Lords Sitting of 11 November 1947

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

  STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Stornoway Harbour, and to move that it be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY WIDOWS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Merchant Company Widows' Fund, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.

AGRICULTURAL HOUSES.
THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are the means of deciding the rent to be paid for houses built by, local authorities and on which the agricultural subsidy is being paid.]
LORD HENDERSON: Under the Housing Act of 1936, local authorities are empowered to make such reasonable charges for the tenancy or occupation of their houses as they may determine, provided that they take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality. These provisions apply to houses in respect of which the special standard subsidy is paid as to other local authority houses.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY AND COUNTY OF LICHFIELD ORDER;
BOROUGH OF FALMOUTH ORDER;
BOROUGH OF HARWICH ORDER;
BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF AXMINSTER ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MANDATED AND TRUST TERRITORIES BILL. [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, this Bill is technical and legal but it is of a formal nature. It is intended to make in our Statute Book the amendments rendered necessary by the creation of trust territories under the United Nations in place of Mandated Territories under the League of Nations. It would be of interest to your Lordships to know that of the Mandates set up by the League ten are now administered as trust territories under the Charter of the United

549
Nations. They are, firstly, British Togoland and Cameroons and Tanganyika which are now administered under United Kingdom trusteeship; New Guinea now under Australian trusteeship; Western Samoa now under New Zealand trusteeship; French Togoland and Cameroons now under French trusteeship; and Ruanda-Urundi under Belgian trusteeship. In none of these cases did the placing of the territories under trusteeship involve any change in the administering authority. In other words, the State now responsible for the trusteeship is the same State as formerly exercised the Mandate.
While there was no change in the administering authority in the territories to which I have just referred, there was a change in the case of the former Japanese Mandates in the Pacific. These are now under United States trusteeship. There has also been a slight change in the case of Nauru Island. The Mandate for Nauru was conferred by the League on "His Britannic Majesty." In practice the administration was carried out by Australia in agreement with the Governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The trusteeship agreement approved two weeks ago by the General Assembly of the United Nations designates the Governments of Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand as the joint authority for the administration of Nauru, but it also provides for the actual administration to be carried out by Australia unless otherwise agreed by these three Governments. Of the other Mandates set up by the League of Nations, three have become four independent States—namely, Iraq, Syria, the Lebanon and Transjordan. The only other two Mandates established by the League were Palestine and South-West Africa, and these are still administered in accordance with the Mandate.
The International Trusteeship System set up by the Charter of the United Nations provides for the administration of trust territories by a single member of the United Nations; by two or more members jointly; or by the United Nations as a whole. Article 77 of the Charter also provides that the territories which may be placed under trusteeship need not be limited to the former Mandates. As a result of these changes, it has been necessary to examine their effect on our Statute Book. There are numerous Acts of Par-
550
liament which apply or refer to mandated territories. There are references to Mandates exercised by His Majesty without specifying which of His Governments—to United Kingdom Mandates; to Dominion Mandates and to foreign Mandates. They occur in a number of Acts dealing with a great variety of subjects, for instance, Colonial development, air navigation, the Army Act, Customs and so on. In many cases an Act passed for the United Kingdom contains a clause authorizing the extension of the Act by an Order in Council to a territory under United Kingdom Mandate in the same way as to a Colony. It may be said broadly that the purpose of the reference in existing Acts is to put mandated territories in the same position as other dependencies of the country (whether British or foreign) exercising the Mandate.
When the League of Nations came to an end, the Mandatory Powers declared their intention to continue for the time being administering mandated territories in accordance with the Mandates. But it cannot be said to be certain, as a matter of interpretation of our Statutes, that the references in them to mandated territories continue to apply, even to a, mandated territory not placed under trusteeship; for example, Palestine. It is much more difficult to say that these references apply to a mandated territory which has been placed under trusteeship. For these reasons we must amend our Statutes. The main purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to provide that existing enactments referring to mandated territories shall apply to those territories which have become trust territories. Where mandated territories have not become trust territories but continue to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Mandate, the Bill provides that existing enactments shall continue to apply to them. The Bill does not provide for any change in our Statutes unless there is a change in the Government responsible for administering the territory.
Briefly, the details of the Bill are as follows. The first thing it does, by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1, is to put a trust territory administered by a single State in the same position as far as the application of our Statutes is concerned as if the State was administering it under mandate. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 gives power to adapt our Statutes where there is a change in the State re-

551
sponsible for administering a trust territory. There has been a change in the case of the Japanese Mandates; these territories, as I have already mentioned, are now under United States trusteeship. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 simply provides that references in Acts of Parliament to "mandated territories" shall not be affected by the termination of the League of Nations. Its main application is to Palestine and to South-West Africa. Therefore, this subsection will apply for the interpretation of future as well as past Acts, since it may well be convenient to continue to refer to Palestine and South-West Africa as "mandated territories." The subsection also covers retrospectively the interim period between the termination of the League and the placing of the various trust territories under trusteeship. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 provides that the Bill shall operate to a limited extent on subordinate legislation as well as on the Statutes themselves. This is to avoid having to make amending regulations and so on, on the lines of the Bill in every case. The remaining provisions of the Bill are supplemental.
To sum up, the object of the Bill is to change the designation of "mandated territories" to "trust territories," but in the case of those which have not become trust territories to preserve its validity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, if I may say a few words now, this is a Bill which relates to some very very complex provisions. I confess that, when I read it, I was left somewhat in the dark as to its real intention and object. A flood of light has been thrown on that matter by the opening remarks of the noble Viscount who has introduced the measure; it is much clearer now to me and, I hope, to other members of this House. On the other hand, I must confess that, if I am now no longer in doubt as to the object of the Bill, I still have certain doubts as to whether some clauses in the Bill are so exprossed as to carry out precisely that object. There will be opportunities, with the assistance of the noble Lords opposite, of considering any slight Amendments which may be useful. Subject to that,
552
I certainly commend the Second Reading of the Bill.
2.44 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has explained very lucidly the purpose of this Bill. I think I can assure the noble Lord at once that the dangerously obstructive propensities which, as noble Lords are aware, are being attributed to this side of the House, are not likely to be exercised with regard to it. I say that with more emphasis because, inasmuch as this Bill originates in this House, it is not governed by the Parliament Act of 1911.
The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has expressed certain doubt as to whether some of the phraseology carries out the purpose of the Bill. I, like the noble Viscount, have some slight doubts, too, and I think they are probably best reserved to a later stage. But may I mention two of them now. They are these: In the first place, in subsection (2) of Clause 1, a power is taken actually to amend an enactment by an Order in Council. Orders in Council, of course, frequently take powers to interpret in that way, but I was not aware that power actually to amend the language of a measure had been taken in that way. I should be interested if I could have a little further enlightenment upon that point. It is understood, of course, that such amendments would be for transitional or consequential purposes, as laid down in the Bill, but "transitional" is a word of very doubtful meaning. It might be that, under the language of this Bill, where the control of territory passes from one Dominion to another or from a Dominion to this country, there would be an opportunity of altering completely by Order in Council some enactment referring to it. I should like to have further light thrown on that because I think it is important that such points should be watched by Parliament.
Secondly, I feel some doubt with regard to subsection (3) of the same clause. The noble Viscount, I think, said that it referred only to Palestine and South-West Africa. Its application to Palestine, of course, is very natural, but I am perplexed as to how this Parliament has any responsibility whatever for Bills or Acts dealing with South-West Africa. I understood that that was entirely a South-African affair, and why this Parliament

553
is invoked to say anything whatever about South-West Africa, I really do not understand. Perhaps the noble Viscount would enlighten me on that matter.
Germane to the Bill, although not actually covered by it, is one other consideration about which I should like to say a word. There have been suggestions at Lake Success, at the meetings of the Assembly, that the other Colonial territories belonging to the British Empire should now all become trustee territories. I hasten to say from this side of the House that we entirely and whole-heartedly endorse the attitude taken up in regard to that subject by the Colonial Secretary at Lake Success. We have taken the lead in putting mandated territories under trust, but I hope that there is No 1ntention whatever of proceeding to tamper with the structure of the rest of the British Empire. With those observations, I think I can fairly say that we on this side of the House regard this as a timely Bill. Subject to some small Amendments which may be necessary, it will have our support.
2.48.p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the noble Viscount moving the Second Reading described this Bill as a highly legal and technical Bill. I confess that I read it with great care two or three times. I do think that I know a little about the mandate trustee system, but I failed to understand really what the Bill was meant to effect. Now that the noble Viscount has given an explanation, it seems to me clearer. We agree in principle with what is proposed in the Bill. We should like, however, to reserve our rights to make any Amendments necessary at a later stage.
2.49.p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I can but express my thanks to the noble Lords for being so generous to myself in relation to the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a highly technical Bill, and with regard to the points which have been put by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, I should be quite happy to arrange for the noble Viscount to meet some of the legal members of the Department and satisfy himself upon the points which he mentioned. The same thing can be said to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. With regard to the last point which the noble Lord put, I can
554
assure him that the Secretary of State for the Colonies did express the definite opinion of His Majesty's Government in relation to any suggestion about the transfer of any Colonial Dependencies to the trusteeship system. There is no doubt at all about that decision.
2.50 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, could the noble Viscount say one word about Soyth-West Africa, because it seems to me very mysterious that that Mandate should come into any Bill before this Parliament. I was on the original Mandates Commission. Consequently I was often at the Colonial Office, and subsequently I became British High Commissioner in South Africa. On nothing is the Union of South Africa more sensitive than the fact that from the beginning the Mandate for South-West Africa was given by the principal Allied and Associated Powers, and confirmed by the League of Nations, to the Union of South Africa alone, and not to the British Commonwealth or Empire; and this country has nothing to do with it. One knows, too, their strong feelings on this matter. There is still a very large German population there—a population which, before the war and in the days of Hitler, Germany having joined the League of Nations, made it clear that they were German citizens and subject to the German Reich and all that that meant vis-à -vis the Union of South Africa—and there is a German majority still in their principal port. Before we include a reference to that Mandate in any Statute of this Parliament, I should like to be assured that the Government of the Union of South Africa, who have been placed in an intolerable position, have been consulted and are agreeable to it.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I think there must be some misunderstanding and I do hope that it has not arisen as the result of anything which I have said. It is quite true that this Mandate was granted entirely and absolutely to South Africa.
This Bill will provide that in the event of any Statute in relation to ourselves and South Africa making any mention of mandated territory, the designation could be changed if necessary in the event of a trusteeship applying to South-West Africa. A United Kingdom Act may also apply to the trusteeship terri-

555
tories of which the United States of America have been given the trust. There might be some reference in the Statutes—I think there is in one or two cases—to Japanese mandated territory, and there must be a change from Japanese mandated territory to United States trust territory. I think the proposal is on those lines, but I will certainly consult my legal advisers and will write to the noble Lord in relation to this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND PHARMACISTS BILL. [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in the explanatory memorandum accompanying this Bill its object was described as to dispose finally of the various wartime problems associated with the admission to the British Medical Register of doctors not possessing British qualifications. This is a good general description of its primary purpose. It deals also with pharmacists qualified abroad. In the years before the war the refugees from countries on the Continent of Europe who came here to escape Nazi oppression included, as one would expect, a considerable number of doctors. Many of these have been able to acquire British qualifications and thus obtain admission to the British Medical Register. With these the Bill is not concerned. Those of them who have also been naturalized are as free to practise here as their British-born colleagues. Except that they may be precluded from practising in certain areas, those who have not acquired British nationality have also the same freedom.
The Bill is concerned with doctors who do not possess British qualifications. It is many years since Parliament considered the position of such doctors. It was in the Medical Act of 1886 that it was laid down that admission to the Medical Register of doctors holding only diplomas obtained abroad should be conditional upon the existence of reciprocal arrangements under which similar facilities were
556
granted by the country in which the practitioner qualified. Insistence upon reciprocity was no doubt designed to safeguard the interests of the medical profession in this country, but in effect it meant that few foreign doctors were able to gain admission to our Register on the strength of their foreign diplomas. The only foreign countries with which reciprocal arrangements were ever made were Belgium, Italy and Japan, and these were cancelled respectively in 1920, 1940 and 1942. The position is different with regard to doctors who have qualified in the Dominions and other Commonwealth territories, where reciprocal arrangements exist in many cases.
This was the legal position which faced us when the war came and doctors from all parts of the world were finding their way to this country. It would have been folly to waste these resources in medical man-power and it was soon realized that some temporary amendment of the law was called for. The amendment was effected in July, 1940, by Defence Regulation 32B, which gave powers to the General Medical Council to register practitioners qualified to practise outside the United Kingdom in territories to be specified by Order. Under successive Orders the arrangements became geographically of very wide application, and by the time temporary registration ceased nationals of as many as twenty-six foreign countries had been temporarily registered by virtue of foreign diplomas.
To ensure that the services of foreign doctors should be made available where they were most needed, the Orders made registration conditional upon the practitioner taking specified kinds of employment—namely, service with British or Allied Forces, employment in approved hospitals and institutions or other approved services and as assistants in general practice. Independent practice was not permitted—this could not have been justified when so many of our own doctors were absent on military service and it would also have been doubtful wisdom to allow foreign doctors, unfamiliar with our standards and methods and about whose professional conduct nothing could be known, to practise free from any form of supervision. The help we got from these doctors was substantial. A large proportion served with His Majesty's Forces or those of the Allies,

557
and many gave valuable service in hospitals, the public health services of local authorities and as assistants in general practice. In all these fields we were severely depleted by withdrawals for our Forces, and our plight would have been much worse without these doctors who included many men of high professional distinction.
When the various emergency measures came tinder review at the end of 1945 we had to decide what to do about these temporary registration arrangements. The decision, embodied in the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, was that there should be no further grant of temporary registration after February, 1946, but doctors already registered should remain so until the end of 1947. We now have to decide what is to happen after that. In the Government's opinion, we cannot, in fairness, say to these people that if they stay here they cannot remain on the British Medical Register. So it is proposed in this Bill to make it possible for those remaining in this country who have given good service, whether in the Forces or in civilian life, to secure permanent registration. That is the major purpose of the Bill.
It contains, also, provisions with regard to certain doctors not holding British diplomas who are not at present on the temporary register (I will refer to them later), but those already temporarily registered are numerically much the largest group. When temporary registration ceased there were about 3,500 on the register. This figure included many American and Canadian doctors who came here with their Forces. Of the others, Germans, Austrians, Poles and Czechs are the largest individual categories. Most of the temporarily registered doctors have returned to their own countries and it is estimated that not more than 1,500 to 2,000 will be here to avail themselves of the Bill. It may be much less. Among them will be a number of Polish doctors who have come to this country under the Government's Polish resettlement scheme. As temporary registration under the old provisions had ceased by the time they arrived, special provision had to be made in the Polish Resettlement Act for their registration by the General Medical Council. The registration under that Act is temporary, too, being due to cease also at the end of 1947, and the position of these Polish
558
doctors after that has also to be settled in this Bill.
Apart from doctors already on the temporary register, the Bill makes provision for certain other groups who are at present not registered at all. The first group consists of foreign doctors who have served overseas in our Forces and who have now been permitted to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. They were commissioned overseas and as they were serving abroad there was no occasion for their registration in this country. These are men who have given us useful war service and, having allowed them to settle here, we cannot equitably refuse them permission to practise their profession. The other group comprises doctors who have been allowed to enter or stay here owing to war circumstances, and have hitherto been unable to secure registration on the strength of their foreign diplomas. Some of them have been in the country some time but were ineligible for temporary registration because they were not employed in any of the various forms of medical work specified in the Temporary Registration Orders. They may nevertheless have given the country useful service in medical research or otherwise. Some may have arrived since temporary registration ceased. In this group will also be graduates of the Polish School of Medicine, Edinburgh, who in the absence of some provision in this Hill would be ineligible for permanent registration.
The doctors in this group differ from those in the other categories covered by the Bill in that we shall know nothing of their work in ordinary medical practice. It is proposed that their registration should be provisional, in the first instance; and during this provisional period they will be required to work in hospitals and other institutions where they will be under supervision, so that we shall be able to get useful reports on their work to enable the General Medical Council to judge of their suitability for permanent registration. We propose to limit the operation of this provision to doctors who were in the country when the Bill was introduced. The Bill is meant primarily to clear up the aftermath of war and, with that in mind, I think we have gone as far as we reasonably can, if we make this provision available only to doctors already in the country. No one could say that either in the Bill or in

559
our war-time measures we have treated foreign doctors ungenerously, but, except in one limited respect to which I will refer in a moment, this Bill does not attempt to make any permanent change in the law, and, that being so, we must obviously put some limit to the relaxation of the ordinary procedure. The Government think that the line drawn in the Bill is a reasonable one. Any question of permanently modifying the present law, which makes the registration of foreign doctors dependent on reciprocity, would be beyond the present intention of this Bill.
The one provision in Part I of the Bill which will be permanent is Clause 8. The purpose of that Clause 1s not self-evident. Its intention is to regularize the position of doctors from abroad who visit this country for limited periods for the purpose of doing professional work in hospitals, normally teaching hospitals, either as teachers or as post-graduate students. Eminent doctors from abroad have long been welcomed by teaching hospitals in this country because of the advantage of personal demonstrations by them of their special skill in their particular field of medicine, surgery or midwifery. Many of these visitors are not eligible for registration under the Act of 1886. Technically it is a professional offence for a registered practitioner to co-operate in professional work with an unregistered person, and it is obviously undesirable that there should be any doubt as to the propriety of cooperating with one of these distinguished visitors. These practitioners are also at present subject to the professional disabilities applying to unregistered persons—among them inability to give statutory certificates and to possess or supply dangerous drugs.
A second group who will be covered by this clause are doctors qualified abroad who come to this country to continue their professional education in temporary appointments at hospitals, usually teaching hospitals. Some of those coming from Commonwealth and Empire territories outside the British Isles may not be registered because the countries in which they qualified are not covered by reciprocal arrangements. The desirable practice of exchanging doctors with the Dominions, to the advantage of post-graduate education on both sides, is made difficult by the
560
absence of registration. It is quite true that these things have gone on in the past but, even if no legal difficulties have arisen, the risk has been there and we think it should be removed, especially as in the near future hospitals will become a State responsibility and it is clearly desirable that there should be no question about the legal position of doctors coming here for the purposes I have mentioned. The registration under this provision will be temporary, for the duration of the appointment, and will apply only in respect of the appointment. The General Medical Council are the authority responsible for medical registration and the Bill gives them the necessary powers in regard to the doctors concerned. The Council are the guardians of the standards of medical education in this country, and we can safely leave to them the task, which may be by no means an easy one, of assessing the value of the great variety of medical diplomas held by applicants under the Bill.
In Part II of the Bill we are proposing, with the blessing and indeed at the request of representatives of the pharmaceutical profession, a change in the law as to the registration of pharmacists holding qualifications obtained abroad. In making this change we are at the same time providing for those foreign qualified pharmacists who obtained temporary registration under the Defence Regulations in the same way as the temporarily registered doctors. In their case also, under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, temporary registration is due to cease at the end of 1947. The change proposed is in the form of a provision enabling the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, under by-laws (which are subject to the approval of the Privy Council), to register any pharmacist holding a qualification obtained outside the United Kingdom with or without examination and with or without training in this country as they think proper. This supersedes the present provision in the Pharmacy Act, 1908, which enables the Council to register only Colonial pharmacists on the strength of their Colonial diplomas—and that without any examination.
The Bill was introduced in August in another place so that members and outside organizations and persons interested should have time to study it and offer any

561
criticisms before it came to be discussed. The Department has heard little in the way of criticism except on points of detail, and where it appeared desirable the necessary amendments have been made in the revised draft of the Bill. I am hopeful that this will be regarded as a non-controversial measure, doing justice to the individuals who will benefit by it, and of advantage to the country in the addition it makes to our resources in medical man-power. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, if I may ask the noble Lord a question, can he say whether there is any sensible or substantial differences in the diploma qualifications of medical men and pharmacists so far as the Dominions and foreign countries are concerned?
LORD HENDERSON: I am sorry I cannot answer that without notice. That is a matter to be decided by the appropriate councils; on the one hand, by the General Medical Council and on the other by the Pharmaceutical Committee.
3.13 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, I welcome this Bill. I welcome it because it is a good Bill and also, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, for the timing of its introduction. I am given to understand that the fate of this House is being discussed in another place, and I read in Hansard some comments made upon us there yesterday. Certain things were said about us as a revising Chamber, some complimentary and some not so complimentary, it is clear to me that the Government are attacking our powers and many of their supporters would like to get rid of us altogether. When all this is happening not so far down the corridor, it can only be gratifying to members of your Lordships' House to find that three measures have been introduced into this House before going to another place. It is our duty, therefore, to scrutinize these measures carefully, because if we look back over the last two years, we find that very few of our Amendments to Bills have come back to us from another place, compared with the number of Amendments which they have been good enough to accept at our hands.
562
Coming to the Bill itself, I welcome it because, as the noble Lord said, it does give justice to men who have been of considerable assistance to us in the medical services during our difficult years. I remember well that in the days when the demands for medical officers for the Forces were "colossal," to use the only word that applies, and the number of doctors for our civilian population was being cut down, it always seemed odd to me that we needed many more doctors per head to look after the fit young men passed into the Services than for the older people and the children in civilian life. It was different, of course, when the men went into battle areas where there were high casualty rates, but some of us could not understand why it was necessary at a time when most of the Army was in these islands. Be that as it may, the doctors who came to us from abroad, whether they came from Germany and Nazism or with the Polish Forces or from other parts of Europe, were of the greatest assistance to us. I do not know that we are doing this only out of fairness to them, because I believe that we are not overflush with doctors in this country at the present time, and we welcome the continuation of the medical care and treatment that these men are giving.
As I understand it, Clause 2 gives permanent registration to medical practitioners who are already on the temporary register. That is how it is described in the Explanatory Memorandum. I would like to ask the noble Lord, who has as usual introduced this Bill with great care and courtesy, how that squares with subsection (5) of Clause 1, which says that this direction to put them on the register ' shall not be given except in the case of a person who is resident in the United Kingdom otherwise than for a temporary purpose." I should like the noble Lord at some stage in the discussion to say why it is necessary to have that subsection at all. If there is provision, as it says in the Memorandum, to put practitioners on the permanent register, it does not seem to me much good if you are going to put on only those temporarily in this country, which is the principle of Clause 1 (5). I may be wrong, but perhaps the wording might be looked at, since it might convey that impression to others than myself. I think that comment applies not only to those

563
dealt with under Clause 2, because Clause 1 is the governing clause.
Another comment I would make is on Clause 3, dealing with persons who have served in a medical capacity in His Majesty's Forces overseas. When one looks at the definition of "medical capacity," one finds that "'medical capacity' means 'the capacity of a practitioner of medicine, surgery, or midwifery'." I am not at all sure that these words do not want looking at, although, of course, one can read them in conjunction with Clause 9 (2). Then we come to Clause 4. I know that considerable satisfaction is felt in the medical profession at the alteration which the Government have made, since the Bill was first introduced, by putting in the date as before August 4, 1947. They know that they are dealing with people who will not rush over, after the introduction of the Bill, to get into this category, but with people who are already here and with whom we want to deal. In regard to all those categories of persons, if I may say so, I think the provisions are quite right.
When I come to Clause 8, I approve even more, because I think it is highly important that where we get these extremely able and eminent men over here—there are some in this country at the present time; there is one working at Guy's Hospital who comes from the United States—we should do everything possible to welcome them, and not leave the least impression that anybody who works with them is being unprofessional. I wonder myself whether in Clause 8, as in Clause 4 (2), we ought not to have the words "in a medical capacity in a hospital," and then to add "or other institution for the time being approved." The noble Lord will see my point. Some of these people may be working in institutions which are not technically hospitals, and if you insert the words in one clause of a Bill it is important not to leave them out in the other. Although "hospital" might have a wide context if these other institutions were not mentioned in the clause, it has a narrow context seeing that they are mentioned, and quite properly, in Clause 4. Here I may say that I think it is a very wise provision to require that people who go on a professional register should be in some hospital or institution, where you can get reports on them and
564
the General Medical Council can investigate before they put them on to the permanent registry.
The only other point I would make is this. I welcome equally, the position as to the pharmacists. There, it is true, it is done in rather a different way, but pharmacists are people we should welcome equally with the doctors. In fact, we really ought to welcome those who have been doing this work for us for the work they have already done. I notice, however, that in all references to doctors, quite properly, we insist that the General Medical Council shall be of the opinion that they are men of good character. There is nothing of that sort with regard to the pharmacists. From my own personal point of view, I must say that I should like a man who has such extensive dealings with poisons necessarily to be equally a man of good character. Perhaps we shall see that there is provision so that the Pharmaceutical Society can look into the characters of these men, as under these provisions they look into their qualifications.
Those are not really points for this stage of the Bill, but it is often convenient on Second Reading to indicate matters that may come up when the Bill comes before us in Committee. As I say, we welcome this Bill, It is, as the noble Lord said, giving a fair deal to men who helped us in the critical times of great shortage of medical staff, and it is also helping the health services of this country by putting them on our register and keeping them here to do the good work which they have done in the past.
3.26 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I would also like to say a few words in regard to this Bill. I remember a bitter experience which I once had when I was at the Colonial Office of being asked to preside, and in fact presiding, at an International Conference in Paris to deal with the tsetse problem in Africa. We there had entomologists and doctors from all the Colonial Powers in Africa. We were faced with the position that the Belgian doctor, under the old reciprocal arrangements, could come and give us a hand in the British territories, and we could help the Belgian doctor in his territory, but the French and the Portuguese were unable to assist. As a matter of fact, the Portuguese gentleman was one of the most eminent

565
men in that field of research, with very wide experience in Africa. Equally with our hosts, the French, there were no reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of qualifications and degrees. However, we let it pass, and we had a very useful Conference.
The other experience I would like to mention in connexion with this Bill is that when I went to South Africa in the war I found practising in Swaziland, under one of the special temporary licences granted during the war, a very eminent Viennese physician. Having been in a very high position in the Vienna University, he had once in his life personally attended Dr. Dollfuss, which meant that he had to fly for his life from the Nazis. As there were no reciprocal arrangements with Austria for their degrees and qualifications to be recognized by us, he was not allowed to practise in South Africa. However, when the war came along he was allowed to practise in British territory under the wartime registration, and he had a huge clientele which visited him in Swaziland, where he was allowed to practise, from the Union of South Africa.
Why is this a good Bill? Because it is seeking to break down this idea that all the doctors from one country shall be recognized and allowed to practise in this country, and that none of the doctors from certain other countries shall be recognized. The mutual recognition ought to be personal. Certainly in this country—and I hope it will in others—it should depend on whether a man is properly qualified. Is it not ridiculous that the great Vienna School of Medicine was not recognized, and that every Japanese doctor, including any little quack from Nagasaki, should be recognized because he was a Japanese? Really the state of the law before the war was quite ridiculous, and the war broke it down. I hope to see the day come when there will be more interchange of medical experience, medical research workers, and medical practice between all countries in the world. Therefore, in so far as this is a new principle in that direction, I welcome it.
Really, to think that all Italians, Belgians and Japanese could practise in this country, and that nobody from the great Viennese School of Medicine was allowed to practise here, was ridiculous. That
566
was the law before the war and it is being broken down. I hope it will be further broken down and that the mutual arrangement and permissibility of practice shall be personal in the individual case. That is the only safe way and the only right way in which to administer this international interchange of men whom we and all countries want for the advancement of human health and happiness and the cure and conquest of disease.
3.31 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I have one comment to add to what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Lord who has just spoken. I welcome this Bill most warmly, and not least I welcome the provision which deals with doctors and pharmacists from the Dominions. I is in regard to this provision that I would say just one word. It is only a matter of terminology, but it is an important matter of terminology. If the noble Lord who introduced the Bill will look at Clause 8 (1) at the bottom of page 5, he will see that those who are to be given temporary recognition in this country must hold either a Colonial or a foreign diploma. Subsection (3) of the same clause lays down that they are to be registered as Colonial or foreign practitioners. It may be that in the opinion of our Parliamentary draftsmen the words "Colonial" and "foreign" cover the Dominions. They are covered by the Statute of Westminster, but all I can say is that it is an improper description and it is high time that it was altered. I can quite conceive a sensitive person from any of the Dominions feeling very great resentment in finding that he has to qualify either as a Colonial or a foreign practitioner, and that the existence of such a thing as a Dominion is apparently not recognized in Bills passed through this Parliament at the end of 1947. I ask the noble Lord to look into that. It applies also to pharmacists, and although probably the terminology is correct I think it is improper, and I hope the noble Lord will amend it.
3.33 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which your Lordships have given to this Bill this afternoon. A number of points have been raised, which the noble Lord, Lord

567
Llewellin, quite rightly said are points for Committee, and I will have them looked into. There are two, however, to which I would refer at this moment. They are with regard to subsection (5) of Clause 1. I must confess that I myself had difficulty in reading this subsection when I first came to the Bill. In point of fact I read into it the very reverse of the meaning given to it by the noble Lord. It seems to have a good deal of unnecessary language but it refers to people who are to be permanently in this country. In view of the difficulty both he and I had of understanding the language I will see whether it is necessary to have it in this particular form or whether it cannot be better drafted.
As regards the word "Colonial," I particularly noted that and I had grave doubts about it. I may be wrong, but I think it is used in the sense of meaning people coming from Colonial territories and not from the Dominions. With the Dominions we have reciprocal arrangements and, therefore, they are covered apart from the Bill. In any case any such disagreeable terminology should be removed, and I will see that it is dealt with. If I may leave it there I will see that the points are looked into.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask whether during the Committee stage the noble Lord will arm himself with such information as will enable him to give information about the position of British doctors in any particular foreign country? There are British communities abroad all over the world who like to be treated by their own doctors and they are prepared to pay for it. But in many cases I understand that the rules and regulations are such as to make that virtually impossible. We are altering our rules and regulations and perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared on Committee stage to answer any questions about individual countries.
LORD HENDERSON: I will certainly do my best to come prepared to cover all the countries in the world. I think it would be better, if the noble Lord has one or two countries in mind, that I should get the precise details of those countries. It is rather a large request for me to bring data about every country.
LORD HAWKE: I had in mind the countries in the Far East which have British communities.
LORD HARLECH: So far as I can recollect, the only British doctor who practised in Oporto was not allowed to go on practising there because we refused to recognize any Portuguese qualification.
LORD HENDERSON: I will look into that.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
3.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, this Bill has been called a hardy annual, but strict botanists might claim that it is a hardy perennial, because it has been coming up in the Parish of Westminster for many years with great regularity every autumn! I do not propose to go into the ten enactments which are scheduled to this Bill. Most of them, except perhaps the first, the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, have arisen from war circumstances. It is considered very desirable, however, that they should continue for another year. Those in Part I and Part III of the Schedule will be continued—if your Lordships agree—until December 31, 1948, and the enactment in Part II until March 31, 1949, which is the more appropriate date for that particular measure. I have had no notification of any inquiries about the continuation of any of these measures. We hope to take the Committee stage of the Bill on Thursday, and if any of your Lordships has points he would like to raise perhaps he will be kind enough to let me know, and we can clear them up then. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walkden.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not think there is anything very controversial about this measure. As the noble Lord has said, it has flowered in Westminster for quite a number of years. Sometimes it has the same flowers on it, but sometimes they are slightly different. All I would say is that a number of us who are greatly concerned about food production in this country can only regret

569
that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act no longer finds a place in this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, before I formally move the Second Reading of this Bill, perhaps your Lordships will be interested if I briefly recall the circumstances in which it is produced at this particular moment. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has speculated this afternoon on the effect which the welcoming attitude of your Lordships this afternoon might have in another place. Whatever effect it has, I hope that the welcoming attitude may be continued towards the Education (Scotland) Bill. The Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, was a long Act which applied to Scotland the agreed educational policy of the National Government, and also prepared the way for the consolidation of the Statutes relating to education in Scotland, the earliest of which was more than a hundred years old. The Bill for this Act had received its Second Reading in another place and had gone into Grand Committee—I believe it occupied one day in Grand Committee—when the decision was taken to end the National Government, and at that time the Secretary of State for Scotland was Mr. Tom Johnston.
The National Government were replaced in a matter of a week or two by what Mr. Churchill called "The Caretaker Government," and the Secretary of State for Scotland was the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. The Bill had at that time received its Second Reading in another place. About one day had been spent there in Committee on the Bill, and since it was expected that a General Election would take place in two or three weeks the Caretaker Government (if your Lordships will forgive me for using that phrase again) had to come to a decision as to whether this fairly long Bill should be dropped altogether or whether an effort should be made to put it on the Statute Book. As members of all Parties, in both Houses of Parliament, so far as I know,
570
were rather keen that it should be put on the Statute Book before the General Election took place, the Caretaker Government, and I presume the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, came to the decision that there should be a minimum of discussion and that it would be as well to put the Bill on the Statute Book. So it was hurriedly put through another place, after, as I have said, one day in Grand Committee there. Then it came to your Lordships, and in your Lordships' House the Second Reading debate occupied a matter of half an hour—principally taken up by an exposition by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. During the Committee stage in your Lordships' House there was no discussion whatsoever and on the Third Reading, beyond a few words from the noble Lord, Lord Teyiot, and the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, there was no detailed consideration of the Bill.
These were the circumstances in which the Bill became an Act of Parliament and it cleared the way, amongst other things, for consolidation and a Consolidation Act, the Education (Scotland) Act of 1946, which was passed in the first Session of the present Parliament. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that in such circumstances as I have described the inevitable has happened. A long and complex measure such as the Act of 1945, passed without the normal Parliamentary scrutiny and discussion, was almost bound to be imperfect; and to make matters worse, it was not possible to put things right in the Act of the following year, as this was a consolidation measure, which could only re-enact the existing law without making any changes in it. The purpose of the present Bill, therefore, is to remedy the defects which have come to light during the two and a half years of experience which we have had since the passing of the 1945 Act under the conditions which I have briefly describee.
Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the arrangements for bringing into operation the sections of the Act of 1946 relating to compulsory attendance at junior colleges. These colleges are the Scottish counterpart of the county colleges in England. The colleges are for the part-time education of young people between the ages, of fifteen and eighteen. When the Act of 1945 was passed it was hoped and ex-

571
pected that it would be possible both in Scotland and in England for these colleges to be opened and ready by 1950 and to institute compulsory part-time attendance in that year. Unfortunately, it is now clear that this time-table cannot be fulfilled. The English Act is so drafted as to allow some latitude, but the Scottish Act is stricter in its terms. Clause 1 therefore provides for the postponement in Scotland of the date for the institution of compulsory attendance from 1950 to as early a date as the Secretary of State considers practicable. This will enable the Scottish time-table to be brought into line with that in England. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate the importance, if only from an industrial point of view, of instituting compulsory part-time education at the same time on both sides of the Border.
Clause 2 is designed to remedy administrative difficulties which have arisen where a pupil who belongs to the area of one education authority attends an educational establishment in another area. The Act of 1946 makes provision for payments by the one authority to the other towards the cost of the education and services provided for the pupil. Doubts often arise as to the area to which the pupil belongs and therefore as to whether an authority is liable to make a payment. The Bill lays down the test to be applied in deciding these questions. Where the pupil is undergoing primary or secondary education he is to be deemed to belong to the area in which his parent is ordinarily resident. In other cases he is to be deemed to belong to the area where he himself is ordinarily resident. The meaning of "ordinarily resident" has frequently been considered in the Courts and is now well established.
The other point dealt with in the Clause 1s the question of the payment of fees by the parent of a pupil who lives in one education area and attends a primary or secondary school conducted by the education authority of another area. Section 2 of the Act of 1946 enacts that primary and secondary education provided in schools under the management of education authorities is to be without payment of fees but that the authority may, if they think it expedient, charge fees in some or all of the classes in a limited number of primary and secondary schools. We have
572
been advised that, although this section prevents the charging of fees in a free school to the parents of children residing in the education area in which they are educated, it does not prevent the charging of fees to parents of children who live in another education area. Clause 2 is designed to remove this anomaly. The problem dealt with in Clause 3 is similar to that covered by the first part of Clause 2. The purpose of the Clause 1s to prescribe the test to be applied in determining which education authority is to be responsible for the provision of bursaries where a student moves from one education area to another in the course of his education.
Clause 4 deals with an important point in the arrangements for the administration of the educational services by the county councils and the town councils of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow who are education authorities. From 1872 to 1930 education in Scotland was locally administered by specially elected local authorities. Until 1919 the local authorities responsible were the parish and burgh school boards. From 1919 to 1930 they were county education authorities and education authorities for the four large cities. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, the specially elected education authorities were abolished and their functions were transferred to the county councils and the town councils of the four cities.
Provision was made for each council to prepare and submit for the Secretary of State's approval a scheme for the constitution of a statutory committee to be known as the education committee, and this committee was to include not only members of the council itself but also persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area, including representatives of churches or denominational bodies. The council were also required to prepare and submit for the Secretary of State's approval a scheme of administrative arrangements for discharging their functions relating to education. Except for the purpose of coordinating the educational services with the other services provided by the council, the scheme was to provide that all the functions of the council relating to education, other than the function of raising money by rate or loan, were to stand referred to the education committee, and

573
that before exercising any function the council should receive and consider the report of the committee. Power was also given to delegate to the committee, with or without restrictions or conditions, any of the functions which stood referred to the committee.
By this means it was hoped to combine the advantages of the local administration of all local services by one authority with the advantages of the administration of the educational services by a body having on it persons with special knowledge and experience of, and interest in, education. I regret to say, however, that things did not work out as was expected in many education areas, and there was a distinct tendency to retain more and more functions in the hands of the council itself and to restrict and interfere with the day-today administration of educational affairs by the education committee. Accordingly, one of the most important provisions of the Act of 1945 dealt with the relations between the council and the education committee. The Act required new administrative schemes relating to education to be submitted. These schemes had to provide for the delegation to the education committee of all the functions of the council relating to education, except certain financial functions, including the approval of the education estimates, and certain other functions which were so closely allied to other functions of the council as to make it desirable that the council should retain them in its own hands. The Act of 1945 sought to make clear what was meant by delegation, by providing that where any function was delegated by one body to another, the other body should have power to exercise the function in like manner in all respects as the first-mentioned body could have exercised it had there been no delegation.
Recently, however, the opinion was given in the Court of Session that a common law rule enunciated over fifty years ago in the English courts with regard to the rights of a person who had delegated a power to another person applied to the delegation of powers by the council to the education committee under the Act of 1945, and that although a function had been delegated by the scheme made under the Act, the council could itself at any time and without any amendment of the scheme exercise the delegated function. The result of this opinion is that one of
574
the principal purposes of the Act of 1945 has been frustrated. Clause 4 of the Bill is designed to restore the position to what it was intended to be. The clause provides that until a revised administrative scheme recalling a delegation comes into force, the delegated function shall be discharged by the education committee and not by the council, and that the council shall not be entitled to instruct the committee as to the manner in which the function shall be discharged.
I think it unnecessary to trouble your Lordships with the minor amendments contained in the Schedule to the Bill. The amendments are to correct drafting errors, to fill omissions, to resolve doubts or to remove administrative difficulties which have come to light since the Act of 1945 was passed. It only remains to add that, to the best of my knowledge, the Bill is entirely non-Party, and, I am informed, may be regarded in Scotland as non-contentious—at least, so far as any Scottish legislation can be non-contentious. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
3.55 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that this Bill is absolutely non-contentious, but I would like to point out, very respectfully, that the text of the Bill was available at the Stationery Office in Edinburgh only on Saturday morning, precisely three days ago. Therefore there has been very little time in which to discover whether in fact this Bill may not contain certain defects, as did its predecessor. May I ask the noble Lord to try to convince his colleagues that a little longer time is needed between the publication of these Bills and their being taken in this House? I hope there will be adequate time before the Committee stage of the Bill is taken, so that we may discover whether, in fact, the measure is correct in detail.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am the last person to wish to disturb the harmony for which my noble friend opposite has begged, but there is one point he mentioned which, if I may, I will correct, as the noble Lord has so often rightly corrected me in this House on matters Scottish. The earliest Scottish Educa-

575
tion Bill with which I am acquainted is dated 1496, which is a good deal more than a hundred years ago, and there may even have been earlier Bills. We took the lead in Britain in introducing Education Bills.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I briefly supplement what my noble friend, Lord Polwarth, has said about the inadequacy of the notice given? It is, under present conditions, not always easy for those of us in the North who are interested in a particular Bill or subject such as education—and I myself, having been a member of an education committee for six years, am deeply interested in the subject—to make arrangements to be present here at such short notice. While I think it is rightly said that the present Bill is entirely non-controversial, we would like to be assured that in future some longer notice will be given; otherwise something in a Bill of perhaps considerably greater importance to Scotland may well go through without proper discussion because of lack of adequate notice.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord opposite answers these points, may I say that just now I willingly assented to the Committee stage of the Medical Practitioners and Pharamacists Bill (the measure with which we have just dealt) being taken next Tuesday. However, I think that that would be far too short a time for this particular Bill, in view of the circumstances which the noble Lords who have come from Scotland have narrated to us this afternoon.
3.58 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I deal with the last point first? It is really the only point raised., I understand that the Bill was available on November 5. In the circumstances, however, I am perfectly prepared to join with the noble Lord in seeing whether the next stage of the Bill cannot be deferred beyond next Tuesday, in order that noble Lords who are interested may have an opportunity not only of understanding the Bill clearly but perhaps of seeking advice from other sources upon the difficult points in it. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I will do my best to see that the arrangement which has been made provisionally to take the Committee stage of the Bill
576
next Tuesday shall not be carried out, but that a later date is fixed. I wish to thank your Lordships for the reception accorded to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether and how it is proposed to relieve proprietors from loss by reason of claims in respect of obligations which they may be prevented from implementing by reason of the operation of the Town and Country Planning Acts; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I have drawn my Motion in very wide terms (I have done so because I am told that it may cover cases in England) my experience is Scottish and, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to deal with the question at issue merely on that experience and to let any noble Lord who wishes to introduce an English experience come to my aid if he feels so inclined. The matter with which I am going to deal this afternoon arises not only out of the last Town and Country Planning Act but also out of all previous housing and town planning Acts that have been passed in recent times. It involves very important principles, and the remedy to the ills I shall mention seems to me, I am bound to say, to be quite simple. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will consider what I say and whether this remedy cannot be introduced.
As many of your Lordships know, planning, and very good planning, is, indeed no new thing. The City of Edinburgh still takes a proper and legitimate pride in her eighteenth century town plan, and many other cities and burghs in Scotland have followed her example. The only new thing about planning is that it should suddenly become a subject of popular discussion, very often by people who know little about it. Old feu charters—that is, title deeds which have been granted in the past—have been granted generally upon a recognized and accepted plan, a plan accepted by all parties of the burgh council concerned and by everybody else.
These charters contain onerous obligations which have been framed in accordance with the plans. Owing, however, to the changed relationship between the various parties brought about by the recent Acts to which I have referred, it often happens that these onerous obligations become impossible of fulfilment. An owner, for example, may be bound to erect and maintain a certain type of house upon his land, but if that house should be destroyed by fire—and I cite a case that has occurred—the local planning authority may refuse him permission to re-erect his premises as before. That means that the man is subject to an action from a superior title, either for damages or for some form of compensation, because, of course, the security has disappeared. I mention that particular case to show that these obligations are not one-sided; they are double-edged, and may arise in either direction.
The case I am going to take for illustration of my point shows the whole difficulty more clearly than any other. Local authorities in Scotland have often been in the habit of allowing streets in their boroughs to be made by private enterprise to elaborate and expensive specifications. When the land along these streets is feued off to proprietors, space is left at the side of the street for side roads that have been planned to come in. It may and does happen that, by reason of Housing Acts or Planning Acts, it becomes impossible to construct those streets. It may be decided quite definitely that they should never be constructed. In such a case the neighbouring proprietors at the junction of the abortive street under their feu charter may be called upon to pay for the street when it is made, and there will also be an obligation in their title that that street shall eventually be made. I may say that I myself have had practically all these types of cases, and I am glad to say that I have settled them all. I cannot think that any new case of this kind will be brought against me, so I can give your Lordships an assurance that I have not, so far as I know, any interest. And I can also give an assurance that I am not bringing forward hypothetical cases, but cases which are liable and apt to arise.
It may be said that these matters should all have been foreseen when the plans were altered. I think that is rather
578
a difficult contention, for the reason that I will explain. Your Lordships know what has been the housing situation—and I am referring' now especially to the situation under the Housing Acts—in Scotland as well as in England during the past thirty years. I do not think any noble Lord in this House will dispute the statement that owners of land have been just as anxious as anybody else to see houses built, and the raising of questions of this sort would have involved a great deal of delay and expense in the carrying out of housing schemes. I do not think people could have been expected to think of that. Everybody was more intention getting the houses built than on anything else.
In reply to the contention that it is covered by Section 55 (4) (b) of the recent Act, I would point out that my question does not refer only to the last Act; the difficulty has arisen under all the Acts. Section 55 (4) (b) directs only that the tribunal may change the incidence of obligation in a planning scheme. Now the point I am trying to bring forward in regard to these claims is that you cannot really foresee them unless you are very fortunate. You cannot deal with them at the time because you must wait until you are attacked, and the owner of the ground who has this onerous obligation in his title, for the failure of which damages may be claimed, may take no action under the Town and Country Planning Act. He may prefer to wait and take his action under his title against the superior. He may well be out of the country at the time when the plan is fixed and does not know anything about it; and he may well think he has a better remedy by suing for damages under his title than is provided by the tribunal under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
However that may be, the difficulty, so far as I can see, is that when anybody is attacked, under his charter he cannot plead the action of Parliament, and he cannot plead any Town and Country Planning Act as a defence against an action for damages. In the street case which I have mentioned to your Lordships the man may escape with a claim for a few pounds. On the other hand, the proprietor of the premises at the corner of the street may come to him and say: "I took this property under the assurance that I was going to have two frontages.

579
My premises were built on that understanding, and I have developed my business in the absolute confidence that I was going to have two frontages; now you are telling me that I am not going to have them, and the actual structure of my house is rendered vain by the change of plan." In such a case the claim for damages may be very heavy. It may be for much more money than this superior is likely to get out of the property.
That concludes my case. It seems to me that the matter can be very simply remedied. I am asking His Majesty's Government whether they will consider passing a short Act to say that, in all these cases where the local planning authority, acting under Statute, alters development plans so as to render impossible the exercise of owners' obligations to one another contained in the feu charters, that fact will be a defence against any action for damages; that these Statutes which have been passed by Parliament shall be a defence against everything except the return of money that has been specifically given for the purpose of these obligations. We have had this afternoon, in regard to the Education Act relating to Scotland, an example where the Government have done precisely that. As the matter which I have raised is likely to give rise to a good deal of unnecessary litigation, and to lead to a lot of trouble, I suggest that something of the kind should be done in the present case. I beg to move for Papers.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the problem to which the noble Lord has referred today is an old problem which arises not only under the Town and Country Planning Act. It may arise, and frequently does arise, under a much wider range of Acts than that: for instance, where you have compulsory acquisition of land by a body having powers compulsorily to acquire land such as a railway company, or where you have compulsory acquisition of land by a local authority under many of the Statutes which go back for very many years, or whenever you have a statutory prohibition against doing something which was essential to the performance of the contract. The problem is one which goes back in English law certainly for two or three hundred years
580
and, so far as I know, goes back in Scottish Law for the same sort of period. One could give from the cases innumerable instances of supervening legislation resulting in the subject-matter of contract being removed from the control of the parties. My answer, which has been prepared for me, deals with both English and Scottish law; it will be difficult for me now to separate the sheep from the goats—and I would not like to say which is which.
With regard to Scottish law on this topic, I think I am bound to say that it has shown itself in the past to be superior to the English law. We have now made English law roughly correspond to the Scottish law. In England, until nearly a hundred years ago, the rule was that supervening impossibility did not normally excuse a party from performing a contract, upon the principle that the party might have inserted a provision in the contract excusing himself from performance in certain eventualities and had not taken the precaution of doing so. An impossibility which was caused by an alteration in the law itself has, however, long been recognized as an exception to that rule. If I may, I will quote the words of Chief Justice Holt, who in 1697 said:
"Where a man covenants not to do an act or thing which it was lawful to do, and an Act of Parliament comes after and compels him to do it, the Statute repeals the covenant; so if a man covenants to do a thing which is lawful, and an Act of Parliament comes in and hinders him from doing it, the covenant is repealed."
That rule has been followed in many cases, and is so well established that I need say nothing further about it, except this. The position of a Lord Chancellor who is asked to give, as it were, an opinion on the law ex cathedra is a very embarrassing one, and I do not want to do it because I may have to sit in judgment upon a case and I shall then have the advantage of hearing arguments by counsel. And hearing arguments in these cases, may I say, makes all the difference in the world. I should, moreover, be sitting with my brethren. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not want on the spur of the moment to make any pronouncement upon the law which might perhaps be taken as though, without the benefit of hearing a case argued, I had already decided it. I am sure that your Lordships will always bear in mind the difficulty in which a Lord Chancellor feels

581
himself to be in these matters. That is why I and my predecessors have always declined respectfully to pronounce on points of law. But there is here a point of law that is so firmly established that I am certain that I may pronounce on it.
I have heard demands from all sorts of quarters for alterations in the law; but I have not heard of any demand, apart from that made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for alteration of the law on this topic. Certainly so far as I know, the Government have No 1ntention of introducing legislation to deal with this question. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, fears that an injustice will be done to a property owner who has entered into obligations which he cannot fulfil by reason of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts. He will of course know that those Acts specifically safeguard development plans which were approved by the local planning authority, at any time between July 21, 1943, and the appointed day in the case of England, and between November 11, 1943, and the appointed day in the case of Scotland. This should, to some extent, mitigate the difficulties which the noble Lord envisages. I recognize, however, that there may well be cases of difficulty. A man may, for instance, have covenanted to build a road on his land and may find himself subsequently prevented from so doing. He may be prevented by the refusal of the local planning authority to permit the development, or by the compulsory purchase of the land by that or some other authority. If the local planning authority have refused to permit the development, so far as one can express any opinion on the matter without knowing the circumstances and terms of the particular covenant, I should think that the contract will have been frustrated, that is to say, brought to an end by reason of impossibility of fulfilment without the fault of either party.
Until 1942, the law in England, following a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1904, had been that where A contracted to do certain work for B, and B had made a pre-payment in respect of the work under the contract, and then the contract had been frustrated, A could retain the money pre-paid. This decision was, in quite recent times, declared by the House of Lords to be erroneous, but although the decision of the House of
582
Lords obviated the hardship which the old rule frequently imposed on the party who had made pre-payment, yet other hardships remained. The Law Revision Committee were asked to consider this rule and indeed had reported just before the war. Their recommendations had not been acted upon, but the decision of the House of Lords in the Fibrosa Case made it expedient to act, and, accordingly, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943 was passed to remedy the defect in the English law on this subject. This Act applies to the contract which is frustrated by the local planning authority refusing to permit the development, so far as that contract is governed by English law.
Broadly speaking, the Act provide: first, as regards sums paid, or payable, by any party before the date of frustration, these shall be recoverable, or cease to be payable, by him, subject to this: that the other party can retain, or recover, expenses already incurred by him. Secondly, where one party has obtained a valuable benefit by reason of anything done by the other party before the date of frustration, he must pay a quantum meruit for it, and that the court will fix. There is no corresponding Scottish Statute, for the excellent reason that the Law Reform (Frustrated Contract) Act, which applies only to England, merely declared what was substantially already case law in Scotland, and that is illustrated in the case of Cantiare San Rocco, S.A., against the Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Company. The noble Lord will find the law of Scotland precisely stated in the report of that case.
Finally, there is the question of compulsory purchase of land. In this case either the covenantee becomes entitled to compensation under the Statute which authorizes the compulsory purchase—in the case of Town and Country Planning Acts, it is governed by Part V of the English Act and Part IV of the Scottish Act—or the covenant is frustrated and my observations on frustration apply. Very much more might be said upon this, and if the noble Lord cares to communicate with me I will give him a list of some of the authorities, with regard to both English law and Scottish law, which he might conveniently look up if he warts to get his mind clear upon this interesting but somewhat obscure branch of the law.
4.19 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the great pains he has taken to give me an answer. I am not sure that it completely covers my point, but perhaps that is because I am not sufficiently learned, and I very much hope that it does. I have had a good deal of correspondence in Scotland over this matter, and that, I think, justifies my bringing it before your Lordships, quite apart from its happening in my own case. In these circumstances, I once more thank the noble and learned Viscount, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the Consideration of the said Bill—namely:

M. READING,

L. GIFFORD,

L. HINDLIP,

L. AlLWYN,

L. SHEPHERD:

read and agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

METROPOLITAN SOUTH-EASTERN AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1947.
Special Procedure Order (together with a Certificate from the Minister of Health):
Laid before the House pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945