Lords Sitting of 24 July 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Viscount Alexander of Tunis—Took the Oath.
Lord Bicester—Took the Oath.

WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ASSASSINATION OF KING ABDULLAH
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT) rose to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned of the assassination of His Majesty King Abdullah of the Jordan; and to pray His Majesty that He will be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Family of His late Majesty, with the Government and with the people of the Jordan. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am confident that in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name I shall be expressing the feelings of all your Lordships—feelings of disgust and horror at the shameful crime which has been committed in Jerusalem; feelings of sorrow and dismay at the death of so staunch a friend, and feelings expressing our deep sympathy with his kinsmen.
King Abdullah was, indeed, a friend of this country. It is always, I think, in times of trouble that the value of true friendship is revealed, and when we were in terrible trouble and danger in the last war King Abdullah did not hesitate to give us his support. At a time when most of the world except ourselves believed that we were going to lose the war, and were making their arrangements
1142
accordingly, King Abdullah, in accordance with the fine traditions of his race, made the very honourable choice of staying firmly at our side and facing the same perils that threatened us. Such a decision required faith, as well as honour, and, above all, it required courage. King Abdullah had no lack of these qualities, and many other qualities, too, sorely needed by his people and by the world at this moment. He strove always for the welfare and advancement of the Arabs and he was wise enough to see, what many failed to see: that to attain those objects peace and unity in the Middle East were essential. The loss of so wise a monarch, father of his people, is, indeed, grievous.
I therefore beg leave to move to resolve that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned of the assassination of His Majesty King Abdullah of the Jordan; and to pray His Majesty that He will be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime; and their sympathy with the Family of His late Majesty, with the Government and with the people of the Jordan.
Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned of the assassination of His Majesty King Abdullah of the Jordan; and to pray His Majesty that He will be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Family of His late Majesty, with the Government and with the people of the Jordan.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion for an humble Address to His Majesty which has been moved by the Lord Chancellor. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the Lord Chancellor has spoken for us all, irrespective of Party, in the tribute which he has paid to King Abdullah of Transjordania, of whose tragic death we heard with such sincere grief last Sunday. But I should like to add a few most heartfelt words on behalf of those who sit on

1143
these Benches. It was only once my good fortune to meet King Abdullah. I understand that my noble friend Lord Swinton, who is to intervene in a moment or two, knew him very well, but I am sure that he will agree that no one who had met King Abdullah even once, would ever forget him. He ruled over a small country, as countries go, but he was a great man in the fullest sense of the term, whose influence extended far beyond the boundaries of his own land. Wise, moderate, statesmanlike and brave, he led his people through troublous times, and he never failed them. To us, as the Lord Chancellor has said, he was a faithful ally and a true friend, even when times seemed darkest. We mourn him, and we send a message of heartfelt sympathy to his fellow-countrymen who have suffered so grievous a loss and, in particular, to his son, Prince Naif, who as Regent, now has to shoulder that burden which was carried so valiantly and so triumphantly by his great father.
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, noble Lords who sit on these Benches would like to support the Motion moved by the noble and learned Viscount, and to associate themselves fully with the sentiments which have been expressed by him and by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. By the death of King Abdullah we have lost a staunch friend and a faithful ally, and a great statesman has gone from the world. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to say one word, on behalf of my noble Leader, Lord Samuel, who wished very much to be in his place this afternoon to pay this tribute on behalf of the Liberal Peers, and also personally. Unhappily, Lord Samuel had an engagement in the country which he felt bound to fulfil. My noble friend Lord Samuel knew King Abdullah intimately during the five years that he was High Commissioner of Palestine, and he had a constant and a great personal regard for the King. Not only had he this personal regard, but he looked upon King Abdullah as a man of the wisest counsel and great courage, and considered him to be the outstanding figure and statesman in that part of the world. It so happens that Lord Samuel lunched with King Abdullah only a
1144
short time ago in Amman, and he was very much struck with the progress which had been made in Jordan under the King's wise and far-seeing guidance. Perhaps I may be allowed to read to your Lordships the concluding words of my noble friend's message:
"All Middle-Eastern States will greatly miss the statesmanship and fine character of King Abdullah, but none more than Jordan itself."
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of adding a personal word to the tributes which have been so well paid. During difficult and critical years of the Mandate, when I was Secretary of State for the Colonies, I got to know the Amir Abdullah, as he then was, very well indeed; and during those years he gave many proofs of his trust in and his love for Britain. He was indeed, in the words in which he used always to sign his personal letters, our "true friend". He had, as has been well said, great and kingly qualities. He was absolutely fearless, morally as well as physically. His physical courage he proved many years ago in the First World War. But he had other qualities, perhaps less common. He was farsighted, and, though tenacious of his aims and ideas, he was always moderate. To a sense of proportion he added a most delightful sense of humour. These qualities are all too rare in the Middle East, and he will be terribly missed.
A little later, when I was transferred to the Air Ministry and when we were giving to the squadrons their crests and mottoes, I asked the Amir Abdullah to choose a motto for the Squadron which for many years had been stationed in Transjordan and in which he had always taken a deep interest. He sent me as a motto for that Squadron an Arabic quotation, I think from the Koran. The words were:
"I spread my wings and I keep faith."
That is the proud motto of the Squadron to-day: "I keep faith." My Lords, that might well have been the King's own motto.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE PARLIAMENTARY EXHIBITION
2.46 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice—namely, what arrangements are proposed for the opening of the Parliamentary Exhibition in the Grand Committee Room.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me this opportunity of making a Statement. On November 21 it was announced in another place that the Parliamentary Supervisory Committee on the Festival of Britain, presided over by Lord Winterton, had recommended the acceptance of a number of suggestions for enabling a full part to be played by our Parliamentary Institutions in the Festival of Britain. The main recommendation was that an Exhibition on the history of Parliament should be held in the Grand Committee Room. I am glad to be able to announce that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker will open the Exhibition at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, August 1, and all Members of both Houses are invited to attend. An opportunity will be given to Members to visit the Exhibition from after the opening ceremony until 8 p.m. The public will not be admitted on this day.
On the two following days admission to the Exhibition will be confined to Members of the two Houses and to their friends. If Parliament has by then risen for the Summer Recess, the Exhibition will be open to the public without charge, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday, August 4, and daily thereafter, Sundays excepted, until Parliament reassembles. May I add that we hope that everyone who can will visit this Exhibition? It is Parliament's own contribution to the Festival of Britain; and its purpose is to illustrate the history, development and achievements of Parliament, and the influence of our idea of Parliamentary Government on institutions overseas.

AUTOMATIC DOORS ON UNDERGROUND TRAINS
2.50 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 view of the danger to human life from trains travelling between Westminster and the City with open dors, they are yet able to indicate when the completion of a programme of automatic doors may be expected.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, at the present time, no trains fitted with hand-worked sliding doors are scheduled to run on week-days (Mondays to Saturdays inclusive) between Westminster and the City. On occasions, however, when there is a temporary shortage of rolling stock, or exceptional congestion, it is necessary to work a few such trains. On Sundays it is usual to run two trains of this type on the Circle Line, to give train crews experience with them. As new rolling stock is delivered, with air-worked doors controlled by the guard, the necessity for running any trains fitted with hand-worked doors on the District main line, including the Westminster-City section, will become progressively less. It is hoped that it will cease early in 1952.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his reply, it is hard to understand why there should be such a delay in carrying out this programme. After all, the cost, in man-hours or material involved in correcting this defect, which is a danger to human life, in comparison with the expenditure involved in the progressive security precautions taken week by week in mills throughout the country, is very small. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain this delay. I last asked a Question on this subject on May 5, 1948, three years and some months ago. I was then assured that these arrangements were actively in hand, and the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government said:
"I will see that the noble Lord's question is brought to the notice of the Commission."
I hope that it is not to be understood that we shall continue for another three

1147
and a half years with this danger to human life.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is, of course, aware of the great claims upon the productive capacity of the country. That is a factor which must be taken into consideration. This problem is progressively being tackled, and, as I say, I hope that with the coming of new rolling stock—and I can assure the noble Lord that new stock is from time to time being produced—we shall have eliminated the whole problem by 1952. The danger to life which the noble Lord mentions in his original Question is, of course, not a great factor. The record of accidents in these last four years is very small—a total of four, all due to carelessness and thoughtlessness by people trying to board or alight from trains while they were in motion. I can assure the noble Lord that all the considerations which he has mentioned have been taken into account, and that we are progressing as quickly as the present position allows.
LORD BARNBY: But not speedily enough.

RIGHTS OF MERCHANT SHIPS
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 whether it is their view that merchant ships enjoy under International Law the right of innocent passage through the territorial waters of a foreign State.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): Yes, sir.
LORD VANSITTART: I thank the noble Lord for a very satisfactory assurance, and will detain the House no longer.

TELEPHONE BILL
2.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second reading read.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House longer than is necessary on this Bill, but I feel
1148
that it would be discourteous if I did not present some explanation of the reason for, and the scope of, this Bill. Your Lordships may have noticed that this is the first Bill ever to be introduced under the title, "Telephone Bill." Indeed, it is the first Bill which has specifically recognised and dealt with the operation of the telephone service. Until now, this vast undertaking has been operated by successive Postmasters-General under what I can describe only as rather antiquated powers. These powers were derived from the Telegraph Acts of 1868 and 1885. These Telegraph Acts were not, of course, designed for the telephone service. A High Court decision of 1880, that a telephone message was also a telegraph message, was the basis on which successive Postmasters-General have rested their regulation-making powers over telephone charges.
The machinery and the powers provided by the Telegraph Acts for a telegraph service were not very suitable for the vast telephone service as it has now developed. Their unsuitability is indicated by the fact that, technically, to take only one illustration, telephone charges should be pre-paid in stamps. It is, I think, a tribute to the ingenuity of Postmasters-General and to the adaptability of our people that this "horse and buggy" legislation should have been made to serve so long. The size of the undertaking which it has served is illustrated by a few figures which I think may well interest your Lordships. At March 31, 1950, the investment in the telephone service at prime cost was £381,000,000 for plant, and £32,000,000 for land, buildings, and so on. At current prices, the figure for plant would be about£715,000,000. The telephone staff in 1949–50 numbered 142,000. As I feel sure your Lordships will agree, an enterprise with a capital value of about £750,000,000, employing over 140,000 people, should be conducted under up-to-date legislation
The position with regard to telephone charges is that at present virtually every telephone charge, except the rental, can be changed by the Postmaster-General by laying a regulation on the Table of both Houses. Such a regulation is not effectively debatable, so that the charges are not subject to Parliamentary control. Nor are they subject to negotiation with the telephone subscriber. Only the rental and a few minor charges are subject to

1149
an agreement, an individual contract, between the subscriber and the Postmaster-General. But, although that contract is freely entered into by the subscriber, it cannot in any sense be described as a freely negotiated contract. It is a standard contract, which stipulates the rental to be paid, and unless he signs it the subscriber cannot obtain a telephone. The conditions under which he may use the telephone and the charges for calls are specified by regulation outside the contract.
All that the contract really provides is a stipulated rental charge, a minimum term, and the period for termination—one month or three months. But, limited as the contract is, the fact that there is this contract means that the rental cannot be raised without the Postmaster-General giving notice to terminate the contract and offering a new contract at a higher rental. With a reasonably small number of contracts that might work well enough. When the last change in rental was made in 1921, apart from the wartime change, there were only 500,000 subscribers, but even then the difficulties were considerable. And to-day, with over 5,000,000 contracts and over 3,000,000 subscribers, that would be a quite unworkable arrangement. The estimated cost of terminating all the existing contracts and replacing them with new contracts is of the order of £800,000. I hasten to assure your Lordships that it is not proposed to incur that expenditure. But, you will see from that figure that, in view of the cost involved, it might not be worth while to make any modest adjustment, up or down, of telephone rentals. It is not proposed, under this Bill, to cancel existing contracts. Undoubtedly, it would be tempting to do so, because the work involved in giving individual subscribers proper notice to terminate over 5,000,000 contracts is very great—it will take several months to complete it—and very costly. I am advised that it will cost the telephone service in the region of £300,000. But to cancel individual contracts under Act of Parliament is regarded as such an invasion of the sanctity of contract that it has been completely ruled out. In fact, as noble Lords will see, there is an express provision in the Bill against that course.
What is proposed, then, under the Bill, is that when the contracts have been
1150
terminated in accordance with the terms contained in them, the service shall be provided thereafter on terms, conditions and charges as set out in regulations. As I pointed out earlier, Parliament has no control over telephone charges or rentals at present, except in so far as the Postmaster-General is generally accountable to Parliament and may be subject to censure or to a Motion to reduce his salary. But there is no specific control over charges and rentals. My right honourable friend the Postmaster-General proposes by this Bill to bring all telephone charges and rentals under statutory regulation for the great mass of subscribers and to extend the degree of his Parliamentary accountability. If this Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, individual subscribers will be served with notice to terminate their contracts and will be sent an explanatory letter indicating that the future service will be on the basis of statutory regulations. The present telephone charges, including rentals, will be embodied in regulations which will be laid before Parliament. Any change in these charges will have to be made by further regulations under the control of Parliament.
Let me now turn, briefly, to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 provides the general power of the Postmaster-General to make regulations for the use of the telephone service. Subsection (1) is necessarily drawn in general terms to cover the power to make regulations dealing with the whole operation of the telephone service, whether carried out wholly or only partly under the direct control of the Postmaster-General. Paragraph (a) deals with charges, terms and conditions for calls; and paragraph (b) deals with charges, terms and conditions for equipment. Paragraph (c) covers the recoupment of the Post Office where the service is given up prematurely; and paragraph (d) deals with the provision for payments. Subsection (2) provides power to make regulations for different terms and charges for different classes of case. Subsection (3) subjects the regulations to the negative Resolution procedure.
Perhaps I should pause here for a moment to say something about this procedure. I know that it is a procedure which does not in every case commend itself to many of your Lordships. My

1151
right honourable friend the Postmaster-General was under considerable pressure in another place to make the regulations subject to affirmative Resolution. I can assure your Lordships that he has given the most earnest consideration to that proposal. However, it does not seem to be really suitable in this case. From time to time new regulations will be required to vary charges for calls or for rentals or to vary other terms or conditions, or to deal with changed circumstances, economic or technical, in this vast and complex service. There can be no question of these changes being slipped through, as it were, surreptitiously. Telephone subscribers are too numerous and Parliament is too watchful for there to be any element of secrecy. But while the changes may be important to the Post Office or to the subscriber, or to both, they may be of such a nature that they simply do not justify taking up Parliamentary time. Under the affirmative Resolution procedure, the Postmaster-General would have to find Parliamentary time so that he might justify his regulation. Under this Bill the Postmaster-General is already extending the control of Parliament over this great undertaking, and I think he might well be thanked for doing so rather than be pressed unduly for a further extension which would not give Parliament substantially more control over him and his successors. I felt it would be proper to say those few words about that procedure at this stage.
Clause 2 (1) enables the Postmaster-General to enter into agreements for the provision of telephone service in exceptional cases where the regulations system would be inappropriate. Clause 2(2) was added to the Bill at the Committee stage in another place to give statutory effect to the Postmaster-General's assurance that in no circumstances would a contract be terminated other than by the procedure for termination provided in that contract. Subsection (3) enables regulations to be made to avoid interruption of service in the transfer from a system of agreements to a system of regulations. Subsection (4) retains the Postmaster-General's existing power to decline to provide service in certain cases. This might apply, for example, where a former subscriber has failed to pay his account and was seeking a new service. Subsection (5) preserves Section 2 of the Telegraph Act 1885, this
1152
being necessary to enable the Postmaster-General to make regulations about telegraphs and telegraphy. Clause 3 repeals Sections 17 and 18 of the Telegraph Act, 1868. Those sections are obsolete and quite inapplicable to the present-day telephone service.
May I sum up by saying that this Bill merely does only two things? It enables the Postmaster-General to run this great organisation under powers designed for that purpose instead of under the powers of old Telegraph Acts. At the same time, it extends the degree of his accountability to Parliament—which is, of course, very much in accord with views expressed in your Lordships' House in recent debates. It is a Bill providing improved machinery which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Archibald.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, for his clear exposition of this measure. I will not take up the time of your Lordships for even as long as it takes to put through a trunk call. This Bill, as your Lordships perceive, is a slim volume, with a careful and valuable preface in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum. It has been discussed in another place, and many rough corners have been knocked off it. As the noble Lord has said, it is a sort of Parliamentary milestone, in that it is the first Telephone Bill, as such, that has ever been before the British Parliament. The noble Lord has given us some of the reasons why it is necessary—how the contracts have increased from 500,000 thirty years ago to 5,000,000 now, and would have increased much more if the great number of citizens who desire telephones were able to get them. At the beginning of this Memorandum the object of the Bill is set out in two lines—namely,
"to provide improved machinery for the conduct of the telephone service."
The Memorandum goes on to mention a number of things drawn in very wide terms, that the Postmaster-General is able to do, and in Clause 2 (4) he is given a sort of "fifth freedom," because he has the power not to install a telephone if he so feels, leaving the would-be subscriber with nothing to ring but his hands.

1153
My Lords, is this Bill simply to substitute statutory for contractual arrangements, or is there to be some attempt to alter the whole structure of charges? I cannot avoid the disquieting feeling that that is what the machinery is ultimately designed to do.
I have only one real point to make on this Bill and it is one to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, will give some further thought. He has spoken on the subject of regulations. The Bill provides that these regulations shall be dealt with by negative Resolution procedure. He has said that he does not see why the Postmaster-General should be pressed for affirmative Resolution procedure, when he has gone so far to bring these affairs under the control of Parliament, which was not the case hitherto. Let me put it like this, if I may: so far as the actual terms and conditions of the working of the service go, there is a strong case for a negative Resolution. I think that is reasonable. After all, a long wait covering the Summer Recess might well interfere with the efficiency of the service. But when it comes to the matter of the charges, I cannot help regarding telephone charges and their increase as a form of taxation, and a form of increase of taxation. Surely it is one of the canons of taxation that it must not be increased without the proposed increase being laid before Parliament assembled, and receiving assent.
I know that it is difficult to separate these two matters in one Bill, and to have a negative Resolution for conditions and terms, and an affirmative one for charges. Nevertheless, I feel that a not inconsiderable point of principle is involved here. The Postmaster-General in another place showed great sympathy with this point. He did not deny the great difficulties of separating the two matters, but he showed sympathy with, and also willingness to meet, those who raised the argument which I am now putting forward. From what the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has said, I understand that he has found the problem too difficult. It may be difficult, but it is none the less, a matter of important principle so far as I am concerned. For that reason, I cannot say that I am satisfied by that part of the noble Lord's speech. Subject to that reservation I, and I am sure my noble friends on these Benches also, are able to give this Bill a welcome.
3.12 P.M
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for his friendly reception of the Bill. It would be idle to pretend that there will never at any time be a change upwards or downwards in the rental charges. But I can assure the noble Lord that there is no sinister purpose in the Postmaster-General's mind at the present time in bringing in this Bill: it is not simply a preface to a wholesale upward rise in the charges. The Bill will facilitate alterations of charges in future, but it is not brought in with the prime purpose of early increases being made in those charges. The main point, I agree, is this question of whether the regulations should be subject to the negative or the affirmative Resolution procedure. All I can say at this stage is that I will again discuss the matter with the Postmaster-General, but I am doubtful whether it will be possible to meet the noble Lord on this matter. I was interested in the noble Lord's suggestion that telephone charges and rentals are a form of taxation. The fact that it is a nationalised industry surely does not make the charges levied in respect of this service any more a form of taxation than, say, the charges of the nationalised electricity service, the National Coal Board, or other under takings of that type which do not have to go to Parliament for power to increase their charges. From that point of view, I am not sure that his case with regard to the financial aspect being made subject to affirmative Resolution is as strong as it would appear. However, as I have said, I will undertake to discuss the matter again with the Postmaster-General, but, as I have also intimated, I am not very optimistic that I shall be able to meet the noble Lord on that point.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of the answer which the noble Lord has just given, is it not true that alterations in the telephone charges were included in the Budget this year?
LORD ARCHIBALD: Charges are not dealt with in the Bill which is now before the House; only the method of making charges.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FINANCE BILL
3.15 p.m.
Read a (according to Order), and passed.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) BILL
3.16 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 Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Procedure
(2) The Lord Chancellor may also make rules prescribing the manner in which applications under the said provisions are to be made, prescribing any matter which under any of those provisions is to be prescribed, making provision as to the evidence which may be admitted in proceedings under those provisions and generally for regulating the conduct of such proceedings
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments, designed to ensure that the Lord Chancellor will have power, by rule, to designate the appropriate court for proceedings under any of the provisions of Part I of the Bill which apply to England and Wales. The alteration is needed because, as Clause 5 (1) stands, power is available only in respect of applications under "the foregoing provisions" of this Part of the Bill, and the power is needed to designate the appropriate court for the purpose of Clause 13 (4). Clause 13 (4) enables a court to give directions in certain cases for the restoration of property, and so on, which has been wrongfully taken in breach of the Bill. A Service man may wish to seek that relief independently of any claim for damages, and rules must provide to which court he is to go in the particular circumstances. Therefore I am asking your Lordships to sanction leaving out the word "foregoing," and, by the following
1156
Amendment, inserting the words "applying to England and Wales." I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 44, leave out ("foregoing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 44, after ("Act") insert ("applying to England and Wales").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given notice of several Amendments to subsections (2) and (3), the first being, in subsection (2) after "made" to insert "and." The noble and learned Viscount said: This and the succeeding Amendments—that is Amendments 3, 4, 5, and 6, on the Marshalled List—all go together, and are moved for this purpose. If your Lordships will look at the top of page 9, you will find that the Lord Chancellor has power to make rules—
"making provision as to the evidence which may be admitted in proceedings under those provisions…."
The Lord Chancellor has many duties cast upon him. He does not want to take upon himself, by rules or otherwise, the review and restating of the whole of the law of evidence. The substance of the matter is this—and we can borrow from the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1943. There was a rule which enabled the county courts to look at any letter or other document sent or tendered to it, and to admit the letter or document as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it, if in all the circumstances it was thought just to do so. That was a useful power, because a man serving in the Forces abroad could not make an affidavit or get evidence submitted in proper form, proving that a letter was in fact written. What I am proposing to do by this Amendment is to limit the generality of those words and to make it open to the Lord Chancellor, upon appropriate rules, to make provision on the lines of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, so that a letter or document, seeming to be bona fide, may be accepted as proof of the facts asserted in the letter or document. It is with that object that I move

1157
the first of these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, after ("made") insert ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I venture to think that the change which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has indicated is an important one, and I imagine that it will be approved. As the Bill came before us, it certainly appeared that the clause would have given the noble and learned Viscount a much wider power than I feel sure he would wish to exercise, and a power that I do not think ought to be given. The possession of a general power as to the evidence that may be admitted would speedily put the Lord Chancellor in the position of a totalitarian judge: whatever he chose to say should be admitted would be admitted, and there would be nothing more to say. I do not think my noble and learned friend would wish to be in that position, and I am sure that most people would not wish to put him in that position. But it is a different thing to do what is provided in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, for which I had some responsibility. It is desirable that information which, technically, cannot be proved by the production of a letter should none the less be regarded as adequately proved when it is shown that such a letter is genuinely in existence. A letter from a proper source, signed by a proper person, is, for all practical purposes, an excellent way of discovering facts of this sort. It is desirable to make proper provision for this, and I understand that that is what this Amendment does. For my part, I regard it as a wise change.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the further Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out from ("prescribed") to end of line 5.
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("such proceedings") and insert ("proceedings under the said provisions.
(3)Rules so made may in particular make provision for enabling a court, for the purpose of hearing and determining an application under the said provisions of this Part of this Act or in exercising any discretion for the purposes of the said provisions of this Part of
1158
this Act, to admit any document as evidence of any facts stated therein.")
Page 9, line 9, leave out ("foregoing") and insert ("said").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "such" (where that word first occurs). The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the three following are all drafting. On the present wording of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 there is just a doubt whether there is sufficient rule-making power to ensure that, in proper circumstances, applications may be made on behalf of absent Service men, and that, where they are so made, the court may, if it thinks fit, grant a right of audience to the person making the application. The county court already has power by Statute to allow any person to address the court on behalf of a party. In the circumstances postulated in this Bill, it is desirable that there should be power by rule, if thought fit, to enable the High Court to hear such applicant in person, just as it would have had power to hear the Service man in person if he were present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the following Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("the application") and insert ("any application under those provisions")
Page 9, line 23, leave out ("so treated by") and insert ("which")
Page 9, line 23, after ("court") insert ("has under the rules, power to treat").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment may, perhaps, be considered together. They come to little more than drafting Amendments. The words proposed to be left out were intended to make it plain beyond all argument that the reference in Clause 2 (2) (a) to the levying of a distress includes levying of a distress for rates, and to provide the requisite machinery for enabling applica-

1159
tion for the issue of a warrant and for leave to proceed to levy a distress to be heard together. In fact, there is already sufficient power to do this by rule, and to that extent the subsection was misconceived. As to the declaratory provision about levying a distress for rates, it has been thought better to insert such a provision in the definition clause—Clause 6, and the second Amendment achieves this object. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, leave out subsection (5).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation of sections two to five]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
("(2) It is hereby declared that in this Part of this Act the expression 'distress' includes distress for rates.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Appropriate courts and procedure]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("applying to Scotland").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
3.28 p.m.
Clause 13 [Effect of failure to observe restrictions under Part I]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to make an observation on this clause. I am not suggesting that it should not be in the Bill, though I do not think there is any such section in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. There are, however, one or two points about it to which I venture to draw attention now, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount
1160
the Lord Chancellor, if he thinks them worthy of consideration, will consider them. Clause 13 provides what is to happen in the case where a person who is enforcing his remedy against the Service man proceeds to enforce it without obtaining the leave which, under Clause 2, he ought to obtain prior to enforcing it. It may be that he is enforcing a judgment, or it may be what is sometimes called a self-help remedy—for example, a distraint on goods for rent. Apparently the scheme of the clause is that, even though the person who proceeds without getting leave enforces his remedy, the effect of what he does will not be altered—subject to something which is in subsection (4). There may be cases in which the person has acted innocently, through some mistake or excuse which ought to be allowed for. On the other hand, it may be the case that the person has acted flagrantly, not caring whether the law requires him to get previous leave or not, possibly even "trying it on "in the hope that nobody would object. The purpose of the clause seems to be to draw a distinction between these two cases.
Subsection (2) says:
"In any action for damages for conversion or other proceedings which lie by virtue of any such omission, failure or contravention, the court may take account of the conduct of the defendant with a view, if the court thinks fit, to awarding exemplary damages in respect of the wrong sustained by the plaintiff."
I agree, on the other hand, that subsection (3) makes an absolutely necessary provision. That subsection says:
"If … the court is satisfied that the defendant acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the omission, failure or contravention, the court may relieve the defendant from liability in respect thereof."
The point that I want to mention, and which I should be grateful if the Lord Chancellor would consider, is: What is meant by "the court"? This clause seems to be drawn on the assumption that there are no such things as juries. But it is possible to have a jury in a proper case, in an action for damages for conversion, or other proceedings. There will be such cases. It is always important to know what is the function of the judge, and what is the function of the jury. I rather wonder whether it would be wise to leave in doubt what those functions are—if this does leave it in doubt.

1161
Does the clause mean, for example, that if the judge thinks there is anything which could be criticised in the conduct of a person who has acted without getting leave, he has to tell the jury: "You may award exemplary damages"—which means punitive damages—"against him"? That is a very wide power to give. I do not know that the words "exemplary damages" have ever appeared in an Act of Parliament before. It is really a phrase used in the law books, because, for many kinds of cases which do not arise out of a contract, it is undoubtedly open to a jury to give, in the one case, nominal damages—the farthing of which we sometimes hear in libel actions—or, on the other hand, damages which are more than a measure of the injury actually done, in order to mark their feeling, that the person who has to pay the damages ought to be made to suffer. I find further difficulty in subsection (3) when I read that
… the court … may relieve the defendant from liability. …"
I cannot think that means that the jury has anything to do with it; that, surely, must mean the judge alone. I am not very clear when I look at subsection (3) how these duties are to be divided.
Still more difficult do I find it to give proper interpretation to the words "the court" in subsection (4), if you imagine a case in which there is a jury. Subsection (4) says:
"In so far as it appears to the appropriate court to be practicable to remedy the results of any such omission, failure or contravention. …"
I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor has considered the point, but does that mean that the jury is to be asked what they think about it? I find it rather difficult to be sure. I have still more difficulty when I come to the fourth line of subsection (4), where it says:
… the court may give any such directions for restoration of property. …
That, I should have thought, must be done by the judge, even though a jury is sitting with him. I hope that I shall not be thought to be captious over this. It is no good leaving the matter in doubt. While I do not propose anything definite, it seems to me that the Lord Chancellor and those assisting him might consider whether something should not be put into the Bill to make the point clear. I do not think there is any definition of "the
1162
court" for this purpose in the Bill—sometimes it might be a county court, and sometimes the High Court. The difficulty is that we have become accustomed to imagine that cases that used to be tried by a judge and jury are now tried by the judge alone. That is by no means the law of the land at the moment. I do not think that the clause really makes provision as to how the duties are to be divided between the two elements in a court which consists of judge and jury.
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the benefit of his consideration of this matter. Having listened to him, I feel that I had better look at the point carefully. He is perfectly right as to the structure of the clause as a whole. Normally speaking, I should say that in cases arising otherwise than out of contract—cases arising out of tort—damages are not strictly limited. For instance, in a libel action you are able to award a farthing damages, if you think that is all the character of the plaintiff merits; or, having regard to the conduct of the defendant throughout the trial, you can award damages which no doubt exceed any monetary loss sustained by the plaintiff. That is the general rule with regard to damages in tort. We are stating it here because there seem to have been some doubts about the generality and the application of that principle.
However, the principle of this is plain. This Bill differs from the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, and difficulty arises owing to the fact that, whereas the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, which we had during the war, applied to all His Majesty's lieges, this Bill applies only to a limited class of people—namely, broadly speaking, Service men. They have a special privilege which others of His Majesty's lieges do not have. Consequently, it is necessary to make up your mind in each particular case whether you are dealing with a Service man or with an ordinary member of the public. It may well be that in some cases it is difficult for the other party to find out. In some cases he will just assume, rather recklessly, and perhaps to his own advantage, that the man has not the privilege of being a Service man. In other cases, notwithstanding his best endeavours, he may

1163
believe that the debtor is not a Service man, and in perfect good faith he may proceed against him. Broadly speaking, the proposition we want to establish is this: that if the man has acted reasonably and properly, and taken all proper precautions, and then proceeds against the other man as though he were not a Service man, whereas he is, then, subject to subsection (4), the creditor shall be protected. If, on the other hand, he has neglected to take proper precautions, and has assumed that a man who is a Service man is an ordinary member of the public, then he shall be subject to exemplary damages.
I believe it is true to say that the words "exemplary damages" have never been in an Act of Parliament before in this sense, though there have been, if my recollection is right—I cannot assert this—two cases of an Act of Parliament recently in which it has been said that the court shall not award exemplary damages. I believe the words have been used, but in the negative rather than the positive sense. When we come to consider the words "the court," agree with the noble and learned Viscount that we are rather too ready to forget the old days when we had juries to a much greater extent than we have to-day. What I believe is intended is that it shall be for the judge to say whether there is any evidence of conduct on the part of the defendant which would justify an award of exemplary damages; and if he says that there is some evidence, then it is for the jury to take the matter into consideration, and to decide whether or not that evidence convinces them that it is a case in which exemplary damages ought to be awarded. That is the intention. I am not sure whether we use the appropriate language in using the words "the court," particularly having regard to the use of the same words in the next subsection, where it seems to me, I admit quite frankly, to be plainly the judge, as distinct from the jury. That leads me to think that I had better look at the words again to see whether we have achieved what is our object. Our intention was that that should be the function of the judge where he is trying a case with a jury. There is little enough time between now and the Report stage, but I will have the matter looked at in the meantime to see what the position is.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is more difficult in subsections (3) and (4) than it is in subsection (2).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think so, too. I will look at it and see whether the ingenuity of the draftsmen can improve the words to make sure that our intention—and, I think, our common intention—is properly carried out.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not want to delay your Lordships, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will excuse me if I ask him to enlighten my ignorance. Is not a penalty which is punitive contrary to English Common Law? Is it not a mistake to introduce it into a Statute, if it can be avoided?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has it wrong. It is not really that. If there is in a contract a provision that a breach of that contract, a delay, or something of that sort, shall involve a certain amount of money, it cannot be enforced. That is contrary to the law, because it is regarded as a penalty and not as a genuine pre-estimate of the damage. This is a different proposition. We are dealing with damages for tortious action, and the general principle of the law is that for a tortious action the damages are, as we say, at large. The noble Lord may know that if there is a libel action with an accusation which is persisted in up to the very end, and perhaps with a good deal of cross-examination and that sort of thing, the jury are perfectly entitled to take all those things into consideration and award substantial damages. That is what we call exemplary damages. A jury are entitled to give swingeing damages. We want that principle applied in these cases where a man has acted carelessly, but, on the other hand, where he has taken all proper precautions and has been let down because of his information, we want to see him properly protected.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Clause 13 agreed to.
3.42 p.m.
Clause 14 [Period of residence protection, and scope of three succeeding sections (protection of tenure under lettings at a rent)]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are drafting Amendments, consequential

1165
on the addition in another place of a new clause, which is now Clause 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 25, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Modifications of Rent Acts as respects occupation by employees]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (3):
"or will have such accommodation at their disposal at or before the time when it is proposed that the order or judgment should take effect."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment raises a point of some importance. We have provided in this Bill that in certain cases the court shall be able to make an order for possession, notwithstanding the fact that alternative accommodation is not available. It has been pointed out to us that the factor which ought to be considered is not merely whether alternative accommodation was, at the moment of the bringing of the proceeding, available, but whether alternative accommodation is available at the time of the making of the order. Imagine a situation of this sort. Let us suppose that a level-crossing keeper or a lock-keeper is called up. The landlord may have to say: "I am sorry, but I require the use of this cottage for the new level-crossing keeper"—or, it may be, lock-keeper. He may be able to lay his hand on his heart and say, "I have no alternative accommodation to offer you." But if in truth he knows that he is shortly going to have alternative accommodation available, then it is wrong that he should be able to turn this man out simply by using the present tense and saying, "I have no alternative accommodation." He must have regard not merely to what he has, but to what he will have. Accordingly, we have put down this Amendment, which limits and restricts the right of the landlord in these circumstances, not merely causing him to look at the present, but also to look at the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 7, at end insert ("or will have such accommodation at their disposal at or before the time when it is proposed that the order or judgment should take effect.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS of READING: We agree that the insertion of these words is a substantial and necessary improvement. We are glad to see their appearance in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Modifications of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, where tenant is a Service man]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRKmoved to omit Clause 21. The noble Earl said: I am moving the omission of Clause 21 for the purpose of asking the Lord Chancellor what procedure is intended under this Bill, particularly in the case of men who are serving and who, for one reason or another, may succeed or become entitled to an agricultural holding. It seems to me that in such cases the matter cannot be allowed to remain as it is. It is obvious that some action has to be taken, otherwise the land will simply run wild. I am asking what the position will be, particularly, in the case of a man who is serving and who succeeds to a property because his father dies. Perhaps he cannot get compassionate leave, or perhaps he does not want compassionate leave. What action is proposed in that case? As the law stands at present the man is unable to let that land, as was formerly the case, owing to the Agricultural Holdings Act. It seems possible, that the land might be allowed to remain in an unfertile and uncultivated condition. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned. Viscount can explain what is intended shall happen in such a case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 20, leave out Clause 21.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter on Second Reading, because it gave me notice in advance of the point he had in mind, and I have had an opportunity of consulting with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. I will answer the noble Earl in this way. In the first place, let it be

1167
remembered that in certain cases the Ministry of Labour have the power and the right to screen. It may be that the man is engaged in such an important task that he should not be called up. I do not say that that is general, but it may happen in some cases. Secondly, be it observed—and the noble Earl will bear this in mind—that the provisions of Clause 21 of the Bill relating to agricultural holdings do not require the Ministry of Agriculture to withhold his consent to a notice to quit simply because the tenant concerned has been called up. They require only that, whenever notice to quit is served on such a tenant, and he in turn serves the necessary counter-notice within the period prescribed by Section 21 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, the Minister shall take into account, as one of the factors to be considered, the fact that the man has been called up. If the other factors—such, for instance, as letting the land fall into a state of absolute neglect, and so on—outweigh the considerations of hardship which consequently arise, the Minister may still give his consent to the notice and allow the tenant to be turned out.
Clause 21 of the Bill also requires not only that the Minister shall take into consideration the fact that the man has been called up but that the call-up shall also be taken into account if the issue is referred, under Section 25 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for decision. Here again, there is nothing to say that that consideration shall be overriding. It is merely a consideration which must be weighed in the balance, in conjunction with the other considerations about the land becoming derelict. As the noble Earl will understand, there is a presumption that a man who actually leaves for military service will have been able to make reasonably satisfactory arrangements for the farming of his holding while he is away. If those left in charge fail to do their job properly—and, incidentally, fail to take the advice of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, which is always available to them—they will be prejudicing the man's position, by increasing the likelihood of the Minister giving his consent to any notice to quit served by the landlord, on the ground that the holding is being allowed to deteriorate in the tenant's absence.
1168
I think there is a fair safeguard against the danger which the noble Earl envisages. I entirely agree, of course, that we must prevent land falling into a state of absolute disrepair which will damage that land and also the neighbour's land. We must prevent that but, at the same time, we must have due regard to the hardship considerations. The only way in which we can do that is to not make one or the other absolutely prevail, but to have these considerations weighed in the balance by the appropriate Minister.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble and learned Viscount has spoken so candidly that I hesitate to speak, but there are one or two points which may be of interest, and which proved very important during the last war. One is that a large number of proprietors or tenants of small holdings are entered on the books of labour exchanges as "Labourers." Since that is so, they are classified as labourers when they join up. This is not the case with farmers. The fact that it is so with smallholders has militated against their securing any compassionate reliefs. The second thing is that in the spring, if a smallholding is left unworked for a week or two it is almost fatal. The noble and learned Viscount knows, I am sure that
"One weed makes seven years' seed."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is true, and we must guard against it if we can.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause—
Facilities for action on behalf of men serving abroad in proceedings as to tenancies
".—(1) Where in the course of any proceedings brought before a court under the Rent Restrictions Acts, or of any proceedings consequential upon the making of a reference or application to a rent tribunal under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, or under this Part of this Act, it appears to the court or tribunal—

(a) that the proceedings relate to a tenancy vested in a service man;

1169

(b) that a person other than the service man desires to take or has purported to take, a step in the proceedings on behalf of the service man at a time when he is or was serving abroad; and

(c) that the said person, in seeking or purporting to take that step, is or was acting in good faith in the interests of the service man, and is or was a fit person to take that step on his behalf, but is or was not duly authorised to do so,

the count or tribunal may direct that the said person shall be deemed to be, or to have been, duly authorised to take that step on behalf of the service man.
(2) The provisions of the preceding subsection apply in relation to the institution of proceedings before a court as they apply in relation to the taking of a step in such proceedings, and apply in relation to the making of a reference or application to a rent tribunal as they apply in relation to the taking of a step in proceedings consequential upon the making of such a reference or application; and references in that subsection to proceedings brought or a reference or application made as therein mentioned include references to proceedings which purport to be so brought or to a reference or application which purports to be so made, as the case may be.
(3) Where in the course of any proceedings a court or tribunal gives a direction under subsection (1) of this section, the person to whom the direction relates shall have the like right of audience in those proceedings as the service man himself would have.
(4) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may make regulations—

(a) for enabling a counter-notice under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, to be served on behalf of a service man at a time when he is serving abroad, in a case where a notice to quit is given to him as mentioned in subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act; and

(b) for enabling any act or proceedings consequential upon the service of a counter-notice under subsection (1) of the said section twenty-four to be performed or conducted on behalf of a service man at a time when he is serving abroad, either in such a case as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph or in a case where subsection (5) of section twenty-one of this Act applies in relation to the service man.

(5) Regulations made under the last preceding subsection may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to the said Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations.
(6) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) References in this section to a time when a service man is serving abroad are references to a time when he is performing a period of relevant service and is outside the United Kingdom."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment arises in the part of the Bill which is to protect a man's home. It applies only to that part of the Bill. There are times when, in protecting a home, some active step has to be taken. Suppose a Service man is abroad: he cannot take any active step. It is most unlikely that he will have left anybody with power of attorney to take any step on his behalf, and there must be someone to act for him. In normal cases it would be the wife. We have to make it plain that the wife has alocus standi and can act for him; and that is the object of this clause. In another place we put down on Report stage a new clause which was rather hastily drafted. After some discussion it was withdrawn, and this is a new effort to deal with the matter.
The problem arises in this way. The object of Part II is to provide the Service man with security of tenure of his family home while he is away on service. There are certain existing curbs, such as the Rent Restrictions Acts and, indeed, the Agricultural Holdings Act. If he is a Service man, a critical time may arrive when he is out of the country in the course of his duty, and he may have gone away without giving anybody express authority to take the necessary action on his behalf should occasion arise during his absence. It is obviously important in such a case to provide that some suitable person should be empowered to take the necessary action on his behalf. Generally it would be his wife, but the problem may arise even in the case of an unmarried Service man who may have someone living with him to look after his home in his absence, or to look after his children. That is the object of this clause.
I should like to draw attention to one more point. In subsection (1) (b) of the proposed clause your Lordships will see the words
"that a person other than the Service man desires to take or has purported to take a step in the proceedings on behalf of the Service man at a time when he is or was serving abroad….
The verb in the present tense—"is"—squares with the words
"Service man desires to take …"
The past tense:
"… has purported to take …"
squares with the words:
… was serving abroad …"

1171
That is to say, the man was serving abroad at the time when his wife has taken or purports to take proceedings on his behalf. He would ratify that retrospectively, as it were. I think that is an essential part of the protection. I beg to move that this new clause be there inserted.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We are in complete sympathy with the purpose of this clause because we realise that in most cases the Service man is not likely to have left formal power of attorney which would enable anybody to act on his behalf. At the same time we think it is drawn in extremely wide terms. Subsection 1(c) says that the court has to be satisfied:
"… that the said person …is or was acting in good faith in the interests of the Service man, and is or was a fit person to take that step on his behalf, but is or was not duly authorised to do so."
That would let in a large number of people, very respectable in themselves, acting from the best motives but perhaps from a misguided sense of public duty, who might wish to insert themselves into this position without any particular qualification for it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: They might even be rivals.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: They might. I see the grammatical point which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned. At the same time, I think it will cause doubts in the minds of some to have the words: "… or was serving abroad" appearing in the clause. I do not know whether some rearrangement of the wording in this subsection can be made in order to make the position a little clearer. It might be a little confusing in its present form. Subject to those criticisms, which may appear superficial but nevertheless are of some importance, we are entirely in favour of the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree that there is a danger from the rather ostentatious friend who thinks that he or she is qualified and ought to defend the Service man. The best answer, I think, is that given in subsection (1) of the proposed clause, that: "… the court or
1172
tribunal may direct"—not "must" direct. I do not think we can do more than leave this matter to the discretion of the judge. But I will certainly look at the point again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Protection during short period of training]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and the next three are to do to Clause 24 what we have done to Clause 5: that is, to extend the rule-making power in a limited sense. I have already described this object, and I do not think I need discuss it any further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 17, leave out from ("court") to ("to") in line 18.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 45, after ("section") insert ("taken out any judicial process with a view to, or in the course of, the enforcement of a judgment or order or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 2, after ("proceeding") insert ("to the enforcement of the judgement or order or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already dealt with the reasons for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 5, at beginning insert ("The references in section five and subsection (1) of section eleven of this Act to the provisions of Part I of this Act shall include references to the provisions of this section, and ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Renewal of tenancy expiring during period of service or within two months thereafter
(3) In the preceding provisions of this section the expression "proprietor" means, in the case of a business or practice carried on by

1173
a partnership firm, a partner in the firm on terms and conditions entitling him to not less than one-half of the profits of the firm, and, in the case of a business or practice carried on by a company, a person holding shares in the company amounting in nominal value to not less than one-half of the issued share capital of the company.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (3):
"and, in relation to a business or practice carried on by a partnership firm or by a company, references in those provisions to the proprietor of the business or practice include references to a person being one of two such partners in the firm or, as the case may be, being one of two persons each holding such shares in the company, and references to the working proprietor of the business or practice shall be construed accordingly."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment shows the ingenuity of the draftsmen—I am now dealing with the Part of the Act which deals with the extension of the lease for business premises. During the Committee stage in another place, it was provided that the qualification for proprietorship should be reduced from 75 to 50 per cent. of a partnership. It followed, of course, that you might get two people each having exactly 50 per cent. of the partnership. Consequently, there might be some argument as to who was the proprietor—and, indeed, whether there was any person whom one might describe as the proprietor. If that were so, both of them might fail to get any relief, neither being the proprietor. As the whole operation of Part III hinges upon the fact of a man being, "the proprietor" at the appropriate times, it is important that we should have some provision dealing with the situation where there are two partners, each of them earning 50 per cent. of the partnership business, and the partnership business holds the lease of the premises. For that reason, I suggest that your Lordships should approve this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 45, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Application for grant of new tenancy]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the case of a tenancy for a fixed term, subsection (2) of the clause as at present drafted
1174
gives the landlord the right to require the tenant to elect whether or not he is going to apply for a new tenancy. Obviously, the same principle should apply in the notice to quit case as in the effluxion of time case, and the Solicitor-General, during the debate on the Report stage in another place, undertook to consider the introduction of this Amendment. In the notice to quit case, the position of the Service man is fully protected by making the question of putting the tenant to his election dependent on the notice to quit being given so as to take effect at least four months ahead. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("come to an end—

(a) by effluxion of time, or

(b) by notice to quit given by the landlord so as to expire not less than four months after the giving of the notice,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is consequential on the Amendment to which we have just agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 13, leave out ("expire") and insert ("come to an end").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 20, leave out ("such a notice") and insert ("a notice under this subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 22, leave out ("that period") and insert ("the said period of one month").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power of court to grant new tenancy]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is to take out the reference in Clause 29 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, which has come to an end and is no longer

1175
on the Statute Book. It came to an end by effluxion of time; it was limited to five years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 24, leave out from ("order") to ("there") in line 27.℄( The lord chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Application by Service man for renewal of tenancy of business premises]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is a Scottish counterpart of a similar Amendment made to Clause 26, at page 35, line 45. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 12, at end insert ("and, in relation to a business or practice carried on by a partnership firm or by a company, references in those provisions to the proprietor of the business or practice include references to a person being one of two such partners in the firm or, as the case may be, being one of two persons each holding such shares in the company, and references to the working proprietor of the business or practice shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [General provisions as to payments to make up civil remuneration]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At first sight, "notification" may seem to be a very different thing from "death." I am proposing to substitute "death" for "notification." The reason is that in an earlier draft of the Bill we had the words "notification of death." "Notification of death" has now gone, and "notification "no longer appears in the Bill; so we must have "death" instead of "notification." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 36, leave out ("notification") and insert ("death").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved to omit the proviso to subsection (3). The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Part of the Bill which enables local authorities and the like kind of bodies to make up the balance of civil pay. At
1176
the bottom of page 51, your Lordships will see this proviso:
"Provided that, in determining the sum to be paid under this subsection regard shall be had to any pension or other sum which may be paid or granted out of public or charitable funds to or for the benefit of the widow …"
Several of your Lordships took the point of view: Why should we have regard to charitable funds? You will find that the next Amendment on the Marshalled List is to leave out the words "or charitable." I have done far better than that. I suggest that we leave out the whole proviso. As this is a matter of discretion, and not of compulsory power in the making up of civil pay, I do not think there is any need for this proviso, and I suggest that we take it out altogether. Incidentally, the Amendment has the effect of taking out the words "or charitable," which might give rise to some controversy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for having removed altogether this proviso from the Bill. He knows that there is on the Paper immediately following this Amendment an Amendment of mine put down because I could not reconcile myself to an obligation being placed on the local authority, in these circumstances, requiring them to take into account all gifts from charitable funds. I need not labour the point, fortunately, because the noble and learned Viscount has met us in ample measure by removing the whole of the proviso. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his consideration of our objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 45, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am afraid I have not given the noble and learned Viscount any notice of this point, but may I ask one question in regard to subsection (4)? So far as I can understand it, that subsection means that if the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act come into force, and, in consequence, the salary of a justices' clerk or his assistant is raised, he will not be able to claim the difference between his salary in the

1177
Service and his increased salary as a justices' clerk. I am not sure whether I am right in reading the subsection in that way, but, if I am, it seems to me that we are treating justices' clerks in a different way from that in which local government officers will be treated, because presumably local government officers will receive the difference between their existing Service pay and whatever is the rate of pay for their job at the time, whether it has been increased or not. I notice that this was a completely new clause introduced in Committee in another place. There was no discussion in regard to subsection (4), and it seems to have been passed over in silence. I should like to ask whether the noble and learned Viscount can give any reasons for it having been included at all. By this subsection these officers seem to be treated in a different way from others.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I was not prepared for this question, and I do not really know what the answer is. If the noble Lord will put down an Amendment on Report stage, I shall have an opportunity in the meantime of finding out precisely what the subsection means. All I can say at the present moment is that the time of the coming into force of the 1949 Act would alter the basis of their remuneration and dislocate the operation of the provision. But I do not quite understand that at the moment, and if the noble Lord will approach me before or on Report stage I will be properly instructed and will be able to give him his answer.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged. I will put down an Amendment for that purpose.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Protection of life policies (industrial assurance, and collecting societies)]:
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We have put down no Amendments to this clause, but there is a question which I think I intimated I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount in regard to page 55,line 10. Clause 53 (2) defines the expression "relevant premium" in its context in the provisions of this Part of the Bill, and lays down what conditions have
1178
to be complied with in order to bring it within the definition. One of the conditions is:
"that at the beginning of the period of service one year's premiums or more had been paid on the policy on which it fell due."
My question is directed to the period of one year. It is, I think, felt by some of the organisations which are mainly concerned to administer this kind of insurance that one year is a somewhat alarmingly brief period, and that its very shortness might lead to an abuse of the protection extended by the Act. The noble and learned Viscount will remember that during the war, I think in 1940, an Act, admittedly of general application, was passed which extended certain protection against forfeitures of policy. That Act contained a somewhat similar clause but relating to a period of two years. That period has now been departed from in favour of one year, and the question I desire to ask is why the shorter period has been substituted in this Bill for the longer one appearing in the Act now upon the Statute Book.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Marquess has said, during the war the period was two years, but that was laid down in an Act of general application. It was felt that as we are here dealing with a limited Bill applying to soldiers only, we ought to cut down the period which we had in war time and which applied to everybody. If it be said (and it may be) that we are being rather too kind and stretching the point rather too far in favour of the soldier, may I say that I would rather be accused of doing that than be accused the other way round. The reason we felt that we ought to depart from the principle of the war time two years, is because here we are dealing with a limited class, the very class we want to protect.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. Of course, we share his desire to give every protection to the Service man, but I was anxious to get the explanation on record.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Protection of life policies (friendly societies other than collecting societies)]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 40, leave out ("that time") and insert ("the time when the forfeiture took place").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Provisions supplementary to the three preceding sections]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 27, leave out ("the prescribed form") and insert ("in such form as may be prescribed by regulations under this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Evidence as to performance of relevant service]:
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1) after "shall" to insert:
"be issued by the Admiralty, Army Council, Air Council or Minister of Labour (as the case may be) to any person requesting it and appearing to them or him to be interested in the matter upon such terms and conditions, which may include the making of a charge, in such form and within such period from the making of the request as may from time to time be prescribed by regulations made under this Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2) Such a certificate shall"
The noble Marquess said: This is the most substantial of the Amendments which my noble friends and I have thought necessary to put down in regard to this Bill, and it is a matter which was very considerably discussed at all stages of the progress of the Bill through another place. It arises in this way. Part I of the Bill lays down that it is the purpose of the Bill to ensure that persons who, in certain circumstances, apart from the fact that the person against whom they are proceeding is a Service man would have the right to proceed to judgment or to carry out various other legal processes, shall not, if the person against whom they are proceeding is a Service man, proceed to enforce those remedies except with the
1180
leave of the court. But Clause 59 contains a provision to this effect:
"A certificate stating that a person has performed or is performing or is to perform a period of relevant service"
issued
"by the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council,"
or, in special circumstances, such as when dealing with conscientious objectors, by the Minister of Labour and National Service—
"shall in all legal proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein for the purposes of this Act except to any extent to which it is shown to be incorrect."
What that clause says is that, where you have this situation, a certificate issued by any one of the three Service Departments, or by the Ministry of Labour, shall be evidence in legal proceedings. And that might be of very considerable assistance to the creditor, or whoever might be the person proceeding against the Service man, when he has to go to the court to obtain leave to carry his proceedings to their final end, and when, also—if he does not take every necessary precaution—he may find himself liable to the exemplary damages under Clause 13, to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, called attention a few moments ago.
There you have the position that, in order to get the leave of the court, the creditor has to show that his debtor is a Service man. The next step, according to this Bill, to help him to show that, is to say that a certificate shall be evidence. But there is a totally unbridged gap, in that what the Bill does not say is that it shall be anyone's duty—the duty of any of the Departments concerned—to provide that certificate. Therefore, you are left with the position that the creditor has to show that the man is a Service man. There may be a document, which can be produced to the court, to say that he is a Service man or to give other particulars about him, or which may show that he is not identifiable. But what does not exist is any machinery for saying that in order to help this person—indeed, in certain circumstances to help the Service man himself—it shall be the duty of the Department concerned (the creditor has to find out which Department) to produce a certificate giving, so far as they can, the necessary particulars from their records to say either (1) "This man is, according to our records, a serving soldier, sailor or

1181
airman", or (2) "He is, according to our records, not serving"; or (3) "So far as our records reveal the situation, he is not identifiable."
In order to make that procedure of any value to persons proceeding under this Bill, and seeking to protect themselves against possible actions for damages at a later stage, it is surely essential that they should not have to leave it to the caprice of the Department concerned as to whether they produce a certificate or not, but shall be able to turn to the Department and say: "I want to know from you, so far as your records go: Is this man a Service man, or is he not—in other words, can I properly and safely proceed with the action I have started up to the end?" That a person proceeding under this Bill should be left entirely in the air as to whether the other man has been, is, or may be in the future, entitled to the protection of the Act seems to us a quite illogical and impractical situation. We feel that the only way to remove an objection which, in our view, is a very substantial one, is to insert a clause imposing a mandatory obligation upon the Department concerned to issue a certificate when they are asked so to do. Having further considered the Amendment as printed on the Marshalled List, I propose to ask leave of the Committee to move it in a slightly different form and at a slightly different place.
The reason the Amendment appears on the Marshalled List in the form it does, is that subsections (2),(3) and (4) were not inserted in the Bill until the Report stage in another place, and the Amendment which we have put down, which I think reproduces verbatim the Amendment which was moved in Committee in another place at the appropriate point, and in the appropriate words, as the Bill then stood, became inappropriate in form, and perhaps rather unhappy in position, once these new subsections had been introduced. I should like, if the Committee will permit me, to adopt the form now set out in a Manuscript Amendment of which I have given notice—although brief notice—and to move, at page 64, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection (4):
"a certificate to the effect mentioned in one of the subsections (1), (2) or (3) above as may be appropriate, in each case shall be issued by the Admiralty, Army Council. …"
1182
and so forth, and then continue in the wording of the Amendment as it stands on the Marshalled List. That, I think, puts the Amendment in its right place and in its right form. Without some Amendment imposing a statutory obligation upon the Department concerned to produce these documents, the mere presence in the Bill of a clause which says that the documents shall be legal evidence is, essentially, valueless. We have produced an Amendment which we feel is the best we can devise in the somewhat hasty circumstances in which we have had to consider this Bill. We are not eternally wedded to it, and if it should be—as perhaps it may—that the noble and learned Viscount has some alternative proposition to make, we shall, of course, gladly consider it. Meanwhile, we think that our Amendment, or some Amendment in this form, is essential to the proper working of the machinery of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 12, at end insert—
((4) a certificate to the effect mentioned in one of the subsections (1) (2) or (3) above as may be appropriate in each case shall be issued by the Admiralty, Army Council, Air Council or Minister of Labour (as the case may be) to any person requesting it and appearing to them or him to be interested in the matter upon such terms and conditions, which may include the making of a charge, in such form and within such period from the making of the request as may from time to time be prescribed by regulations made under this Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.")—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I always like to agree with your Lordships when I can, and all the more when I think there is no very great point between us. I have no doubt at all that the satisfactory working of this provision will depend far more upon the good will of the Service Departments than it will upon any statutory or mandatory command. It was for that reason, I think, that in another place, when this suggestion was made, it was said: "Why do you want all this pother about a statutory demand when you can be assured of the good will of the Service Departments?—as, in fact, you can." I am not going to stand upon that. I realise that your Lordships may think you had better, if only as a matter of

1183
form, have a statutory obligation put upon these various authorities.
The only point of substance which leads me to quarrel with the noble Marquess's Amendment is that it contains a time limit. It is true that it is within a time limit prescribed by regulation, but I think it is bad for this reason. In the majority of cases, the Service Departments will be able to do this in ten to fourteen days, but there will be some cases which will take very much longer. When a Department has to deal with the name "Jones," it may take rather a long time to find out all about the Jones concerned; or when a Department has an inquiry in which the name is misspelt, which happens as often as not, it may be difficult to find out about the man within ten days or so. Therefore, if we are going to prescribe a time, it must be ample time in which to deal with the longest case. Then there is always the danger that, if the prescribed time is the ample time appropriate to the most difficult case, people will begin to think that that is the standard time they should take in every case, and the last state of affairs will be much worse than the first.
I suggest that we had much better not attempt to assert a time limit. I can assure your Lordships that in the majority of cases the Service Departments will carry out their inquiries in ten days or a fortnight. If an emergency happens and there is an absolute spate of these requests, obviously, unless we enlarge our machine, that will slow matters up; but we do not anticipate trouble. I am not prepared to accept the time limit, even though it be prescribed by rule, because it would have a bad effect. I, too, have made an attempt at drafting, and I have here a Manuscript Amendment which I will now read. I hope the noble Marquess will think it satisfactory.
"Clause 59, page 64, line 17, at end insert—
(6) The Admiralty, the Army Council, the Air Council and the Minister of Labour and National Service shall respectively be under obligation to secure that, on inquiry made to them for the purposes of this Act as to a person therein described, if the information appearing from records kept by them is such as to enable a certificate falling within subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section to he given as to a person appearing to answer that description, or is such as to justify the giving of a certificate falling within subsection (3) of this section, such a certificate shall be given.
1184
Provided that no certificate the giving of which would in the opinion of the authority to whom the inquiry is made be against the Interests of national security shall be given."
I hope that meets the wishes of the noble Marquess. If it does, I am perfectly willing to move that Amendment at this stage. I hope that the noble Marquess will think it satisfactory and will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to comment on one or two points in what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I agree with him entirely that a procedure of this kind would work properly only if it had the good will of the Service Departments, and, I may add, of the Ministry of Labour, who will be concerned in the actual calling-up. I think it will be much easier for these Departments to do what is required if the duty is made mandatory now. Procedures change from time to time, and if this is made mandatory now, the Departments will have it in mind when they design their procedures. I also agree that we should be better off without the time limit, because that time limit may become the standard. As the noble and learned Viscount said, if a man is serving at home and his name does not happen to be Jones, the information may be produced much more quickly than it could if the man were abroad and his name were a common one. I think we should agree with the noble and learned Viscount about the time factor. Then we come to the security provision. At the moment I am not quite clear whether the noble and learned Viscount had any particular case in mind or whether he spoke of a general safety clause to prevent its being mandatory on a Government Department to disclose something which would be against the interests of national security.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is the latter: I have no particular case in mind at all.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I see the point.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to propose this Manuscript Amendment. After consideration of it, we are satisfied that, although it may not go the entire length we think is desirable, it certainly goes far enough to remove

1185
our main objection. In these circumstances and especially in this period of our Parliamentary duties, we think it right that we should accept that Amendment. Therefore, I propose to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that if I do so the noble and learned Viscount will move his, and it will be accepted at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the following Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 59, page 64, line 17, at end insert—
"(6) The Admiralty, the Army Council, the Air Council and the Minister of Labour and National Service shall respectively be under obligation to secure that, on inquiry made to them for the purposes of this Act as to a person therein described, if the information appearing from records kept by them is such as to enable a certificate falling within subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section to be given as to a person appearing to answer that description, or is such as to justify the giving of a certificate falling within subsection (3) of this section, such a certificate shall be given.
Provided that no certificate the giving of which would in the opinion of the authority to whom the inquiry is made be against the interests of national security shall be given."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 65 agreed to.
First Schedule:
SERVICE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT
(ii) Service, otherwise than by way of training, in pursuance of any obligation or undertaking, whether legally enforceable or not, to serve when called upon as a commissioned officer, not being an obligation or undertaking to accept a permanent or short-service commission.
(iv) Service in pursuance of any enlistment for a period not exceeding eighteen months with a view to service in Korea.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in Paragraph l (ii) to leave out "otherwise than by way" and insert "except for the sole purpose." The noble Viscount said: My reason for moving this Amendment is that if a man does his duty in the Services, he will undergo training of some sort at some time or another, whether or not he was called up for operations. In Clause 14 we see distinctly and clearly that protection is afforded for relevant service
1186
other than a short period of training. The words in the Schedule are not the same, and it would be a deplorable thing if a commanding officer could not train a man without the man running the risk of losing the benefit of this Bill. I suggest that the words appearing in my Amendment avoid the difficulty I have tried to describe. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 10, leave Out ("otherwise than by way") and insert ("except for the sole purpose").-(Viscount Bridgeman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount has a real point here and I am grateful to him for calling our attention to it. Unfortunately, I think it runs through the Bill and we may need other Amendments. If the noble Viscount will withdraw this Amendment, I will undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage to cover the point. There may nave to be other consequential Amendments throughout the Bill. I accept in principle what he said.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: In view of the undertaking given by the noble and learned Viscount, I shall certainly with draw my Amendment and not move No. 40, which deals with the same point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to subparagraph (iv) of Paragraph 1:
"and in such other theatres overseas as may be designated as Operational."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is of a rather different character. It seeks to amend that part of the Schedule dealing with service in Korea. I have never liked the idea of service in Korea, or in any other theatre of war, coming into the law of the land; I do not think that is a good thing for a number of reasons. However, I feel that it is intended that this Bill, when it is placed on the Statute Book, shall be a continuing Act, and it ought to be so drafted as to apply to any other occasion on which a man is asked to extend his service and take part in a particular operation. I am bound to say that I am not certain whether the words in the Amendment quite meet the case, but if they do not, no doubt we shall be told. I feel that there is another point here. We should like to see any case of this sort, which may easily happen in these times, covered in advance, rather than have to wait and

1187
argue whether a man does or does not come within the orbit of the Act when he is fighting in some place like Korea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 69, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am in rather a different position in regard to this Amendment, though, again, I think it is a real point. On the last Amendment I had the consent of the Service authorities for what I said, but in regard to this one I have not yet obtained their consent to make any alteration. However, I think it is manifest that there is substance in the point. Here is a Bill which is intended to become part of the permanent structure of our law, which will go on long after your Lordships have forgotten where Korea is. Why should it be limited to Korea? There is force in that point. On the other hand, I think the answer would come: "This is really historical. It so happened that in Korea there was this eighteen months' engagement, and if—which heaven forbid!—a corresponding situation should arise elsewhere, then you would have to consider it on its own merits, and you would not want it said that you had pre-judged the position." I believe that is the reason for the hesitancy of the Service Departments. I have not quite finished my discussions with them as yet, and, though I have no authority to say that they will agree to this Amendment, I think it possible that they might agree if the noble Viscount would substitute some such words as these: "as may be designated by Order in Council." I want to make it quite plain that I have not their authority to agree to this yet, but I am always hopeful of securing their agreement between now and the Report stage. I ask the noble Viscount not to press the matter to-day, but to let me explore the position; and if I obtain their authority, I will do it on those lines. I must make my position plain, and the noble Viscount must not blame me if I do not get authority, because at the present moment I have not got it, and I may not be able to get it.
LORD SALTOUN: If the noble and learned Viscount is going so far, would it not be better to cut out "Korea altogether and just have:
"in such theatres overseas as may be designated as Operational"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the substance of what I am suggesting. The sub-paragraph would then read:
"Service in pursuance of any enlistment for a period not exceeding eighteen months as may be designated as operational by Order in Council."
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble and learned Viscount's pardon.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble and learned Viscount has been so helpful that, of course, I shall fall in with his suggestion; and if he would wish consultation in the ordinary way between now and the Report stage, I should be pleased to take part. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
4.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Duty of Secretary of State in relation to prevention of pollution of rivers and other waters]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause:
"(4) The Scottish River Pollution Advisory Committee shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will lay such report before each House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: The point to which I should like to draw attention is that throughout this Bill there is practically no provision for publication of what, in fact, is done by the river purification boards set up under the Bill. I draw attention to this point again later. In this Amendment I am drawing attention to the possibility of some information being made available from the advisory authority which is going to be set up to assist the

1189
Secretary of State. I have suggested here that they should make an annual report. To be frank, I do not stand on that for a moment. I am not greatly concerned whether the report is annual. What I am concerned about is that we should know, to some extent, how far the purposes and intentions of this Bill are to be carried out. I do not very much mind whether that is done under the central advisory committee, or whether the noble Lord prefers that it should be done subsequently by each river board under Clause 16, which I will discuss later. I feel that it is of great importance that, in a Bill of this sort, the purpose of which is intended to be of interest to a wide circle of people, and the success of which will depend to a great degree on the interest taken in it, adequate publication of its intentions and progress should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I am in agreement with the noble Earl in saying that the success of this Bill will largely depend upon the interest which the public take in it. Therefore, it is necessary to find some way in which the public can be kept advised of the work of the river purification boards, and of what is being done. I am unable to make any definite promise now, but I will offer the noble Earl an assurance that, before the Report stage, the Government will consider putting down an Amendment, under which the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to lay before Parliament such reports of the Scottish river purification advisory committee as he may desire to publish. I hope that in the light of that undertaking the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made; it substantially meets the point I have in mind. At present, as I say, there is no provision in this Bill for publication of any report whatever. It is for that reason that I feel his suggestion is a valuable one. I will not press the Amendment further, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Establishment of river purification boards]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (1) after "river" to insert "purification." The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I should like to move this Amendment differently. What I intended to move was the omission of the word "purification" from the name of the board, but, owing to a clerical error, the Amendment on the Marshalled List is to "insert" the word "purification."
I have two objections to this word. One is that it is very clumsy. "Purification" is a five-syllable noun, used in the position of an adjective. Secondly, it seems to me that in these ad hoc boards which are being set up we are setting up probably the most important organisation dealing with rivers throughout their length. In England—and we are always glad to learn from England—they already have river boards covering substantially all the functions which are covered in Scotland by different boards; that is to say, drainage, fishery, preservation and river purification. I recognise that, at the present time, with the boards set up by this Bill there are limitations much narrower than exist in the English river boards; and I recognise that at the present time they cover only a small portion of the work that is carried out by similar boards in England. I suggest, however, that the work which they are carrying out will be the most important work done on those rivers, and I suggest that it would be more dignified and simpler to delete from the title of these boards the word "purification." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("river") leave out ("purification").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I noted that there was a misprint, and that the noble Earl meant to delete and not to insert the word. His objection appears to be that the phrase "river purification boards" is cumbersome. As against that, he goes on to say that it is an important board. I thought that his second point rather destroyed the value of the first. These boards will be important boards and, therefore, I think it is as well to make it perfectly clear to everybody why these boards have been set up. To call them river boards might associate them with a variety of subjects, but these boards have been set

1191
up for a specific purpose—the purification of rivers. It seems to me just as well that we should so describe them that everybody who comes in touch in any way with the river purification boards will know that their object is to endeavour to assist purification. This Bill is not a Bill dealing with all the aspects of river administration, such as fisheries, drainage, navigation and pollution. If it were, that would merit the title "river board," and that is why that expression has been used in the English Bill. May I add that this point was very much in mind at the drafting stage, and that the title "river purification board" was chosen deliberately, because it indicates something definite and positive in its implication—that the boards exist for the object of purifying the rivers? In those circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord is satisfied with regard to the word "purification" I will leave the matter there. I am saying only that the term does not endear itself to me very much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Definition of river purification board areas and establishment of river purification boards]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: I have something of some moment to suggest to the Government on this clause. The noble Lord did not sound very sanguine on Second Reading as to the success of this Bill in purifying the rivers of Scotland, and from what he has just said on Clause 2 I realise that one of the objects is to set up river purification boards to act as whipping boys in the event of the ill-success of the Bill. I was asked by various societies which deal with the purification of rivers in Scotland to give evidence before the Broun Lindsay Committee on this subject—which was rather a compliment because I am not an expert. I was associated with some of the greatest experts in Scotland on this question, and we were unanimous on one point: that the real powers under the Bill must be committed to separate committees and not given to
1192
the county councils. The Broun Lindsay Committee answered quite frankly. They said that they were quite determined, whatever happened, that the power should remain with the county councils; and the institution of the river boards to some extent acknowledges that, because, as your Lordships see, they have at least two-thirds of the representation on the river purification boards.
But the matter does not stop there. If your Lordships look at subsection (4), you see these words:
"In the selection of members to be appointed by them, the council of a county shall have regard to the relative rateable valuations of the small burghs and of the landward area of the county respectively …"
For the benefit of those noble Lords who do not live North of the Border, I will explain that the social distribution in Scotland is rather different from that in England. There are practically no real villages in Scotland, and a county is made up of the landward area and what are small townships and burghs; and these have special representation in the county council. As your Lordships know, agricultural land is de-rated, and the consequence of that is that the weight of rateable value must lie with the burghs in the county. But it is precisely the burghs in the county who are the polluters. I go further than that, because the burghs, in practice, pool their interests and, therefore, in every county council they wield a very powerful force. By putting in these words in subsection (4), the Government are going a long way to stultify the Bill. I get rather tired of our passing Bills in this House which have wonderful Titles, and purport to work wonderful reforms and improvements in the country, in the knowledge that they are going to be quite ineffective. I ask the Government between now and the next stage to consider seriously these words, with a view to amending them, because I know that they want this Bill to be effective if it can possibly be made effective. I can assure them that, so far as my humble opinion goes, these words will go a long way to make it completely ineffective.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
Clause 12:
(3) If any such local water authority as aforesaid is aggrieved by the refusal of a river

1193
purification board to delegate to them any functions under the last foregoing subsection or if any question arises as to the functions to be delegated or the terms and conditions on which functions are to be relegated, they may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for determination, and it shall be the duty of the Board to give effect to any such determination.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved a Manuscript Amendment, in subsection (3), after "aforesaid" to insert:
"or the council of any county in whose area there is in operation a river purification board."
The noble Earl said: I raised this matter tentatively on Second Reading. It has particular reference to certain representations which have been made to the Fife County Council in regard to the River Leven though, of course, it may have a wider influence than that. Under subsection (1) of Clause 12, authority is given for delegating powers from the river purification boards to the council of any county or burgh:
"whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the river purification board area to act as the agents of the river purification board …"
The Fife country Council have been responsible for work on the Leven river for some time, and they are willing and anxious to carry on that work. They consider that it is desirable that where possible local authorities should continue their work; and they would like to make it clear that in the scheme which is submitted to the Secretary of State their views can be considered in regard to the part which they could play in this mechanism. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will give careful consideration to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, after ("aforesaid") insert ("or the council of any county in whose area there is in operation a river purification board").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I have some personal interest in the activities of the Fife County Council and I wish to support this Amendment. In 1949, the County Council promoted a Private Bill which received the Royal Assent and which gave authority, among other things, for the setting up of the River Leven Board. That Board was constituted for the very purposes which are outlined and described in the Bill—the purification of the River Leven. As indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk,
1194
a good deal of progress has been made by the River Leven Board, under the leadership of the County Council, towards purification work; and I venture to suggest that it would be wise to leave that work in the hands of those who have undertaken it rather than change the authority.
LORD MORRISON: It is a little unfortunate, although it is nobody's fault, that this question, which was the most important arising out of this Bill in another place, should have been left to be discussed on a Manuscript Amendment at the last minute. I am not casting any blame on anyone for that. The noble Earl and I were agreed, in the short Second Reading debate, that this was the only question which was voted upon in another place; no other vote took place. It was a free vote; the Whips were not on; and the vote was thirty-three for the clause as it stands now, and six against. I thought a serious effort would perhaps have been made to put forward that position, but the noble Earl has now submitted his Manuscript Amendment in a modified form.
I have not had time to go into it fully, but as I understood the speech of Lord Selkirk and that of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, the Fife County Council now want power to be given to the Secretary of State to require the river purification board to appoint the County Council as their agent—I think that is the essential point. I know that such a concession has already been made in the case of a local authority interested in a certain river—I think it was the Aberdeen Town Council—because they draw their domestic water supply from the River Dee. But, clearly, the river purification authority would not be qualified to deal with the public health interest of the suitability of the water for drinking purposes. Frankly, I see no reason for extending this concession to the Fife case, where the question of potability does not arise. In fact, I think that the river purification authority should be left to exercise their discretion in the matter of appointing agents. I should rather see it left to them than put into a Bill with Fife as a specific instance.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration he has given to the matter. I must

1195
admit that the fact that this is a Manuscript Amendment is entirely my fault; it is a fault of omission and I accept full responsibility for it. With regard to the discretion to which the noble Lord referred, I think it is fair to say that discretion still exists in the river purification board to appoint agents as they like, but that discretion cannot include by-law-making power or the granting of permission or of exemptions. With that exception it is quite open to a river purification board to employ a local authority in any capacity they like. I am, as I say, grateful to the noble Lord; possibly we can discuss this matter in the near future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Reports
16.—(1) Every river purification board shall, before such date in every year as the Secretary of State may fix, send to the Secretary of State a report in respect of the preceding year, and shall at the same time send a copy of the report to the council of every county or large burgh whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the river purification board area.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKmoved to add to subsection (1) "The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report before each House of Parliament." The noble Earl said: This is the clause to which I referred when speaking on the first Amendment with regard to the publication of reports of the work of the river purification boards. In Clause 16 it is laid down that river purification boards shall make a retort to the Secretary of State and shall send that report to the council of every county or borough whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the river purification board area. That is all very well, but it means that no single member of the general public will ever see a report from any of the boards. I admit that the reports of local authorities have some semi-publicity value, if I may so call it: something is bound to come out in the newspapers, but such reports in the papers do not always give the whole truth. I should have thought that it was desirable that the report should be available to interested members of the public, instead of being left to be reported
1196
in the newspapers, which, as I say do not always give the whole story.
I suggest in this Amendment that copies should be laid before each House of Parliament. I do not want particularly to stand on that procedure, though it was laid down in the English Bill. I am not sure it is desirable that a large number of comparatively small reports should be laid before Parliament. What I do emphasise, however, is that people interested in the locality should get a fair idea of what is really happening. I think it is essential, if the benefits of this Bill are to be widely appreciated, that the public should have reasonable facilities for knowing what progress is being made in river purification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report before each House of Parliament ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I think there is no doubt that the noble Lord has made out a strong case and one which, so far as I am concerned, is unanswerable. But I do not think he is altogether satisfied with the wording of his own Amendment, and I promise him that at the Report stage an Amendment will be moved. If the noble Earl so desires, I will submit suggestions for an Amendment to him. He can put it down in his name or it can go down in mine—I do not mind—but an Amendment will be moved to make copies of the annual reports of river purification boards available to the public. I am not able to go any further as to the wording of that Amendment, but in general I rather gather from the noble Earl's speech that that is what he wants. We will attempt to accomplish it before Report stage.
LORD SALTOUN: I think these reports ought to be available to Parliament because we may have to deal with them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am fully satisfied with what has been said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
River purification authorities.
17.—(1) It shall be the duty of the authorities specified in the next following sub section (in this Act referred to as "river

1197
purification authorities") to promote the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters in their areas, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their areas and to exercise for those purposes the functions conferred on them by this Act.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "so far as practicable" The noble Lord said: I submit that, if this Bill is intended to purify the rivers of Scotland, it should be the duty of the authorities to conserve the water resources. I agree that to conserve "so far as practicable" the water resources means much the same thing. The only difference is that "so far as practicable" is an utterly defeatist phrase, which I think should be deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("so far as practicable").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is determined that this shall be a good Bill. So am I. But I cannot understand why he has struck a vein of pessimism over this. This Bill being admitted by everybody to be a non-Party Bill, having gone through all its stages in another plate and now going through this House on strictly non-Party lines, why anybody should be pessimistic over it, just because it has gone through without any of the usual altercations and "bladder and stick" kind of speeches that we are more accustomed to having in another place than here, I do not know. I should have thought that the fact that there was this unanimity would have been helpful. Now the noble Lord has moved a Manuscript Amendment to omit the words "so far as practicable." I can only reply that my advisers say that it is essential to retain those words, as the river purification authorities will not be wholly responsible for conserving water resources; other people will be involved, besides them. They will be expected to assist in this only "so far as practicable." In those circumstances, I am unable to accept this Amendment, while realising how helpful the noble Lord always wants to be in his desire to strengthen the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not agree that non-Party Bills are necessarily better or more perfect than Party Bills. Party Bills at any rate emanate from a definite and consistent policy, or ought to,
1198
whereas we are apt to pay too little attention to non-Party Bills and let things go through that should be checked and corrected. I do not intend to press my Amendment. I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation of the meaning of the words. All the same, I do not like them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
5.13 p.m.
Clause 22:
Prohibition on use of stream for disposal of polluting matter, etc.
(3) Where no byelaw made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section twenty-five of this Act is in force as respects any stream or part of a stream prescribing a standard for the purpose of determining when matter is in any particular respect to be treated as poisonous, noxious or polluting, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section in respect of the discharge into that stream or part of matter which is poisonous, noxious or polluting in that respect to prove that—

(a) it is not reasonably practicable for him to dispose of the matter otherwise than by discharging it (directly or indirectly) into that or some other stream; and

(b) he is taking all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the matter being unnecessarily poisonous, noxious or polluting.

LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "reasonably." The noble Lord said: There is a good deal more substance in this Amendment. For these last Seventy-five years, every river purification Bill has broken down on this word "reasonably." The noble Lord accuses me of pessimism. I have given him one reason why I am pessimistic about the Bill, and this word "reasonably" is another. I will tell your Lordships why: it is because it removes from manufacturers the onus of finding a process which gives a pure, or at least a harmless, effluent. It relieves them of the responsibility, which I maintain should be upon them, of research, because if a man makes money—I do not care whether it is a nationalised industry in which he is making money for the State—by manufacturing something, he should be hound to do his work in such a way that it does not harm the community.

1199
I submit that, if you leave these paragraphs to read that
"(a) …it is not practicable for him to dispose of the matter otherwise. …"
and
(b) he is taking all practicable steps. …"
there is no need to reinforce the polluter by putting in the word "reasonably." That means that he could do it, but that it would be onerous or unpleasant. I submit that there are strong grounds for my pessimism if Clause 3 remains unaltered, and if in Clause 22 we retain this objectionable word which has been the shield and rampart of the defiler of rivers for seventy-five years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("reasonably").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD MORRISON: Here, again, we come to the point whether it is "reasonably practicable." I am not sure whether, in the present state of knowledge, some rivers can be purified at reasonable expense. If there were an absolute prohibition on the discharge of such effluents, the manufacturers would be put out of business altogether. I do not know whether the noble Lord has faced up to the fact that, if we were to delete that word, we should simply be imposing a sentence of death on many very important businesses in Scotland. Moreover, the Bill as it stands tells people who are responsible for these industries with noxious effluents that, provided the river boards are satisfied that they are doing their best and trying their utmost to purify their rivers, such efforts will be a reason why they shall be allowed to carry on their industry. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it would not matter whether it was reasonable or not—they could be closed down altogether and prohibited. This clause provides that they have good defence if they do their best. It will be a defence if they prove that they are doing their best. Finally, I would remind the noble Lord that research is going on all the time into new methods of purification. Therefore, the object of the river purification boards ought to be to encourage industrialists who are doing their best to get better results to take advantage of the latest discoveries of research in the prevention of pollution, rather than to throw up their hands and
1200
close down their works altogether. I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to say that I thought the noble Lord's speech was entirely on my side. He says that "doing your best" is covered by the word "practicable," but when you put in "reasonably practicable" you are approaching a man's pocket. The man says "That is unreasonable: it will cost me five pounds"—or whatever the cost may be. I am not quite satisfied, and, while it is impossible to divide the House to-night on this stage of the Bill, I shall put down an Amendment on the next stage when I hope that we shall have an opportunity of really going into this matter. I know that the noble Lord is just as keen on this as I am, and I would beg him to examine the Amendment very carefully before the next stage. I hope he will examine Clause 3, too. Then we will see whether we cannot come to a happier conclusion about it.
LORD MORRISON: I have had only a few moments to look at this Manuscript Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that if he puts it down I will look at it again, but I cannot hold out any greater hope for success.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("general").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the difference between a manager and a general manager.
LORD MORRISON: I do not think there is any difference; that is why we are leaving out the word" general."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask why the noble Lord is proposing an Amendment at all, if it makes no difference?
LORD MORRISON: To save one word.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Cleansing bed of stream, cutting vegetation, etc.]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment to bring the wording into line with that in Clause 22 (6) (c). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 45, after ("the") insert ("natural").—(Lord Morrison).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges]:
LORD MORRISON: This is really a clarifying Amendment. As it stands, Clause 28 (2) (b) does not make it clear whether the conditions that a river purification authority may impose in the case of new discharges shall relate only to that discharge or may also relate to other existing discharges from the premises. The Amendment makes it clear that these other discharges may also be controlled. The reason for this is that a new discharge may possibly react on existing discharges, with consequent deleterious effects upon he stream. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 12, leave out the first ("the").—(Lords Morrison).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").—(Lord Morrison).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This next Amendment should be read along with the two following Amendments. Clause 28, as it stands, provides for a review of conditions imposed when consent is given to the bringing into use of a new or altered outlet, or the beginning of a new discharge. However, the clause does not provide machinery for reviewing unconditional consents given under the clause or consents deemed to have been given unconditionally, or any consent given under Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the Bill. The effect of these three Amendments is to enable the river purification authority to review such consents and, if necessary, to impose reasonable conditions subject to which the new
1202
outlet or discharge in question will continue to be made. They also empower the Secretary of State to direct the authority to make such a review or to impose such conditions, or in their default, to do so himself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 31, after ("made)") insert ("or any consent granted or deemed to have been granted unconditionally under this section or under Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is the first of the Amendments to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 34, after ("condition") insert ("or imposing any such condition (other than a condition to be satisfied as aforesaid) as they might have imposed under this section").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the second of these Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 36, after ("condition") insert ("or to impose any condition which might have been imposed as aforesaid").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: Here again, this Amendment should be read along with the following Amendment. These two Amendments are drafting Amendments which have been introduced into the Bill at the suggestion of the Federation of British Industries, to clarify still further the definition of the term "new discharge." The Amendments secure that a new discharge must be substantially something more than a mere continuation or a repetition of a previous discharge made in the preceding twelve months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 28, after the first ("a") insert ("repetition or").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 31, after the second ("a") insert ("repetition or").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (10) to insert:
"( ) If, on an application to the Secretary of State for him to determine a question under

1203
the last foregoing subsection, he determines that the withholding of consent, or the condition imposed, or the variation of a condition, as the case may be, was unreasonable, then—

(a) where the application was in respect of the withholding of consent, he may direct that the consent shall be treated as given either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as appear to him to be reasonable;

(b) where the application was in respect of the unreasonableness of any condition imposed, he may direct either that the condition shall be treated as annulled or that there shall be substituted for it such condition as appears to him to be reasonable;

(c) where the application was in respect of the reasonableness of any variation of a condition, he may direct either that the condition shall be treated as continuing in force unvaried or that it shall be varied in such manner as appears to him to be reasonable;

but, as respects the period before the giving of the direction, this section shall apply as if the withholding of consent, or the condition imposed, or the variation of a condition, as the case may be, had not been unreasonable.
( ) If a river purification authority fail, within three months of the making to them of an application for their consent under this section, to give the person proposing to bring into use the new or altered outlet or to begin to make the new discharge, as the case may be, notice that they give or refuse their consent the consent shall be deemed to be granted unconditionally at the expiration of those three months."
The noble Lord said: This rather long Amendment proposes to add two new subsections to the clause. As regards the first new subsection, Clause 28 as it stands allows the Secretary of State, when any question is referred to him as to whether consent under the clause has been unreasonably withheld, or as to the reasonableness of any condition or of any variation of such condition, to say only either "Yes" or "No." The new subsection will allow the Secretary of State to give an unconditional consent, or a consent qualified in the same way as the river purification authority might have done in the first instance, The second new subsection sets a time limit of three months within which the river purification authority may give or withhold their consent. Some such provision is necessary to ensure that the applicant is not held up for all time by the fact that, since the authority had never come to a decision, no appeal would ever lie to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 47, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As I understand it, these new subsections are intended to provide more flexibility to the powers given the Secretary of State—that is to say, he is not obliged to accept the point of view either of the river board or of the applicant, but may compromise. I would ask the noble Lord to look again at the powers of the Secretary of State. He may impose such conditions as appear to him to be reasonable; but they may be entirely different conditions from those which the river board have considered or which, indeed, may be under discussion. It seems to me that the Secretary of State is given, not only power to compromise between two points of view but, possibly, to come to a decision right outside either point of view. I am putting that to the noble Lord in order that he may consider whether, as it is drawn, this Amendment is not perhaps a trifle too wide. I am not going to press the point now, because I understand that the intention is to introduce as great a measure of flexibility as possible. With regard to the second new subsection, I offer the noble Lord my warm congratulations. I think that any persons who do not answer a letter within three months deserve to have it assumed that their answer is to the effect that they have no comment to make whatsoever.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl is right in saying that the intention of the first new subsection is to make the Bill a little more flexible than it would otherwise have been. With regard to the point about which he is not certain, I will look into it, and will let him know, between now and the Report stage, whether I am advised that any alteration is called for.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
5.32 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:
Supplementary Powers of Secretary of State
"For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to perform any of his functions under this Act he or any person authorised by him shall have the like right to enter any land or vessel or to carry out any inspection or survey or to make copies of or extracts from any document or to obtain and take away samples as is conferred by this Act on a river purification authority or any person authorised by such an authority."

1205
The noble Lord said: Clauses 18, 19 and 20 of the Bill as it stands confer powers upon river purification authorities to obtain information, take samples and enter land for the purpose of enabling them to perform the functions imposed upon them by the Bill. No similar powers are at present conferred upon the Secretary of State or upon officers authorised by him. The Secretary of State, none the less, has, of may have, substantial functions to perform under the Bill. He may, for example, have to make by-laws in default of an authority; he may have to give directions to authorities as to whether they should review authorisations granted under Clause 27, or review conditions imposed under Clause 28. If, in such circumstances, he or his officers were unable to obtain the requisite information or take samples or obtain entry for those purposes, he would be unable to discharge these functions. This new clause, therefore, confers upon the Secretary of State the same Powers in regard to those matters as river purification authorities have under the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 32, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a new clause produced now, as the noble Lord has very properly said, after this Bill has been considered in great detail in another place. I should like to know why it is necessary to insert this clause in this form. The noble Lord has said that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may have to perform the duties of river purification authorities. This clause gives him power, as I see it, to perform those duties in any case. In other words, compulsory investigation may be carried out by the river boards and also by the Secretary of State. If I understood rightly what the noble Lord said, that is not the intention. I suggest, however, with respect, that as this is not the intention, it might be quite easy to insert words to show that this action would arise only in the event of the river boards failing in their duty. I think I am right in saying that one of the other clauses starts on that basis.
The particular matter in which I am interested, and which leads me to raise this point, is that of ships in harbour. I am sure the noble Lord will agree it is
1206
most important that there should be no undue delaying of shipping. Already there is a large number of people who are entitled to investigate ships—they are entitled to investigate them in connection with disinfestation, oil pollution, the prevention of fires and a number of other matters. I think we should hesitate before increasing the number of officials who are entitled to visit ships. I emphasise that point particularly, and I should like to suggest that the noble Lord should look at this clause again to make sure that it is not conferring an additional independent power, instead of one to act in substitution for river boards only in the event of their failing in their duty.
LORD MORRISON: I am willing to look at this again between now and the Report stage. I think the noble Earl will find that already the English Rivers Board Acts confer full powers upon the Minister in this respect. And the Minister's duty will be carried out as there may be occasion. There is no question of duplicating officials or anything of that sort. But, as I say, I will look at the clause again and inform the noble Earl of the result of my investigations.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule.
TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.
2. Any person who, within one month after the date on which section twenty-eight of this Act comes into operation in any area, brings into use in that area any new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream or begins to make in that area any new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream shall be deemed for the purposes of the said section twenty-eight to do so with the consent of the river purification authority.
5.36 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: Under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule as it stands, a person bringing a new outlet into use or making a new discharge within one month after the date of Clause 28 coming into operation in the area does not require to obtain the consent of the river purification authority. It is thought that a period of one month may, in practice, prove rather short. In any case, a period of three months is allowed to the river purification authority in which to make up

1207
their minds before granting or refusing consent, and a similar period is allowed for the intimation of objections to by-laws under Clause 26 (5). In the interest of uniformity, therefore, this Amendment extends the transitional period of one month to three months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 44, leave out ("one month") and insert ("three months").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The substitution for the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, made by paragraph 3 of the Bill is unnecessary, as this matter is already covered by the Interpretation Act, 1889. I, therefore, beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 1, leave out Paragraph 3.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out ("21") and insert ("19").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 11, leave out ("approving an agreement").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment, too, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("abstraction") and insert ("taking").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LYMINGTON) BILL
  SUTTON AND CHEAM CORPORATION BILL

    BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.