Lords Sitting of 26 April 1951

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC HOUSES
  4.7 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government the question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they can announce their intentions as regards the recommendations of the Gowers Committee on Historic Houses.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me an opportunity of making this statement on the subject. May I apologise to the House for the fact that the statement is rather long? However, I do not think the House will regret that, since this is a most important subject. We should like, first, to record our thanks to Sir Ernest Gowers and his colleagues on the Committee for their able study of the problem. His Majesty's Government agree that many of the country houses of Great Britain are important national assets of substantial æsthetic, historic and educational value, and that unless special steps are taken the decay and destruction of these houses will continue, because the owners cannot any longer maintain them. They agree, therefore, that, if this part of our national heritage is not to be lost for ever, the State must accept some further responsibility in this field.
  Much is now being done under the powers given by the Town and Country Planning Acts to the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Buildings which ought to be preserved are identified, and their demolition or disfigurement is prevented where this is threatened. A great debt is owed in this respect to the work of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Eric Maclagan which advises the Minister of Local Government and Planning. However, these powers are all negative; they prevent
  536
  harm being done, but they do not provide for positive action to be taken where the owners or occupiers of houses of value cannot maintain them.
  The chief measure proposed by the Gowers Committee to deal with the situation is a series of exemptions from taxation for the private owners and occupiers of specified houses. The Government are unable to accept this proposal, which would amount to a subsidy to a special class of persons—namely, those who own and occupy such houses—over which Parliament would have no direct control. Moreover, this would run counter to a general principle of taxation which we have always tried to maintain: that a man's liability to tax should not be measured by his particular choice of commitments. This does not imply any opposition to the private occupation of these houses, on which the Committee set store; but special relief from taxation would not, in the view of the Government, be an appropriate method of dealing with the problem. The Government prefer, instead, that any action taken by the State should be positive in character and under full Parliamentary control. We therefore propose to introduce legislation next Session to empower the Minister of Works to assist in the preservation of outstanding houses. He is the most appropriate Minister for the purpose, since he already has comparable responsibilities in relation to Royal Palaces and to ancient monuments, and he employs an expert staff for this purpose. A separate Bill will be required for Scotland, where the responsibility will be shared with the Secretary of State. Details of these proposals will be announced at a later date. At this stage I will only say that, pro-vided certain conditions are fulfilled by the occupier, these Ministers will be empowered to do work themselves or make loans or grants in order to preserve the structure of these houses. They will work in close collaboration with local authorities and with the National Trusts, which are already doing such admirable work in this field. Among the conditions will be undertakings by the owner to maintain the house properly and to make it accessible to the public as may be prescribed.
  The burden of defence and the existing financial situation make it impossible for us to contemplate spending more than a very small sum on this work for the

  537
  present, and therefore the number of houses in respect of which work can be done will be equally limited. But the machinery will be set up and, as conditions allow, it will be possible for more to be done later. My right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning thinks it will be appropriate that the National Land Fund set up under the Finance Act, 1946, should be used to meet the cost of any houses and their contents that are to be acquired. We also propose that the present provisions for taking over land and houses in payment of estate duty and for reimbursing the Commissioners of Inland Revenue out of the National Land Fund should be expanded so as to enable chattels to be taken over in the same way, when they are ordinarily kept in houses so taken over or already in the possession of the Crown or the National Trusts. This facility will, we hope, make it easier for houses to be preserved with their contents intact.
  His Majesty's Government have care-fully considered the Committee's further proposal that historic buildings councils should be created with executive powers, but are unable to accept it. It is our view that normal Ministerial responsibility and Parliamentary control of expenditure must be maintained in this field. There is, however, a strong case for advisory councils to assist the Ministers in this work, and the legislation which we pro-pose to introduce will provide for the setting up of such councils with wide terms of reference. Since it is intended that the Minister of Works should exercise these new responsibilities, my right honourable friend the present Minister of Local Government and Planning has agreed that the Bill should transfer to that Minister—that is, the Minister of Works—the powers at present exercised by himself in relation to buildings of special historic or architectural interest, under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It is plainly convenient that the two sets of powers, for negative preservation and for positive assistance, should be exercised together, and that the powers relating to historic buildings should be brought together with those relating to ancient
  538
  monuments. Corresponding but rather different powers will be required for Scotland, where the responsibility will be shared with the Secretary of State.
  The provisions so far mentioned will have to await future legislation, but my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take the opportunity of the Finance Bill, which he is about to introduce, to make certain changes in regard to estate duty which bear upon this question. Their intention is to make it easier for noteworthy houses and their contents to be transferred or bequeathed to the Government, the National Trusts, or other public bodies. Such transfer is one of the best ways of securing their preservation, and, as the experience of the National Trust shows, is wholly compatible with private occupation where this seems desirable. My right honourable friend proposes to pro-vide for the exemption from estate duty of the contents of houses given or bequeathed to the Government, the National Trusts, or other public bodies; and the exemption of gifts or bequests to public bodies of houses and land and of endowment funds accompanying them— an exemption which already applies to similar gifts and bequests in favour of the National Trusts. We hope that these proposals, taken as a whole, will help us to preserve for the benefit of future generations this valuable part of our national heritage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full statement that he has made. He will not be surprised when I say that the full implications of the proposals which he has outlined must be still somewhat obscure to noble Lords on this side, and also to the rest of the House. Therefore, I should prefer to make no comment to-day. I hope, however, that some early opportunity may be afforded for a debate on this subject in which we may obtain a further elucidation of these far-reaching proposals.
  LORD PAKENHAM: If I may be allowed to say so, I am sure that the course suggested by the noble Marquess is the best.

  BRITISH WOOL (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER, 1951
  4.8 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
  Moved, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4.9 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, this is a short and straightforward Bill—short in the sense that it consists of only five clauses, and straightforward in that it is free from many of the complications raised by the corresponding English measure which was so recently before your Lordships' House. This is because the leasehold system is much less widespread and much less complex in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. It is therefore possible to deal with the limited, but none the less important, Scottish problem in a short Bill of this kind.
  The traditional form of land tenure in Scotland is the feu—that is, a lease in perpetuity, under which the feuar, or lessee, undertakes, in return for a grant of land on which he proposes to erect a building, to pay an annual feu duty and to carry out such other obligations as may be specified in the contract. The great bulk of the land in Scotland is held in this way, but about the middle of the last century a practice of granting long building leases grew up in certain parts of Scotland for one reason or another, possibly because the titles of the land prohibited sub-feuing. Under these leases, which were generally granted for a period of ninety-nine years, the tenants paid a small ground rent and undertook to erect and maintain dwelling-houses or other property—in the main, I think, dwellinghouses—on the land let to them. These
  540
  long leases occur mainly in Lanarkshire, Inverness-shire, Wigtownshire, and in one or two other parts of Scotland. Many of these leases have fallen in during the past ten or fifteen years, and more will come to an end within the next few years. Strictly speaking, the landlords are entitled, on the expiry of the leases, to take possession of the land and of the buildings thereon without any liability to compensate the tenants. But in Scotland landlords have seldom proceeded in this way, and they have usually been prepared to convert the leases into feus in return for an increased annual payment and, generally, also a capital sum.
  The tenants under these long leases have always regarded themselves as owners of their properties. This is natural enough, as the properties were erected on the land by their predecessors and have been subsequently maintained at the tenants' expense. Moreover, the tenants are entered in the valuation roll as owners of the properties. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place, repeated requests have been made from time to time by organisations representing lease-holders, by Scottish local authorities and by individual tenants, for an amendment of the law to protect tenants against excessive demands that might be made upon them by their landlords as a condition of the grant of a feu. With the rise in property value during recent years the payments asked by landlords at the expiry of the leases have been correspondingly increased; and requests for the payment of capital sums ranging from £500 upwards have been made to tenants as a condition of the grant of feus of modest little houses. In one case the tenant was faced with a demand for the payment of £1,300, although this was, perhaps, exceptional.
  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the leasehold system, it is clear that it raises many difficult legal and social problems which are in urgent need of solution. As your Lordships may be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently set up a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Guthrie, to inquire into certain aspects of the Scottish law of leasehold, including the position of tenants under long building leases, and when the Report of the Committee is received long-term proposals for dealing with the problem will be formulated.

  541
  The present Bill is therefore designed to hold the position as regards long leases which fall in during the next two years. It is purely a stop-gap measure which will maintain the status quo until the Scottish Committee of Inquiry have reported and legislation to deal with the long-term problem can be framed. The Bill has undergone some alterations in another place but has not been changed materially since it was introduced.
  With your Lordships' permission I will now proceed to explain briefly the provisions of the Bill, and in the course of so doing I hope to enlighten those of your Lordships who are not familiar with Scottish legal terminology about the meaning of expressions in the Bill such as "ish" and "tacit relocation." By Clause 1, the Bill extends until the end of the period of two years from the date on which it becomes law all long leases whose "ish" (that is to say the date of expiry) falls within that period. The qualifications required to secure extensions are, first, that the lease must have been granted for not less than thirty-one years, and second, that at the date when the lease is due to expire, the tenant or a member of his family must be living in the property or some part of it in pursuance of the lease. The period of thirty-one years was chosen because it is the minimum duration of leases which can be registered under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857. Under Clause 2, the extension of the lease is automatic unless the tenant gives notice that he wishes the lease to terminate.
  During the two years' period, so long as the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property, the landlord, subject to some exceptions which I shall mention, will not be able to terminate the lease or to bring an action of damages for failure to comply with any of its conditions. The reason for this provision, which comes in Clause 3, is simple. The object of the Bill is to preserve the tenant's right to remain in possession of his home during the two years' period while the whole leasehold position in Scotland is being examined. It is there-fore necessary to ensure that a landlord should not be able to frustrate the purpose of the Bill by using a "back-door" method to get rid of his tenant. It would be of little use to give the tenant an extension of his lease for two years if, during that period, the landlord were free
  542
  to secure its termination for some, per-haps technical, breach of its conditions. I should like to stress, however, that these rights of the landlord are not destroyed under the Bill. They are merely suspended, and at the end of the two years' period, subject, of course, to future legislation, the rights will revive. And although the Bill places some restrictions on the enforcement of the conditions of the lease, the landlord is toy no means left defenceless during the two years' period. His existing remedies remain unimpaired where the tenant is in breach of any obligation relating to payment of rent, or to insurance of the buildings, and his power to apply for interdict against the use of the property for some purpose contrary to the provisions of the lease is also unaffected by the Bill. These remedies should be adequate in relation to leases which can be continued for a maximum period of only two years.
  We have thought it right, and have so provided by Clause 4, that the Bill should apply where any interest in the property is held by the Crown, or by a Government Department, in the same way as it applies where all interests are held by private persons. There may be some cases in which the date of expiry stipulated in the lease is past, but by the operation of "tacit relocation"—that is, by the implied consent of the parties—the lease is still continuing at the date when the Bill becomes law. Clause 5 will apply to any cases of this kind. The Bill also covers two other special types of cases— namely, where the property is a manse occupied by a minister, and where a beneficiary is living in trust property. In both of these cases the tenancy is generally vested in trustees who, in law, are the tenants of the property. To overcome this difficulty, the Bill provides that the minister or beneficiary shall be treated as a tenant living in the property in pursuance of the lease.
  In conclusion, I should like to say again that this is a purely temporary Bill. Its life is limited to two years and it cannot be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the principle of the Bill, and that it will command your Lordships' support. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Morrison.)
  4.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should declare a contingent interest in this Bill, in that I am a director of a company which has long leases, although none of them is affected by the terms of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has presented this Bill in his usual charming way. He said, truthfully, that it is a short Bill, but I am not sure that it is as straightforward as he would have your Lordships believe. Last Tuesday your Lordships' House discussed a Bill which might be considered very similar to this, but in fact there are certain marked differences which I should like to mention. The first is that in England the facts are known—that was agreed, I think, in all quarters of this House. In Scotland they are not known. No inquiry has been held; no one is prepared to say that this Bill affects more than 250 cases certain. In England the problem is vast and complex; in Scotland it is limited, both in extent and in time. I think it is fair to say that in twenty-five years from now there will be no long leases in Scotland at all; or if there are any left the number will be an infinitesimal one.
  I understand that the solution in England is difficult. In Scotland, I think, in a majority of cases, the solution is simple; but it is not in this Bill. The reason is largely that which the noble Lord has indicated: that in the great majority of cases we are able to convert directly into a feu. If I may say so, that may be the answer to the question which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack asked on Tuesday—namely, why is it that in Scotland we have not got into the very complicated condition which prevails in many parts of England. I think it is proper, because there has been criticism of it, to recognise the real value of the feuing system of tenure. I am glad that this opportunity has arisen, so that the value of the system can be fairly seen. There are other reasons why we have overcome this difficulty in Scotland. It may surprise some people to know that it is very common for a person in Scotland to own a flat at the top of a tenement in fee simple. I do not know whether that is possible in England; I believe that, in any case, it is very rare. Moreover, as the noble Lord has said, there is practically no specula-tion in rented property. The reason for that is largely due to the rating system
  544
  in Scotland, which makes almost every class of leased property an undesirable investment. It may be that Scotsmen are more hard-headed than Englishmen, but the fact remains that at this date no one would accept a 100-years building lease, whereas I believe they are continuing in England as they always have done.
  I find it difficult to understand the genesis of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that it was due to rising prices—"rising values" were the words which the noble Lord actually used, but that really means, in these modern times, depreciation in the value of currency. If that is the problem, I suggest that the noble Lord or the Government might try to get as Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of one from Eton or Winchester, somebody from a more sober institution, such as Harrow. Be that as it may, it is the depreciation of currency that is the major cause of rising prices at the present time. One spokesman in another place, who generally speaks with authority, spoke of the relevance of this matter to a General Election. I do not know whether that has much to do with the subject, but I feel that the reason we are considering this Bill now is simply that a similar Bill is being brought forward for England: we are merely bobbing along at the coat-tails of an English Bill. There is no particular reason why this Scottish Bill should be advanced at the present time. It is true that about a hundred years ago on entailed estates the only way to develop was not feuing but by long leases. But that situation ceased to be necessary in 1874. I think it is fair to say that, since that time, virtually no long leases have been made.
  With the best will in the world, I find it difficult to say that this is a very good Bill. In the first place it solves nothing, it only postpones a solution. It is a case of legislating first and inquiring afterwards, which is not, I think, a very wise process. The Bill creates certain advantages but also certain disadvantages, on the nature of which we are very im-perfectly informed. It leaves a period of uncertainty. Anyone who may be a tenant on one of these properties is unable to settle his affairs because he does not know how he will be effected. In most cases he will be quite unable to dispose of his lease at all. Moreover—and I think this is most serious—the Bill does give,

  545
  albeit for a limited time, a statutory protection to tenants who do not wish to maintain their property properly. If there is one growing social evil in this country to-day it is that housing properties are being allowed to deteriorate. This Bill in some measure assists in that deterioration by giving statutory protection which will allow that deterioration to go on further. In that sense, I am afraid that I must condemn the Bill as it stands at the moment.
  I agree that, at the present time, according to our views in Scotland, it is a hardship in many cases that at the end of the lease a tenant must grant to the landlord the whole reversion of his property. I think that is particularly true where the tenant has added largely to the value of the property by modernisation. The property may have been held in one tenure for a hundred years. I agree that it is absurd to pretend that the tenant does not know the conditions of the lease, but the hardship lies mostly in the fact that the better tenant a man is, the more he hands over. If he has kept his house well he hands over a very good property. If he has been a very bad tenant, who has not taken care of his house, it may well be that when he hands over the house it is a liability; and the tenant himself may be a man of straw who cannot put the property right. I think the situation can be unfair, and that it is one which requires adjustment. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, it is rarely in those leases that have been held for a long time that full legal rights are exacted. We are passing a Bill for the express purpose of stopping hard land-lords from exacting their pound of flesh. I suggest that we should also see to it that bad tenants are not allowed to take full advantage of the situation. That is one point to which I should particularly like to direct the noble Lord's attention.
  I know that this is not the noble Lord's Bill, and some of these are Committee points. But it will be easier for the noble Lord to answer these questions if I put them now, rather than bring them up at the last minute. I ask him, first, what is the position at the end of those two years where the tenant is a public authority? In such a case will the tenant be able to claim freedom from legal action by virtue of the Public Authorities Protection Act? I think it is worth while considering that point. One case of this
  546
  nature has been raised in a letter which I have received. Whether the situation which I have visualised arises frequently I do not know, but I feel that something should be incorporated in the Bill if it is the intention not to give a public authority that advantage.
  My next point is one which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, raised when the English Bill was under discussion. It is whether this Bill is really confined to building leases. I do not know whether that matters very much—in Scotland we should not get factory leases of thirty-one years, though we might get agricultural leases, and I am not certain as to the consequences. May I take a further point? Suppose a "smart Aleck" went into the Stationery Office and saw this Bill some time ago when it was first published. Having informed himself of its nature, he went to a tenant of a long lease who had no idea that the Bill was being put forward and whose lease was due to expire at Whitsun, and bought his house or the reversion of it at perhaps three months' value. The "smart Aleck" then waited until he obtained the benefit of the extension, and sold the house again. How is that to be prevented by this Bill as now drafted? I suggest that it is not the purpose of the Bill to allow things of that sort to happen, but I think it possible that some action of that sort might well be carried out. The noble Lord mentioned the family. I think that here, again, we are entitled to some sort of explanation of what a family is. The Lord Advocate in another place gave certain examples. It is easy to give examples, but unless they are exhaustive it does not help very much. In my view, in a Bill of this kind it is proper that the word "family" should be fairly and fully defined. The examples given included an adopted child or an illegitimate child. Apparently a mother or a father is not included, nor is a wife living apart from her husband or, maybe, a mother-in-law. I think it is not improper to ask for much more adequate definition in this connection.
  The main point upon which I should like to ask for the noble Lord's support is in regard to what seems to me to be two issues of considerable importance. The first relates to the position of the neighbourhood. The people in the neighbourhood are, by the leases, entitled to certain protection. The noble Lord has

  547
  said that that could be done by interdict, proceeding on the contract but not giving rise to damages. Would it not be better to put that provision into the Bill? I suggest that it ought to be made perfectly clear that this protection which is for the neighbourhood does much to make sure that the character of the property as it has been for maybe ninety or a hundred years is maintained.
  A further point is this. How are we to have reasonable assurance that bad tenants do not make full use of the opportunity provided? I do not think it is possible to interdict anyone to maintain his property. An interdict is essentially a negative instrument; it cannot be used for positive action. There is an action ad factam prœstandam, but I do not know whether it is competent, or likely to be competent, in such a case. I suggest that there is no reason why some provision of that character should not be put into the Bill to make it clear that in a number of cases where property has been grossly abused—which is, clearly, against the public interest—there is a remedy.
  Finally I suggest that we fix a date in the Bill. I suggest Whitsun, 1951. At the present time no one, not even those who have read the Bill, knows when the measure is to come into force. We in this House do not even know when the Royal Assent is to be given. Surely people who have property, whether they are owners or tenants, are entitled to have some indication of when this Bill is to be-come law. If the Bill is given the Royal Assent before Whitsun, it may be only two or three days before the end of many leases on May 15. I suggest that we should put in two dates in the Bill— namely, the date on which the Act is to take effect, and secondly, as was suggested in the debate on the English Bill, the date from which the tenant's occupation will count, which I think should be the date when this Bill was introduced into Parliament—that is,November21 last. Anybody who in the meantime tried to take advantage of the Bill would not be acting in the spirit and purpose of the Bill itself. I do not think the Bill is going to solve our problems, but with these two exceptions—the maintenance of property and the interests of the neigh-bourhood—I feel that the Bill will not do any serious damage.
  4.41 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, as he usually does, the noble Earl has made an interesting speech, and I will endeavour to answer some of his points. If I may, I will start with the last, while it is fresh in my mind. The noble Earl asked when the Bill would become law. Obviously it is impossible to put any date into the Bill. It is hoped that the Bill will become law very soon—if possible, before May 15. Now that the Bill has gone through another place, that will depend largely upon the noble Earl and his friends in this House. If they are helpful, as they usually are on Scottish legislation, and desire that the Bill should be placed on the Statute Book at an early date, then the Bill will become an Act of Parliament probably before the House rises at Whitsun, and that will mean that it will be in force by May 15.
  If I may go back to the beginning, the noble Earl said that he thought the only reason for the Bill was that England had a similar Bill. I would not put it so low as that. The noble Lord must know better than I do, because he lives a longer part of his life in Scotland than I do, that a number of nasty cases in connection with this matter have arisen in Scotland. He says he knows that there are a few bad landlords, as there are a few bad tenants. Unfortunately, that seems to characterise a great deal of our legislation. If only there were not bad people in one respect or another, if only everybody would play the game and treat each other decently, we could dispense with 90 per cent. of the legislation that we pass through Parliament. But because there are always exceptional people, because some 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. try to "do their neighbours down," Parliament has to legislate on every possible subject. The noble Earl went on to say that this was legislation first and inquiry after. No: inquiry is going on now. Lord Guthrie's Committee have commenced their work, and what this Bill does is to create a standstill for two years. I must emphasise that there is no provision here for renewing the Bill, and so continuing it year after year. It must come to an end in two years, by which time, in ordinary circumstances, the Guthrie Committee should have reported, and whatever Government are in power at the time should be able to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Lord agree that the Guthrie Committee were appointed after this Bill was introduced?
  LORD MORRISON: Probably the noble Earl is right: at any rate, the Committee are sitting now and taking evidence. The point I was making was that this is a standstill Bill. The noble Earl mentioned the "smart Aleck," who buys a house from somebody who may not know of this Bill. He would be a very foolish man who sold a house without acquainting himself completely with the legal position. I do not think any Scotsman would buy or sell a house without first taking legal advice, which would include knowing that this Bill was before Parliament.
  The noble Earl wanted to know what a family is. The expression "member of a family" is left for the court to decide: it is not defined in the Bill. I am advised that there is a considerable body of case law on this point under the Rent Restrictions Acts which would be equally applicable to the interpretation of this Bill. For instance, it has been held under these Acts that a member of a family may include a husband, a brother or sister, a niece by birth or by marriage, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child. Therefore, it would be for the court to decide in every case whether a niece or an illegitimate child, or anyone not covered by the ordinary understanding of the word "family," was to be included in the family. With regard to the two suggestions made by the noble Earl, I can only say that I will talk these over with those who are responsible for the Bill, and will Jet him know the answers. If he cares to frame Amendments for the Committee stage, I will do my best, as I always do, to meet his points, if they are reasonable. I am not able to express an opinion on them at the moment. In view of the fact that this is a temporary or standstill measure, which is to last for two years and which cannot be renewed, and be-cause, although the noble Earl does not appear to think there is much need for this Bill in Scotland, I am advised that there are a considerable number of cases in which leases will fall through on May 15 and cause considerable hardship, I hope the noble Earl will do his best as he usually does, to help us to get the Bill on
  550
  the Statute Book, so that it will be in force by May 15 and prevent further damage being done.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  RAG FLOCK AND OTHER FILLING MATERIALS BILL [H.L.]
  4.49 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  Upholstering, etc., to be done on registered premises
  1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be unlawful in the course of a business to use filling materials to which this Act applies in upholstering or in any other activity consisting of the stuffing or lining of any article, other than an article of clothing, except on premises registered by a local authority.
  (2) The foregoing subsection shall not make it unlawful to carry on on unregistered premises—

  (a) any activity in connection with the building or making or fitting out of railway carriages, road vehicles, ships or aircraft;

  (b) the remaking or reconditioning of any article;

  (c) such other activities as may be prescribed.

  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR) moved, in subsection (1) to leave out all words from and including "upholstering" down to "except," and to insert "any activity specified in subsection (2) of this section." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and the seventeen Amendments which follow are consequent upon the discussions on the Committee stage of the Bill. I am glad to inform your Lordships that the two noble Lords who showed most interest in the Bill at Committee stage were good enough to consult with me on these matters, and I am privileged now to place all these eighteen Amendments before the House knowing that both the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Lord Llewellin, are in agreement with them. Therefore, I shall not need to give extensive comments on any Amendment. The Amendment before the House and the next Amendment fulfil the undertaking given in Committee to consider whether the Government could

  551
  state positively the activities to which the clause should apply, instead of making it apply to everything not excluded. We have tried to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 8, leave out from first ("in") to ("except") in line 10 and insert ("any activity specified in subsection (2) of this section ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment completely meets a point which I raised on the Committee stage. It seemed to me that the original words were much wider than were needed. It came out in the course of discussion that they almost certainly included the whole taxidermist's art: the stuffing of a tiger, or anything like that, would be included in the measure. The Bill was not meant to apply to such avocations, and by putting in the actual articles we achieve what was intended. I am indebted to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment to meet the point I raised on Committee stage.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the first two Amendments, which I believe we are considering together. I am not resisting the Amendments, but paragraph (a) of the second Amendment, "the remaking or reconditioning of any article," contains a weakness in this respect: that it enables an article to be remade or reconditioned with the use of new materials which may be dirty. I admit that there is real difficulty here to arrive at a right solution, but I feel it my duty once again to point out what I think will be an undoubted weakness in the Bill. The time has passed for suggesting a further remedy, and I will not try and do so this afternoon.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("() The activities referred to in the foregoing subsection are any form of upholstering and, without prejudice to the generality of that expression, the stuffing or lining of bedding, toys, baby carriages and of articles of such other kinds as may be prescribed:
  Provided that there shall not be included among those activities—

  (a) the remaking or reconditioning of any article; or

  552

  (b) any upholstering in connection with the building or making or fitting out of railway carriages, road vehicles, ships or aircraft or upholstering of such other kinds as may be prescribed").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Registration of Premises]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to add to the clause:
  "() If at any time premises registered under this Act are no longer being put to a use necessitating their registration, the local authority may strike the relevant entry out of their register, but this shall be without prejudice to the right to make a further application under this section for registering the premises again."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment refers to the keeping by local authorities of registers of upholstery businesses. Without this provision local authorities would have to keep on registers premises once registered, no matter how long the premises might, in fact, have ceased to be used for upholstery businesses. This Amendment will enable them to keep the registers up to date. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 17, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this was not a point we raised on the Committee stage, but we can have no objection to it. I thought it was an inherent power that if the local authority could put people on the register they could take them off. However, if that is not clear in the Bill it is as well to have these words inserted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Offences as respects unclean filling materials]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to leave out sub-sections (1) and (2), and to insert:
  "() If on any premises registered under this Act there are filling materials to which this Act applies which are not clean, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of an offence, unless he proves—

  (a) in the case of materials in an article, that the article is a second-hand one belonging to some other person and brought into the premises to be reconditioned or remade; and

  (b) in the case of materials not in an article, that they were brought on to the premises in such an article as aforesaid.

  553
  () If any person sells, on the demand of a purchaser for filling materials to which this Act applies which are clean within the meaning of this Act any filling materials to which this Act applies which are not clean, he shall be guilty of an offence."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has the same intention as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in Committee—namely, to provide that a person who has dirty materials on registered premises shall not be guilty of an offence if he is merely reconditioning second-hand articles be-longing to someone else. This Amendment also takes the opportunity of reversing the order of subsections (1) and (2). The new order is more logical. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert the said new subsections.— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Rag flock for filling to be manufactured and kept at licensed premises]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The next two Amendment arc consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 10, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 19. leave out ("(2)") and insert f"(l)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Licensing of premises for manufacturing rag flock]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
  "() On any appeal under the last fore-going subsection—

  (a) the opinion of the local authority as to any matter mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section shall not be conclusive;

  (b) the appellant shall be entitled if he so desires to be heard by himself or by counsel or a solicitor or other representative, as he may elect, before a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister to whom he is appealing;

  (c) if the appellant exercises his right to a hearing under the last foregoing paragraph the local authority concerned shall also be entitled to be heard by such representative
  554
  as they may elect and either party or their representative may call witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses of the other party."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to two suggestions, made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the Committee stage, and relating to appeals from local authorities' refusals to give licences. One was that the local authorities' opinions on the ground for refusal should not be conclusive; and the other was that the appellant should have a hearing before an appeal was decided. Both those points are now met. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 16, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, although it was attributed to my noble friend Lord Merthyr, I believe it was I who made both the points, and therefore I feel it is only right that I should thank the noble Lord for having met them. I rather wanted the appeal to be to the courts, where the hearing could be in open court before an impartial tribunal. During the course of discussion we found out that by the words of the Bill as originally drafted, if it appeared to the local authority that the premises were of a certain kind, it would probably not be in order for the Minister to go behind the back of the local authority. That gave rise to part of this Amendment. I was also supported by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, when he said that he hoped the inquiry was going to be not just an inquiry in a Ministry, but an inquiry by a person sent down from the Ministry and appointed for the purpose. Although the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, could not give an authoritative ruling at that time, he has now moved this Amendment. Under it both sides also have the right to be represented if they wish. I feel that we have improved the Bill considerably in this respect, and I should like once more to thank the noble Lord for having met me in this way.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I feel that I should withdraw from my remarks the name of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and insert that of the noble Lord. Lord Llewellin.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Licensing of premises for storing rag flock]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment has the same effect as regards appeals for licences relating to rag flock stores. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
  (" () on any appeal under the last fore-going subsection—

  (a) the opinion of the local authority as to any matter mentioned in subsection (3) of this section shall not be conclusive;

  (b) the appellant shall be entitled if he so desires, to be heard by himself or by counsel or a solicitor or other representative, as he may elect, before a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister to whom he is appealing;

  (c) if the appellant exercises his right to a hearing under the last foregoing paragraph the local authority concerned shall also be entitled to be heard by such representative as they may elect and either party or their representative may call witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses of the other party ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Records to be kept on registered and licensed premises]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon one already agreed to in Clause 3. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 40, at end insert ("and of all second-hand articles containing filling materials to which this Act applies delivered to or con-signed from the premises ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Selling of articles containing unclean materials]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon one already made in Clause 1. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 26, after ("clean") insert—
  ("and

  (b) is of a kind which ought to be upholstered or stuffed or lined on premises registered under this Act").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Saving for existing stocks]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendments to Clause 1. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 40, at end insert—
  (" () Regulations prescribing additional kinds of articles for the purposes of section one of this Act may apply the foregoing sub-section with any necessary modifications to articles of those kinds.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Right to have samples tested
  (4) The Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Secretary of State acting jointly may by statutory instrument make regulations providing for the cases in which a fee may be charged for a test under this section and for the amount of the fee and any such statutory instrument shall be laid before Parliament.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (4) to leave out all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "acting" and to insert:
  "() It shall be the duty of the Ministers making regulations prescribing analysts for the purposes of this Act to secure that, except where a public analyst is prescribed, any person so prescribed has first given his consent and has a right to withdraw his consent after reasonable notice.
  () The said Ministers."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to Amendments made to Clause 14 on the Committee stage enabling the Government to prescribe alternative arrangements where for some reason it is not practicable for the samples to go to the public analyst. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("acting") in line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18:
  Penalties
  18. A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall, unless a special penalty for that offence is provided by this Act, be liable—
  (b) in the case of a second offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds;
  (c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the next Amendment have the effect of making what was the penalty for the third offence the penalty for the second and subsequent offences. To some extent it goes to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 1, leave out from the beginning to end of line 2.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, even though this represents a concession so small as to be hardly noticeable, nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy I think I should thank the noble Lord for dropping this infinitesimal crumb off his table.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have never yet heard an increase in a maximum penalty described as a concession, but if that is the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, looks at it, I think we should all agree with this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 3, leave out ("third") and insert ("second").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaensygor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Filling materials to which this Act applies]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment groups the various kinds of filling materials for greater clarity, and adds one material which was overlooked —namely, woollen felt. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 12, leave out from ("are") to the end of section and insert—
  (" (a) rag flock,
  (b) unwoven cotton, cotton linters, cotton millpuffs, cotton felt, cotton flock,
  (c) unwoven wool, woollen felt, woollen flock,
  (d) jute,
  (e) unwoven synthetic fibres, synthetic fibre flock,
  (f) hair,
  (g) feathers or down,
  (h) kapok,
  (i) coir fibre, Algerian fibre, Mexican fibre, sisal,
  (j) seaweed, seagrass, Spanish moss,
  (k) straw or chaff,
  (l) such other materials as may be prescribed.") — (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Application to Scotland]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is preparatory to the next, and must be moved in order to make the next Amendment possible. The deletion of subsections (4) and (5) is necessary in order to give effect to the next Amendment, which should have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, at an earlier stage. He willingly withdrew it then, and he has expressed his regret that he cannot be with us to-day. The suggestion is that county court procedure would be better than arbitration for settling disputes as to compensation for damage done in sampling. The subsections which it is proposed to omit provide for the appoint-ment of an arbiter in Scotland and for appeal against his decision; if an Amend-ment is made to the Schedule, this provision, of course, becomes unnecessary. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 21, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think it is right that we should make this Amendment. I pointed out at the time that if we had to settle disputes by arbitration, we must have somebody to decide on the arbitrator in default of agreement between the two parties. If we are now inserting the county court in England, and the sheriff in Scotland, that completely meets the point. In any event, I do not think there will be many cases.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule [Taking of samples from filling materials in articles]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 18, leave out from ("be") to the end of the Schedule and insert ("referred to and determined by the county court, or, in Scotland, the sheriff.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  5.4 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
  5.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [LORD HOLDEN In the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Power to make regulations about handling, etc., of white fish, and for other purposes]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a short statement on Clause 5. I believe that some of your Lordships have been anxious to prevent any overlap between the work of the White Fish Authority and that of local authorities over the former Authority's responsibility in relation to quality at the retail stage. So far as can be reasonably foreseen, the White Fish Authority's main activities will be concerned with the earlier stages of distribution, and will involve no interference with the functions of local authorities. The powers conferred under the Food and Drugs Act are sufficient to deal adequately with cleanliness and
  560
  hygiene at the retail stage, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Food has under consideration the making of regulations for the fish trade, on which matter he will shortly consult interested organisations, including the local authority associations.
  On Question, Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 [General provisions about offences]:
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON had given notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (6) and to insert instead:
  " (6) Where an offence under the last foregoing section or any regulation made under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any negligence on the part of any director, manager or secretary or other officer of the body corporate he as well as the body corporate shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish to move an Amendment to Clause 18, and with the permission of the Committee I should like to present it in a slightly different form from that which was circulated. The change is very slight, but I am told that this is the proper way in which to express the matter if, indeed, the Committee are disposed to accept the Amendment.
  Your Lordships will notice that in the Bill as it stands, at page 18, line 9, there is subsection (6) which provides this:
  "Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Part of this Act, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances."
  Therefore, that subsection provides, in the case where the offence is committed by a body corporate—for example, by a limited company or an association of fishing people—that if the body corporate commits the offence, there shall also be a liability imposed upon the director, general manager, secretary or similar officers on terms which will make it necessary for the individual accused to prove that he is not guilty. In fact, it is

  561
  a case in which, although we are dealing with the criminal law, it is suggested that we ought to reverse the ordinary rule which in general we would certainly wish to preserve—the rule that if you are charging a man with an offence, you have to prove it, and that it is not for him to prove that he is innocent.
  Having regard to the subject matter of this Bill, important as it is, I suggest that this is not a case in which we should agree to accept that exceptional and, I think, in principle objectionable, reversal of our British rule. There are some countries whose system of jurisprudence is such that a man accused of a crime is expected to prove his innocence; and if he fails in doing that, you have proved all you have to prove by having accused him. I do not deny that in our own Statute Law there have been cases where this has been necessary. For instance, under the Official Secrets Act, passed by Parliament in order to protect the safety of this country, it is the fact that Parliament has thought it well to say that in certain cases if a person is suspected he must clear himself; it is not for the prosecution to prove him guilty. I am not disputing that that is right. There may be a case in which failure to observe what is laid down may involve this country in some diplomatic complication. In a case such as that it may be right—and indeed I believe it is so laid down—having regard to the seriousness of the matter, to reverse the usual rule. In such an instance we must make it the business of the person accused to prove his innocence. What I submit, however, is that this is not a case in which we ought to go so far.
  There has been more than one instance in which this method has been adopted —I take as an example the setting up of a register: it may be necessary to cause people to be entered on a register. It is the law of the land in connection with, let us say, the registration of dentists, where the business of dentistry is being carried on by a limited company and we have to find out the identity of the individual behind the company who is taking the liberty of pulling out people's teeth. My submission is—and I address myself particularly to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who is as much concerned about the principles of our law as anybody—that the sea fishing
  562
  industry should not be the subject matter of such a departure from the general rule. Therefore, I have put down as an alter-native what really amounts to a reversal of subsection (6)—though, of course, it is necessary to have some such subsection. The Amendment which I am now moving seeks to insert as a new subsection (6):
  "Where an offence against this Part of this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
  The Committee will see that this maintains the view that it is for the prosecution to prove the case: that if it is a fact that a body corporate is proved to have committed an offence, then the director or similar officer who is proved by the prosecution to have consented to, or connived at, the offence shall be deemed to be guilty. I am seeking, quite frankly, to reverse the onus laid down in the Bill as it stands. I am hoping that your Lord-ships will be at one in feeling that, unless there is a strong reason for reversing the usual rule, it would be regrettable if we were to depart from our British system and to move rather towards the Continental system. That system amounts to saying: "I have brought you before this court and charge you with this offence; now you must prove that you did not commit it." I am hoping that, with this explanation, the noble and learned Viscount will advise the House that it would be right to make this change in the Bill.
  I wish to make—though I must, of course, do so only in general terms—a reference to what happened recently in another place. A proposal made there, with substantially the same effect, was put forward by Mr. Erroll from the Opposition side, and was supported, I noticed, by several others. It was dealt with by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I thought, if I may be allowed to say so (I take an interest in the early careers of all Law Officers, past, present and to come), with great discretion. What he said, in effect, was that everything had gone very nicely, that he did not want to start a controversy, but that he could not at the moment say more than that the Government would

  563
  look at the matter. That is what I am now asking the Government to do. I think your Lordships' House is an appropriate place in which to ask that. While it is not a major point, I attach importance to it for this reason: if we allow the clause in its present form to pass into further legislation, we may well be told more and more later that there are precedents for such a course, and that it is too late to challenge the position. I do not myself want to challenge it in the cases in which it is really necessary; but I do wish to do so on this occasion.
  A limited company may just as easily commit an offence under the Sea Fish Industry Bill as may an individual, but there is this difference: that, since the penalties provided in this Bill are either a fine or imprisonment, a corporation (which, as someone once said, has "neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be saved") can only be fined: there are no known means by which a corporation can be put in prison. I do not, however, regard that as a sufficient justification for departing from the normal rule. I invite the Lord Chancellor to consider whether he will not allow this Amendment to go into the Bill. I feel that we should be doing some-thing useful and appropriate if we were to make this change. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 9, leave out subsection (6) and insert (" (6) where an offence against this Part of this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly ").—(Viscount Simon.)
  5.19 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT Jowitt): I do not feel at all keenly one way or the other about this Amendment. I think the noble and learned Viscount has correctly enunciated the law as I understand it. Of course, our principle has always been that when a person is accused of a crime it is for the prosecution to prove that he is guilty, and not for him to prove that he is innocent. That is the perfectly sound principle which distinguishes our law sharply from some systems of Continental law, and as a general principle we
  564
  should all like to adhere to it. The difficulty arises from the conception of a company, which is a legal fiction. The noble Viscount's quotation was not quite correct, if he will allow me to say so. It should have been that a company has "neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned." The principle, of course, is the same. If a company commits an offence and you prove the complicity of an individual it is an offence under ordinary criminal law. The difficulty is not so much with regard to acts of commission as to acts of omission. Where a company which is called upon to do a certain act—for instance, to register or something of that sort—fails to do it, it is difficult for an outsider to prove which particular director on the board, or which particular manager amongst the managers, is in fact to blame. In consequence, there are a large number of Acts, a formidable list of them—I shall mention only those passed before the war— in which this clause has been inserted. The Committee must observe, of course, that before this clause operates at all, it is first necessary for the prosecution to prove that the company has been guilty of an offence; and, if the company is proved to have been guilty of an offence, then and then only, under this clause, does the onus fall upon the director concerned to show that he was not a party to it.
  As the noble and learned Viscount has said, there are many cases in which I should certainly desire to adhere to the principle which is followed in the Bill. There is the extreme and obvious case where the doing of something, or the failure to do something, may involve serious injury or even death—for instance, in the mines. We have had it in the Coal Mines Acts for a very long time, and it is absolutely right that it should be there. People who are concerned in the management of a mine, even though the actual form of the owner is a company, should realise that they are undertaking a very serious obligation. We have had it for years in our Factory Acts, where failure to carry out the provisions of the Factory Acts may lead to serious injury. There again (I know the noble and learned Viscount agrees with me), it is right that it should be there. Then we have had it also, if I may give your Lordships another illustration, in the Official Secrets Act. I think it is plainly

  565
  right that it should be there. We have had it also in the Act to do with Washing-ton—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: The Washington Conventions Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Treaty of Washington Act of 1922. That was an Act which prevented the building of ships of war and so on without due notification. That, I think, is right. We have had it in the Dangerous Drugs Act, which is a plain illustration. We all agree that it should be there. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount fully to this extent: I do not want it to become a matter of rule of thumb that, wherever we have an Act of Parliament passed dealing with a company, we automatically insert this clause. Quite frankly—I do not think there will be any controversy in the Committee on this—I think that it is a question for consideration whether or not the particular Act is one of such a nature and such scope that it is appropriate to find this directors clause in it. I concede further at once that I think this is a borderline case. That is why I can-not be at all heated about it. It is just a question of which side of the line this case falls.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland, to whom reference has been made by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, put the case very powerfully, I thought, in an attractive way; and I really could not attempt to improve on the language which he used. I think the case, if there is a case at all, for this subsection, is on this ground. There have been a number of Acts in which the clause appears where what we have been trying to do is to set up a complete register of some trade or profession. If a company fails to register itself, the working of the scheme may be interfered with. I will give your Lordships as an illustration the Theatrical Employers' Registration Act. We can all imagine what the object of that Act was—to ensure that people dealing with this sort of thing should be reputable and should be kept under some kind of control. It is obvious that if a company—and there are many such companies now—has failed to register, it might lead to serious abuse. That, too, is a borderline case, and in that case the clause was put in—I am inclined to think, rightly. The noble and learned Viscount himself referred to dentists. There again
  566
  it was plainly desirable to have a register, because the interest of the public is concerned. So you find the clause there. Then we find the same thing in the Mid-wives and Maternity Homes Act. It is plainly desirable that we should know where those homes are and what sort of places they are, and should be able to keep check and control on them. Then again one finds it in the old Companies Act of 1908.
  I accept the principle, as we all do, that sometimes there is a case for this clause. But it should not be put in as a rule of thumb and sometimes there is not a case for it. The problem we have to consider is: On which side of the line does this particular case fall? I will go so far as to say that I concede quite frankly that, wherever it falls, it falls very near the line, and so it is a matter about which I do not desire to generate the slightest heat. What I am prepared to do is this. I want a little further time in which to look at the matter, to see if I can get further guidance from the other cases as to which side of the line this case falls. Your Lordships will appreciate that we are in this Bill trying to set up a register. For instance, if you look at Clause 8, Licensing of fishing vessels—and there are several such clauses—it is provided that there must be a licence, and no fishing vessel registered shall be used unless there is a licence. That is rather, though not completely, analogous to the case of the dentists or the theatrical employers.
  So, if your Lordships will allow me, I want further time in which to consider the matter. I will accept the Amendment now in the form in which the noble and learned Viscount has moved it, so long as your Lordships will give me leave to come back to it on Report stage if, on looking into the matter, I come to the conclusion that the other subsection ought to be there. Since there is nothing in the least of Party controversy about this matter, it may be that some of your Lordships will look at it too and will come to the conclusion that it ought to fall on the side of the line on which it now is. If that is a fair proposition to your Lordships, at being understood that I am in no way committed, we shall have the advantage of examining the words and deciding whether or not we should accept this form of Amendment. For myself, frankly, I have not been able to make up my

  567
  mind on which side of the line this case falls. It is very near the centre, and, that being so, I am prepared for the time being to accept the Amendment so long as it is understood that I am not prejudicing myself in coming back to it, if I desire to do so, to look at the matter again.
  LORD SILKIN: May I perhaps assist the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in making up his mind? Since this is such a borderline case, and as he himself is unable to decide here and now, is there not another principle involved? Ought not the bias to be on the side of accepting the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount? I think all of us would accept the general principle that a person is innocent until he has been found guilty. A case where that principle is reversed ought to be clear and strong. If it is such a borderline case that one can look at it either way, I should have thought that the bias ought to be definitely in favour of accepting the Amendment. I hope that that may be of some assistance to the noble and learned Viscount in making up his mind.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I con-fess that that was one of the considerations which led me to take the line I have taken, and to say that I would accept the Amendment at this stage with-out prejudice, rather than ask the noble Viscount not to move his Amendment at this stage but to deal with it on Report stage.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, and I think I may claim to be a sufficiently experienced Parliamentary hand to know that when, for the moment at any rate, I have got what I want, it is unwise to make a second speech to explain how right it is. Let us leave it at that; then I shall not do any harm. I fully understand that, while the
  568
  Lord Chancellor is accepting this Amendment now—and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, added what he did, because it is a consideration—at the same time both sides are free to examine this matter at a later stage. It may be that I shall suddenly have a bright light thrown upon me in my journey and come to the conclusion that my previous opinion was all wrong. If so, I shall be glad to con-tribute to my greater understanding. But we are all free to reconsider the matter and, in the meantime, we shall see my Amendment printed in the Bill as it will appear before us on the Report stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  6.8 p.m.
  The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:
  Army and Air Force (Annual),
  Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes),
  Falkirk Burgh Extension &c. Order Confirmation,
  Lloyds,
  Oxford Motor Services,
  City of London (Central Criminal Court),
  Bishops (Retirement) Measure.
  House adjourned at sixteen minutes past six o'clock.