LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 13 July 1948)

§ 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.

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.