Lords Sitting of 26 October 1949

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

  TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government why they concluded a fresh trade agreement with Czechoslovakia, seeing the ferocity of the persecution now raging there.]
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the new Trade and Financial Agreements with Czechoslovakia make provision for the supply of necessary goods to the United Kingdom, including timber, sugar and certain machinery, and provide further, in return for facilities for Czechoslovak traditional exports, for a settlement of Czechoslovak financial indebtedness to this country, including payment of compensation for British property which has been nationalised. The views of His Majesty's Government on the present state of affairs in Czechoslovakia are well known, but it is not their policy that, on account of political differences, we should forgo supplies vital to the economy of this country, on the one hand, or the repayment of debt, on the other.
  LORD VANSITTART: Is the noble Lord aware that since the Communists "landed" this Agreement the persecution has been greatly intensified?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The facts may be as the noble Lord says; but is he certain that if we cancelled all trade agreements and forwent all debts, the persecutions would cease?
  LORD BARNBY: Will the noble Lord give consideration to the effect on purchases by this country of raw materials from sterling areas, prices of which are being forced up as a result of credits
  1244
  given by Dominion Governments to the Czechoslovak Government to buy raw materials in sterling areas in competition with this country? Will he bring this matter to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Lord will agree that that hardly arises out of the original question or out of my reply.
  LORD VANSITTART: May I ask whether this House and this country are not perfectly well aware that in the days of my youth we sacrificed over and over again, with our eyes open and deliberately, every political and economic interest we had in Turkey because we wished to protest against the atrocities of Abdul-Hamid? I have not asked for the cancellation of existing agreements, but ought we to fortify this tyranny with extra agreements at this moment?

  FUNDS OF MIGRANTS TO CANADA
  2.38 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in connection with funds of recent migrants to the Dominion of Canada impounded by the harsh regulations, they can yet state what steps, if any, are arranged or are in prospect following devaluation of the pound sterling to relieve the threatened loss by persons aiming to carry on the traditions of Empire development overseas.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I regret that I cannot yet make a statement on this subject, which is still under consideration by His Majesty's Government. I need hardly say that I do not accept all the implications in the noble Lord's Question.
  LORD BARNBY: Arising out of the noble Lord's reply, and while regretting that it is not possible yet to give any encouragement to the expectations that may remain with these unfortunate victims, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be agreeable to consulting with his colleagues at the Treasury to see whether redress is not possible? And, since it is now

  1245
  manifest that His Majesty's Government failed to foresee that devaluation of the pound would occur, may I ask that there shall be some acceleration in the speed of release, so as to avoid any possibility of a recurrence of the misfortunes which these persons have experienced?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly see that what the noble Lord says is brought to the notice of my colleague, but I cannot otherwise add to what I have said this afternoon.

  COAST PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) REGULATIONS, 1949
  2.40 p.m.
  THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, as you are aware, the winning and working of minerals is, by the definition in Section 12 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, development, and therefore subject to the provisions of the Act. The Act provides, in Section 81, that regulations may be made adapting and modifying the provisions of the Act to fit the special case of minerals, and in pursuance of this the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1948, were made last year. The present regulations prescribe certain further adaptations and modifications which have been found necessary.
  The regulations now before your Lordships have three purposes. First, they ensure that mineral workers are not under a disadvantage by reason of their methods of operation so far as the workings of Section 63 of the Act are concerned. It enables them, in cases where they are working, perhaps, a thin vein of land, to obtain for the purpose of making a claim a larger unit of land than would otherwise be the case. The second purpose is to enable a fair allocation of the amount of the claim to be made as between the lessor and the lessee of a mineral working. It is largely a matter of machinery. The third purpose is to amend the earlier regulations, which provided that, while
  1246
  the value of buildings, plant and machinery used for winning and working the minerals cannot be included in the calculation of the value of the land, the existence of these things can be taken into account. The regulations now submitted would extend this provision to cover buildings, plant and machinery used for processing the minerals. These regulations are not controversial, and your Lordships will be pleased to know that all the points raised in them are being discussed with mineral undertakers, and there is every reason to believe that they will be acceptable to them. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of July last, be approved.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, before we give approval to this Order, I think it is right that a word or two should be said. It is a complicated instrument, and I spent some time in the Library last night studying it with the relevant Act and the Regulations already made. It appears, as the noble Lord said, that this is an easement of certain conditions. It is a modification of conditions affecting compensation for mineral undertakers and mineral owners; and it is, I understand, the result of negotiations between the Central Land Board and these interests. We can have no objection to that. But it occurs to me that possibly the Government, as a substantial mineral owner and undertaker, have a little fellow feeling for those in the same position—
  "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin."
  Indeed, the Town and Country Planning Act is causing concern in many directions, but there will be an occasion to debate it more fully on a Motion by my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, in about two weeks' time, when we can discuss its working. As the noble Lord has said, this Order is non-controversial. It is a little spurt of oil where the machine is creaking. We shall discuss the creaking machine at a later date. I hope that your Lordships will approve the Order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1949.
  2.45 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Morrison, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of July last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of July last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, this Order does the same for Scotland as the other does for England. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will give it approval. I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who attends to Scottish affairs in this House, will soon be with us again, and that we shall have good news of his progress in hospital.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will forward to my noble friend, Lord Morrison, the words that have just been spoken by the noble Lord. I received a letter from my noble friend, Lord Morrison, this morning. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote two passages from it:
  "I have now left hospital and am making good progress. … A period of convalescence will be necessary and, if all goes well, I hope to be back in my place about the last week in November."
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ENBORNE VALLEY RESERVOIR SCHEME
  2.47 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement in The Times on October 15 by the Metropolitan Water Board that the Enborne Valley reservoir scheme has been abandoned, the suspense which still hangs over the inhabitants of the valley can be definitely removed, and whether an assurance can be given to that effect; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason I have brought up this matter which is embodied in the question I am asking the Government is that lately a report on the
  1248
  subject has been issued by the Metropolitan Water Board. I propose to deal with it as shortly as possible. There are one or two matters I want to ask the Government to investigate. I understand that the Thames Conservancy in 1908 and again since then, made certain investigations. I should like to ask the Government whether they will look into that matter and find out whether the Metropolitan Water Board asked for those reports. If your Lordships were embarking on any big undertaking and knew that some years before an investigation had been made and, as a result of that investigation, the whole project had been shut down, I am sure you would want to see those reports before you incurred a large expenditure of money.
  It is admitted in the report that I have here that £70,000 has been spent on this investigation in the Enborne Valley by the Metropolitan Water Board. My information is that there is no doubt whatever that, if they had gone into this question with other people who investigated this subject years ago, they would not have spent one penny, because the same disqualification for such a project exists to-day as existed then, and so far as I can make out, is likely to remain for all time. My neighbours (of whom there are 6,000) and I who live in this Valley have had eighteen months' suspense and worry while these investigations have been proceeding. It has now been set out in the report, from which I will read one or two lines. It is a summary of a rather technical character. First of all, there is the technical and biological report and objections. It is summed up as follows:
  "In addition the biological quality of the water could never be guaranteed to be of a standard which should be discharged into a river"—
  that is, the Thames.
  "For these reasons we are of opinion that that portion of the scheme to return water to the River from the reservoir is not a practicable proposition and should be abandoned."
  I want to dwell on the word "abandoned" for one moment, because I think it is important. Subsequently, the chief engineer went into another proposition with regard to the same Valley, and this is the result of his investigation:
  "The water would be conveyed directly to the Board's purification works by means of an aqueduct instead of being discharged into the river. Subject to the geologists' report being

  1249
  satisfactory there would appear to be no objections to this modified scheme from the engineering, and biological aspects, but the cost would be considerably increased, and the Enborne scheme in consequence loses its attraction on financial grounds."
  There are the two things that have been investigated: the technical and biological question of the water being entirely unfit to be discharged into the Thames; and the question of expense that the committee could not recommend.
  I would like to refer for a moment to London's water supply. As your Lordships know, we have had an abnormal drought this summer, and yet I am not aware that anybody in London has been asked to be particularly careful or not to have a bath. I have seen no notices displayed to that effect. I understand, too, that people have been able to get their cars washed in garages as in ordinary times. Then there is the question of London's population. Is the population of London going to increase very greatly? We have these satellite towns being established all over the country, and from observation and study of the subject I would say that the population of London will probably remain what it is now. Although the Committee of the Metropolitan Water Board have recommended the abandonment of both these schemes, the chairman made one remark, which has filled us with gloom in the Valley. He said that inquiries would be continued in the Enborne Valley; that the people of the Enborne Valley had been in a state of uncertainty for eighteen months; that the Board were sorry they had been kept in suspense, but that they must still further be kept in suspense.
  I do make a very strong appeal to His Majesty's Government to take up this matter. We have been kept in this tragic position for the eighteen months mentioned, and although abandonment of the scheme has now been recommended by the Committee set up by the Metropolitan Water Board, the chairman still refers to certain other investigations. It seems to me that what maintains now in the Valley in regard to these conditions is not likely to alter in the future, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will do something to relieve us as soon as possible from the position in which we find ourselves. If it is decided that this suspense should be continued I feel very strongly that the Metropolitan Water
  1250
  Board should buy our property from us and rent it to us. Everything is deteriorating in the Valley. No one is spending a penny on anything—fencing, drainage, gates and so on. All the people do as little as possible because of what I have described before as this Sword of Damocles hanging over them; and they would be foolish to do otherwise. There is no development going on anywhere, and I do ask His Majesty's Government to take up this matter as strongly as possible and as soon as possible. I beg that they will do something to protect us from be continuance of this state of affairs. I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and to move for Papers.
  2.54 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I want to make just a brief, factual statement and then I hope to be in a position to give the noble Lord the assurances that he desires. Before I enter upon the factual statement, perhaps I should reply briefly to one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord in his speech. I have taken note of the report made by the Thames Conservancy Board in 1908, and I will cause inquiries to be made as to whether proper attention has been given to it. I would say, however, that this and other reports of the Metropolitan Water Board will not be published by His Majesty's Government. Obviously, however, before Parliament can give proper attention to the facts the Government will have to make representations to the authorities concerned so that those reports can be made available. I do not know of the amount of money expended by the Metropolitan Water Board in the Enborne Valley, and even if I did, I could not at this stage very well comment upon it; as the noble Lord knows, in this matter the Minister of Health occupies a dual position. Nor can I comment on the point that he has raised about the use of Thames water. But I will see that the point mentioned by him receives appropriate attention.
  Briefly, the facts are as follows. Last year a report was made to the Metropolitan Water Board indicating that a very much larger storage of water was required for the people of London. That report contained no recommendations, but it was indicated that in the Enborne Valley an impounded reservoir could be

  1251
  erected which would hold three times the amount of water of the proposed reservoirs at Walton, Wraysbury and Datchet. The Metropolitan Water Board were not committed by the report. They had to take cognisance of the fact that the report had been made, and they had to authorise the necessary inquiries in the Valley. Moreover, the Minister of Health on three occasions gave authority for the prosecution of inquiries. But I want to emphasise this: that by those actions neither the Metropolitan Water Board nor the Minister of Health were committed. They were entirely free to reach decisions upon the final reports, whatever might be their nature. The final decision, however, is not one for the Metropolitan Water Board or for the Minister of Health. Ultimately, decisions taken by both Minister and authority will have to be embodied either in a Special Order or in a Bill. They will therefore come before both Houses and the final decision will remain with Parliament.
  As the noble Lord has said, the Metropolitan Water Board on October 14 this year had a meeting and, according to the Press, they decided at that meeting not to proceed at present with the tentative proposals for the Enborne Valley. The Minister took immediate action, and called for the reports, engineering, geological and biological, from the Metropolitan Water Board. The Board, as I understand, have undertaken to provide the Minister with copies of those reports. The Minister has specially asked me to say that he is well aware of the difficulties created in the Enborne Valley by the apparent delay, but he would like me to say to your Lordships that inquiries of this kind inevitably take time. He agrees, however, that if more time than necessary were expended it would be the duty of the Minister to enter into consultation with the Board with a view to expediting the report and a decision.
  Notwithstanding the feelings of the people in the Valley the Minister cannot make an arbitrary decision. He cannot say to the Metropolitan Water Board now, "You must not proceed with this scheme." It will be for the Metropolitan Water Board to put in their proposals and it will then be for the Minister to hold an inquiry, and it will be his duty—a duty
  1252
  that he will carry through—to listen to all the representations that may be made to him, as he must act in such a case in a quasi-judicial capacity. Your Lordships will understand, therefore, my previous reference to an arbitrary decision. He does wish me to emphasise, however, that he will continue in touch with the Board so that the decision can be expedited, as he fully understands the disquietude amongst residents in the area.
  3.0 p.m.
  VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, as a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, I would like to say how much I, and I know all members of the Board, sympathise with the position in which the inhabitants of the Enborne Valley find themselves placed. We are not a factious body by any means. We are not considering this great scheme merely with a view to being troublesome, but we are charged with the very important duty of supplying London with water. We have more than 6,500,000 consumers of water in London, and the consumption is going up year after year. At the present moment, we are supplying something like 330,000,000 gallons of water a day to consumers of London's water. To give an idea of what that means, let me tell your Lordships that that is a volume of something like four times the amount of water in the Serpentine, and it is consumed every day by people who use water in London. Therefore, our problem is a great and difficult one.
  It appears to us that there is a prospect of steady increase in consumption in the future. There are thousands and thousands of houses in London at the present time with no bath. Many thousands more have only one tap, and the consumption of water per head of the population is bound to go up year after year as new houses are built and more advantage is taken of the facilities that are being provided. Just before the war the consumption per head was 43 gallons; now it is running at something like 50 gallons. So your Lordships will see that we cannot stand still. All the time we have to look round and see where the water that will be needed for the future generations of this great city is coming from. We had before us recently proposals for three reservoirs—one at Datchet, one at Wraysbury and one at Walton. These reservoirs are relatively

  1253
  of a small capacity—altogether, I think, something like 16,000,000,000 or 18,000,000,000 gallons—and the Enborne Valley scheme was then proposed. This, as your Lordships may be aware, is a scheme for a vast reservoir with a capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 gallons, and it appeared to us that this would satisfy London's demand for water for a great many years to come.
  That reservoir was originally envisaged as a deep reservoir—a 100 ft. darn was going to be built across the bottom of the Enborne Valley. Since then, as the noble Lord has pointed out, certain difficulties have arisen with regard to the bacteriological effect of deep reservoirs. We have not had the experience with deep reservoirs that has been gained abroad, and these bacteriological problems have now come to light. So the Enborne Valley scheme which originally seemed so attractive ceased on the grounds of expense to be the attraction it was. Since then we have had to consider the problem of whether it would not be possible to have a shallow reservoir at the Enborne Valley with the water piped to London. That scheme is being investigated at the present time. It takes a great deal of time to get the proper engineering appreciation of a vast undertaking like this, and only some eighteen months have passed since the engineers first examined the spot. It will be a little longer before a full report will be made on the borings from which we can decide whether the reservoir will be properly watertight or not.
  In the meantime the construction of the reservoirs at Datchet and Wraysbury is to go on. But the future holds some extremely difficult problems. Sooner or later some other great reservoir will have to be built, but whether in the Enborne Valley or in some other part of the country no one can foresee at the present time. I would, however, like to assure the noble Lord that we on the Metropolitan Water Board are most sympathetic with regard to the interests and feelings of the people of the Enborne Valley, and we do not wish to keep them in suspense any longer than is absolutely necessary.
  3.6 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in this debate for very long. This is not the first
  1254
  occasion on which we have heard of the Enborne Valley scheme. It has now been taken a stage further, and it would appear that, for various reasons, the Metropolitan Water Board are not going to pursue their scheme for a deep reservoir. But they still have their fingers on the Enborne Valley and are considering the construction of a shallow reservoir. So the inhabitants of the Enborne Valley are left in a position of doubt. not knowing whether they are going to be able to keep their land there, and not enabled, as others are, to do those necessary works to improve its value agriculturally, and so undertake the burden which has been placed upon owners and occupiers of land by the Minister of Agriculture.
  The point that I want to make is that this reveals with even greater clarity the difficulties we are in with regard to our water supply. We have heard that something has to be done for London. I do not blame the Metropolitan Water Board, because they have the responsibility of finding the water for London. But I do blame His Majesty's Government because, apparently, they have no clear policy with regard to water supplies in general. If they had a distinct policy which covered the whole country—and this has been urged upon them as a matter of grave importance not only to London but to other big centres of population as well—we should not have these piecemeal attempts to improve the situation here and there. These piecemeal plans cause great disturbance to the occupiers and owners of the land which will be concerned and are a serious deterrent to the people inhabiting the areas from doing their best in the present difficult circumstances of the country.
  3.8 p.m.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to support with all my strength what has just been said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. After all, those of us who are concerned—some of us are concerned directly and others indirectly—with the very important matter of food production in this country realise that this question of water, as exemplified in the Enborne Valley scheme, is one of those things that have a deterrent effect on efforts at greater production of food. I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl. I am convinced that those who have the interest of agriculture and the country as a whole at heart feel that occurrences of this kind are a

  1255
  real deterrent to the achievement of the policy which we are all out to implement.
  3.9 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches which have been made in this debate. Naturally I have the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and those for whom he speaks, who are affected by this Enborne Valley proposition. I have also the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Viscount who spoke for the Metropolitan Water Board. There is one question which I would like to ask—I am not sure if it has been already dealt with. It is whether there is a possible alternative to the Wraysbury, Datchet and Enborne Valley schemes. Mention has been made in the public Press of the possibility of transferring water from, I think, the Severn Valley to the Thames watershed. I do not know whether that possibility has been considered, or even whether it is a practical scheme. But I hope that if there is anything in it it will be examined with great care, because if successful it would, I imagine, do away with the necessity for causing any disturbance in the Enborne Valley. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply for His Majesty's Government will see that that particular aspect is considered and most carefully weighed.
  3.10 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I will not intervene for more than a few moments, but I must stress that we are most anxious to do everything that we can to alleviate as soon as possible the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and his friends. My noble friend Lord Shepherd made that quite clear, I think, and I wish to protest most emphatically against the intervention of the noble Earl opposite and his supporter on this side. The noble Earl might just as well blame His Majesty's Government for the drought which we have experienced, or for the rainy weather to-day. We have been exceedingly active in these matters, and indeed the House has often taken us to task for the comprehensive nature and the far-reaching character of the proposals which the Government have introduced. But here we are only inheriting the results of the
  1256
  neglect of a generation of rule by the noble Lord's friends.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this debate seems to be getting slightly outside the Enborne Valley and perhaps we should try and bring it back to that. So far as I know, the history of London's water supply shows that great improvements were made, not by any Government but by the Metropolitan Water Board in the years on which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just thought fit to animadvert. It is most disappointing that people take so long to make up their minds. More than anything else this country needs to go ahead with food production and the improvement of the land. If this large valley is threatened with the possibility of being swamped by the Metropolitan Water Board, things in the Valley are inclined to mark time. Nobody is going to put a lot of work and money into the necessary improvements that might otherwise have been begun. I hope this matter will be expedited. I was rather sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, tell us how many processes had to be gone through before a final decision was come to. This matter ought to be expedited as much as possible and the Metropolitan Water Board compelled, on national grounds, to make up their minds quickly where they are going to have any new reservoirs, if they be necessary. When such a matter comes into prominence it is only the Government themselves who are able to arbitrate between the needs of London's water supply and the agricultural needs of the country. I hope that this matter will be tackled as quickly as possible.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I suppose that is all I can hope for at the moment. I am cheered, however, by the fact that this is the first time in the last eighteen months that the Government have decided to take a hand. It will be of great satisfaction to all of us in the Valley that the Government themselves are looking into this matter. I can tell the noble Lord that the figure of 70,000 was in the report of the Metropolitan Water Board. With regard to the speech of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, as is well known there are three Government Departments heavily involved in this question—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Food and—though not by any

  1257
  means least—the Ministry of Transport, since the main roads to the South from the Midlands cross over the Valley, and the provision of new roads would mean enormous expense. I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and hope that the Government will gel busy and relieve us from this prolonged suspense. I beg leave to withdrawn my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES BILL
  3.15 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Shepherd and the Lord Kershaw be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Lord Holden and the Lord Bingham (E. Lucan) be named of the Committee in their places.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
  3.17 p.m.
  House again in Committee according to Order.
  [The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair]
  Clause 22:
  Appointments in non-county boroughs and urban districts
  22.—(1) If the council of a non-county borough or of an urban district desire the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate for their area or any part thereof, they may present a petition for the appointment to the Secretary of State, specifying the salary they are prepared to pay the magistrate.
  (4) A council shall pay to any stipendiary magistrate appointed on their petition under this section such salary, not exceeding without their consent that specified in the petition, as His Majesty may from time to time direct.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "non-county" and insert "county or of a." The noble Lord said: We now come to Part V of this Bill, which deals with the question of
  1258
  stipendiary magistrates. As I have said previously, I am not going to raise the major issue of whether there should be any sort of universal system of stipendiary magistrates. This Amendment seeks to enable a county council to apply for a stipendiary if they wish to do so. It contains no sort of compulsion; it is only an enabling Amendment, so that if a county council are so minded they can have a stipendiary. There is no county council which has one now. I do not see any valid reason why there should not be a stipendiary in the country any more than there is in town. For the most part the cases, though they may differ in number, are the same. In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the House to what happens in Scotland. Little has been said in this debate about Scotland, but there are one or two lessons we can usefully draw from what goes on there. Except in boroughs the whole of the work is done by the equivalent of a stipendiary magistrate—by sheriffs or sheriff substitutes. If this can be done in the remote parts of Scotland, as it is being done every day, then it can be done in England. It is difficult to believe that what goes on in a county such as Sutherland, which I take as an example, cannot go on anywhere in England. In Sutherland there is a peripatetic sheriff or sheriff substitute and lay justices do not occur at all. I should also like to ask this question, because it affects the same line in the Bill. Does the word "borough" include county borough? If the noble and learned Viscount would explain that, we should all be obliged. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 28, leave out ("non-county") and insert ("county or of a").—(Lord Merthyr.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has referred to the county of Sutherland. I am bound to say that is rather far away, and I thought some of his remarks were rather far away too. He has firmly fixed in his mind the desirability of having stipendiary magistrates. Whatever the position in Scotland may be—and I am not going to discuss it at all—I do not believe that we in this country want to copy it. I believe there is a great advantage in the present system of magistrates. I do not think the administration of the law ought to become the privilege

  1259
  of a particular section or class of people. The law is much more firmly based if administered by men of good will and good sense, quite ordinary people, up and down the country, and I am satisfied that at the present moment the vast majority of people take the view that that should be so.
  When I come to this particular clause, Clause 22, I have one observation to make to my noble friend which may give him some satisfaction with regard to both this Amendment and the succeeding one. When we drafted this clause we did so on the assumption that there were to be no commissions of the peace except in the case of county boroughs and counties. That is what the Bill as drafted provides. We have now reached a stage where it is obvious that there will be commissions of the peace in respect of some units which are neither counties nor county boroughs. That fact makes a difference to this clause. The reason why we drafted the clause in this way and confined it to non-county boroughs was this. The county boroughs, and the ordinary boroughs, all have a power under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. Under the machinery of that Act if a stipendiary is appointed he becomes a borough justice. That machinery would no longer be applicable if there were to be no borough justices except in the case of county boroughs, and accordingly we had to make a special provision dealing with boroughs; otherwise they would have been left in the air.
  If your Lordships agree, I propose to take this clause back for reconsideration. That is rather consequential on the Amendment we have already contemplated. I am disposed to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that we should enable a county to petition for a stipendiary for a particular part of its area. I am inclined to think that that means that an urban district or a rural district which is part of the county might have the right to petition. They have had the right to petition ever since 1863, by an Act of that date, but they have never done so. Therefore, it does not seem that it is a very urgent or clamant need. Moreover, if we have the two petitioning authorities we shall have trouble. It is obvious that, before granting the petition, the Secretary of State, to whom the
  1260
  petition would be addressed, would desire to hear the views of the urban district council or the rural district council concerned. I am inclined to think the noble Lord has a good point when he says that this power ought to extend to the county to petition for part of its area. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord, in view of the fact that I think an alteration of this clause becomes necessary on the Amendment we have already contemplated, not to press his Amendment. I would ask your Lordships to pass the clause now, but I will take it back and go into the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.
  If your Lordships agree—and if I am not being irregular—I would say this. I would rather like the next stage of the Bill to be a re-committal stage, after an interval of time, because the Parliamentary draftsman has an immense amount of work to do on this Bill and must have a reasonable time to do it. We have a good deal of informality in our discussions here, and when we reach Report stage I am imprisoned on that eminence over there and I am not very peripatetic. I cannot go to the box to obtain information, as I am rather in favour of doing, and as I think your Lordships like me to do. If we have a re-committal stage the Report stage shortly after will be a formality; we should have done our work on the re-committal. That is the proposal I shall make in due course. What I would ask your Lordships to do now is to give me this clause as it is to-day; I will prepare a new clause for the re-committal or Report stage.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am sure we should all be in favour of the re-committal stage which the noble and learned Viscount has suggested. To my mind, the Report stage sometimes gets a little informal, and it is probably better to be in Committee. With regard to the re-drafting of this clause, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount not to overlook this point. If they are going to do their work properly it will be essential that the magistrates' courts committees should be consulted about any proposal to appoint a stipendiary in their area. When the noble and learned Viscount is re-drafting this clause, will he remember these new magistrates' courts committees

  1261
  which we have set up, which in some way should be brought in to make the recommendation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly will. I think they ought to be brought in.
  LORD SCHUSTER: Could the noble and learned Viscount tell us on what day we shall take the re-committal?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the present moment I am pressing the unhappy Parliamentary draftsman to know when he call complete the immense amount of work involved. I have suggested to him that if he has the whole of next week he ought to consider himself a lucky man. He does not consider himself a lucky man, because he points out that the Amendments have to be put down before the end of next week. What I have in mind, if my noble friend the Leader of the House will allow me to say so, is to get your Lordships to sit on Monday week, and take the Re-committal stage then. I am certain of this: that unless we get this Bill down to another place within about a week after that, we have not the slightest chance of getting it through this Session. If I seem to be hurrying your Lordships, I feel sure I am doing only what your Lordships want.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am sure we shall all be in favour of that, but we would like to see the Government Amendments on the Thursday preceding Monday, November 7. We should not be in a position to deal with them if we saw them on the Order Paper only on Friday or Saturday when we were away from London.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Parliamentary draftsman has an immense job to make that good. It may prove impossible, but that is what I should like.
  LORD MERTHYR: I am very happy to fall in with the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The next Amendment is one of a series of Amendments which seeks to put into the hands of the Lord Chancellor, as opposed to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs,
  1262
  the appointment of stipendiaries. The noble and learned Viscount was quite frank with the Committee yesterday in saying what he was prepared to take on in future—namely, the appointing of recorders. He said also that he was not prepared to take on a large administrative office of the kind that will have to decide whether there shill be alterations in petty sessional divisions, and things of that sort. There is a great deal to be said for that point of view. I do not think the Lord Chancellor's Office wants to become a vast Office of State, but should be kept small, compact and intimate, if that is the right word.
  Nevertheless, I feel the actual appointing of stipendiaries should not need much extra accommodation. After all, the people who are on the list for any of these lesser judicial appointments such as stipendiaries or recorders are much the same people and might well be dealt with by the same person, without any great addition to the Lord Chancellor's staff. What we desire is to keep the Judiciary in all its ranges clear from the Executive, and the Home Secretary quite naturally is a Secretary of State with large executive and administrative responsibilities. It is for that reason that I put down this Amendment and although I will not press the Lord Chancellor to take on a large administrative office, I hope that he can take on the appointment of stipendiaries as well as the appointment of recorders. I doubt whether that will need any addition to the staff, because lists which are kept for one will in some cases be interchangeable with the lists which are kept for the other. It is for those reasons that I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 31, leave cut ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD SCHUSTER: I am in what the Lord Chancellor would perhaps call an embarrassing position. I certainly do not want to try to grab more patronage for the office in which I served long ago than it has at present. I do not want to support any Amendment which is unpleasant to the Home Office or its officials, with whom I have worked in friendship and harmony for many years. I realise, perhaps even more than the Lord Chancellor, and certainly more than any other noble Lords, the grave difficulties which

  1263
  would arise from any great increase in the Lord Chancellor's staff. There is the difficulty of housing, to which the Lord Chancellor called attention yesterday, and which is really immense. It is difficult to house any additional staff in this building, and to house them outside cuts the office in half and makes the administration difficult.
  For all that, I will ask the Lord Chancellor and the Committee, if I may do so without impertinence, to look at this matter from a rather wider point of view. We have never had a Ministry of Justice in this country, and I hope we never shall. Why have we never had it? Because there has never been centred in any one pair of hands the power both to control, however indirectly, the Judiciary, in any range, and, at the same time, the executive force of government in the shape of the police. There resides in the Secretary of State—and rightly so—an indirect control over the police and an indirect control over prosecutions generally. I suggest that there should be severed from whoever has that control the rights, indirect though they may be, over the appointment of judicial officers. I think there should be a deep division apparent to the public between those two functions.
  I am not for a moment making any suggestion that any improper use has been made by the Secretary of State of the powers which he possesses. But times change, as we have seen them change in other countries before our eyes. We certainly do not want to reach a Continental state, in which all power and authority of this type is vested in one person. Although perhaps only subconsciously, I think in this country we have always perceived that difficulty and that danger. I am far from suggesting that the Lord Chancellor would ever himself use those powers in respect of the Judiciary in any improper manner. In the first place, he is bound by the traditions of his office and by his own judicial experience, and, if not by that, certainly by the wise view he takes of the Constitution.
  But we have to look to the future, and one of the things the Roche Committee—I am talking impertinently by the side of my noble and learned friend—looked at as principally desirable was to remove
  1264
  the magistrates' courts, so far as might be, from the direct influence of local authorities. That is the greater danger. But I am also anxious to remove them so far as possible from the control of the central authority. The Lord Chancellor said a day or two ago that he is out of the hurly-burly; he is not subject to the same pressure in respect of appointments as sometimes is applied to any Minister who sits in the House of Commons. I sincerely accept the difficulties of which he has spoken, and I sincerely appreciate the difficulties he must experience when there appears to be a kind of scramble between two Ministers for something that people regard as an advantage but which I think all Lord Chancellors would regard as a great trouble. It is very embarrassing and lays one open to all kinds of attack from every side. Still, on general principle and in furtherance of what I believe to be the proper development of the Constitution, I beg the Lord Chancellor to think again on this matter.
  3.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I seem to detect in the attitude of the Lord Chancellor an intention to reject this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will allow me to intervene for a moment or two to press him, just as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, has pressed him, to consider this question again. First of all, the appointment of stipendiaries in London is really an excrescence upon the general system of magistrates and originated quite by chance in the eighteenth century. It has gone on ever since and nobody has really considered it upon its merits. I think there is everything to be said for the Lord Chancellor having the responsibility of all judicial appointments, great and small.
  I rather gather that the Lord Chancellor will say that this is putting a great deal of new work upon his Department. I do not want to do that. I admit that I want to see it strengthened, but I do not wish it to become one of the great administrative Departments of Whitehall. But I am quite confident, from the experience I had at the Home Office when I had several of these appointments to recommend, that no additional work will be put upon this Department at all, and for this reason. In my day, when there was an appointment of this kind to be made,

  1265
  the Home Secretary invariably referred it to the Lord Chancellor. The whole time that I was in that office I do not think I made a single appointment except upon the recommendation of my colleague the Lord Chancellor.
  The result of this Amendment, therefore, will be clearly to distinguish between the Executive and the Judicature in London and, at the same time, to put into theory what is really the fact at the present time. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will not come forward with a negative to-day, but will say that he will think over the very strong points which have been made by my two noble friends. By accepting the Amendment, he will see that the present practice is continued very much as it was before, and he will be taking a definite step to remove what is an excrescence upon the system of magistrates.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I had not meant to say anything until the Lord Chancellor had replied, but in the few words he did pronounce the direction of his reply became only too obvious. Therefore, I would like at this stage to add a voice to those which have already been raised in asking him at least to reconsider his view before he comes to a final decision upon this Amendment, chiefly on the broad grounds which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, raised. It seems to me desirable that there should be a concentration of judicial appointments in the hands of somebody as rightly detached as the Lord Chancellor is in these matters. And though I fully appreciate the desire not to build up an unwieldy Department, or to lay the foundation for a subsequent Ministry of Justice, at the same time, surely, the administration required for this particular purpose would be neither very elaborate nor very difficult. After all, he has to consider appointments of members of the Bar to such offices as that of county court judge. It may even be the case that an individual considered for appointment as a county court judge, if he does not obtain that appointment, may be suitable for appointment as a stipendiary; and to keep two lists instead of one list surely cannot add materially to the labours of the Lord Chancellor and his Department. If it involves the establishment of a really important principle, as I believe it does, it should at least re-
  1266
  ceive further consideration before a final decision is arrived at.
  LORD CALVERLEY: May I ask the mover of the Amendment whether his Motion includes metropolitan stipendiary magistrates as well as provincial magistrates?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: It has to do only with the appointment of a new stipendiary. If I may go more than half way to meet the Lord Chancellor, I would say this: that I should be quite prepared to let the Home Secretary do the administrative part of deciding whether or not there should be a stipendiary for a particular place—which would mean that I would withdraw this Amendment—but I should still like to see all metropolitan magistrates and stipendiary magistrates appointed by the Lord Chancellor, just as county court judges are and recorders are to be. I would certainly withdraw any Amendment that made his Department decide whether there should be one or two magistrates; but when it had been decided I should like the appointment to be in the Lord Chancellor's hands.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I must take what I can get. I should not like to leave it to the Home Secretary rather than the Lord Chancellor to decide where there should be a stipendiary. In the Lord Chancellor's administration of this matter, the very question of whether justices for a particular area can be easily and properly found has to be considered. To my knowledge, there is a large amorphous district in the neighbourhood of London where, much as I prefer the system of lay magistrates to stipendiaries, I should, from my experience of the difficulty of constituting an advisory committee and finding a bench, prefer that there should be a stipendiary. I have come to that conclusion because I had to deal with that particular area. I expect the Lord Chancellor too has had to deal with it, and I should not be surprised if he had reached the same conclusion. The matter never comes near the Secretary of State until the petition is actually presented. The Lord Chancellor might say in a particular case, "It is high time, since there is no other means of administering justice in that area, that there was a stipendiary there." I personally should have liked the original power to reside in him to appoint

  1267
  a stipendiary where he was satisfied that the business of a magistrates' court could not otherwise be carried on. I think it should be for the Lord Chancellor to decide—on petition, if you will—whether there should be a stipendiary in a particular area, regard being had to the circumstances of that area, and to appoint the stipendiary himself.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: If I may say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin's Amendment, I would remind the Lord Chancellor of what the Royal Commission said in regard to stipendiaries:
  "… Our recommendation is limited to transfer to the Lord Chancellor of the duties in respect of the appointment of metropolitan and stipendiary magistrates and recorders and does not involve the re-allocation of other responsibilities as between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I cannot return an answer which will be satisfactory to noble Lords who have spoken, but what they have said will be read and considered by the Home Secretary. I want to be perfectly frank. When this Bill came to be introduced there were obviously questions of the lines of demarcation between various Departments; and it therefore became necessary for me to go to my colleagues, and for them to come to me, to consider what we would do. I made the bargain about which I told your Lordships yesterday—namely, that I would make myself responsible for the appointment of recorders, on condition that I was relieved altogether of the responsibility for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates and metropolitan magistrates; they must stay where they are. It is a truism that the good is often the enemy of the best. If we were at the present moment to insist that I should have responsibility for the appointment of stipendiaries it would inevitably be said that I must then deal with a lot of other matters relating, to them—the noble Lord, Lord Schuster has just said so. I should have to consider where they are to be appointed, questions of salary, and so forth. We should come to the whole question of whether the administration of justice should be borne by local funds or by central funds, about which there is a large amount of dissent. All these matters will in the near future have to be considered.
  1268
  But if we embark now on consideration of all these matters this Bill is as dead as Queen Anne: there is not a hope for it. Therefore, I ask the Committee not to pursue these ideals, if ideals they be, at the present time. I have so much "on my plate" at the present time that I very much doubt whether I was wise to take over the appointment of recorders. But having done that, I have done all I possibly can do; and one more straw would break this camel's back. I feel quite certain that the appointment of stipendiaries would involve all sorts of other questions, and it is bound up with the whole question of administration. Take, for instance, London. You have your stipendiary magistrates in London—the metropolitan police magistrates are stipendiaries in everything except the technical sense. In what courts are they to be placed? What holidays are they to have? What will be their hours of work? How will they be moved from one court to another? All these things are administrative matters, which are within the concern of the Home Secretary.
  Then there is the question which of the metropolitan magistrates shall be the chief magistrate. The relationship between the chief magistrate and the Home Office must be a close relationship—not in the sense that the Home Office give him instructions as to what he should do, but in the sense that the chief magistrate, if he is a most experienced and responsible person (as he most certainly is at the present time), should inform the Home Office of the impressions he forms as to law and order in London. For all those reasons I think that the relationship between the Home Office and the stipendiaries must be very close. Therefore I am not prepared to take over the appointment of the stipendiaries, either those in the country or the metropolitan police magistrates. I am sorry to be insistent about that. The only consolation I can offer your Lordships is that the Home Secretary will, of course, read what is said. Even if he asked me, I should be bound to tell him that I would be most reluctant to embark upon this further task. I do not think I have the material, the staff or the facilities to do it. I beg of your Lordships not to impose this upon me.
  LORD HARLECH: I hope that my noble friend opposite will bring this

  1269
  matter to a Division. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is obviously reluctant, after the inevitable negotiations which took place before the introduction of this Bill, to meet what I believe is the general wish of this House in this matter. I would ask the noble Lord opposite whether he thinks it practicable to leave with the Home Office the appointment of the metropolitan police magistrates and the chief magistrate of the metropolis, and merely press upon the Lord Chancellor by a Division the appointment of the stipendiaries outside the metropolitan area. The metropolitan area is peculiar to itself. It is for the metropolitan police area, some of which is outside the London County Council, and is so intimately bound up with so much of the work of the Home Office, that I see a strong case. It was interesting to note that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor argued his case against this Amendment almost solely on the basis of London.
  I do not know whether the stipendiaries are going to increase in London. I think they will in certain large urban areas—but not in Yorkshire! If so, it is all-important that the Lord Chancellor should make the appointment. But it has nothing to do with the administration or with decisions whether or not it is right that those areas should have a stipendiary. So far as possible, from the highest to the lowest, a judicial appointment ought to be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and nobody else.
  LORD CALVERLEY: I hope that my noble friend opposite will not insist on a Division, after what the Lord Chancellor has said. True it is that we were in favour of this duty of the actual appointment of stipendiaries being assigned to the Lord Chancellor. My noble friend who has just spoken thinks that one can separate the metropolitan magistrates from the provincial stipendiaries. That would help to create yet another anomaly. We have either to agree to the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of both metropolitan and provincial stipendiaries, or leave the matter alone for the time being. Though I am in favour of delegating the duty to the Lord Chancellor, I should not be prepared to vote against him after what he has said to us.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: We have had a full discussion on this particular Amendment, and of one thing I am convinced—that is, that the Lord Chancellor is right in saying that he does not want any more of these administrative duties imposed upon his office. But I still think there is a great distinction between that and the actual appointment. I thought the Lord Chancellor was somewhat overstating his, case when he said that this would be the last straw to break the camel's back, because there are only eighteen stipendiary magistrates in the provinces—
  LORD CALVERLEY: Fifteen.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: —and thirty metropolitan magistrates in London, making a total of forty-eight in all. If one considers the time that some of these gentlemen have been on the bench—when I think of some of those before whom I used to appear—the re-appointments do not occur very often. I suppose there would be about two or three cases every year. With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I do not believe that those two or three reappointments—and I suspect that in any event in each of those cases the Home Secretary would consult him before an appointment was made—would really make any more work. I appreciate that this present Amendment means that he would have to be consulted and the whole machinery gone through as to whether a new stipendiary district was created. I shall now beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, but give notice that I may put down another on the recommittal stage, transferring merely the duty of the appointment, and nothing more, from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chancellor.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.57 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "State." The noble Lord said: I now come to a small series of Amendments, the broad effect of which can be divided into these two questions: first, Who should fix the salary of the stipendiary?; and second, Who should pay the salary of the stipendiary? I may as well say at once that I agree with the Royal Commission on the first of those points, but not on the second. This Amendment deals with the first of those two questions

  1271
  —Who should fix the salaries? It seeks to leave out the words
  "specifying the salary they are prepared to pay the magistrate."
  The question is, should the salary be fixed by the local authority or by some authority in London, be it the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office? I think that this is one of the important points that we should discuss.
  May I briefly quote from the Report of the Royal Commission, paragraph 234, page 60? It states:
  "The fixing of the amount of salary is, however, unsatisfactory."
  Then, a little lower down:
  "… the salary of the stipendiary may be discussed in the borough council as if he were an official in the employment of the council. A stipendiary must often decide cases in which the borough council is a party, and he should not be put in the position where he may appear to be dependent on the council."
  Paragraph 236 states:
  "We that the Lord Chancellor should have power to fix the salary to be paid to a stipendiary magistrate, whether appointed under general legislation or under local Acts."
  In an ever-increasing number of cases, the local authority is a litigant in the court of the stipendiary; that is becoming more common yearly. I have been informed that in one court something like five hundred cases in a year—I must say I was very surprised that it was so many—in which, in some way, the local authority is involved, come before a stipendiary. Furthermore, he has to deal with appeals from a decision of the same local authority. Possibly a debate is going on in the council at the same time—I am afraid sometimes actuated by Party political considerations.
  As to the amount of his salary, I have actually seen an article in a local newspaper dealing with the question of whether the stipendiary's salary should be increased or not. There was nothing whatever improper in that article, but the mere fact that the question of his salary should be bandied about in the borough in which, so to speak, he is a judge, is thoroughly unhealthy. I think I should be on firm ground if I said that in those circumstances justice does not seem to be done. Moreover, very possibly, the town clerk has a good deal to say in the decision as to how much the stipendiary
  1272
  should be paid, and the town clerk, possibly the next day, appears to prosecute before him. I do not think that is in any way a healthy state of affairs. It leads to many and, I am afraid, an increasing number of embarrassing situations, and it makes the stipendiary inevitably dependent upon the local authority, which is a wrong system.
  This Bill is going to make the matter worse, because it takes away from the local authority the fines that are collected and diverts them to London. At the same time, as I shall have to show later, it does not make any contribution to the stipendiary's salary. Therefore, the stipendiary will be an additional load upon the finances of the local authority, which makes him more dependent upon the whims of the councillors. It is notorious that he is considered an employee of the local authority by many of the people who come into the court, and I do not believe that any of the public who stand in the back of the court and see what is going on can really get a true appreciation of the position of the stipendiary. Therefore I feel most strongly, as I think the Royal Commission did also, that, whoever pays the salary, it should be fixed by a Government Department in London. I am not saying which Department it should be and I do not much mind at the moment. That seems to me to be a fundamental principle, and I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 31, leave out from ("State") to end of line 32.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is one of the Amendments to Clause 22 which I told the noble Lord earlier that I am going to take back and redraft. It may be that in the redraft I shall be able to do something for him; I do not know. But I had rather hoped that we should not have further discussions on Amendments to Clause 22, because it is much better to have the discussion on the re-committal stage, when you know exactly what the clause is going to be. Broadly speaking, my view is this. The du Parcq Committee said (I think it was in paragraph 236), that they were not going to embark upon the question whether the expense of the administration of justice should be a local or a national charge. Traditionally and in the main it has been

  1273
  local. Of course, I appreciate the argument for transferring it to national charge, but if we embark upon that now in this Bill, I should think that for all intents and purposes the Bill will be finished for the next five years, whilst discussions take place. Therefore I am not prepared to alter the system. It seems to me that the first thing which is plain is that the expense, the salary, and now, I may add, the pension of a stipendiary magistrate, must be borne on local funds. There may or may not be a contribution, but it must be a charge on local funds.
  Having said that, we come to the question of the amount of the salary and who is to fix the amount. I quite appreciate that there is something to be said for the Home Secretary fixing the amount, but obviously one cannot interfere with existing arrangements. Some local authorities have permission to appoint a stipendiary on certain terms, and obviously you cannot, without their consent, say, "You must not only pay that amount; you will have to pay whatever the Home Secretary fixes." There could, of course, be a clause to this effect: "If you want a stipendiary, be it understood that you must pay him such salary as the Home Secretary fixes." That, in a sense, is indicated in paragraph 236 of the du Parcq report, except that they substitute "Lord Chancellor" for "Home Secretary." There is something to be said for that.
  The drawback to it would be that if the locality finds itself confronted with an uncertain obligation as to what the amount will be, very likely they will not petition for a stipendiary, and although it is desirable that there should be a stipendiary there will not be one; so I see disadvantages there. I appreciate the objection (which may be more than theoretic; I am not sure), that the stipendiary has to pronounce judgment in cases in which the local authority are concerned and that at the same time they fix his salary. On the face of it, that is not a desirable state of affairs. But, on the other hand, supposing he is paid by the State. A very large number of prosecutions nowadays are brought by the State—such as all these prosecutions in regard to food, and so on—and a purist might say, "This is a very odd thing. Here you have a local magistrate in the pocket of the central Government, and
  1274
  the central Government pay him. If he does not behave himself and inflict sharp fines on everybody they prosecute, the central Government would dock his salary." So the argument cuts both ways, and I cannot say that I am greatly impressed by it. However, in the redraft of this clause I will discuss the whole thing again with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary; I will see whether there is any way in which I can meet the wishes of the noble Lord, and I ask him to let us have our discussion on the recommittal stage of the new Clause 22 rather than try to bite at it now when we do not quite know what the clause will be. I suggest that that would be more convenient to the Committee.
  LORD MERTHYR: I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount, because when he spoke of the matter on another Amendment I did not appreciate that he intended redrafting the whole of Clause 22. Now that I appreciate the true position, I am only too happy to fall into line and not to move any more Amendments on Clause 22 this afternoon. In saying that I do not want to move any more, and of course reserving the right to move them on the recommittal stage, I would add that the uppermost consideration should be that we should try and do in this Bill what we think is right. Even if it means losing the Bill for a while, if one really thinks that the cost of criminal justice should be a national charge, then it is right to press it. I appreciate the several difficulties which the noble and learned Viscount has told us about this afternoon, but the short and easy answer to those difficulties is to make it a national charge. When you do that, you get rid of a great many of these difficulties. With those observations, I shall be only too pleased to withdraw for the time being all the Amendments on this clause.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Before the noble Lord does that, may I make two observations? First, I think this should be a local charge and not a national charge. If the locality cannot provide the right calibre of persons to sit on their benches, I think it is they who should pay and not the State. If there is a reluctance on the part of the local citizens to take on this job, which involves a number of hours of work, I think it is those citizens who

  1275
  should pay rather than that the State should have to bear the additional burden. Secondly, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in thinking that there is little in the point that when a man has a salary fixed like this he would not be impartial in judging any local government prosecution. No one has ever, in my experience, suggested that a revenue Judge in the High Court has ever decided an issue favourably to the Crown because he was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Equally, I am certain that if the right person is appointed as a stipendiary he would do nothing of the kind. When the new clause is drafted I think it should be considered whether the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor should lay down a standard, if that were possible, upon which these stipendiaries should have their remuneration fixed. If we go as far as that, I think we shall have gone some way to meet the point which has been raised by the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23:
  Local Act stipendiaries
  23.—(1) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall affect the continuance in office or a new appointment of a stipendiary magistrate under any of the following enactments, namely,—

  (a) the Staffordshire Potteries Stipendiary Justice Acts, 1839 to 1895;

  (b) the South Staffordshire Stipendiary Justice Act, 1899;

  but no new appointment of a stipendiary magistrate shall be made under the Chatham and Sheerness Stipendiary Magistrate Act, 1867.
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved in subsection (1) to omit "or a new appointment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to waste any time. If this matter is to be reconsidered or redrafted I shall be only too pleased to withdraw this Amendment. The point here is rather different from that with which we have been dealing. May I take this Amendment and the next together, and say a few words on both? What I have in mind here is that it would be much simpler and would save a great deal of
  1276
  trouble if all these local Acts of Parliament appointing stipendiaries in various ways were done away with and all stipendiaries were appointed under this measure or some similar Bill. It would, for example, save pages of this Bill. I do not see why it should not be done. It would not necessarily affect the stipendiaries, and it should greatly simplify procedure. It would, moreover, do away with the very varied conditions of their appointment, to discover which one has to study numerous Acts of Parliament, a number of which were passed many years ago. That is the first point. The object of these two Amendments, the second of which is greater than the first, is simply to bring that about. If the second Amendment is not passed then I suggest that the first might be passed. It says simply that when there are new appointments made my suggestion might be adopted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 15, leave out from ("office") to ("of").—(Lord Merthyr.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have great sympathy with anyone who desires to bring about greater simplicity and stricter uniformity in our law. But anyone who has had the experience I have had of trying to achieve those things knows how difficult it is. Of course you can be iconoclastic and sweep away all the special Statutes which have been obtained by these local authorities. But just consider what difficulties you would be up against. Look at the position of stipendiary magistrates. The Staffordshire Potteries area is an area which was artificially made, and it includes a county borough and parts of several petty sessional divisions. Supposing you sweep that away, what are you going to put in its place? The South Staffordshire area includes two county boroughs, one non-county borough, and parts of a number of petty sessional divisions. The Merthyr Tydfil area includes a county borough and a large petty sessional division. The Pontypridd area is itself a petty sessional division. So these stipendiaries are appointed by these local Acts for units which could have no place in this Bill. If you swept away these local Acts you could not possibly replace them under this Bill. So I beg your Lordships to leave well alone in this connection. If you sweep away these

  1277
  special Acts you sweep away for ever the stipendiaries. If there is a case for the stipendiaries then let the local Acts under which they exist be retained. I should be obliged to resist these Amendments for the reasons which I have given.
  LORD MERTHYR: I do not want to press this matter any further. In spite of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I am not convinced that it is not possible to do this, but I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Qualification for appointments under previous Acts]:
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg to move this Amendment which is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 37, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  Compulsory retirement and superannuation
  25.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a stipendiary magistrate—
  (b) shall, from the date on which he ceases to serve as a stipendiary magistrate, be entitled to be paid an annual sum by way of pension by the authority paying his salary in the office or last office in which he so served.
  (4) The pension payable to any person under this section or ceasing to serve in any office shall be of an amount equal to fifteen-sixtieths of his salary in that office together with an addition for each complete year of his service as a stipendiary magistrate, after the first five years equal to one-sixtieth or, in the case of any year of service after the first ten years, two sixtieths of that salary; but the pension shall in no case exceed two-thirds of that salary.
  (11) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a metropolitan police magistrate, but for the purposes of the Police Magistrates (Superannuation) Acts, 1915 and 1929, in their application to any such magistrate appointed after the coming into force of this section any service which would be taken into account for the purpose of a pension payable to him under this section shall be taken into account as if it were service as a metropolitan police magistrate and contributions to his superannuation allowance under those Acts shall be payable in respect of that service under subsection
  (6) of this section as in the case of a pension under this section.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR had an Amendment on the Paper in subsection (1) (b) to leave out all words after "pension" and insert
  "charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next five in my name all deal with the subject of pensions. If I am right in assuming from what the Lord Chancellor has said this afternoon that the whole of the matter of pensions is to be reconsidered and this clause redrafted I will not move these Amendments Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to give me some intimation on this point.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Lord had better move the Amendments now. I do not want to undertake too much redrafting for it will mean delaying the Bill. We have quite enough here to argue from. I have no reason to believe that Clause 25 is going to be redrafted so the noble Lord had better move his Amendment.
  LORD MERTHYR: The object of the first of these Amendments is that the pension should be charged to the Consolidated Fund, but I would not want that to be done unless the stipend were to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. As that matter is in abeyance I will say nothing further about this Amendment, but will reserve my right to bring it up on re-committal. It all depends, to my mind, on what happens about the stipend, but for the moment I will not move the first Amendment.
  The second Amendment concerns a somewhat different point. It seeks to make certain that when a pension is being calculated a magistrate stall be credited with the work which he has performed in some other office of the same nature as the office which he now holds. I am not certain that this point is not already covered in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 32, after ("magistrate") insert ("as well in any other office as in that office.")—(Lord Merthyr.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. I agree that the matter is somewhat ambiguous and that we had better accept these words so that the ambiguity may be removed. I will look at them again, between now and recommittal, but at the moment I accept them. May I make it plain that I do not propose, either now or at any stage to make the charge of stipendiaries' salaries a national charge? In my view it must be borne by the localities.
  LORD MERTHYR: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. May I say, with regard to his last remark, that I hope I shall not be deprived of making my point on recommittal.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 39, leave out the first ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (11) to leave out "appointed" and insert "retiring." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the Amendment at line 45 are to cover the special cases of two metropolitan police magistrates who have previous service as stipendiary magistrates in the country. One of them served at both East Ham and West Ham and one was appointed to the metropolitan bench as recently as 1946. As the Bill stands they will not be able to count that previous service towards pension, because subsection (11) of the clause is limited to magistrates appointed after the coming into force of the clause. The effect of this Amendment is to render these magistrates eligible to count for pension half of this back service, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (10). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 41, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("retiring").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment is again consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 45, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 45, after ("and"), insert ("(unless he was appointed before the coming into force of this section)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Sittings of stipendiary magistrates]:
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "() The Lord Chancellor shall make rules to provide for the allocation of work between lay justices and stipendiary magistrates."
  The noble Lord said: One of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission was:
  "To consider and report whether provision should be made for allocating work as between Justices of the Peace and Stipendiary Magistrates in England and Wales in areas for which a Stipendiary Magistrate is appointed."
  If I may say so with respect, very little has so far been heard of that, although there is a paragraph in the Commission's Report—paragraph 250—which says:
  "We recommend that the Home Office, after consulting the justices and the stipendiary magistrate, should settle the days of sitting and the hours of attendance of the stipendiary."
  I do not want to spend time on this point, but in view of the fact that the Bill does not seem to contain anything about this matter I put down this Amendment. I see now that the Royal Commission recommended that it should be done by the Home Office, while I have put down the Lord Chancellor. I am not very concerned about which Department should do it, but I put this Amendment down as I saw that the point was overlooked. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  4.26 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not believe that this matter can be done by

  1281
  rules, whether made by the Home Office or by the Lord Chancellor, or by any other rule-making body; and I think that is the view of the Royal Commission. I think they said so in substance. They said that it was impossible to lay down a rule on what cases should be taken by the stipendiary and what by the lay justices. All we can do is to work it out as we go along, by good sense and good will. I ant satisfied that we cannot do it by categorising cases to be taken by one or the other. Solvitur ambulando. Given good will, I think it can work satisfactorily, as it has already worked satisfactorily. The Royal Commission say in paragraph 248:
  "In our view two main considerations arise: the stipendiary should take cases where his qualifications, can be used to the best advantage, and the system should be such that a litigant cannot choose the lay justices' or the stipendiary's court according to his view of which is likely to be more favourable to his case. Where two or more courts sit simultaneously the arrangements should allow of cases being transferred from one list to another if a court should finish its list with time to spare."
  Paragraph 249 states:
  "It is not now possible to say by categories which cases are serious or likely to involve legal argument; for instance, a breach of a regulation tray lead to a case that is more serious and difficult than one of an indictable offence. An inflexible rule would not secure the right results. We think that the justices, including of course the stipendiary, should lay down a general direction for the composition of the lists for each court. The responsibility for making out lists for each court should rest jointly on the clerk to the justices, the stipendiary and the chairman for the day's rota."
  After dealing with the Staffordshire Potteries case, the Commission go on to say, in paragraph 250:
  "We recommend that the Home Office, after consulting the justices and the stipendiary magistrates, should settle the days of sitting and the hours of attendance of the stipendiary."
  That is a different point. But your Lordships will see that the Commission thought that the allocation of work should not be done by any functionary in London, be it myself or the Home Office, but by consultation between the stipendiary, the chairman of the day's rota and the clerk. I believe that is the only way in which it can be worked, and in practice, though one can see all sorts of difficulties which might arise, difficulties have not arisen to any considerable extent.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I agree that it is very difficult to deal with this matter by rigid rules. At the same time I do not take the optimistic view which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor takes about the present state of affairs. I have particularly in mind London. I have always had the feeling that much greater use could be made of lay magistrates in London than is the case at the present time. In London, there are a large number of lay magistrates, many of whom have very little to do. The noble and learned Viscount says that this is a matter for arrangement between the stipendiaries and the lay magistrates. That may be so, but at present I do not think full use is being made of the lay magistrates and it looks as if there was some want of co-operation between the two.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not London in mind; I do not think this Amendment deals with London. I do not think that here "stipendiaries" mean metropolitan police magistrates. In London there are categories of offences, and the lay magistrates can deal only with particular categories—and, I agree, very limited categories. The situation in the stipendiary areas is different, and I think this Amendment deals with stipendiaries.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Whether that be so or not, I hope that after this Bill becomes law, the Home Office will look again at this question and see whether there cannot be a better liaison between the two. In saying that, I have in mind not only the stipendiaries of the provinces but the stipendiary metropolitan police magistrates as well. I believe that at the present there is not sufficient liaison.
  LORD MERTHYR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 15, leave out from ("to") to ("magistrate in line 16, and insert ("any metropolitan stipendiary").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Travelling and lodging allowances of members of probation committees and case committees]:
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is also a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 17, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  4.32 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of an Amendment, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause:
  Transfer to Lord Chancellor of certain functions with respect to Recorders
  ".—(1) Any appointment of a recorder under section one hundred and sixty-three of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, shall be made by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor shall take the place of the Secretary of State—

  (a) as the authority to approve a resolution increasing a recorder's salary under section one hundred and sixty-three of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to give any direction under section one hundred and sixty-five of that Act for holding borough quarter sessions oftener than once a quarter, and to sanction a resolution increasing the number of days for which an assistant recorder may receive remuneration under the Fourth Schedule to that Act; and

  (b) as the authority having power to appoint to the office of recorder within the meaning of the Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrates and Clerks of the Peace Act, 1906 (which provides for the appointment and removal of a deputy when it cannot be done by the recorder).

  (3) In the application of this section to the county palatine of Lancaster, references to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall he substituted for references to the Lord Chancellor."
  The noble Lord said: I am glad to say that from the previous utterances of the Lord Chancellor I have good reason to believe he will accept this Amendment. In Column 1159 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT he said:
  "I think it is felt by my colleague the Home Secretary, and incidentally I think by my colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy, that it is probably better that the appointment of
  1284
  recorders should come to me, because, after all, as Lord Chancellor I am rather out of the hurly-burly of political life, and in your Lordships' House I do not think I am subjected to pressure of the sort I might be subjected to were I in another place."
  From that I conclude that I am right in moving this Amendment, leaving out subsection (3). If I am not right I shall be told so, but at present I beg to move the Amendment as on the Marshalled List, less subsection (3).
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
  Transfer to Lord Chancellor of certain functions with respect to Recorders
  ".—(1) Any appointment of a recorder under section one hundred and sixty-three of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, shall be made by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor shall take the place of the Secretary of State—

  (a) as the authority to approve a resolution increasing a recorder's salary under section one hundred and sixty-three of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to give any direction under section one hundred and sixty-five of that Act for holding borough quarter sessions oftener than once a quarter, and to sanction a resolution increasing the number of days for which an assistant recorder may receive remuneration under the Fourth Schedule to that Act; and

  (b) as the authority having power to appoint to the office of recorder within the meaning of the Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrates and Clerks of the Peace Act, 1906 (which provides for the appointment and removal of a deputy when it cannot be done by the recorder)."—(Lord Llewellin.)

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The position arose in this way. I told your Lordships that, after discussing the matter with my colleagues, I had consented, somewhat reluctantly (because, believe me—and those who have held office know it quite well—there is no point whatever in trying to increase the territory of your office or get new responsibilities; it is only added worry; you must take them if they come to you, but you do not go out to look for them) to the suggestion that the appointment of recorders should be my duty. Accordingly, I got the Parliamentary draftsman to lend his aid to the noble Lord, and the sequence is that this Amendment was, in fact, drafted by Parliamentary counsel, who put in subsection (3) at the end because it was felt then that the Chancellor of the Duchy (who, of course, is responsible for

  1285
  the appointment of the county court judge in the Duchy of Lancaster, and for giving extended jurisdiction, the appointment of magistrates, and so on) should also take on the appointment of recorders. It then became known to me (I can see some of your Lordships here who have seen me about it) that if an alteration was being made it was desirable that the appointment of recorders even in the Duchy should rest with me, too. When I said what the noble Lord has quoted, it was after representations had been made to me in regard to this matter. After receiving those representations, I went to my right honourable colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy, and we discussed the matter together. We both came to the conclusion—he agreed with this result—that on the whole it was better that I should deal with the appointment of recorders.
  In practice, recorders are always appointed from a particular circuit, and the area of the Duchy is in the northern circuit but is not co-extensive with the area of that circuit. Consequently, if the Chancellor of the Duchy had had this task, we should have divided the northern circuit into two: I should have had to consider certain recorders, and he would have had to consider others. We came to the conclusion that probably this was the right solution: that the Chancellor of the Duchy, should retain that which he has, but new appointments which cannot be justified on precedent or tradition should come to the Lord Chancellor. That is how it comes about that this Amendment, which in its original form included subsection (3), is now being moved in a more limited form. In that limited form I am ready to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 30. The noble Lord said: I put down this new Clause 30, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor put one down just after it which substantially meets the points I wish to cover. In those circumstances, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his new clause, and do not intend to move mine.
  LORD MORLEY LORD MORLEY moved, after Clause 30 to insert the following clause:
  Authentication of certain licences
  ".—(1) A billiard licence or music and dancing licence granted at tie general annual licensing meeting, transfer sessions or other special sessions for any area may, instead of being signed or signed and sealed by the majority of the justices, be authenticated in accordance with the next following subsection by means of any seal or stamp used in that area to authenticate justices licences under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.
  (2) The seal or stamp shall be affixed under the authority, given at the meeting or sessions at which the licence is granted, of the justices attending that meeting or sessions and shall be verified by the signature of their clerk, and any seal or stamp purporting to be so affixed and verified shall be received in evidence without further proof.
  (3) Where a billiard licence is authenticated by means of a seal or stamp, the necessary adaptations shall be made in the form of licence as set out in the Third Schedule to the Gaming Act, 1845.
  (4) In this Section, the expression 'billiard licence' means a licence under section ten of the Gaming Act, 1845, and the expression music and dancing licence' means a licence under subsection (2) of section fifty-one of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, or any similar provision in a local Act.
  (5) It is hereby declared—

  (a) that licences granted by justices at petty sessions under subsection (11) of section fifty-one of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act. 1890 (which relates to fourteen-day licences for music, dancing, etc.) do not require to be authenticated in the way directed by subsection (2) of that section for licences granted under the said subsection (2); and

  (b) that licences granted by justices at petty sessions under section five of the Theatres Act, 1843, by virtue of powers delegated to them by a county council under section twenty-eight of the Local Government Act, 1888, do not require to be authenticated on publicly read as originally provided by the said section five for licences granted at a special sessions held there-under."

  The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just explained, this is a clause which has been drafted to take the place of a clause which he had proposed, the object of which was to facilitate dealing with licences in certain cases. Section 43 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, provides that a justices' licence shall be signed by the majority of the licensing justices who are present when the licence is granted, or, alternatively, may be sealed or stamped with an official seal or stamp in such form as the licensing justices may direct. That has been found to be a very satisfactory procedure which saves a great deal of trouble, and the noble Lord's proposal was to extend it to a number

  1287
  of other types of licence. Those your Lordships will see are set out in the Amendment—music and dancing licences, licences to keep public billiard tables, and various licences of that kind. I do not think there is any need for me to deal with them seriatim. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a much more satisfactory method of dealing with licences of these types. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Charley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
  ".Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary a justices' clerk shall with the authority of a justice be empowered to authenticate any summons witness summons licence or notice which is now required to be signed or sealed or signed and sealed by a justice. Rules regarding such authentication shall be made by the Rule Committee appointed by virtue of section (Rules Committee) of this Act."
  The noble Lord said: This new clause is a small matter of machinery. It is intended to do nothing except to relieve justices from giving a number of what may be looked upon as unnecessary signatures. In the form in which it is intended that its precise application should be worked out by rule, it is too cumbersome and technical a matter to form an Act of Parliament. All this Amendment does is to relieve those concerned from the imperative provisions of the Statute—that is to say, the sections of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, which require imperatively that these unnecessary signatures should be given. It is not proposed that the function of the clerk should be in any way extended, but merely provides for the authentication of the fact that the magistrate has given authority for this to be done. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Schuster.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. It is fundamentally different from the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has proposed, and which the Committee have just accepted in rather a
  1288
  different form. That clause was concerned simply with the authentication of licences. This clause would go much further than that, because it would enable the same sort of procedure to be used, for example, in cases of summonses to persons to attend before the court because they were going to be charged, or summonses to a witness to attend the court. Your Lordships will agree that that is on a very different footing from licences which have been allowed by the court, and I think you will also agree that an important summons of that kind ought to be issued under the hands of the magistrate himself and not by a clerk who might ring up the magistrate and get some kind of authorisation by telephone. There are no doubt very large numbers of summonses of certain kinds, particularly rating summonses, which give rise to a great deal of tedious manual work on the part of justices. It may well be that in respect of that particular type of summons there is something to be said for this proposal, and we might be able to do something at a later stage. But with regard to the general proposal of the noble Lord that the ordinary summons to a person to attend before a court or to come as a witness might be dealt with in this way, the Government feel that it is not a proper method, and I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
  LORD SCHUSTER: It is obvious that I cannot press it in this Committee at this time. In any event, it is highly technical and I do not want to worry your Lordships any more than I can help. I wish to make it quite clear that it is only a question of authentication; it is not a question of giving the clerk any executive duty. I am assured by those who have to work these matters that there is a great amount of unnecessary work laid upon the shoulders of the lay magistrate. I think this would relieve them without any danger to anybody at all. But if the noble Lord is unsympathetic with regard to this matter, I am in his hands.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I hope the Government will consider this Amendment. I think it would be a great help to many people.
  LORD CHORLEY: In regard to particular aspects of it, we will look at it, as I have said. But in regard to the general principle, we think—and the

  1289
  Committee will probably agree—that it would be unwise that the clerk should be allowed, in effect, to issue summonses.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I do not want any misapprehension about this matter. I am not talking about the right to issue summonses at all, and I tried to make that clear. I am talking about the right to authenticate the document which the magistrate has issued.
  LORD CHORLEY: I think it might come to the same thing.
  LORD SCHUSTER: If you regard everybody as not doing his duty, of course it might.
  LORD CHORLEY: The clerk could ring up the magistrate, and it could be argued that this was an authentication of the summons which the magistrate had authorised by telephone.
  LORD SCHUSTER: Of course the telephone is a very dangerous and wicked instrument, but even that might be brought in to relieve people from doing art unnecessary amount of work.
  LORD CHORLEY: I think this Amendment as it stands will be very dangerous.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I do not wish to withdraw it, but I fear I must.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Interpretation]:
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: There are a number of places in the Bill where the term "county justice" is used—one example is in Clause 10 (1). The purpose of this Amendment is simply to make it clear that this and other references in the Bill to county justices do not apply to a justice for the City of London, or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate in his capacity as such. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 6, at end insert (""county justice" does not include a justice for the City of London or, in relation to the county of London, a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate;"—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Does anybody see how they could? The City of London is the last place which is a county district.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Bus there is a definition in an earlier part of the Bill which makes the position difficult.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This and the following Amendment are both consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
  (""magistrates' court" means a court of summary jurisdiction or examining justices, and includes a single examining justice;
  "metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" means a metropolitan police magistrate;
  "metropolitan stipendiary court" means a metropolitan police court;
  "metropolitan stipendiary court area" means the metropolitan police court area").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 23, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34:
  Commencement
  (2) Different days may be appointed under this section for the purpose of different provisions of this Act and for different purposes of the same provision.
  LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: The subsection which I propose to leave out provides that
  "Different days may he appointed under this section for the purpose of different provisions of this Act…"
  Your Lordships may remember that a similar provision was inserted in the Criminal Justice Act of last year, but it may not be realised what happened under that provision. The Criminal Justice Act was brought into force by six Orders in Council. Now your Lordships might suppose that any reasonable person bringing a complicated Act into operation would choose, if possible, January 1 or, if not January 1, then July 1, and would bring as many provision; a; possible into operation on the same date. But the persons responsible for these Orders in Council had different ideas. Some of the provisions were brought into operation on September 13, 1948, some on December 27, others on April 18 and

  1291
  April 1; and then they went back to March 14. There are other dates which I will not mention.
  If you look through these Orders, too, your Lordships will find two Orders which refer to the same date, a third Order which refers to two different dates, one Order which refers to a later date, then a later Order which refers to an earlier date; and finally there is an Order which alters the date of a previous Order. It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that they did not fail to employ any device which could be thought of for causing trouble and confusion. These devices were employed with success: an infinity of trouble was caused to clerks of courts. They had to try and memorise all these Orders so that they might be able to inform their courts which provisions were in force and which were not. They often failed, and the result was that in some cases illegal sentences were imposed. Is it not possible to bring the whole of this measure into operation at one time? The Bill contains nothing of such urgency that it need be brought into operation at once. On the other hand, it contains nothing which requires a long period of incubation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 40, leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Raglan.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. Indeed, I think it would be absolutely impossible to bring the whole Bill into operation together—unless we were to wait until the last possible date. There comes a time, of course, when the whole of a Bill can be brought into operation at once, but in this case that would be a long time ahead. Take, for instance, the appointment of recorders. Is that to wait until everything else has been brought into force? Or take the financial operations. The financial clauses had much better be brought into operation at the beginning of the financial year; otherwise we should have complications about the splitting up of accounts and so on. Or take magistrates' courts committees. They have six months in which to submit a scheme for the original establishment of the committee, and I cannot bring some of the clauses into operation until that has been done. One has to go through the Bill and apply it as sensibly
  1292
  as possible, and I hope we shall bring it into operation as soon as we can. The alternative is to wait until the time comes when the whole Bill can be brought into force at one blow. That would be the last possible date, and if, as I believe, there are measures which we ought to bring into force as soon as we can, I should be sorry to see this one postponed until the last possible date. I agree that it would be possible to abuse this power, yet I should be sorry not to have it, and therefore I would ask the Committee not to assent to this Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that it was extremely confusing in the case of the Criminal Justice Act; but that was a different question. In dealing with cases in the courts, one had to know which Parts of the Act were in operation and which were not, and that was what made it so awkward. In this case I see every reason why this subsection should remain in, and I hope the Bill will be brought into force as soon as possible.
  LORD RAGLAN: In view of what has been said, I bee leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Provisions consequential on Changes in Commission of the Peace]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, made for clarity. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 33, line 41, after ("division") insert ("of the county").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD RAGLAN: The word "existing" seems meaningless in this context. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 5, leave out ("existing").(Lord Raglan.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I am assured that as a matter of drafting the word is not meaningless, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD RAGLAN: What does it mean?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is rather complicated. Section 5 of the Coroners Act of 1844 requires a county coroner to reside within the district for which he acts, or in some place wholly or partly surrounded by the district, or not more than two miles beyond its outer boundary. It is clearly right that a borough coroner to whom any such requirement applies should not be obliged to change his residence on his becoming a coroner for the county merely because of this requirement in the act of 1844 about the residence of a county coroner. On the other hand, once he has become a county coroner there is clearly no longer any reason why he should be relieved of this requirement. If his residence is more than two miles outside the borough boundary he need not change his residence on becoming a coroner for the county, but if he subsequently changes his residence he will have to reside either within the borough boundary or not more than two miles beyond it. So the noble Lord will see that the word means a great deal to these coroners.
  LORD RAGLAN: In view of what the noble and learned Viscount says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD RAGLAN: Perhaps this word has a meaning. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 2, leave out ("geographically").—(Lord Raglan.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not mind leaving this word out.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER THE MARQUESS OF EXETER moved, after paragraph 18 to insert:
  "Saving for Soke of Peterborough
  .The justices for the Soke of Peterborough shall, by virtue of the commission of the peace and without any further commission, have within the county the same jurisdiction as before the coming into force of section eight of this Act the justices for the liberty had within the liberty by virtue of the commissions of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery customarily issued to those justices, but as respects any matters within their competence as justices of the peace shall act as such and not as justices of oyer and terminer or justices of gaol delivery."
  The noble Marquess said: I have put down this Amendment because of the
  1294
  situation which occurs under the Bill in the Soke of Peterborough. This is an administrative county, but the justices' commissions are all addressed to liberty justices. The Amendment is designed to put the magistrates of the Soke of Peterborough in their proper order. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 10, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is in some sense a most disgraceful Amendment! For that reason I feel rather disposed to accept it. If the noble Lord, Lord Hatlech, were here he would say that this is such an anomaly that we ought to accept it. The justices of the Soke of Peterborough quarter sessions have for a long time had commissions of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery, by which they are entitled, for instance, to try people for murder or any other crime in the calendar; and this power has survived all these years only because they have never exercised it. I think this is a strange historical incident and perhaps one without parallel. The Soke of Peterborough is unique—and as the noble Marquess is the custos perhaps it is right that it should be unique. Apart from the fact that the noble Marquess is the custos can think of no other adequate reason for accepting this Amendment; but unless any of your Lordships tells me that I ought not to do so I will accept it. As I say, there is no substance in it, but it does mean the preservation of an ancient and interesting historical link. If the justices ever dare to act upon the powers they possess, I shall he the first to come and remove those powers from them!
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: May I thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for what he has said? But he is in this too, because the commissions are addressed to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and all the other legal luminaries. Therefore, in preserving this ancientanomaly, he is preserving himself. I should like to thank him for accepting this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. Its effect is that the liberty of the Romney Marsh will

  1295
  become part of the County of Kent for the coroner's purpose, and becomes part of the Hythe coroner's district. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 26, after ("Kent") insert ("and for the purpose of coroners become part of the Hythe coroner's district").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Third Schedule:
  9.—(1) A magistrates' courts committee shall appoint one of the members to be chairman of the committee and, subject to the following sub-paragraph, shall also appoint a clerk to the committee and may appoint such other officers (if any) as the Secretary of State may approve.
  (2) Where there is a separate magistrates' courts committee for a county borough or for a county not divided into petty sessional divisions, the clerk to the borough or county justices shall by virtue of his office be the clerk to the committee.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph 4 to leave out sub-paragraph (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment accepted in regard to the Isle of Wight. Therefore this sub-paragraph ought to come out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER THE MARQUESS OF EXETER moved, in paragraph 9 (1) after the first "and," to insert:
  "in the case of a magistrates' courts committee for a county, the clerk thereof shall be the clerk of the peace of the county or his deputy and in any other case a magistrates' courts committee shall,".
  The noble Marquess said: I move this Amendment because of the position of the magistrates' courts committee. It seemed to me that it was undesirable to have a clerk to a petty sessional division as clerk to the magistrates' courts committee. The division from which this clerk came might be under the review in the redistribution of courts in the county. It seems desirable that the clerk to the
  1296
  magistrates' courts committee should be an independent person, and not one of the clerks to the petty sessional division. I realise that it will be extremely difficult to find anyone suitable and prepared to take the office of clerk to the magistrates' courts committee, and I suggest that the appointment of the clerk of the peace or his deputy as clerk to the magistrates' courts committee might solve the problem.
  It has to be remembered also that the clerks of the peace are, as a rule, clerks to the county council, and that the county council will be called upon to bear a certain amount of the costs of the magistrates' courts committee. It seems desirable that there should be some connection between the county council and the magistrates' courts committee. In Northamptonshire we have been able to overcome that difficulty for a good many years because the justices were good enough to appoint me to a standing joint committee of the county. I wander round the courts in Northamptonshire, and when I go to the standing joint committee I am able to talk about the courts and assist that committee in coming to a conclusion with regard to the courts. If there is no connection between the standing joint committee and the magistrates' courts committee, the standing joint committee will not know what the various questions are all about, which I think may lead to a good many misunderstandings with regard to the work done by the courts. It appears to me that this is the easiest way out. It would suit Northamptonshire, but the difficulty is that what will suit in one place may not suit in another. It is difficult to find a way which will suit all parties. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 26, after ("and") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should think that it will be very common for the magistrates' courts committee to appoint as their clerk the clerk of the peace of the county. I should think, generally, it is the right course to take, for the reasons which the noble Marquess gave. On the other hand, I am anxious not to tie the hands of the magistrates' courts committee. They must work out their own salvation and destiny, and they

  1297
  should have the right to appoint whom they like. This is a somewhat controversial question. The proposal that the clerk of the peace of the county should be appointed is one which is advocated by the Society of Clerks of the Peace. On the other hand, the Incorporated Justices' Clerks Society take the view that the clerk to a magistrates' courts committee should invariably be clerk to the justices. Of course, the clerk to the standing joint committee is the clerk to the county council, who is in most counties the clerk of the peace.
  The standing joint committee consists as to one-half of its membership of magistrates and the other half of its membership of county councillors. As the standing joint committee is responsible for determining the salaries of the clerks to the justices and the other expenses or the magistrates' courts which have to be paid by the county council, it is obviously convenient that the clerk of the peace and of the county council should be the clerk to the standing joint committee. In consequence of the Bill, the standing joint committee will cease to exercise its present function in relation to expenditure on magistrates' courts. In so far as the magistrates' courts are concerned, the two bodies represented on the standing joint committee are separated by the Bill. There is, on the one hand, a magistrates, courts committee and, on the other hand, the county council, and the provision to be made by way of salaries and other expenses of the magistrates' courts is by Clause 20 to be arranged—we altered the actual details of it yesterday—between the magistrates' courts committee and the county council, and finally with the Home Secretary.
  In these circumstances, it is not evident to my mind that the clerk of the peace ought necessarily, by virtue of his position, to be clerk to the magistrates' courts committee. There may well have to be negotiations between the magistrates' courts committee and the county council on matters of expenditure, with a view to coming to agreement. I can conceive that the magistrates' courts committee would feel that it would help them in those negotiations not to have the clerk of the peace as their clerk during the discussions amongst themselves preliminary to the negotiations. It may be
  1298
  that the magistrates' courts committee will find it convenient that the clerk of the peace should he their clerk—I should think they would in most cases. But the Bill gives the magistrates' courts committee full responsibility for the administrative side of the magistrates' courts work, subject to their agreeing the financial matters with the local authority, and I think it would be unwise for us to tie the committee's hands as to whom they should appoint as their clerk. If the magistrates' courts committee in any county, for reasons which seem to them good, wish to appoint somebody other than the clerk of the peace as their clerk, then they should be free to do so. I think should leave it to them and not make a definite requirement as is proposed by this Amendment.
  LORD ROCHE: I should like wholeheartedly to agree with the Lord Chancellor on that point, but I would ask him whether it would not be desirable to go a little further. Sub-paragraph 9 (1) leaves it all to the magistrates' courts committee, who might select the clerk of the peace, or the clerk to the justices, or might select neither and go outside. But sub-paragraph (2) doe; rather prejudge the issue with regard to some magistrates' courts committees, and I do not believe that that subsection is really necessary. In those circumstances, why not leave that also to the committee? Perhaps before the recommittal stage the Lord Chancellor would consider whether that would not be the neatest and best way. That begs the question which was in issue between the justices' clerks and the clerks of the peace, and I thirds it would be a neat and a logical arrangement.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly see that it is considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I do not propose to press this Amendment. I should like to thank the Lord Chancellor for the explanation he has given, but I still feel that it is undesirable to maintain this situation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MINSTER: The first two Amendments standing in the name of Lord Crook are not moved, but on his

  1299
  behalf I beg to move the third Amendment, at page 39, line 33.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 33, at end insert ("In any other case the clerk to the committee shall be a justices' clerk").—(Lord Winster.)
  LORD CHORLEY: This is largely the opposite of the proposition which was being made a few moments ago by the noble Marquess. The object is to make it obligatory on the magistrates' courts committee to have a justices' clerk, and it is open to exactly the same arguments against it as the other—in fact there are possibly more arguments against it. I do not think there is any need for me to go over them. I hope the noble Lord, having heard them, will withdraw this Amendment.
  LORD WINSTER: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Third Schedule agreed to.
  Fouth Schedule [Modifications of Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, in relation to Justices' Clerks and their Staff]:
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, at the end of paragraph 3 to insert:
  "(4) Any regulations under subsection (6) of section thirty-six of the 1937 Act with respect to the administrative action to be taken by local authorities may provide for anything to be done by or to the council where apart from this provision they could provide for it to be done by or to the magistrates' courts committee.
  4. No gratuity shall be granted by a magistrates' courts committee under subsection (1) of section eleven of the 1937 Act to an employee on his ceasing to be employed by them in an employment in respect of which he was not immediately before he ceased to be employed therein a contributory employee."
  The noble Lord said: Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1937 enables a gratuity to be paid to any employee of a local authority, whether or not he is a contributory employee—that is to say, a contributor to the fund maintained under that Act. Under the scheme of Clause 17 of this Bill all the whole-time justices' clerks and staff employed by a magistrates' courts committee will be employees of this type. With regard to part-time clerks, however, only those who fall within the class specified by order of the Secretary of State, or who are brought in, under para-
  1300
  graph 1 of the Fourth Schedule by agreement between the magistrates' courts committee and the council concerned, will be contributory employees. The kind of part-time clerk to justices who will not be a contributory employee will be a clerk whose principal source of livelihood is his private practice as a solicitor. It would scarcely be appropriate that such a person should be eligible for a gratuity payable out of public funds, and the purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the power to pay a gratuity to contributory employees so as to exclude this case. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 41, line 3, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: Some county and borough councils have provisions in their local Acts which directly amend the Act of 1937 in relation to their employees—that is to say, to provide for the payment on retirement of a lump sum as well as a superannuation allowance. It is obviously desirable that these provisions should apply to those justices' clerks and assistants who are employed in the area of these councils and who will contribute to the same funds as employees of the councils concerned. The Amendment makes the necessary provision for this purpose by enabling the provisions of the local Act to be adapted by order of the Minister of Health. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 41, line 20, at end, insert—
  ("6. Any provisions of a local Act which amend the 1937 Act may be adapted by order of the Minister of Health").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule [Repeals]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is merely to correct a printing error in the reference to the section in the Statute. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 24, column 3, leave out ("eight") and insert ("three").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: The provisions which are being repealed by this Amendment are the provisions giving power to make rules. Paragraph (e) of subsection (4) of the new clause giving power to set up a rule committee includes the powers

  ("PART II

  REPEALS OF PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS

  Session and Chapter

  Short Title

  Extent of Repeal

  2 & 3 Vict. c. 71.

  The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839.

  Section sixteen.

  32 & 33 Vict. c. 62.

  The Debtors Act, 1869

  Section ten as respects courts of summary jurisdiction.

  36 & 37 Vict. c. 9.

  The Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1873.

  Section six.

  38 & 39 Vict c. 90.

  The Employers and Workmen Act, 1875.

  The concluding paragraph of section eight as respects courts of summary jurisdiction; and the concluding paragraph of section nine.

  42 & 43 Vict. c. 49.

  The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

  Section twenty-nine.

  47 & 48 Vict. c.43.

  The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1884.

  Section twelve.

  7 Edw. 7. c. 32.

  The Dogs Act, 1906

  In subsection (1), of section five, the words 'in England by rules made by the Lord Chancellor and'.

  3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 28.

  The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913.

  Subsection (5) of section forty-four.

  4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 6.

  The Affiliation Orders Act, 1914.

  Section six.

  4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58.

  The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914.

  Subsection (2) of section three; subsection (1) of section forty.

  10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 33.

  The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920.

  Section seven from 'and' onwards.

  15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 45.

  The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925.

  Subsection (2) of section seven.

  15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 86.

  The Criminal Justice Act, 1925.

  In subsections (4) and (7) of section twelve, the words 'made under this Act'; section seventeen.

  16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 29.

  The Adoption of Children Act, 1926.

  Subsection (2) of section eight as respects courts of summary jurisdiction.

  17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 21.

  The Moneylenders Act, 1927.

  Subsection (5) of section two.

  23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 12.

  The Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

  Subsection (3) of section thirty-four; subsection (3) of section forty-six; subsection (3) of section forty-seven; in section one hundred and one subsection (1) from 'and the power' onwards and subsection (2); sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule.

  23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 42.

  The Service of Process (Justices) Act, 1933.

  In subsection (2) of section three the definition of "prescribed".

  25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 46.

  The Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935.

  Section fourteen.

  26 Geo. 5. and 1 Edw. 8. c. 50.

  The Public Health (London) Act, 1936.

  Section two hundred and seventy from 'and the power' onwards.

  1 Edw. 8. and 1 Geo. 6. c. 58.

  The Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act, 1937.

  In subsection (1) of section four the words 'by rules made by the Lord Chancellor under this section'.

  11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 29.

  The National Assistance Act, 1948.

  Subsection (9) of section forty-four.

  11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 43.

  The Children Act, 1948

  Subsection (7) of section twenty-six.

  11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 58.

  The Criminal Justice Act, 1948.

  Subsection (6) of section nineteen")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  contained in the provisions set out in the Schedule which are being repealed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 33, at end insert—
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved to add Section 42 to the sections of The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839, to be repealed. The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to repeal Section 42 of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act of 1839. Under that section the justices' clerks in the magistrates' courts in London cannot receive any fees. I think that the origin of the provision was purely historic. At the end of the eighteenth century it was found that London magistrates and clerks were living upon their fees—and were living upon an excessive amount of fees. That is a historical fact. In the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839, there was this prohibition—applying both to magistrates and to clerks—against receiving fees. The result is that when justices' clerks act in the lay magistrates' courts in London they have to receive remuneration by some means other than the method of fees. That, I submit, is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  When I was Home Secretary I appointed two Committees, each of which took account of this anomaly. Unfortunately, the result was that one Committee recommended that the justices' clerks should not continue to act in this manner and that the clerks of the stipendiary metropolitan police courts should take their place, while the other Committee, which was presided over by my noble and learned friend, Lord Roche, took the view that the justices' clerks should continue to act in these courts and should be entitled to the appropriate fees. I am sure that we shall all he greatly impressed by the recommendation of Lord Roche's Committee upon this matter, and that we should prefer that recommendation to the recommendation that would preclude justices' clerks from acting in lay magistrates' courts in London. The fact is that lay magistrates' courts in London, though precluded from taking the whole field of cases, none the less can and do undertake a great deal of useful work in the metropolis. My own view is that their work should be extended rather than restricted. As matters stand now, they take a great body of cases brought by the London County Council, borough councils and so on, but they do not take all the classes of police cases which are taken by stipendiaries. I think that this matter to
  1304
  which I have referred is an anomaly which should now be removed, and that justices' clerks should be empowered to take fees in the ordinary way for the work which they are doing. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 25, third column, after ("thirty-four") insert ("section forty-two").(Viscount Templewood.)
  LORD SCHUSTER: I moved an Amendment yesterday which was intended to deal with just this point. Either the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack or the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that the matter would be reconsidered before re-committal or before the Report stage, whichever was in contemplation at the moment. I am a little frightened of the exact form of the Amendment which I moved, and also of the Amendment which my noble friend, Viscount Templewood, has just moved. I am not certain whether, as the Bill now stands, having received fees, a clerk would be able to retain them. This is an Amendment designed to achieve something which is necessary, but I do not think that any Amendment which we could move on this side would be effectual for the purpose. The matter is so highly technical that it needs to be worked out by the authorities of the Home Office and their assistants. No doubt they will appreciate that although these men do not take fees in this capacity they take fees in another capacity. It is those fees which really constitute their main source of livelihood, and which will be cut off entirely by the Bill as it stands. If the Home Office will accept the principle that those fees should not be so cut off—these, men are doing very useful work and they are a highly qualified and devoted body of people—then I think the result which we desire will be secured. I fully support the aim of my noble friend but I believe that more than his Amendment is needed to bring about the purpose which we have in view.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, for his intervention. So far as this Amendment deals with the point about remuneration, the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, is right. We have undertaken to look at it and to put down an Amendment to deal with it. The Amendment which is before the Committee goes a great deal further than that, and if it were accepted it would mean that there

  1305
  was nothing to prevent the exercise by lay magistrates of the same jurisdiction as a stipendiary. I am advised that that would be its effect. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, a Committee in 1937 made valuable proposals, and I understand it is hoped that eventually they will be carried out. But, clearly, it is a matter for separate organisation, and is not properly included within this. I hope that in view of this explanation the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not know what the noble Lord means by the expression "not included in this." Does he mean that it does not come within the scope of this Bill?
  LORD CHORLEY: I meant that the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee are really a matter of administration, and a great deal of building of courts would be required before they could possibly be put into effect.
  Very careful organisation would be called for before it would be possible to enable lay magistrates in London to sit with the same sort of jurisdiction as stipendiaries. The noble Viscount's Amendment would really enable that position to be brought about before the organisation was ready for it. I am sure he will agree that it would be unwise that that should be done.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I was not contemplating so drastic a change as that. WI-at I was contemplating was that for a particular branch of work the disqualification of this 1839 Act should no longer apply. Where justices' clerks do this work, as they do it now, they should be able to receive fees for it, and should r of have to receive their remuneration from some other source which has nothing to do with the job upon which they are engaged. It was merely to remove this particular anomaly that I put down this Amendment. If it is thought that it goes too far, would the Lord Chancellor look at it between now and the Report stage and see whether he can

  ("13 & 14 Vict. c. 57

  The Vestries Act, 1850

  In section seven, the words prepare and issue the necessary process for recovering of arrears of such rates respectively before the justices, and procure the summons to be served, and to attend the justices thereon, and.'")

  —(Viscount Templewood)

  deal with the important matter of the restriction?
  LORD CHORLEY: The point about restriction has been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and we have undertaken to deal with it.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: As I understand it from conversations which have taken place, the matter now rests in this way. If, for example, a prosecution is brought by some borough council under the Weights and Measures Act, shall we say, and the council wishes to have the case put through cheaply, they can bring the prosecution before the lay justices in whose court no fees are payable. If the case goes before a stipendiary, fees are payable, so it is much cheaper to go before lay magistrates. The matter works in a rather different way from that which Lord Chcrley has indicated. Perhaps he will consider that point.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more. A firm promise was given to me yesterday. All I am concerned about is the livelihood of these people which is struck at, quite unintentionally, by the provisions of this Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: In view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is only consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 52, column 3, after ("section") insert ("five the words from and every' onwards; in section").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is an Amendment to end a disqualification and follows on my previous Amendment. It removes what we believe to be a further anomaly. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 49, line 18, at end insert—
  LORD CHORLEY: Our impression is that the noble Viscount is right about this, but if the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment the draftsman will look at the point between now and the next stage, with the object of putting down an Amendment in the name of the Government.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: This next Amendment deletes from the repeal Schedule the provision repealing certain words in subsection (4) of Section 162 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. This subsection requires copies of the grant of a separate court of quarter sessions to be sent by the council of the borough to the clerk of the peace of the county, or of each county if there is more than one, in which the borough or any part thereof is situated. It is desirable to keep the subsection as it stands because there are some boroughs, such as Stockport, which are in more than one county. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 23, column 3, leave out from "sixty") to ("in") in line 28.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment just accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 55, line 20, column 3, after ("twenty-nine") insert ("subsection (1) of section forty-nine from 'held' onwards;").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: The provisions of Section 81 of the Act of 1922, which authorised the Birmingham justices to employ assistant clerks and the Corporation to pay the assistant clerks and the office expenses of those clerks, are repealed by the comprehensive provisions made by Parts III and IV of the Bill for the appointment and payment of justices' clerks and their assistants. The Amendment is tabled to deal with that point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 55, line 58, at end insert—

  ("12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. lxxvi.

  The Birmingham Corporation Act, 1922.

  Section eighty one".)

  —(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to add to the sections of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act to be repealed "Section seventy-six." The noble Lord said: The Act sets out all kinds of penalties for doing things, from spearing fish to using explosives to take fish, which may result in criminal prosecution. I will not weary your Lordships with the details, but Section 76 says:
  "A justice of the peace shall not be disqualified from hearing any case arising under this Act by reason only of his being a member of a fishery board or a subscriber to any society for the protection of fish."
  I have in mind Clause 2 of this Bill. I think I should be justified in saying that opinion is hardening that magistrates who are in any way biased, or might be thought to be biased in any case that comes before them, should not sit. I cannot help feeling that in a prosecution under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act if a member of a fishery board sat on the bench he would be thought by some people to be biased. Probably he would not sit in any case in which the fishery board would be the informant, but it would probably be better that the member did not sit at all. It is true that Section 76 draws a line and says that if an offence was committed on the member's own property, he should not sit. But I think we ought to go further than that and prevent him sitting in any case where informaion is laid under this Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 56, line 8, after ("seventy-three") insert ("section seventy-six").—(Lord Merthyr.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I think the noble Lord is right about this, but I shall be glad if he will withdraw his Amendment so that the draftsman can look at the point and put down an Amendment on the next stage.
  LORD MERTHYR: I shall be glad to do that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  5.27 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be convenient to the House if I were now to move that this Bill be re-committed. We shall have a considerable amount of re-drafting to consider, and by having a re-committal we shall have the advantage of the greater info finality of the Committee stage in which to consider these matters. Then I shall ask your Lordships to treat the Report stage as a mere formality. In other words, instead of a Report stage I should like to have a further Committee stage, in order that every noble Lord may make as many speeches as he likes and so that the Lord Chancellor may be peripatetic. I believe that that will be in the best interests of all. We sometimes make a mistake in making the Report stage a re-committal; we should always remember the difference between Committee stage and Report stage and do our best to see that the Report stage is a more or less formal proceeding. I hope that this will meet the convenience of all your Lentil-lips. In moving now that the Bill be re-committed, I will not name
  1310
  any particular date. I hope that we shall be able to get the Bill ready on Monday week, but obviously that must depend on what the draftsman can do between now and then.
  Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have no objection at all to the Lord Chancellor's proposal to re-commit the Bill. Although, of course, one cannot give an undertaking that there will not be anything left over for the Report stage, we should not need the usual length of time between the Re-commitment stage and the Report stage, and I hope that it will be possible on the Report stage to move only one or two Amendments such as might be moved on Third Reading.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I think a Re-commitment stage will be for general convenience, because it will make for clearer and easier discussion. I am glad to support the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.