Lords Sitting of 13 July 1948

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

  SOLICITORS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  2.34 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Normand, I beg to ask the question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make any statement as to their intentions with regard to the Solicitors Amendment (Scotland) Bill.]
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the Government are in sympathy with the main principles of this Bill and hope that it may be possible to make progress with its proposals when a suitable legislative opportunity offers.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: May I thank His Majesty's Government for that answer, and ask whether they are aware that there is some urgency in this matter and that my noble and learned friend hopes that as early as possible legislation will be introduced?
  LORD MORRISON: I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said but he will appreciate that we are rapidly approaching the end of the Session.

  COMMONWEALTH RECIPROCITY ON SOCIAL INSURANCE.
  LORD BARNBY: 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, whether they are yet able to report arrangements with Australia, New
  758
  Zealand and Canada for the capitalisation and transfer of accumulated contributions to the social services in the United Kingdom made by intending migrants to those Dominions; if not with all, with which of the Dominions, if any, arrangements have been concluded.]
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, a conference of officials from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Southern Rhodesia was held in May, 1947, to examine the principles on which reciprocal arrangements in the field of social insurance might be based. The report of the conference, which was unanimous, has been under consideration by the Governments concerned, and there have in addition been discussions with some of the countries represented as to the arrangements which might be made for reciprocity between schemes of social insurance in those countries and the new National Insurance schemes which came into force in this country on July 5 last. These arrangements, however, would not necessarily take the form of the capitalisation and transfer of accumulated contributions.
  In particular, good progress has been made in discussions with New Zealand with a view to a reciprocal arrangement between the scheme of family benefits in that country and the scheme of family allowances in Great Britain. It is also hoped shortly to approach the Governments of other Commonwealth countries whose schemes are such as to afford a possible basis for reciprocity.
  LORD BARNBY: Arising out of that answer—which, it will be noticed, shows relatively little progress since the conference was held in the spring of last year—can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in view of his familiarity with and sympathy for this question, and also in view of an indication in his reply to a recent debate in your Lordships' House, give some assurance of his readiness to make representations in the right quarter that there should be more rapid progress? Secondly, will advantage be taken of the presence in this country of the Prime Minister of Australia to seek assurance that at the Civil Service level Australia will, so far as he can bring it about, assist in expediting the solution of this problem?
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND PAYMASTER-GENERAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister of Australia is fully aware of these matters which are immensely complicated and diverse. I should have thought that in view of these immense complexities, everyone concerned would have felt that progress so far was very satisfactory.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: May I ask whether it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to treat this as a matter of real urgency, especially having regard to the project for increasing migration between this country and New Zealand and Australia in particular? Social security which is not reciprocal is, I suggest, one of the barriers to the movement which most people want. May I express the hope that the Government will be able to treat this matter as one of urgency and not merely as something that might be done at some time?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that we are fully conscious of the urgency of these matters, but nobody knows better than the noble Lord how immensely complicated they are.

  SITUATION IN BURMA AND MALAYA.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the present state of affairs in Burma, and whether they have any bearing on the situation in Malaya.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (The EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards events in Burma remains as described by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in your Lordships' House on June 22. Recent developments have in no way affected the wish of His Majesty's Government to maintain close and friendly relations with Burma in all fields, and His Majesty's Government sincerely hope that the reported intention of the Burmese
  760
  Foreign Minister to resign on July 20 will not affect these relations. May I say, in passing—and I speak for myself only—how much I appreciate the kindness and courtesy that U Tin Tut has always shown to me, and the skill with which he has upheld the interests of Burma as Foreign Minister in the outside world? His Majesty's Government have no evidence of any immediate connection between Communist activities in Burma and the present situation in Malaya.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in view of the increasing acts of violence and intimidation taking place in Malaya to-day, the Government have made any arrangements for sending further troops to Malaya, since they are evidently required if this situation is to be properly taken in hand?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is another question, but I can assure the noble Viscount that the High Commissioner is satisfied that the police have adequate military support in the action they are taking against the gangsters to whom the noble Viscount refers.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the High Commissioner is satisfied, how is it that these cases of violence are increasing in number and strength all the time?
  EARL HOWE: Does the noble Earl not consider that the state of affairs in Burma constitutes, to a certain extent, a potential threat all over the area of the East?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Earl will appreciate that we are fully aware of the position in Burma as regards the Communists. We are satisfied that the Government of Burma are now making every effort to restore the situation. The Burmese Prime Minister stated clearly in his speech of June 13 that there could be no question of an understanding or of negotiations with the Communists while they sought to obtain power by force.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I now have a reply to my question? If the noble Earl cannot give a reply now, perhaps he will ask the High Commissioner whether it is not necessary to increase the number of troops in that country to-day in order to cope with these horrible acts which are all the time being committed.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can only reiterate that, in the view of the High Commissioner, the support that he desires and considers necessary for putting an end to these acts of violence is forthcoming.

  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  2.42 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    LORDS AMENDMENT.
    [The reference is to Bill No. 73 as first printed for the House of Lords.]
    Clause 25, page 23, line 21, at end insert—
    "(3) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland Acts, 1886 to 1931, apply."
    The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
    Because the holdings to which Part I of the Bill applies are already clearly defined and the Amendment is therefore unnecessary.
    LORD MORRISON: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that during the passage of the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill through your Lordships' House, there was only one point upon which your Lordships thought it necessary to divide the House. The point was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. On the Committee stage, and again on Report stage, he adduced further arguments in favour of the point. If I may quote one or two sentences from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, your Lordships will readily and quickly see the point at issue. I am quoting from column 945 of Hansard:
    "There is in this no question of principle, I think, except that I believe it is a principle in your Lordships House—and, indeed, it is our duty—to see that legislation which affects
    762
    the man in the street is clear, comprehensible and such as to enable him to comply with the law, without undue difficulty. What I seek in this Amendment is to make quite clear that Part I of this Bill, which deals with tenancies, does not apply to smallholders."
    The noble Earl proceeded to argue with great skill that his Amendment was both necessary and desirable. Your Lordships may remember that I repeated what I had already said on more than one occasion—that, on the best advice open to me, I understood that the Amendment was neither necessary nor desirable.
    Your Lordships will forgive my recalling it, but at that stage, somewhat to my dismay, the Scottish team (if I may use a cricket metaphor) were unexpectedly reinforced by two formidable spin bowlers of English origin—namely, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, frankly admitted that he was "neither a Scotsman nor an agriculturist." He produced as evidence a large copy of the Encyclopœdia of the Laws of Scotland, a book which I confess to your Lordships I had not then read. By the time that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had finished, it was evident to your Lordships that I was showing signs of distress, coupled, perhaps, with a feeling of thankfulness that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was not a Scottish lawyer.
    Soon after this—as if I had not already been severely handled—noble Lords opposite put on their second spin bowler, in the person of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The noble Viscount proceeded to bowl a "no ball," which I ought to have hit for six, but at the time I was too "flummoxed"—if your Lordships will forgive the word. This is what the noble Viscount said (column 953 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 156):
    "Let us accept this Amendment and put it in now. Let it go back to another place, where it was never considered, and if the great lawyers in another place are agreed that this is an improvement—a question which they can agree in two minutes—then the matter will stand."
    To assert that great Scottish lawyers can agree upon any question in two minutes seems to me to be a gross libel upon the Scottish legal profession! It indicated to me clearly that the noble Viscount has little more knowledge of Scottish law than I have, and that he was, in fact, a mere wishful bowler.

    763
    After this pleasant and short debate, of which it could truly be said that "a good time was had by all," the House divided, the Opposition receiving 37 votes while the Government were "all out" for 12. The Bill then went back to the other place. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is not here, because I wanted to tell him that, as I suspected at the time, he was over-optimistic on that occasion. The great lawyers in the other place to whom he referred did not agree in two minutes; indeed, they debated the point for one hour. And at the end of that time they still did not agree. The Lord Advocate said that your Lordships' Amendment was unnecessary and undesirable, and the ex-Lord Advocate totally disagreed with him. The House of Commons, as is usual, then divided on the question, and the Government scored 185, the Opposition being all out for 121.
    May I, in conclusion, quote two sentences, again from Lord Swinton's speech, which seem to put perfectly clearly the position in which your Lordships' House stands. Lord Swinton said (it is in column 953), speaking of the House of Commons:
    "If they are agreed that the words are unnecessary they can strike them out, and I do not think we shall have a great constitutional issue about it. But I am quite clear what our duty here is—to put these words in, for the sake of clarification and to give the other place a chance of saying whether they agree."
    I cannot truthfully say that the other place agreed unanimously that the words inserted by your Lordships against the Government's wish were unnecessary, but I can say that a majority agreed that they were. In those circumstances, I can only hope that your Lordships will agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the matter is scarcely worth a great constitutional issue. But, in case the spin bowlers should reappear, I hasten to add that that is not for me nor for the Government to decide; it is for your Lordships. I beg to move that this House do not insist upon the Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
    LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lords whom Lord Morrison has so pleasantly described as "spin bowlers." I will attempt to answer
    764
    his speech with no claim to be a trick bowler but with the qualification of being a Scotsman. As the noble Lord has stated, the background is that we on this side of the House were anxious to ensure that, in accordance with the Government's declared intention, Part I of this Bill should not apply to smallholders, or crofters as we know them. There was some reasonable doubt, as we felt, that it might so apply. It seems to me that if the past and present Law Officers of Scotland took up thirteen columns of Hansard in discussing it, there was a good reason for sending it back to the other place for examination. The crofter—I was going to say "the simple crofter," but I go not think he is so simple—unversed in the law, might well be forgiven if he had some doubt as to whether the Bill applied to him. I do not want to spend a long time in discussing the question again, and we feel that it is not a great constitutional issue. The intention of the Government has been quite clearly stated—namely, that Part I is not meant to apply to crofters, and the view has been put forward at considerable length by the Lord Advocate that it does not apply. What comfort the crofters will get from that statement we shall have to leave to them, as we do not intend to pursue the question further.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  2.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Registers of electors]:
  LORD MORRISON: May I say at the outset that since many of these Amendments are of a drafting character, unless your Lordships so insist, I will deal with them as briefly as possible. The Amendment to page 6, line 20, is a drafting Amendment and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 20, after ("who") insert ("on the qualifying date ").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Service qualifications]:
  LORD MORRISON: This and the following three Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 7, line 3, leave out ("on the qualifying date")
  Page 7, line 5, leave out ("on that date")
  Page 7, line 8, leave out ("on that date")
  Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("person") to end of line 38 and insert ("whose service declaration is in force on the qualifying date")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Place and manner of voting as elector]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("is") to ("acting") in line 17.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed.
  Clauses 9 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Discharge of functions of returning officer]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is almost a drafting Amendment. Clause 17 provides that the registration officer, as the acting returning officer, is to discharge the duties of "a returning officer at parliamentary elections." This phrase is too narrow, because some of the returning officer's duties are not discharged "at" an election—for example, in connection with the receipt, publication and inspection of candidates' returns and declarations as to their election expenses. The Amendment will accordingly substitute a wider phrase. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 11, leave out ("a returning officer at") and insert ("the returning officer for").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is a purely drafting point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 22, leave out from the beginning to ("a") and insert ("authorised to act as registration officer if the registration officer himself is incapable of acting or there is").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Breaches of official duty]:
  LORD MORRISON: This, again, is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 32, leave out from ("pounds") to end of line 35, and insert—
  "(2) No person to whom this section applies shall be liable for breach of his official duty to any penalty at common law or under any enactment except as provided by this section, nor shall any action for damages lie in respect of the breach by any such person of his official duty."—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: Clause 20 penalises breaches of official duty by various officials, including the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. As most of his functions are performed in Scotland by the sheriff clerk, it seems right that Clause 20 should extend to the sheriff clerk. The proposed Amendment secures this. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 37, after ("Chancery") insert ("any sheriff clerk").—(Lord Morrison.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for being late, and therefore missing the kindly compliment which he paid to me as an alien "spin bowler." My excuse is that I have been lunching in company with the Prime Minister. I think it is appropriate that we should accept this Amendment, on the assurance that the Scottish "Second Eleven" do their job as well as the alien "First Eleven."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is another drafting point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 45, after ("person's") insert ("criminal").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Registration]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 42, after ("who") insert ("on the qualifying date").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 23 as amended, stand part of the Bill?
  LORD SHEPHERD: I would like to ask a question on this clause with a view to getting a verbal alteration made, if possible, on the Report stage. In the proviso at the bottom of page 26 subsection (4) (a), we find the following words:
  "a person shall not be entitled to be registered…"
  Then, at the top of page 27, in subsection (5) (a), we find these words:
  "except in the case of a person who is as a peer incapable of voting…"
  Many years ago members of your Lordships' House had a great reputation, a reputation that was alluded to frequently when other people were well "lit up." I can readily imagine that on occasions like that some noble Lords might be incapable of doing anything, but in a Bill of this kind in these days I think we ought to use different words. I would suggest that in subsection (5) (a) at the top of page 27, instead of using the words "a peer incapable of voting," words which appear in subsection (4) (a) at the bottom of page 26, shall be used, thus making it "a peer not entitled to vote."
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I receive my noble friend's suggestion with much sympathy. He has asked merely that we should see whether something can be done on the Report stage, and I will gladly assent to his request.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Place and manner of voting as elector]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 44, leave out from ("is") to ("acting") in line 1, on page 28.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Voting by post by absent voters]:
  LORD MORRISON: This also is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 27, leave out from ("is") to ("acting") in line 28.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Breaches of official duty]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to omit Clause 31 and to substitute the following new clause:
  Breaches of official duty.
  "31.—(1) If any person to whom this section applies, or who is for the time being under a duty to discharge as deputy or otherwise any of the functions of such a person, is, without reasonable cause, guilty of any act or omission in breach of his official duty, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
  (2)No person to whom this section applies shall be liable for breach of his official duty to any penalty at common law, nor shall any action for damages lie in respect of the breach by any such person of his official duty.
  (3) The persons to whom this section applies are—

  (a) any registration officer or person whose duty it is to prepare a corrupt and illegal practices list under the local corrupt practices Act or clerk or assistant employed by him in connection with his official duties;

  (b) any person whose duty it is to act as returning officer at or to take part in the conduct of an election under the local elections Act or to be responsible after a local government election for the used ballot papers and other documents (including returns and declarations as to expenses);

  and the expression 'official duty' shall for the purposes of this section be construed accordingly but shall not include duties imposed otherwise than by the law relating to elections under the local elections Act or the registration of local government electors.
  (4) Section seventy-nine of the local elections Act (which penalises some of the breaches of duty dealt with by this section) shall cease to have effect."
  The noble Lord said: The protection from action for damages and so on, given by Clause 20 (1) does not extend to local government returning officers. Further, Section 79 of the Act of 1933 does not penalise all the breaches of official duty covered by Clause 20 of this Bill. This Amendment, therefore, proposes to repeal Section 79 of the Act of 1933 and to replace Clause 31 by a new clause on the same lines as Clause 20, applying to

  769
  breaches of official duty in relation to local government elections both by the registration official and by the returning officer. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 32, line 30, leave out Clause 31 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33:
  Use of motor vehicles for conveying electors to poll.
  33.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at a parliamentary election, either let, lend or employ, or hire, borrow or use, any motor vehicle for the purpose of the conveyance of electors or their proxies to or from the poll, and a person knowingly acting in contravention of this subsection shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act.
  (3) Nothing in this section shall—
  (b) prevent any person employing a motor vehicle for the purpose of conveying to or from the poll himself or any member of the same household, or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of the same household to be employed for that purpose; or
  and (subject to the next following subsection) any expenses incurred in respect of a vehicle's employment under paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection shall be disregarded for the purposes of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act so far as it relates to election expenses (including the purposes of section forty-two of this Act).
  3.8 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that—

  (a) the court before whom a person is convicted under this subsection may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by section ten of the said Act; and

  (b) a candidate shall not be liable, nor shall his election be avoided, for an illegal practice under this subsection committed without his consent or connivance by an agent other than his election agent."

  The noble Lord said: A provision creating a new corrupt or illegal practice nowadays usually includes a proviso enabling a court to mitigate or remit any incapacity resulting from conviction for corrupt or illegal practice, and, in appropriate cases, a further proviso relieving
  770
  the candidate of liability for acts of all or some of his agents committed without his consent or connivance. It seems appropriate to insert both these provisos in Clause 33, except that the second proviso should be limited to acts of a candidate's agents other than his election agent. It seems right that the candidate should be liable for the acts of his election agent under the clause, even if they are done without his consent. This Amendment will insert the appropriate provisos. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 34, line 29, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Morrison.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: As I understand this Amendment, it is some small confession of shame on the part of the Government and is intended to mitigate the effect of this, clause. I was interested to note that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House put up the Scottish leader to move the Amendment, but I assume that this provision will apply throughout the United Kingdom. If it could be said that any improvement to this clause is possible, then I suppose it could be said that this is an improvement. This is a clause which was quite gratuitously inserted in the Bill in order to try to make voters in country districts walk to the poll. I can assure noble Lords opposite, although I do not know how their voters will get to the poll, that all our voters on the occasion of the next election, in any district, however remote from a polling station, will find their way to the poll, in spite of impediments which are put in their way by this clause.
  It is in any case a silly clause, a mean clause, to put into the Bill—but there it is. At any rate, it does seem unreasonable that if a person going along the road gives somebody a lift, he is guilty of a criminal offence if he enables that voter to cast his vote. The Minister of Fuel and Power, or whatever Minister deals with this matter—there are so many, I forget which one is responsible—made an appeal to us the other day to assist "hitch-hikers" on every possible occasion; but if you happen to choose a day when there is an election on to offer that help, you are treated as a criminal. That is still to remain, but I gather that out of the great generosity of their minds the Government now propose that a candidate shall not be penally liable if somebody without the candidate's

  771
  knowledge or connivance, has done a neighbourly act. And that generosity extends even further: his election agent is also not to be liable. Let us be thankful for small mercies and accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words following paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: This Amendment will have the effect of leaving unchanged the existing law as regards expenses incurred in connection with the employment of a car for taking electors to the poll. That is, a candidate will continue to be prohibited from making any payment or contract for payment on account of the conveyance of electors to the poll. As regards incidental expenses, those incurred by a candidate in respect of the use of his own car will have to be included in his return, and it will be permissible for any other person to incur minor expenses in connection with the use of his own car, if he pays them himself and they are not repaid by the candidate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, leave out lines 16 to 21.—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to find out something more about this proposal. The words we are leaving out say:
  "and (subject to the next following subsection) any expenses incurred in respect of a vehicle's employment under paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection shall be disregarded for the purposes of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act so far as it relates to election expenses…"
  What are subsections (b) and (c)? Subsection (b) says that nothing in this clause shall:
  "prevent any person employing a motor vehicle for the purpose of conveying to or from the poll himself or any member of the same household, or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of the same household to be employed for that purpose."
  If we delete these words and a man takes himself and his family to the poll, is that or is that not to be part of the election expenses of a candidate? With these words in, it was quite clear that it was not going to be part of the election expenses, because that is what the words say; but by taking them out, are we now
  772
  making it part of them? If we are not doing that, why were the words ever in the Bill? Surely they were safeguarding words. I cannot see any reason for taking out this very clear statement in the Bill as it has come to us. The items covered by paragraph (b) certainly ought not to be part of a candidate's expenses. Nobody can check in any way how many cars have come with voters. Nobody knows how people have voted. so one cannot possibly return the cost of the cars on the election expenses of any candidate. Let us make it clear that by taking these words out we are not making it a liability of the candidate or his agent to include these amounts in the election expenses. If there was no doubt about the matter, why were the words ever included?
  LORD MORRISON: I will endeavour to explain to the noble Lord. When we have a long and complicated Bill like this, by the time it reaches your Lordships' House, there is generally some amount of "tidying up" to be done. The "tidying up" here is caused by the fact that in Clause 33, lines 16 to 21 were originally related to a requirement that the candidate must include in his return of election expenses a notional sum of two pounds in respect of each car employed on his behalf. This was struck out in the House of Commons. It therefore seemed desirable to strike out the lines in question, and that is what we have done.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am delighted to hear that we are gradually striking out in this process of what is euphemistically called "tidying up." This clause had no place in the original Bill—is that not so? The Leader of the House does not know, but the Party manager behind him may instruct him—or possibly he does know. This invidious and insidious clause was put in because the tail required it to be put in, and in order to preserve the harmony of the internal association, it was put in, and the tail has wagged the dog. If we are tidying up, would not the tidest way be to remove the clause altogether?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 33, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD MOYNE: Speaking for myself, from this backmost Bench and on this

  773
  almost neutral flank, I feel compelled to say that I am far from content that this clause, as it is at present drafted, should stand part of the Bill. I am an inveterate giver of lifts, not only at election times but at all times. I expect to give and I hope to get them. I have sometimes been disappointed. But I consider that the general kindness of motorists in this respect is one of the few redeeming features left amidst the din and danger of our highways. When I first looked at this clause I found it so worded that it seemed to me, in my innocence, with such knowledge of the English language as I possess, to make me guilty of a corrupt practice if I gave someone a lift on polling day, knowing that he was going to the poll. The opening words of Clause 33 are:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at a parliamentary election, either let, lend or employ, or hire, borrow or use, any motor vehicle for the purpose of the conveyance of electors or their proxies to or from the poll.…"
  I am not concerned only with giving lifts to people I meet on the road. I live in a country district and the polling station is about two miles away. I can ill spare my farm hands to walk all the way there and back during working hours. Some of them and their wives, though not actually infirm, are elderly, and intermittently have bad legs, which often makes walking painful for them, especially at the end of a day's work. I may say, incidentally, that they are by no means all of one way of thinking politically; and, oddly enough, I often find myself defending the Government Part to some of their own supporters when they seem to me to criticise them for the wrong reasons. Normally, like all my neighbours, I would expect to give anyone a lift who was going to vote, without endeavouring to discover how his vote was going to be cast. I do not want to enlarge upon the hardships inflicted in remote places if lifts cannot freely be given to friends, neighbours, or even strangers: they were fully explained by many honourable Members in another place. But the permission to give lifts to people living in the same household under subsection (3) (c) does not by any means meet my difficulty.
  I know that in another place assurances, some of them clearer than others, were given to say that in Clause 33 (1), at line
  774
  24, the words "a candidate" meant a particular candidate. I know, too, that on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Morrison (Hansard, July 5, column 338, line 13) gave his, categorical assurance to the same effect. But the object of an Act of Parliament is surely to set out the law once and for all, without regard to statements in Houses of Parliament which in themselves have not the force of law. Moreover, when asked during the Report stage of the Bill in another place (Hansard, June 14, column 101} whether it was contemplated that lifts given by a car without labels and without conditions would infringe the law, the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to give an answer, but said that such a question was one for the courts to decide. I hate to be in any way controversial, but I must, with great respect, beg to differ from the proposition of the right honourable gentleman who was speaking no doubt in the heat of debate and perhaps without weighing his words.
  I am sure the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack when we are not in Committee will be the first to agree that the touchstone of good legislation is the avoidance of litigation. If legislators can make themselves clear, it is their duty to be plain. The Government—through the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, through the Home Secretary himself and through the Secretary of State for Scotland—have been at pains to say that "candidate" means "particular candidate." Would it not be right to put the word "particular" into Clause 33 (1) at line 24? To do otherwise is to leave the law in obscurity; and a jovial hint was even made in another place that a feeling of doubt might not be amiss. To the suggestion that a motorist might be allowed to convey a friend to the poll at the friend's, request, the Secretary of State for Scotland (Hansard, June 14, column 99) said that you never knew; the policeman might give them a lift if they did too much of it.
  This kind of uncertainty is not the rule of law; it has about it a suggestion of a rule of (shall I say?) apprehension and alarm. I do not want to use more controversial words than those. I feel sure that the right honourable gentleman did not mean his words to have the threatening sound which they bear in cold print,

  775
  and that he was more or less cracking a joke. I would suggest, however, with respect, that the rule of law is too precious a principle to be played with or in any way whittled down. The free way of life demands that the liberty of the subject shall be circumscribed only in so far as the personal economic and political freedom of his neighbours demands it. It is not my object here to quarrel with the Government's intentions under this clause. It is my object for the protection of the freedom of the subject to pursuade them to make the clause exactly fit their intentions and to go no jot or tittle further. There is a feeling that this Bill ought not to be amended from this side of the House, and I have given way to that feeling by putting no Amendment down. I agree that if Amendments are to be made they would, in this instance perhaps, be more readily acceptable if they came to another place from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and especially from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor who cannot, I feel sure, think that the clause as at present drafted would be an ornament to his Statute Book and who is, I am sure, as jealous a guardian of the rights of the subject as of the rule of certain unambiguous law to protect them.
  Perhaps I must not in this matter seek to put ideas into their heads; but, at the same time, for instance, if they were to insert on page 34, Clause 33, line 24, before the word "candidate" the word "particular," and if in the same line they were to insert after the word "election" some such words as "having exacted from an elector a promise that he will vote for that candidate, or having held out to any such elector a promise that he will convey him to the poll as an inducement to vote for that candidate," the burden of my complaints would be met. The Amendments I have suggested are not meant to be wrecking ones, or obviously they would have no chance of being introduced. Therefore, I think it only fair to point out that the Government, if they decide to act upon them, would no doubt wish to move a consequential Amendment to subsection (2) (a) to substitute for the words "purpose aforesaid" the words "for conveying electors to the polls" so as to protect their regrettable aim of limiting the use of
  776
  Party colours to officially allocated Party cars. Another consequential Amendment would arise in line 41 where again it would be necessary to insert before "candidate" the word "particular."
  I have endeavoured to avoid making a controversial speech and to avoid discussion of the merits of the Government's intentions as such. I believe I have not misinterpreted their real aims and that, in the circumstances, such Amendments as I have suggested might well meet with the considered approval of all Parties.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I believe there is something to be said for what the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has just put before your Lordships. I think there are certain ambiguities in this clause. I would respectfully suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that it might be gone through with a small tooth-comb between now and Report, because I think certain alterations to the wording would be advantageous. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has just told your Lordships of the hard case of his farm servants whom he could not take to poll. He can, of course, get over that difficulty quite easily under the wording of the clause. He has only to give them house room the night before the poll or the night after the poll, or for part of the night before the poll, or part of the night after the poll, and they will come within the definition of "visitors."
  LORD MOYNE: There are twenty of them.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I do not know how large is the noble Lord's house. It is possible to put a lot of people in the ordinary country house, if one is so minded.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Only those owned by the Labour Party or by the Coal Board.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I dare say some of the houses owned by the Labour Party could be converted into dormitories. In closely-contested elections it would be well worth doing, and it would be legal under the wording of this clause. That is one example. I would give your Lordships another example. The definition of the words "motor vehicle," at the bottom of page 35, is "any mechanically propelled vehicle." There are still a number of private companies owning

  777
  charabancs, buses and so on. My reckoning is that in the ordinary borough each candidate should be allowed to have, say, six motor cars lent to him, or approximately that number. What is to prevent him from borrowing from a friendly proprietor of one of these companies, or from one of the directors, sixty charabancs or sixty motor buses?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Has that not always been against the law?
  LORD STRABOLGI: NO.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Under the old law one could never use cars that are for hire: only private cars.
  LORD STRABOLGI: If they are lent, and there is no money passing, you can use them.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think I am right.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Under the law as it now stands, any vehicle that is normally used for hire is an illegal vehicle and cannot be used.
  LORD STRABOLGI: The ordinary charabanc is not for hire.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: It is.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I must confess that for some of my elections I have had private buses running for me, and my very observant opponents have never objected. Be that as it may, I suggest that the words "motor vehicle"—I hope my noble friend Lord Shepherd agrees with me—require some further definition. Those are two examples, at any rate—one cited by the noble Lord opposite, and the other which I venture to suggest needs further examination.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I add a few further words before the Leader of the House replies? I am going to make a perfectly genuine appeal to him on this matter. I think it is a dirty, mean little clause, and it was added as an afterthought. I will not say anything more against it. I take the view that when we are making great electoral reforms we ought to try to make them on the basis of the Speaker's Conference, and keep our bargain. But I will not return to that. Here is this Bill, and this clause has been introduced. A great many people with great experience, Party managers and those who have conducted
  778
  —as many of us in this House have conducted—a whole series of contested elections, had not the least idea where they stood over this matter. Let us accept the principle of the clause. I agree that, broad and large, the general principles of legislation on this subject are matters for another place, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said when that House have laid down what they are pleased to call the general principles, we have to see that the Bill is made a decent, workmanlike job. In view of all that has been said, I do not think that anybody can pretend that this clause is a workmanlike job at the present time. You do not want to go to the subterfuge of having to put up farm workers in your stables, or in the billiard room of your house—if you still have a billiard room—on the day of the poll or the aftermath of the polls. That is not sense. And, least of all, do you want to provoke what, in the novel Catriona or Kidnapped, the hero called "a dreepin' roast" where every lawyer can "cut and come again." The allusion is grasped by the more erudite members of the House! Surely we do not want to create, in a piece of simple piece of legislation, that kind of "dreepin' roast" for the lawyers all over the country.
  People ought to know where they stand. We ought to make will perfectly plain that the ordinary friendly giving of a lift is not going to land the wretched chap in trouble. I suppose we have all given people lifts, not by reason of any particular political persuasion, without in the least knowing that we were doing wrong. The other day I happened to find myself on a foreign airport with a motor car, and some of my fellow travellers had not a motor car. Among my fellow travellers were Mr. Will Lawther, the President of the Miners' Federation, Mr. Horner—I am not sure that he agrees with him all the time—the Secretary of the Miners' Federation, and young Mr. Ebby Edwards, the secretary of their party. As I happened to have a motor car I gave them a lift. I hope it did not embarrass Mr. Horner. I am sure it did not embarrass Mr. Will Lawther. Was I really guilty of an indiscretion, or of an illegal act, because I gave people, some of whom were certainly my political opponents, a lift to wherever they were going in Brussels? Anyway, I do not suppose they were out for any good there! But I did

  779
  it, and they were grateful. One should be able to do that sort of thing, in the ordinary friendly way that the Leader of the House sometimes gives me a lift and, in the days when I had a car—I have not one now—I used to give him a lift. Surely, we can carry this ordinary general good neighbourliness into the rough and tumble of Election life.
  I am going to make a very sincere appeal to the Leader of the House. Take the principle of this clause, if you want it, but do take the words away and get your lawyers to work on them, to make sure that, when honest people do something without the least criminal intent, they are not to go through two years of legal proceedings to find out whether they are at fault or not. Frankly, I do not like the clause, but, if we are to have it, make it as decent and workmanlike a job as you can.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am very glad to respond to the appeal of the noble Viscount, but, in doing so, I must not be held to agree with his interpretation of the clause. I thought, as an average man, that it was a clear and well-drawn clause, in so far as people are able to hire a certain number of cars and put their labels on them in a frank, open and sufficiently comprehensive way. There will be far more cars used under this provision than there were in any election I have fought, and I can say that quite truthfully. Nobody wants to do the kind of thing to which the noble Viscount has just referred. I confess that I have not had much time to look into this matter—the noble Viscount brought it before me only last night—but I will have inquiries made in the appropriate quarter. I must say that I am favourably impressed with Lord Moyne's idea of putting in the word "particular," which would avoid the kind of difficulties he contemplated, but I must have the opportunity of consulting the lawyers. I have a preliminary note to say that difficulties would arise from the introduction of the word "particular" before the word "candidate," because "particular" does not appear in a number of other places; therefore, a Judge on the Bench might want to know why the word "particular" is put in here and not in other places. I will make continued and friendly inquiries into the suggestion of the noble Lord between now
  780
  and the Report stage, and I will consult him on the result.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say one word on this point? It is a very small Amendment which I suggest the noble Viscount the Leader of the House should consider. It is in connection with the words "to or from." I can conceive an objection from the point of view of noble Lords on the other side to a car being used for carrying voters to the poll. What I cannot, for the life of me, understand is why, if the candidate or one of his assistants, see an old gentleman of the incredible age of eighty, suffering from lumbago—a very painful complaint—staggering home a couple of miles along the road after he has voted (presumably he has a right to vote) that candidate or his assistant should not obey the ordinary dictates of humanity and give the old gentleman a lift back in his car.
  Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Appointment of election agent]:
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to subsection (3):
  "(d) the said section five shall not apply to sums paid or expenses incurred otherwise than by the candidate or his election agent."
  The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, the permitted amount of a local government candidate's expenses would have to cover the small sums which may be paid by the persons incurring them, although the candidate would know nothing about them and would be prohibited from repaying them. To avoid this result, it is desirable to take the small expenses in question out of the scope of Section 5 of the Act of 1884, and the Amendment will do this by providing that Section 5 is not to apply to expenses incurred otherwise than by the candidate or his election agent. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 40, line 41, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 39 to 45 agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Avoidance of election for general corruption, etc.]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause:
  "(5) An election to which the corrupt practices Act applies shall not be liable to be avoided otherwise than under this section by reason of general corruption, bribery, treating or intimidation."
  The noble Lord said: This is another very small point. As the clause stands, it would be possible to question a municipal election on the ground of general bribery otherwise than by election petition. This was not, of course, intended and the Amendment will put the matter right. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 44, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.
  Clause 50 [Prosecutions for corrupt and illegal practices]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 28, leave out from ("the") to ("a") in line 29 and insert ("appropriate authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Computation of time for purposes of election petitions]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 54 stand part of the Bill?
  LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to raise a point on Clause 54. During the Second Reading debate I appealed to the Government to indicate to us, if they could, whether they were proposing to carry out the recommendations of the Carr Committee in relation to election petitions. Before the Carr Committee reached their recommendations the officers of all the political Parties were in consultation about it and they are in agreement on the policy to be followed. I am sure it would be very satisfactory to them to know that, following this Bill, the Government propose to carry forward the recommendations of that Committee and bring in legislation to reform the law as to petitions. If my noble friend cannot
  782
  tell me now, will he take note of the point I have raised and give us some information on the Report stage?
  LORD MORRISON: I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said, and see whether any definite answer can be given on the next stage of the Bill.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
  Clause 57 [Ordinary day of election]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 59, line 37, after ("effect") insert ("as from the passing of this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 59, line 40, leave out ("to the local elections Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 58 agreed to.
  Clause 59 [Electoral divisions and number of councillors of L.C.C.]:
  LORD BROADBRIDGE LORD BROADBRIDGE moved, in subsection (1), after "and" to insert "except as provided in subsection (2) of this section." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, and the next, is to give the proposed new Parliamentary constituency of the cities of London and Westminster greater representation on the London County Council than is proposed by Clause 59 of the Bill. At present, as separate constituencies, the City of London has four London County Council members, while the City of Westminster, which has two Parliamentary divisions—Abbey and St. George's, each with two members—has four, making a grand total of eight for the two cities. When, however, this Bill becomes operative, and, under Clause 59, the two cities become one, they will have a total of only three members on the London County Council. The two cities consider this number inadequate and feel that six would be a reasonable number. The Amendment relates only to this aspect of the matter. This point was referred to on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who replied for the

  783
  Government, intimated that he was authorised to say that the Home Secretary would consider on its merits a request for greater representation on the London County Council. This matter could not, in the nature of things, receive consideration in another place, owing to the fact that the main effort was directed to maintaining the City of London as a separate Parliamentary constituency.
  I feel that I need mention only a few facts to satisfy your Lordships that this is a matter which calls for review. The local Government electorate for the two constituencies will be 89,951, or 1/27th of the total electorate of the whole of the administrative county. It will have an electorate of 12,000 more than any other electoral division, but as a matter of fact the representation proposed in the Bill is only 1/43rd of the Council. The rateable value of the two cities combined, on April 6, 1947, was 2/7ths of the total rateable value of the whole of the administrative county. I am aware, of course, that the representation on the London County Council is not determined by rateable value, but I suggest that it is a factor to be considered in determining whether a particular electoral division is receiving adequate representation. While the electorate for local government purposes will be 89,951 voters, that for Parliamentary purposes will be 78,516—the difference, of course, being due to the abolition of the business premises vote. It would be impossible for three representatives only to cope with such a large electorate, especially having regard to the numerous committees of the London County Council. When great changes are made, as in this case, it is almost inevitable that certain matters will require adjustment to meet the altered circumstances. I suggest that it would be wrong to deprive the new constituency of proper representation on the London County Council. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, line 31, after ("and") insert ("except as provided in subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Broadbridge.)
  LORD JESSEL: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to supplement in a few words the able speech made on behalf of this Amendment by my noble
  784
  friend Lord Broadbridge. I have been looking into the matter since I made my speech on the Second Reading, and I find that the case as regards the representation is worse than it appeared then. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, on the figures that I gave. The noble Lord said there were very few electors in the City of London. We have looked into the figures, and we find that, compared with the time when the register was drawn up by the registration officer and the time when it lapsed during the war, the figures for 1946 showed a vast increase. For instance, the number in Westminster was 3,000, but I find by later figures that we are now nearly up to 11,000—owing to the fact that more business premises are coming into action since the cessation of the bombing. No doubt, the same facts apply to the City of London. So, instead of there being 90,000 local government electors, it is contemplated that there will be at least 100,000. The average number of local government electors having a representative on the London County Council is about 55,000. After this registration, we shall have double that number. Everybody knows that in both these figures there are a great many questions that affect the business voters.
  May I also remind your Lordships that since the hospitals have been taken over by the Government there is a tremendous amount of work to be done by the London County Council in connection with some of the ancillary health services. The maternity services and services of that kind have been taken from the boroughs, and have been assumed by the London County Council. The consequence is that there is a tremendous amount of detailed work to be done. I do not think it is unfair to ask the Government to consider this matter in no Party spirit, but simply from the point of view of administration. The amount of work that will be thrown upon the representatives of the London County Council will be enormous. I do not see how they can cope with it, because the area is very big. After the representations made to the Home Secretary, and the plea of the powerful deputation from the Court of Common Council and the Westminster City Council, I hope the Government will be inclined to accept the modest Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord was good enough to come to me last night, to give me notice of this matter and explain some of the facts to me, since when, so far as I have been able, I have consulted the Home Secretary and others upon the point. It appears that what the noble Lord says with regard to the number of electors being large owing to the business vote in these two Cities is true. However, I find that it applies also to a certain number of other boroughs, though to a rather less extent. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, the noble Lord may look forward to the time when the population of these two Cities, either under the existing law or as it will be when it is amended, will be entitled to two Members of Parliament and therefore to six County Councillors—because the Bill provides that there shall be three County Councillors for each Parliamentary division in London. My noble friends say that, this being a decision of another place—that there should be three County Councillors for each Parliamentary division in London—they must, at all events for the present, adhere to it. The noble Lord has given me very little time in which to look into the details. At the moment, I am bound to tell him that my colleagues take the view that the Bill has come from another place providing deliberately that there should be three County Councillors for each Parliamentary division. To start altering the Bill according to the considerations that the noble Lord has advanced in the case of these two Cities will mean that we shall be confronted with a great number of claims—or claims in at least three other places. Therefore, I cannot to-day give the noble Lord a full answer.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I appreciate what the noble Viscount says, that he has had only recent notice of this matter. Obviously, he has to take some further counsel. As I have said, we have always taken the view here that, broad and large, this is essentially a House of Commons measure. On the other hand, when we come into the sphere of municipal electorates and their size I feel that that is not a case of electing members of one House or the other. The view taken here is that we ought not to tinker too much with this Bill, since after all we have no votes. We sit here, and we should resent any
  786
  undue incursions into our affairs from another place, just as we ought not to intrude too much into their affairs. It is said that an essentially electoral Bill is a House of Commons Bill. But this is a rather different point because it does not deal with the franchise of the House of Commons or the seats of the House of Commons. This is indirectly consequential upon it—a question of the municipal franchise and the municipal areas. Upon that, I do not think there can be any Party question, or indeed any Party advantage, either one way or the other. I imagine that what we want to do is to secure the most efficient unit and system of local government that we can, and particularly in the case of all the areas of local government under the London County Council.
  The noble Viscount said, in effect: "I do not think we ought to vary this now because, if we once begin varying the number of members for a constituency, where shall we end?" I do not feel that that is a very good argument to put forward on this Bill. If the Bill had stood as it had at the end of the Speaker's Conference, then I think that that would be a conclusive argument, but after all what has happened? This Bill has been reopened in another place. I am not going to discuss its merits now, but it has been reopened on the ground that, although certain points were agreed upon at the Speaker's Conference, and although the Commissioners have recommended certain areas of Parliamentary constituencies, yet on closer consideration it appeared to the House that there would be too many electors in one place and too few in another. Exercising what was undoubtedly their Parliamentary right, they reviewed the findings of the Commissioners in order to see whether there were not certain constituencies which ought to be adjusted—two seats given in one place, and only one seat in another. That was done; and that is the form of the Bill which is now before your Lordships.
  The noble Lords, Lord Broadbridge and Lord Jessel, have been associated with the London County Council and the City of London for almost as many years as I have been alive. Nobody knows better than they what the conditions are there. They say that whereas all over the rest of the London County Council area there

  787
  will be (let us say, for the sake of argument) 30,000 voters to one County Council representative, yet in the City of Westminster and in the City of London the number will be 50,000 voters. That is the very argument which has led the Government to approve, and the House of Commons to adopt, in the case of the Parliamentary franchise, the principle laid down in the Bill, by which the size of constituencies is evened up. If it is right to do that in regard to the Parliamentary boundaries and the number of electors, I should have thought it right to do it in the case of the County Council electorate. It is no answer to say that in the fullness of time we shall breed a lot more voters, and that there will be another Redistribution Bill, and then we shall have some more members.
  The reply of the noble Lords, Lord Broadbridge and Lord Jessel, to that is: "We are getting on. These are important places, and we do not need to breed. We have to-day the number of electors in the City and in Westminster which entitles us to an extra member or two upon the County Council." I hope I have put it fairly but, as I understand it, that is exactly the position in which we are. I do not think there is any Party question in this. I appreciate that the Leader of the House has had to consider this point at rather short notice, but I hope he will take it back and see whether there is not force in what these two City Fathers have said. After all, they have been much more associated with the great life of the City than with Party politics, and in that regard they are just as likely to be right as either the Leader of the House or myself.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I would like to join with the noble Viscount in his tribute to the municipal service of the two noble Lords. I can only say that I cannot add anything to what I have already said with regard to any promise, but I will discuss this matter with my right honourable friends and will report to the noble Lords the result of our proceedings before we get to the next stage. I hope the House will leave it at that. It must not be taken that I am making any promises.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No.
  LORD JESSEL: I very much appreciate the further inquiry into this subect.
  788
  We were very disappointed about this matter. I do not think it is possible to deal with these matters on an administrative basis. Now the registration officer is doing the work of canvassing, and the business voters were left out during the war on account of expense. I am sure the number will be much greater than I said originally, when I spoke about 90,000. It must be over 100,000, and if this new legislation comes into effect, I am sure it will be more. It is very hard on the voters themselves to be so unrepresented, and it is also hard upon the elected members who will be sent to the Council by the voters. I thank the noble Viscount for his promise to look at this matter again, and I hope it will result in some substantial consideration, otherwise I fear there will be some bad feeling about this matter. As I said before, Parliamentary representation is rather better managed by the Government than we originally expected it would be. In conclusion, I should like to say that there is nothing like the number of business voters, nor is there likely to be, outside the City of Westminster or the City of London. I will conclude by thanking the Leader of the House for his promise to look into the matter again.
  LORD BROADBRIDGE: I desire only to thank the noble Viscount for his promise to look further into the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 59 agreed to.
  Clauses 60 to 65 agreed to.
  Clause 66 [Discharge of registration duties]:
  LORD MORRISON: Now we come to a number of small points, all of which, unfortunately, have to be dealt with separately. This Amendment to Clause 66, subsection (4), enables any acts required to be done by the registration officer to be done, in the event of his incapacity to act or of a vacancy, by a person temporarily appointed in that behalf by the mayor or chairman of the local authority. It seems clear that the standing or temporary deputy so appointed is the proper person to act as substitute for the registration officer, and that it is no longer necessary or appropriate to provide specially for the appointment of some other person by the mayor or chairman. This Amendment makes the necessary change. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 65, line 31, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 33 and insert ("the standing or temporary deputy acting as clerk of the authority under section one hundred and fifteen or one hundred and sixteen of the local elections Act or, in the case of the secondary of the City of London, by or with respect to any person temporarily appointed in that behalf by the Lord Mayor ").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Power to make regulations as to registration, etc.]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 66, line 26, leave out from ("the") to ("except") in line 29, and insert ("corrupt practices Act and that section").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Registration appeals]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is another small point. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that if there is a dispute between an elector and the registration officer as to whether the elector should be registered for a Service or a civilian qualification, or for a residential or non-residential qualification, an appeal will lie to the county court, in the same way as when there is a dispute as to whether an elector should be registered at all. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 69, line 30, after ("is") insert ("or is not registered as a service voter or as a nonresident or is or is").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
  "(7) This section shall apply in relation to decisions on claims and objections with respect to any corrupt and illegal practices list as it applies in relation to the decisions mentioned in subsection (1) but as if a reference to that list were included in the reference to the electors lists and with any other prescribed modifications."
  The noble Lord said: The Act of 1883 applies in relation to claims and objections to the corrupt practices list the provisions as to appeals which are applicable to claims and objections to the electors list. The effect of this Amendment will be to
  790
  continue this arrangement, which seems proper. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 70, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: The court of three Judges appointed under Section 23 of the 1868 Act is a court for hearing appeals under Section 22. That section was repealed by the 1918 Act, which substituted in Section 23 appeals for those under Section 22. A similar substitution is required now, for the only function of the court is to hear appeals, under the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 70, line 31, after ("1868") insert ("and that section shall have effect as if for references to the appeals therein mentioned and to that Act there were respectively substituted references to appeals under this paragraph, and to this Act.").—(Lord Morrison)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This and the next two Amendments correct a mistake in the application to Northern Ireland of Clause 70, which gives a right of appeal to the county court against the decisions of the registration officer. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 70, line 35, leave out the first ("10") and insert ("(4)" and ")
  Page 70, line 43, at end insert ("the reference in subsection (3) of this section to the Court of Appeal shall be construed accordingly; and").
  Page 70, line 47, after ("thereunder") insert ("and any power to make rules of court with respect to those appeals").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 71 to 76 agreed to.
  4.10 p.m.
  Clause 77 [Interpretation and application of local government provisions in England and Wales]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment provides that for the purposes of certain provisions in the Bill, the Scilly Isles are to be treated as a county district. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 76, line 44, after ("that") insert ("—

  (a) paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule and any reference to a person acting in pursuance of the requisition of a registration

  791
  officer shall apply as if the isles were a county district and the council were a district council; and

  (b)").—(Lord Morrison.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Commencement, repeals, etc.]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 79, line 13, at beginning insert ("Except where otherwise expressly provided").—Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 81 agreed to.
  First Schedule [Parliamentary constituencies]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment will alter the name of the Bury constituency to "Bury and Radcliffe." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 29, column 1, after ("Bury") insert ("and Radcliffe").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: Constituencies are described by reference to the circumstances existing on December 31, 1947. But since that date burghs and counties mentioned have extended their boundaries and taken in some of the surrounding country. It is desirable that burgh and county boundaries should be the same for the purposes of Parliamentary representation as for other purposes. The proposed Amendment secures this. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 129, line 20, at end insert—
  ("[Note.—The references to the following areas, namely the burghs of Coatbridge and Lochgelly, the counties of Dumfries and Kirkcudbright, the ninth district of Lanarkshire and the Lochgelly district of Fife, are references to those areas as constituted on the sixteenth day of May, 1948.]")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment corrects a clerical error. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 133, line 34, leave out ("east") and insert ("west ").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Third Schedule [Proceedings at parliamentary elections]:
  LORD MORRISON: The courts in Scotland have held that a ballot paper which is marked otherwise than with a cross must be rejected, but the English courts have treated such ballot papers as valid. These Amendments provide that the ballot papers in question are not to be rejected if the way they are marked does not, of itself, identify the voter and it is not shown that he can be identified thereby. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 155, line 39, leave out from ("rejected") to ("if") in line 40.—(Lord Morrison.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: So the Scottish illiterates will now be on a footing of equality with the English illiterates.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 155, line 41, at end, insert ("and the way the paper is marked does not of itself identify the voter and it is not shown that he can be identified thereby").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to paragraph 3:
  "Provided that where proceedings are abandoned by virtue of this paragraph—

  (a) nothing may be done after they are continued, if the time for doing it had passed at the time of the abandonment nor shall anything done before the abandonment be invalidated by reason thereof;

  (b) subject to the foregoing sub-paragraph, if the day on which the proceedings are continued is a Saturday and is (or is to be treated as) the said last day, the proviso to the entry in Part I of this Schedule relating to the making of objections shall not apply."

  The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the nomination of candidates being interrupted by rioting. If the rioting took place on a Friday and the proceedings were interrupted and adjourned until Saturday, there would be no prescribed time for objections to

  793
  the nominations. The Amendment will cure this defect and will have the effect that, in such a case, objections can be made on a Saturday instead of on the previous day when the proceedings were abandoned. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 156, line 28, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Morrison.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I take it that this applies only in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It applies wherever there is trouble.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule [Amendments of local elections rules]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 158, line 19, after ("require") insert ("or authorise").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This and the following Amendments are similar to the Amendments in the Third Schedule at page 155, but relate to local government elections. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 164, line 6, leave out from ("rejected") to ("either") in line 7.—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 164, line 9, at end insert ("and the way the paper is marked does not of itself identify the voter and it is not shown that he can be identified thereby").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fifth to Seventh Schedules agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule [Provisions which may be contained in regulations as to registration, etc.]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 172, line 9, leave out from ("is") to end of line.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule agreed to.
  Tenth Schedule [Adaptation and interpretation of enactments, etc.]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment in Clause 66 at page 65. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 176, line 6, at and insert—
  ("(2) Any reference in any Act passed before this Act to a person temporarily appointed under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, to act in place of a registration officer in case of incapacity or a vacancy shall be taken as a reference to the person authorised under this Act so to act.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 176, line 41, after ("reference") insert ("and to a reference to any other matter which was to be construed as a reference to any of the said matters by virtue of an enactment repealed by this Act.").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: Section 23 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, provides that where on an application to the High Court it is shown that an act or omission which constituted an illegal practice arose from inadvertence or accidental miscalculation or some other reasonable cause of a like nature and not from any want of good faith, the court may make an order relieving the person concerned from any of the consequences of the act or omission It seems desirable that this provision should be applied in relation to the new illegal practices created by Part III of the Bill, and particularly Clause 33 as to the use of motor cars for conveying electors to the poll. An innocent miscalculation of the permitted number of motor cars might, for example, quite easily occur. The Amendment will apply Section 23 of the 1883 Act accordingly. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page .177, line 16, after ("in") insert ("section twenty-three and").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Eleventh Schedule agreed to.
  Twelfth Schedule [References in corrupt practices Act and local elections Act]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is drafting, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 181, line 47, at end insert—

  ("Section thirty-nine and sub-section (1).

  Section twenty-four and sub-Section (1).

  Section twenty-nine and sub-section (1).")

  —(Lord Morrison.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 31. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 182, line 13, at end insert—

  ("Section 79

  Section 53

  Section 67(1).")

  —(Lord Morrison.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 66. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 182, line 15, at end insert—

  ("Section 115

  Section 82

  —

  Section 116

  Section 83

  —."

  —(Lord Morrison.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Thirteenth Schedule [Repeals]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 184, column 3, leave out line 45.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment proposes to add to the repealed enactments Section 38 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832, which so far is not superseded but may be regarded as obsolete. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 184, line 23, column 3, at end insert ("and section thirty-eight").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: I am advised that the term "revising barrister" is now obsolete. The proposed Amendment,
  796
  therefore, repeals the definition of "revising barrister." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 188, line 27, column 3, at end insert ("in section sixty-eight the definition of 'revising barrister' and paragraph (16) ").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 189, line 51, column 3, leave out ("subsection (7)") and insert ("subsection (2) to (6)").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: The provisions to which this Amendment refers are still necessary, and accordingly it is proposed by this Amendment to save them from repeal. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 190, line 26, column 3, after ("twenty-one") insert ("and section forty-two and the Sixth Schedule so far as they relate to the Registration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, or to subsection (1) of section twenty-nine of the Elections (Scotland) Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1890").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment corrects a drafting mistake. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 190, columns 2 and 3, leave out lines 56 to 58 and insert—

  "The Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926.

  Part III and the Third Schedule.")

  —(Lord Morrison.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This and the next Amendment are consequential to the Amendment of Clause 31. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 191, line 31, leave out from ("seventy") to end of line 33 and insert ("section seventy-nine").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 191, line 50, after ("fifty") insert ("section fifty-three").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: Subsection (1) of Section 67 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, is superseded by Clause 31 of this Bill and this, therefore, should be included in the repeal Schedule. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 195, line 8, column 3, at end insert ("subsection (1) of section sixty-seven").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, it appears that the Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill is down on the list of Bills which the Royal Commission has to deal with at 5.30 o'clock. If your Lordships would agree that it should be taken now, it would be very convenient.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: We certainly agree to that course.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL.
  4.27 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Constitution of Commission.
  1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be constituted a Commission, to be called the Monopoly Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission").
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1) to omit "Monopoly" and insert "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices." The noble Lord said: During the consideration of this Bill in another
  798
  place there was a good deal of discussion about the Title. It was pointed out, with a good deal of force, that the object of the Bill is to deal, not only with monopolies but also with restrictive practices, which in some ways are perhaps more difficult and troublesome than monopolies. It was admitted by my right honourable friend that the Title was defective and he invited suggestions for improvement. I do not know whether it was because he did not offer a prize for the best suggestion, but no suggestions, were forthcoming. The Government themselves have put down this Amendment to include the words "restrictive practices." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Monopoly") and insert ("Monopolies and Restrictive Practices").—(Lord Chorley.)
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As I raised this question on Committee stage, and suggested that there should be an alteration, perhaps I may be permitted to express my gratification that the Government are moving this Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR or INCHRYE: May I express the appreciation of the many noble Lords on this side and Members in another place who wished that this change should be made?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Procedure and powers of Commission on references.
  8.—(1) The procedure of the Commission in carrying out any investigation where a matter has been referred to them under the preceding provisions of this Act for investigation and report shall be such as the Commission may determine and in particular the Commission shall have power to determine the extent, if any, to which persons interested or claiming to be interested in the subject matter of the reference are allowed to be present or to be heard, either by themselves or by their representatives, or to cross-examine witnesses or otherwise take part in the investigation of the Commission, and the extent, if any, to which the sittings of the Commission are held in public.
  (4) The Commission may pay to any person attending under this section to give evidence or producing documents thereunder such sums in respect of his expenses as they think fit.
  4.29 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that where any person appearing to the Commission to be substantially interested, or any body appearing to the Commission to represent substantial numbers of persons substantially interested, submits to the Commission any representations relating to the subject matter of the reference, the Commission shall consider those representations and shall, unless in all the circumstances they consider that it is not reasonably necessary or is not reasonably practicable so to do, permit that person or body to be heard orally by the Commission or by a member of the Commission nominated by the Commission for that purpose."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment has also been put down in order to meet criticisms made during the passage of the Bill in another place. The clause deals with references and the procedure which the Commission will lay down for that purpose. It was suggested that the references were not sufficiently well defined. I do not think there is much danger of the Commission, which is going to be very carefully chosen, not being perfectly fair in all their arrangements. Obviously, they cannot be expected to hear everybody who can show some sort of interest. If they were making an inquiry into the tobacco industry, for the sake of argument, they could not be expected to listen to every tobacconist who might claim to come and make representations to them. On the other hand, there is clearly something to be said for substantial interests being entitled to a hearing on these occasions. We think that the Amendment as drafted is fair, in that it will secure that representations of substantial interests are considered, and that it also ensures that in a proper case there should be the right to an oral hearing. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Broadly speaking, we think the Government have met the point by this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to add to subsection (4):
  "and may also pay to any body corporate or uncorporated required to supply evidence or to be represented at a hearing under this section such sums in respect of the expenses incurred by that body as the Commission think fit."
  800
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to provide that the Commission may, in certain circumstances, pay expenses incurred by a body corporate or uncorporate required to supply evidence or to be represented at a hearing in front of the Commission. One can visualise a set of circumstances where a body is brought in front of the Commission, and where the result of the investigation by the Commission shows that there was absolutely no case of restrictive practices to be made against the particular body which has been forced to appear. In proving that there is no case, the body may have incurred considerable expense. I know that this is a difficult question for the Government, because, unless one is careful, it opens up the avenue of expenditure in respect of appearances before Government bodies, such as Select Committees, and so on. I submit, however, that this case is somewhat different. This is a statutory body, set up under this Bill, and the principle of no refunding of expenses for appearance in front of a Government Select Committee is not being contravened. However rich or however great the organisation might be, it would not be right for that organisation to be put to unnecessary, and what is, in fact, unfair expenditure. We propose in this Amendment that the Commission should have complete discretion as to whether such an award of expenses should be made. We have tried to draft the Amendment so as to make it as acceptable as possible to the Government. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say one word in reference to this Amendment, to make clear what I, at any rate, want? If your Lordships look at subsection (3), (a) and (b), you will see that the Commission may require people to attend to give evidence, and may require them to produce any documents. As regards those two things, the Commission may under subsection (4), pay to those people such sums in respect of expenses as they think fit. But the draftsman has left out anything in respect of subsection (3) (c), which requires any person carrying on any trade, and so on, to furnish estimates, returns, or other information described in the notice, and specifies the time and

  801
  manner in which those returns are to be furnished. It occurred to my noble friend who moved the Amendment and to myself that if elaborate returns and estimates of the business of a company which is worldwide in scope, and involves hundreds and thousands of pounds in money in different countries, is asked for, a staff of accountants or people of that sort may be required to work for a fortnight—to take only a moderate time—in order to get the information ready. In such a case, which may involve all sorts of knowledge of the values of stocks, and heaven knows what, the Commission should have power in a proper case—this is only permissive—to say: "You have told us what you have had to do to furnish these estimates and returns. We think you ought to have something towards your expenses, and we will offer you" so much. That seems to me to be the most reasonable thing in the world.
  It will not suit the Commission at all to be in a position to say: "We are going to ask you for elaborate estimates and returns; but, mind you, you are not going to get a penny in respect of your expenses for furnishing them, even if you have to get the information from abroad." If they do that, they will find that people will not be very helpful. If, on the other hand, the Commission can say: "We know that this is going to be costly, and we will repay your out-of-pocket expenses in respect of certain things," then they will get what they want done. Against that there is no common-sense argument. I am all for preventing the Government from incurring any more expenses in this year of crisis than we are every week imposing on them in various ways. But this is only a trifle and, I repeat, it is purely permissive, and purely just.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that what the noble and learned Viscount has just said is correct—namely, that it would be in the interests of the Commission and everybody else for the Commission to be on good terms with the great organisations with which they will deal, and I have no doubt at all that they will act in that spirit and not do unreasonable things.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: But they have not power to do so at present.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The point is, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, that we do not wish to open the door to unnecessary claims for expenses. If everybody could have their costs charged to the taxpayers, we should be opening a very wide door. At the same time, I appreciate the point of the noble Lord's contention—I think it is a good one—in regard to cases that are brought before the Commission where the Act does not apply, or where the reference is ill-founded. I think it is reasonable in cases of that kind that consideration should be given to their expenses. Clearly, the Commission are allowed to pay expenses to persons giving evidence or producing documents, and I should have thought that producing documents would apply to some of the things to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has just referred. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, to withdraw his Amendment now, and to discuss this matter with me between now and the Report stage, to see whether we can frame an Amendment which would empower the Commission to make a contribution to expenses where the conditions of the Act do not apply, or where the reference is found to be ill-founded. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment on that understanding, I shall do my best to meet him.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I respond at once to the invitation of the Leader of the House, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him. I only hope that he, with his great organisation for drafting, can bring forward the first suggestion for a draft Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I ask one question on this clause? I do not ask it in any spirit of criticism, but I am a little puzzled. In several instances in this clause power is given to a sole member of the Commission to take certain action. I do not know whether, in bodies of this kind, it is normal to devolve the authority of the whole Commission upon one member. It is not fixing a quorum below which authority shall not have effect; it is giving them power to delegate

  803
  the whole of their authority to one member. It strikes me, at first sight, as unusual and, perhaps, not altogether desirable. After all, there is here a Commission with a minimum of four and a maximum of ten members. I am not quite sure what the point of it is and, equally, I am not clear whether it is a usual provision in other bodies. It also appears in subsection (3) (a), which uses the phrase "a member of the Commission nominated by them."
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The point which the noble Marquess has raised is an important one. It is one of which I was not aware and I will certainly look into it. It is not a Committee point, because there is no Amendment, but perhaps I may confer with him upon it. It is entirely new to me.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I had not noticed this before, and I think it is rather important that we should know. If all that is intended is that one member of the Commission shall be able to hear a witness, ascertain facts and make a report, that is one thing. But a judgment which is given on facts, although the facts may have been ascertained by one or two members, is another. As the noble Marquess himself knows, on a Commission one often delegates one or two members to make a particular inquiry; but the decision as to whether or not mischief is there, what the mischief is and what the remedy should be, should be the decision of the Commission as a whole.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am familiar with subsection (3)(b), under which a member of the Commission can obtain evidence or hear somebody, as a matter of convenience, on behalf of the Commission. That is quite a different thing from discharging the powers and duties of the whole Commission, which is what I think the noble Marquess was suggesting. However, I will look into it further.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I only wanted to know what the limits of the power were.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I hope that the reference at the beginning of subsection (3) on page 8 will not be overlooked, where it says:
  804
  "If it appears to the Commission expedient so to do for the purpose of any such investigation as aforesaid, the Commission may, by notice in writing, signed on their behalf by any of their members or by their Secretary—
  (a) require any person…"
  to do so and so. That, surely, is a very unusual provision.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not sure that that is very unreasonable.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should have thought not. It seems the ordinary practice.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It would not be unusual for the Commission to say: "John Smith is requested to sign that notice for us." He then has to act upon the authority which is given to him.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Publication of reports of Commission.
  9. When the Commission report to the Board of Trade on any matter referred to them under the preceding provisions of this Act for investigation and report, the Board may, and, unless the reference was so framed as to limit the investigation and report to the facts, shall lay the report before each House of Parliament:
  Provided that if it appears to the Board of Trade to be contrary to the public interest that the report, or some part thereof, should be made public, the Board of Trade shall lay before Parliament only so much, if any, of the report as in their opinion can be made public without injury to the public interest.
  4.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in the proviso, after "public interest" (where that phrase first occurs) to insert "or to the commercial interests of any of the parties concerned." The noble and learned Viscount said: This may at first sight seem to be a comparatively trivial matter, but I am afraid that I have to say that it seems to me to be very important. It is not clear at first blush that this Bill is almost entirely devoted to a question relating to trade secrets. Secrets are at the bottom of every objection taken to the way in which a company carries on business, whether it be to procure a monopoly or whether it be to have a restrictive arrangement with some other company or person. I think it was very wise to insert a provison by which the Board of Trade have a hint that, in laying a report before the Houses of Parliament, they should exclude from it matters which it might be contrary to the public

  805
  interest to disclose. They should do that even though it may mean that their report may omit something which would make the report rather clearer, or the reasons for it rather clearer. After all, the Board of Trade are concerned, more than anything else, with assisting the trade of this country. It is not intended that this measure should interfere with the carrying on of business which Is to the advantage of the country, and which will enable us to pay our enormous commitments, whether in respect of national debt or otherwise. Therefore, I think the clause, so far as that goes, is perfectly well worded, and quite right.
  My trouble is this. I know very well, from a long experience of advising commercial concerns, that there is nothing about which they are more particular than the disclosure of secrets which will be of great value to a rival in trade. I have known quite a number of cases in which a company having a perfectly good cause of action over something wrongly done by a particular person have declined to go to law, simply because the directors were aware that it would involve the disclosure of secrets which they would do anything honestly to keep from the knowledge of their trade rivals. It is a matter of that sort which I want to have in some way mentioned in this Bill. I want it to be clear that, in performing their duties, the Board of Trade have not only to frame reports so as not to say anything contrary to the public interest, but also that they at not to disclose commercial interests—apart, of course, from my qualification "except so far as may be necessary in order to explain the report."
  I do not think this Amendment would hurt anybody. It may be said that the Board of Trade are not likely to do that; but it is not known what future Boards of Trade we may have in this country. They may have at their head people who are not so well acquainted as I am with one section of trading by big concerns, and they may not realise, having regard to this clause—which seems to indicate that all they have to do is to consider the public interest—that in drafting the report they ought not to put in cold print information which would be of the greatest possible use to trade rivals, whether in this country or abroad. I am not going to take up much more time, because I am sure that the point is clear. But
  806
  may I just say this? You may say: "Give me an illustration." I can remember, from my personal experience two illustrations which have a certain amount of interest, apart from a great many details which would not interest your Lordships at all.
  I have known a company which was spending a large amount of money to discover where a particular mineral could be found in different parts of the world. If other companies heard that somebody was investigating the question of minerals in a particular country, they would send mining engineers or other persons there to see whether they could not cut out the company who were hunting for the mineral in question. I remember that in one case they spent a lot of money, and they found what they wanted. But I found that there were also cases where they did not; and a company may spend in the course of years many hundreds of thousands of pounds in that sort of inquiry. Having spent that money, they do not want people publishing to the world that they have recently discovered this commodity in a certain latitude and longitude, probably in a more or less uninhabited country. People in the position of my clients will not spend that money and go in for that sort of venture if they think the secret will be disclosed by the Board of Trade in a report. Moreover, if people know there is a company which is undertaking a venture of that sort, and that company is a trade rival, they will arrange for a complaint to be made against the company in question in the hope that the Board of Trade will direct an inquiry to be made—and the inquiry will let out this information. That is one type of thing that they will be anxious to prevent.
  The other is a somewhat similar case. It is that of a company engaged in making a great number of products of a more or less chemical kind. Inquiry of that sort may involve expenditure of the best part of £1,000,000 a year in the case of a big company. Again and again it will be fruitless. I knew a German company, no longer in existence, that used to employ thousands of people in investigating certain methods of producing a particular product, and in one case in a thousand they were successful. They used to take out 1,000 patents a year in England, knowing that 999 would be perfectly useless; but the one repaid

  807
  them for all this expense. Now suppose it is not a new article but a process—one which is difficult to patent and which very likely it would not pay them to patent. What companies of that sort do, to my certain knowledge, is to have a large number of eminent chemical experts and others investigating processes of the kind of which I am thinking, and when they have got them they keep them secret as long as they can. The same position as that I have indicated will arise if a man discovers a way of making, say, sulphuric acid, or whatever it may be, and finds that as soon as he has discovered the secret it is going to be published to the world. This threat of disclosure would not only be detrimental to the commercial interests of this country; it would discourage the spirit of invention, enterprise and adventure—all the things which have tended to help British industry.
  All I want is to make it clear in the Bill that the Board of Trade must regard this matter of trade secrets not merely as a general matter but as an obligation which is imposed upon them in the interests of industry. I am perfectly certain that if this idea is not got into the heads of the Commission and the Board of Trade, and if, as a matter of fact, they do regard trade secrets as of no importance, it will have a perfectly disastrous effect on some of the companies which are carrying on particular kinds of invention and discovery in this country. It is for that reason that I want, so far as I can and so far as public interest does not step in (that is to say, where there is not the obligation which exists in certain cases to make a report reasonably clear) to ensure that these secrets are preserved and not revealed to anybody.
  I would add that it is particularly desirable that some such clause should be inserted when one remembers how vague the duties of the Commission necessarily are. There is nothing they cannot look into, nothing they may not think it necessary to consider. I could give your Lordships many illustrations if I were not afraid of unnecessarily taking up time. I beg the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, if he cannot now make any promise or if he docs not like the terms of this Amendment, at any rate to give it his anxious consideration between now and
  808
  the Report stage. This is not a trifling matter, and it is not sufficient to say that the Board of Trade will be instructed to act on a particular principle. In a matter of this kind we ought to have it in black and white in the Bill, in the interests of the trade of this country—and, I may add, in the interests of this Bill, because if we are going to start with the feeling that the Board of Trade are going to hurt the public interest by disclosing secrets, all sorts of difficulties will follow and the Bill will not have the function which it ought to have of helping, instead of hindering, the trade of this country. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 11, after ("public interest") insert the said words.—(Viscount Maugham.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: As my name is down to this Amendment together with that of the noble Viscount, I should like to support the very important point which he has put so powerfully. I would remind your Lordships that there is no power vested in the Board of Trade to stop the Commission reporting in any way they like. There is no power to prevent the Commission putting into their report all sorts of confidential trade secrets. The only bulwark we have against possible severe injury being caused to commercial interests is reliance on the Board of Trade. It is true that under the Bill the Board of Trade have to judge what is or is not in the public interest. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to judge the public interest in such a way as to safeguard commercial secrets, because the commercial secrets of a British firm are highly valuable to this nation. Nevertheless this is, I submit, too wide an interpretation of the public interest to rely upon; and it would be an advantage to the commercial life of this country if the words proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, were inserted.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount who moved this Amendment can be completely reassured so far as the Board of Trade are concerned, and I feel certain that that would be the view of the responsible Commission that will be entrusted with this duty. The last thing they would want would be to damage British trade by disclosing trade secrets. It would never enter the heads of the

  809
  Board of Trade to injure the public interest by injuring the interests of the firms concerned. The Board of Trade may delete portions of the report if they are so minded. That action, of course, would be related to the expression "public interest." I am advised that the Board of Trade would certainly consider that the undue revelation of trade secrets, affecting the well-being of an important firm, would be a great matter of public interest. I will certainly ask the Board of Trade, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, to see whether they can consider any words which would make it clearer. However, I am quite sure that their intention in the matter is exactly that of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his reply. I have no doubt that what he does will be very useful, but I confess that I think that people in the Board of Trade may not always know what is a trade secret. I want them to be considering all the time whether the revelation of some comparatively unimportant little point may not be very detrimental to the company concerned. However, the noble Viscount can do no more than he has promised. I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  5.2 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "(5) Nothing in any order of a competent authority under this section shall have effect so as to restrain the freedom of any person being a shareholder in a body corporate incorporated otherwise than under the law of the United Kingdom or some part thereof to use his rights as such a shareholder in such manner as appears by him to be expedient."
  The noble Viscount said: I think that this clause will be difficult enough to implement when it deals with matters in the United Kingdom, but it becomes still more difficult to implement properly if and when it has to be made to apply to commercial undertakings in foreign countries. Here I think that we are faced with the choice of evils, and the reason why this Amendment was put down is to explore that choice of evils. On the one hand, it may be argued that,
  810
  unless there are full powers in the Bill to deal with situations that arise in foreign countries and through the actions of foreign subsidiaries of British companies, it will be possible for those of evil intent to drive a coach and four through the provisions of the Bill and achieve ends which the Bill is designed to frustrate. But there is another side altogether, and that is the extent to which it is right and expedient and in the best interests of this country to attempt to interfere with affairs which concern a company registered under the laws of a foreign county, often with foreigners managing or at least on the board of the company.
  This situation arose on the Exchange Control Bill. The same conditions apply in this Bill, though perhaps not in such great measure as they did in the Exchange Control Bill. I would suggest to the noble Viscount opposite that we would be well advised to have an assurance that, when some circumstance arises that involves the conduct of a subsidiary company of a British company in a foreign country, the greatest care will be exercised before steps are taken under this clause, and that, in particular, care will be taken to see that the disadvantages of possible interference with the laws or customs or business practices of any country are not so great as themselves to take away the desirability of action under this clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I agree with the noble Viscount that neither he nor anyone here would wish to enable a person, by operations in a foreign country, to evade the main purposes of this Bill. That is not what he wishes to do. At the same time we have to consider that it might conceivably be possible. The noble Viscount has asked me to give him an assurance that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to safeguard the interests of persons operating in foreign countries, so as not to get them into difficulties in those countries. I asked the Board of Trade to give me that formal assurance for the noble Viscount. I will read what they say:
  "It is the normal practice that British companies should operate in foreign countries through subsidiaries incorporated under the laws of those countries. There is not the least intention of interfering with this practice or in any way embarrassing our nationals in these foreign countries."

  811
  I hope that the noble Viscount will be satisfied with that assurance. I am sure that his point will be fully met.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The assurance given by the noble Viscount opposite meets my point fully. I can do no more than beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (5), after "patent" (where that word first occurs), to insert "or registered trade mark." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I move and the consequential Amendment which follows deal with a most complicated matter. I will be frank with the Committee and say that it is largely beyond my comprehension, but I do understand the main point of my Amendment, which is that under the provisions of this Bill trade marks are not protected in the same way as patents. There is nothing in this Bill which in any way restricts the powers of the competent authority—if the noble Viscount will look at Clause 20 (1), he will see the competent authority cited—in dealing with mischiefs alleged to arise out of the use of trade marks. This matter was discussed in Standing Committee in another place, when the Minister piloting the Bill said that he could not see how the question of trade marks could arise, as there was not the machinery of sanctions under the Trade Marks Acts as there was in the case of patents. I am advised that Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act of 1938 introduced for the first time a system under which quasi-licences of trade marks can validly be granted, and it may be alleged that "mischiefs" arising out of the use of trade marks brought before the Commission may include cases arising out of the grant of such quasi-licences pursuant to the terms of Section 28.
  Under that Act, the proprietor of a registered trade mark who desires to grant quasi-licences—they are referred to in the Act as "permitted users"—must join with the proposed grantee in making a formal application to the Registrar and must inform the Registrar as to the conditions governing the proposed user. Subsection (5) provides that applicants must satisfy the Registrar that the conditions and restrictions are not contrary to the public interest. The Act, therefore,
  812
  specifically appoints the Registrar as the guardian of the public interest. If we pass this Bill as at present drafted, and if the conditions governing the grant of the "permitted user" rights may be reviewed by the Monopoly Commission, there will obviously be confusion and duplication, which it is understood that the Minister wished to avoid. It seems to me that we are taking away from the Registrar the powers which he has been granted in another Act, and it would be better to leave the matter as it is and preserve the authority of the Registrar. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 11, after ("patent") insert ("or registered trade mark").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word on this subject? I venture to submit for the consideration of the noble Lords opposite that there ought to be a subsection here which safeguards the effects of a validly registered trade mark. A trade mark is a restrictive document. It is intended to restrict during its existence, and it may restrict in all sorts of ways. For instance, you may start, as somebody did years ago, by inventing a new metal, or a new process for a metal, and calling it, if my memory serves me aright, "Magnolia," and then under the Trade Marks Act you obtain a restrictive right to prevent anybody else putting on the market under the name of "Magnolia" not merely that particular metal but anything which is within the same class of trade mark articles. Accordingly, unless you put something into this Bill to the effect that nothing in it is intended to prevent the operation of the Trade Marks Act, you will have confusion, because people will not be sure whether they can still rely upon a trade mark. Of course, it is not the intention of the Government to create that confusion, and my suggestion is that they should consider whether there should not be added to this clause something to safeguard trade marks. We do not want to give them any further rights than they have at present. Obviously there is no intention here—nor was there in another place—in any way to affect the validity of the trade mark.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. The exception which it is proposed to meet under subsection (5) of this clause in

  813
  respect of patents is thought to be desirable, because in the case of the unfair use of patents remedies already exist or will be provided in the Patents Acts. In regard to trade marks, no such remedies are, in fact, provided. It is quite true that under the Trade Marks Act of 1938, to which the noble Lord referred, there is a right which is much more limited than the right under the Patents Law, and which really does not go very far. In view of the fact that there are these possible limitations in the case of patents, it is thought perfectly reasonable that this provision should be in the Bill. But in regard to trade marks, it might well be thought that some sort of usage was taking place which was against the national interest—indeed, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, suggested a type of case where that might happen. Therefore, it would be wrong, as I submit to your Lordships, to put a trade mark in the same position as a patent, as the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to do. It is not for a moment intended that any order should be made providing for the compulsory use of a trade mark by any person other than the registered owner of it, but it is thought right that there should be power to deal with the matter of the use of a trade mark which is contrary to the public interest, and I would be prepared——
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Might I add a word there? I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord, with the greatest respect, that he has been misinstructed on the law of trade marks. Trade marks are restrictive, but they are restrictive only as to an infringement of the mark. If you put anything—whether it be a figure of a crowing cock or a name or a phrase or an invented word—on the article which you are producing, although there is nothing in the article which is invented, you are entitled to a monopoly use of the class of goods to which the trade mark refers—a complete and absolute monopoly during the period of subsistence of the trade mark. It is intended to have that effect; it has no other effect at all. My noble friend has been instructed apparently that why people want trade marks is for the purpose of licensing their use. That is not so. That is only an
  814
  incidental right of a trade mark owner under the recent Act.
  The real point about a trade mark is that it prevents others putting the mark, or a passable imitation of the mark, on the goods in question. Of that, there is no doubt at all; it is the A.B.C. of trade mark law. It protects only the mark and nothing else. All I am suggesting is that you should make it perfectly clear in the Bill that you are protecting the mark, just as much as before—or, rather, that you are not saying anything whatever in the Bill to affect the validity of a trade mark. Until my noble friend appreciates that it is a monopoly, but a monopoly use of a particular registered trade mark——
  LORD CHORLEY: The remarks of the noble and learned Viscount carry great weight, and in the light of what he has said I should be pleased to have the matter looked at if that Would satisfy the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I was stopped in my little speech with the regret that it was so long but, since my noble friend says that, I am willing to cease a diatribe on this question in regard to trade marks.
  LORD CHORLEY: I hope I was not looking so unco-operative that the noble and learned Viscount thought he ought to go on hammering at me.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: On the assurance of the Minister, that here is a substantial point which is largely beyond my comprehension, but upon which the noble and learned Viscount with his great experience has added his powerful opinion, and on the assurance that the Minister is going to look into it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  5.30 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Merchant Shipping,

  Agriculture (Scotland),

  Employment and Training,

  Agricultural Wages,

  Public Works Loans,

  Warwick Corporation,

  Cromer Urban District Council.

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL.
  5.40 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  Clause 14:
  Public interest.
  14. In determining whether any conditions to which this Act applies or any things which are done by the parties concerned as a result of, or for the purpose of preserving, any conditions to which this Act applies, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest, all matters which appear in the particular circumstances to be relevant shall be taken into account and, amongst other things, regard shall be had to the need, consistently with the general economic position of the United Kingdom, to achieve—
  (a) the production, treatment and distribution by the most efficient and economical means of goods of such types, in such volume and at such prices as will best meet the requirements of home and overseas markets;
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in paragraph (a), after "types" to insert "and qualities." The noble Lord said: I feel that this Amendment is one of considerable substance, and is deserving of the attention of the Committee. Nowhere in the Bill, as at present drafted, is there any admission that certain types of restrictive agreements may be highly desirable to protect the quality of United Kingdom products. The normal reason why competitors in an industry get together to fix minimum prices is that circumstances have arisen whereby, because of a price war, the quality of the product has to be cut. A cut in quality in the next few years may often mean serious damage to the export trade. It may well be that in certain
  816
  cases there are other and better methods of preventing a fall in quality, but there will be cases in which the effect of the cancellation of a minimum price agreement, or of an agreement to withhold supplies from offenders, may lead to a diminution of quality. It is, therefore, perfectly plain that the effect on quality of terminating restrictive agreements should be one of the matters uppermost in the minds of the Commission.
  In a few sentences I will give your Lordships one example of this. It is possible that the whole utility fabric and apparel schemes, based as they are on minimum specifications, with the sanction of withholding supplies resting in the hands of the Government in cases where such specifications are not met, could properly be regarded as a form of restraint of trade. In fact, this particular type of practice may well prove to be essential if the public are to be best served in the future. When the existing utility schemes, which we all know so well, are dropped, it is possible that some, at least, of the various elements in the textile industry will find it necessary to reach amongst themselves an agreement maintaining the minimum standards of the utility scheme, and maintaining the sanctions which alone will ensure that such a scheme will operate. It is to protect just such an arrangement that we wish to insert this Amendment in the definition of the public interest. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will find favour with the Government, because it is one upon which we feel very strongly. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 41, after ("types") insert ("and qualities").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is quite right in what he has said, and I will not waste time by repeating it. In the definition of the public interest, in Clause 14 (a), only types of goods which will best meet the requirements of the home and overseas markets are mentioned. This Amendment adds "qualities" to "types." "Types" might have been all right to cover "qualities," but it is as well to have this clear, and I have pleasure in accepting the noble Lord's Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Reports on general questions.
  15.—(1) The Board of Trade may at any time require the Commission to submit to them a report on the general effect on the public interest of practices of a specified class, being practices which in the opinion of the Board are commonly adopted as a result of, or for the purpose of preserving, conditions to which this Act applies.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that the Board shall not require a report under this subsection on the general effect of practices of any class unless they are satisfied that practices, of that class have been dealt with, in relation to goods of particular descriptions, by previous reports of the Commission and that it is expedient that the views of the Commission in relation to practices of that class should be formulated in a general report."
  The noble Lord said: Clause 15 gives the Board of Trade power to call for reports on general questions. During the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading a number of your Lordships expressed fear lest this power should be used by the Board of Trade to call for what I think was described by one noble Lord as "a general essay." It never has been the intention of the Government that this power should be used in that way. Therefore, we are content to try to safeguard the position. We hope and believe that we have done so by the tabling of this Amendment which in effect, as your Lordships will see, confines the case where a general report may be called for to that sort of case where the Commission have conducted an investigation, have become seized of all the relevant information and are well situated to prepare such a report. I hope your Lordships will agree that this meets the criticism that was made, and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The criticism which this Amendment is designed to meet was voiced by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinton, who hoped that theoretical essays were not going to be the work of the Commission, but that it would consist of real and practical examination. Broadly, I think, this
  818
  Amendment meets our point, and we are grateful to the noble Lord for moving it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16:
  Annual report.
  (2) Every such report shall, amongst other things, include a review in such detail as the Board think fit of the suggestions and requests (not being suggestions and requests which appear to the Board to be frivolous) which have been made to the Board for the reference of any particular matter to the Commission under the provisions of this Act:
  Provided that when a request has been made to the Board by a body which in the opinion of the Board could properly claim to represent, for the purposes in question, the interests of any of the following, that is to say—
  (a) consumers in Great Britain or a substantial proportion of those consumers;
  the review shall, if the body so require, contain a specific statement that the request has been made by that body, and of the description of goods to which the request relates.
  5.48 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEhad given Notice to move in subsection (2), to omit all words from, and including, "suggestions" down to the beginning of the proviso, and to insert:
  "investigations which have been made in reference to any particular or general matters by the Commission under the provisions of this Act."
  The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss together all the Amendments to Clause 16, with the exception of that in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, at page 13, line 42, which deals with a different subject. Your Lordships will see that the last Amendment on this clause covers the point which all my Amendments aim to cover. Therefore, if it is convenient to the Government, we might say what we wish to say on this, and I will withdraw this Amendment. I shall be pleased to accept the Government's Amendment, which substantially meets the point which I tried to make on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  My aim is to protect the position of industries which might be reported to the Board of Trade, with a view to investigation by the Board of Trade, which, if a prima facie case were made out, would be passed on to the Commission to be investigated. I felt that it was unfair that

  819
  those who were, so to speak, in dread of the Board of Trade but had not been touched by the Board of Trade, should be held up as a section of the community accused of going in for monopolistic and restrictive practices. My Amendments suggest that the report of the Board of Trade should contain only details of cases and should cite only cases that had been actually investigated by the Commission. The Government Amendment goes more than half way towards meeting my point. It says that the report shall not include those industries which have been reported for investigation but where the Board of Trade have found there is not really a prima facie case to pass on to the Commission. It is not quite what we like, but it is most of what we wanted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 26, leave out from the second ("the") to the end of line 30 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful attitude, but I think it might serve a useful purpose if I explained why the Amendments in this form would not be so acceptable to the Government as the Amendment which is to be moved by my noble friend on behalf of Lord Hall. The effect of these Amendments would be to substitute, instead of a review of complaints and a list of certain complaints, a review of investigations and a list of investigations. The whole point of subsection (2) of the clause is to focus attention on the Board of Trade's failure to do their duty if at any time they received complaints which ought to be referred and did not in fact refer them. To give a list of investigations is to do nothing; practically all formal investigations will be followed by published reports. In making an annual report about the operation of the Act, a review of investigations is inevitable. It may not be sufficiently understood that the bodies described in Clause 16 (with the exception of the professional workers) are not sectional bodies, but national and representative bodies, and that the Government would regard the body representative of the organised workers of Great Britain as the T.U.C., and would not include in the list representations from individual trade unions, any more than from individual
  820
  trade associations or chambers of commerce. I think the Government Amendment goes as far as we can. The noble Lord has accepted that, for which we on this side of the House are grateful.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In view of the statement of the Government and the Government Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is preparatory to the Amendment to which the noble Lord has just referred. There is a further preparatory Amendment at line 43 on the same page, and the substantive Amendment is at line 45. In view of the fact that this matter has been raised, perhaps your Lordships will think it convenient for me to deal with it at this stage, although there is not much more for me to add. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has pointed out the problem which his Amendment was designed to meet, and has referred to the criticism which he made during the Second Reading debate. This Amendment has been tabled in order to meet that criticism. The subsection which was complained about is not to apply
  "in the case of a request if the Board of Trade are satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for supposing that it is or may be the fact that conditions to which this Act applies prevail as respects the description of goods in question."
  I do not think there is any more I need add. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 31, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("(3) subject to the provisions of this subsection ").—(Lord Chorley.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I want to get one thing clear, because I think we are near agreement on this matter. I would like to make my point because I have not been in the Committee during the discussion. If there has been a proposal to make an inquiry and the Board of Trade have decided that there is no prima facie case, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, "Well, such and such a body asked the Board of Trade to make an inquiry into this matter but the Board of Trade have decided that there was not a prima facie case so they did not refer it. That ought to be in the report."
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It will be.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not in the least object to that, because that, in fact, is a decision, and the Board of Trade have decided against an inquiry. I absolutely agree that if an inquiry has been held and a trade association has been criticised, that fact should appear fully in the published report, because the whole essence of the; Bill is that we should rely upon the widest publicity. What I am anxious about is this. Suppose that I accuse the noble Lord's trade association. I think it would be unfair that a report should come out, in which it is said: "There have been a dozen inquiries which have been investigated and the results appear in the published report; there have been a dozen complaints and they have been turned down because the Board of Trade did not think there was prima facie evidence; but there are two inquiries about which the Board have not made up their minds and which are still sub judice. One is an allegation against the trade association of Lord Lucas that they will not deal in motor cars with anybody except the Labour Party, and the other is against the association of Viscount Swinton, that it is guilty of some very corrupt practice." I think it would be quite wrong that it should go out to the world that those accusations have been made. We might wait for a year, when it might be found that the accusations would never come before the tribunal at all because the Board of Trade, when they had considered them (I know they would do it as quickly as possible, but some time must be occupied in doing it) might decide that there was no prima facie case. Lord Lucas and I would have to remain for a year under the stigma of being accused of some improper practice, although when the following year's report came out we would either have been acquitted by the tribunal, or the Board of Trade would have decided, like a Grand Jury, that there was no case to go to trial. I want a safeguard provided against that happening.
  It cannot be of the least advantage to anybody to have a report in which it is said that this person is accused of arson, that that person is accused of burglary, or that another person is accused of theft. It is not as if you had to publish a Cause List which the courts have to publish. It seems to me to come within the ordinary principle that while a thing is sub judice, you do not talk about it. The moment the
  822
  inquiry has been adjudicated upon, then I am all in favour of the fullest possible publicity.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has one thing not quite right, and I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas's, assent was correct. My noble friend said that where an industry had been reported to the Board of Trade and there was found to be no case against the firm, he did not mind the firm being listed.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, because the Board of Trade have acquitted them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In fact, what this Amendment does is to take out entirely from tin report of the Board of Trade any mention of a case where there had been a prima facie investigation and no case was made.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is quite right.
  LORD CHORLEY: The object, of course, is that there should be no stigma. But the point which the noble Viscount has made concerning the sub judice aspect is rather a different one. My own impression on reading this clause is that the report is a report on the operation of the Act in the past period. I would not have thought that there would be brought within the report a case which was under investigation, because until the investigation is complete it would not come within the operation of the Act during the twelve months. But that is just my own reading of the clause, and, as the point is important, I shall be glad to take more expert advice.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should be glad if the noble Lord would look at it again. I understand that the impression of those who were engaged on this matter in another place was that the cases which were sub judice would come into the report, and that then there would be a year's wait. I think we are all completely agreed. But suppose that there are half a dozen cases which are mentioned, which the Board of Trade have under consideration and which they may or may not be sending to the Commission. The noble Lord has almost gone further than I asked him to, by saying that where the Board of Trade had turned down a case it will not be mentioned. A fortiori

  823
  what ought not to be mentioned in the report is the sort of case where A or B is accused of an awful crime and the Commission have not even begun to consider it. It may be that the noble Lord is right, and that as this is worded that could not find its way into the report. But as there is some doubt, it ought to be made quite clear.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am perfectly happy to give the noble Viscount that assurance. It is a matter of legal construction and it may be that the noble Viscount is right in suggesting that there is such a power. I am not in a position to make any statement as to policy, and I shall be very glad to deal with the matter on the lines the noble Viscount has suggested.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (f) to insert:
  "(g) the professional workers of Great Britain, of England and Wales or of Scotland, who are particularly concerned."
  The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which has been tabled at the request of the Opposition in order to make provision under the complaint procedure for the complaints of professional bodies. As your Lordships will see, there are already a substantial number of bodies referred to in the proviso at the end of the clause, and it was strongly urged that professional bodies should be introduced—bodies of the type not covered by the earlier paragraph in the proviso. We accept that view, and we have tabled this in order to include professional bodies. All I need point out as to the wording of the Amendment is that it covers those professional workers who are particularly concerned in the matter which is under investigation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 42, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: While thanking the noble Lord for this Amendment, may I draw attention to the apparently rather curious wording:
  "the professional workers of Great Britain, of England and Wales or of Scotland,…"
  May I take it that this is not an attempt to go back on the Act of Uniformity? It is capable of a more or less sinister interpretation! Does it mean boards which
  824
  purport to represent professional workers in Scotland, or in England and Wales, as opposed to bodies who represent the whole of Great Britain? The wording is a little curious.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am sure the noble Lord would not dream of accusing me of attacking the interests of Scotland in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who is, very properly, always so anxious to defend those interests. The point is that these professional bodies in some cases cover the whole of Great Britain, and in some cases they cover only England, Scotland, or Wales as the case may be. This is an attempt to cover that.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would the noble Lord look at the point whether "Northern Ireland" ought to be put in?
  LORD CHORLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I will certainly look at that.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 43, after ("review") insert ("referred to in subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: This is the Amendment which we discussed a moment or two ago. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 45, at end insert ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of a request if the Board of Trade are satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for supposing that it is or may be the fact that conditions to which this Act applies prevail as respects the description of goods in question.")—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Interpretation]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This is merely a drafting Amendment to bring in the new-Companies Act of 1948. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 24, leave out ("eighteen of the Companies Act, 1947") and insert ("one hundred and fifty-four of the Companies Act, 1948").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Short Title]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This is consequential on the new title of the Commission which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 14, leave out ("Monopoly") and insert ("Monopolies and Restrictive Practices").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hall, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is purely a Consolidation Bill, and I do not think it needs any further explanation.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we welcome this Bill, which, as the noble Lord has said, is a Consolidation Bill. It is introduced in accordance with a promise given last year, but I have one suggestion to make. This is a very complicated Bill. Would the Government consider issuing some sort of booklet
  826
  upon it, in the same way as they did in the case of the National Insurance Bill, so that those affected may know what is their exact relationship to the new consolidated law?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will certainly convey the noble Lord's suggestion to my noble friend Lord Hall.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  TRANSFERRED UNDERTAKINGS (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYERS) REGULATION,1948.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) ORDER, 1948.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House: That in their opinion the Orders raise important questions of policy and principle: That the Orders are not founded on precedent: That in the Opinion of the Committee the Orders cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Orders: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at fourteen minutes past six o'clock.