Bill for the last ten years must have been very considerable, and who must breathe a sigh of relief when the measure finally becomes law. And if, after careful examination by a Joint Select Committee, this Bill, as I hope, is approved by Parliament and finds its way on to the Statute Book, I can assure your Lordships that it will help not a little to oil the wheels of local administration.
3.31 p.m.
The EARL of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said—namely, that this Bill will be welcomed in Scotland, being, as it is, substantially agreed by all those immediately interested in local government. I feel sure that it will enormously simplify their tasks. Those persons are greatly indebted to the three or four Secretaries of State for Scotland who, one after the other, have pursued their labours or have encouraged their diligent staff in St. Andrew's House to do so. I should like to make just one comment. I do not

941
know if it is a reflection of the amount of work which a local authority has to do zhat this subject can be encompassed only in so large a space, but I do think that we have to-day to watch the effect of the enormous volume of local government work which is accruing, and has accrued, under the 1929 Act. It is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone who is not, shall I say, almost half-time employed on local government to play an active part. II think that whilst we have an opportunity we should bear in mind that, if possible, those duties should be lightened, so as to enable any citizen, regardless of his occupation, not to feel restricted from taking part in local affairs. Undoubtedly a number of citizens who are willing to come forward to-day cannot do so owing to the nature of their other duties.
There are in this Bill just two points to which I should like to refer specifically. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to consider, first of all, the question of the restriction of the rate for library expenses. That
matter is dealt with in Clause 'gr. The reason I bring up this question is that I am informed that at the present time the cost of running public libraries cannot be maintained on the existing rate, and the position will, in fact, deteriorate in the course of a year unless there is an amendment of that rate in
the immediate future. The restriction which is imposed in this Bill has been removed in England. It has, I understand, been removed in Glasgow, and I believe the .Secretary of State has in his possession a report, about ten years old, in which all local authorities were agreed that this restriction should be removed. I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider whether at a later stage of this Bill that restriction could not be removed.
There is one other point I should like to mention. Noble Lords will recollect that there was a Committee on Rating in Scotland some years ago which issued a report known as the Sorn Report. The Committee were not entirely unanimous bit a portion of that Committee were unanimous. In a non-controversial Bill of this nature it seems to me that it might have been possible to incorporate in it the non-controversial portion of that Rating Report. The reform of rating in Scotland is a matter of the greatest
942
urgency. I would not suggest that the incorporation of the agreed part would be a whole solution, but it would he a measure, and perhaps an important measure, towards the solution of what is at the present time art extremely difficult and major problem. With these few words I welcome the Bill, which I know will be a great simplification and aid for the local authorities.
3.35 p.m.
Lord SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like, in a few words, to associate myself with what my noble friends on this side have said in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on the way in which he has introduced this Bill, and also on having introduced it. I am sorry to have heard him say—as I think he said—that Statute law in Scotland is in very great confusion. If that is so—which I regret—all I can say is that he has added much strength to a point my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk often makes to me: that that is due to the Statutes that are made here, because the common law of Scotland, so far as I, a poor Victim, can express myself, is, I think, extremely clear, and wins natural assent from its victims.
I cannot help regretting that a Bill of this size should be introduced as mainly a consolidation measure. I do not know if it would have been possible, but I should certainly have preferred to see all new matters embodied in a short Bill, than that we should proceed under consolidation. One never quite knows where one is with a Bill of this size, a Bill which is mainly consolidation but which does introduce new matter. I give your Lordships one short example. Clause 197 (2) says that the auditors shall receive a salary to be "agreed upon between the authority and the auditor and approved by the Secretary of State or, failing such agreement or approval, shall be fixed by the Secretary of State." I understand that the approval of the Secretary of State in this connexion is a new matter, and it appears to make hint a party to, as well as being umpire in, the bargain. These little things are unfortunate. I am not suggesting it is not right, but, in so big a Bill, a little thing like that does lead to extra worry and work. Even if the Consolidation Bill had been much longer, it is not the length of the Bill, once it is understood, that matters, so long is the law is quite clear to those who have to

943
study it and have studied it. After all, these Bills are well indexed.
There are some matters which the Association of County Councils would have been glad to see included in the Bill. They were very anxious—if it had been in their power—to adopt the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act in certain sections which they are not able to do now and which would give them control of dance-halls in the country, and matters of that kind. They have also expressed the view that the opportunity provided by this Bill should have been taken—as it has not—to set up some procedure for enabling disputes as to the enlargement of burgh boundaries between the burgh and the county to be settled with less difficulty than is at present the case. They are also a little troubled about a change that is taking place in the accounts of county councils. They have told me that they do not like the change from the receipts and payments basis to the revenue and expenditure basis. I am not at this stage prepared to offer a personal opinion on these matters. I merely mention them to the noble Lord for his consideration.
In conclusion, I should like to pass on to him what a noble friend of mine, and an admirer of his, has suggested to me—namely, that a slight change should be made upon page 266: that the first two categories or compartments of Form F should be deleted from their present position and placed below the name of "Smith," in order to commemorate the fact that my noble friend himself has introduced the Bill, and to commemorate the fact that, from being a good Englishman, he has also become a good Scotsman.
The EARL of ROSBERY: He always was a Scot.
Lord SALTOUN: Well he sat for an English constituency. Anyway, I think we should commemorate the fact that he has introduced this Bill by putting his name at the head of that part.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should just like to give a brief word of welcome to a Bill in which I have had some interest in the years that have gone by. Many years ago it was my lot to be interested in elections north of the Border, and in particular in local govern-
944
ment elections. I had a very keen interest in the work of groups on local authorities. It is therefore pleasing to me that our Scottish friends should come so near to agreement in producing a Bill to consolidate the law. Perhaps in one direction those responsible have gone a shade too far, because I find that in the Second Schedule of the Bill there are matters dealing with elections. I am a member of a departmental committee who have almost finished their labours, and the work of that departmental committee has been to consolidate the whole electoral law of the country. Therefore, if this Bill goes through this Session, we may be called upon next Session to deal with electoral matters which will
lead to the amendment of this new Bill now introduced. Notwithstanding that, I hope that the Bill itself will finally reach the Statute Book.
Lord MORRISON: My Lords, I am afraid my first word must be somewhat heatedly to repudiate the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that I am a good Englishman. I certainly represented an English constituency for twenty years in another place, but that only shows what good-natured people they were to allow me to do so! As I think I mentioned in this House on a previous occasion, I made a very unfortunate mistake in my youth in leaving Scotland, and trouble has followed me ever since. But it is too late now to undo that, and I am doing my best to make amends, after all these years, by applying myself to trying to understand the Scottish law, particularly that of local government.
Lord SALTOUN: I apologize unreservedly.
Lord MORRISON: I am grateful to noble Lords for the way in which they have received what the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has described as "this awful document." The discussion has proved conclusively that this is not a Party Bill, and it may be all the better for the fact that it is not. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, that we owe a great debt to the officials. It is very easy for us in this House to laugh at the enormous size of the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum, but they represent a vast amount of work that must have taken a great deal of time. The noble Earl, Lord

945
Selkirk, asked me a question about libraries. The answer is that the whole question of libraries is being considered at this moment by the Advisory Council on Education, and any amendment of the law will have to await that Council's report.
Another question which the noble Earl asked me was in regard to rating. The main proposals of the Committee were controversial and could not be included in this Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that he does not propose to legislate on the lines of the Committee's Report referred to by the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, wanted to know why it was not
possible to have consolidation alone, without amendments. I thought I explained that I have been advised that if consolidation alone had been undertaken the Bill would have been much longer, not nearly so useful and much less intelligible, than it is at the present time—due largely to the fact that some of the legislation dealt with goes back 120 years, and language differs from age to age. At the same time, if there had been a Bill setting out the amendments only, I am advised that it would have been very long and almost incomprehensible.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I was trying to say was that I was sorry that we could not have a short Bill to make the changes in the law proposed here, and then to proceed to a consolidation Bill afterwards.
LORD MORRISON: According to my advice, it is necessary to go the other way round—to have this long Bill first, and then the way is clear for further action. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised a question about auditors' fees. These are subject to approval under the present law. The noble Lord also raised the question of the power of county councils to adopt the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. I am informed that this would not be appropriate to this Bill, because it does
946
not deal with the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act at all. Some of the other points that have been raised, including the point raised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, are Committee points which will no doubt be raised in due course. As has been said, this is the first opportunity I have had of moving the Second Reading of a Bill. I have nothing of which to complain in the way in which it has been received: on the contrary, I am grateful to your Lordships for the way in which you have received this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

REMEDY AGAINST THE CROWN AS OCCUPIER BILL. [H.L.]
Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT,1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

County Borough of Barnsley;

Urban District of Northwich;

Urban District of Ware;

Rural District of Whitby:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned on Friday last and praying leave to stand adjourned sine die for the convenience of Parties: read, and leave given accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock.

SMALL SAVINGS.
The following is the Table referred to by Lord Ammon on March 25 [OFFICIAL to

NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE. GROSS AND NET SAVINGS: QUARTERLY STATEMENT.

—

Purchases and Deposits £ million.

Encashments and Withdrawals £ million

April-June

July-September (revised).

October-December (provisional)

April-June

July-September (revised).

October-December (provisional)

National Savings Certificates

35·5

32·8

42·4

37·9

32·2

33·0

Defence Bonds

103·5

23·2

36·2

7·7

9·7

10·2

Post Office Savings Bank

113·6

121·7

112·3

108·0

104·7

105·2

Trustee Savings Banks

61·5

62·0

69·1

52·5

49·1

55·1

Totals

314·1

239·7

260·0

206·1

195·7

203·5

The following are estimates of accrued interest:

—

April-June.

July-September.

October-December.

National Savings Certificates

…

…

…

13

14

15

Post Office Savings Bank …

…

…

…

10

11

11

Trustee Savings Banks …

…

…

…

4

4

4

Totals

…

…

…

27

29

30

Notes:

(1) The figures for encashments of Savings Certificates represent principal only. Accumulated interest on the holdings repaid amounted to £6 million in the April-June quarter, £5 million in the July-September quarter, and £6 million in the October-December quarter.

(2) The figures for the Post Office Savings Bank exclude Services Release Benefits Accounts.

(3) The figures for Defence Bonds encashments exclude £8·3 million repaid on maturity in the October-December quarter.

(4) As regards Savings Certificates the figures of accrued interest represent the increase in each quarter in the estimated amount of the interest due on Savings Certificates remaining invested. As regards the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, the figures represent the estimated interest due on the outstanding balances at the end of each month, interest on the balances in Services Release Benefits Accounts being deducted.

REPORT: Vol. 146, No. 50] in his reply to a question by Lord Hawke: