Lords Sitting of 7 June 1951

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

  MEMORIAL TO FIELD-MARSHAL SMUTS
  4.6 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government a Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make as to a national memorial to Field-Marshal Smuts in this country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for giving me this opportunity of making a statement in similar terms to those used in a statement just made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. His Majesty's Government are satisfied by representations which they have received, and by the expression of views in various quarters, that there is a general desire that a suitable memorial to Field-Marshal Smuts should be erected in this country. His Majesty's Government are in agreement with this view. Field-Marshal Smuts held a unique position in the Commonwealth for some thirty years, and his services, as statesman, soldier and thinker, to the whole Commonwealth, were altogether outstanding. We would therefore propose that a statue should be erected at public expense on a suitable site in Westminster. A Resolution will be brought before Parliament in due course. His Majesty's Government would propose to invite representatives of Opposition Parties to join in consultation regarding the choice of a sculptor and other details which have yet to be decided.
  I trust that this House, and indeed the country, will agree that it is right that we should mark our admiration for this great leader of the Commonwealth in this manner. I may also perhaps be allowed to add that an appeal is to be issued to-morrow for private contributions to a fund intended to commemorate Field-Marshal Smuts' part in the development
  1158
  of the conception of the Commonwealth and his devotion to the University of which he was Chancellor by the endowment of Commonwealth studies at Cambridge.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure we are all glad to hear the announcement which the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, has just made, and I know that the Party for which I speak will be very happy to be associated with it. I suppose that Field-Marshal Smuts—General Smuts, as we most of us remember him—was in his way one of the greatest of all the Empire statesmen. He was the living embodiment throughout his whole life of that freedom of thought and opinion which is the very essence of the British Commonwealth. He had, too, that vision which is all too rare in this world with regard to the problems of the future, and an undaunted courage in facing them. No one, I should have thought, could be more fitted to be commemorated here in the capital city of the oldest member of our family.
  As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has explained to your Lordships, the visible memorial for which the Government, by agreement with the other Parties, are making themselves responsible is, of course, only one part of the whole scheme which is in contemplation. There are, I understand, wider plans under consideration. I am confident, as I am sure we all are. that these will receive the wholehearted support of the British people. We have, unhappily, lost the wise counsel of Field-Marshal Smuts himself: it is for us to keep alive his spirit, for on that may well depend the survival of the Commonwealth, with all that that means to the world.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure that His Majesty's Government have rightly interpreted the wishes of the British people in deciding to propose to Parliament that a statue should be erected to Field-Marshal Smuts at the public expense, and that it should be placed here in Westminster. I feel sure that the proposal will receive the unanimous support of both Houses and of all Parties. This rare and signal honour will be a tribute, not only to Field-Marshal Smuts, but also to the Dominion of South Africa, which he served so long and so faithfully. While this is the tribute of the

  1159
  nation as a whole, the individual citizens will have an opportunity of showing their appreciation of Field-Marshal Smuts as a statesman and thinker by raising a fund which could have no better character than the promotion of Commonwealth studies in his own University of Cambridge, of which he was the devoted Chancellor.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with to allow the Third Reading of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill to have precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, is pleased to consent to the provisions of the Bill, so far as the interests of the Crown are concerned, and to place his interests for that purpose at the disposal of Parliament.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a (with the Amendments), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that there are no objections to this Motion, and therefore I will do no more than to move formally that the Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending section one of the Act to the Borough of Bebington, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NEW STREETS BILL
  4.14 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now receive itself into Committee.—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Payments to be made by owners of new buildings in respect of street works]:
  LORD MARLEY: The first Amendment, which is really a drafting Amendment, is repeated in some eight or nine other Amendments in the course of the Bill, and with the permission of the House I will explain why that Amendment has been made. Local authorities suggested that the words "have a frontage" were more suitable than "front," used as a verb, and this Amendment meets with their approval. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 8, leave out ("front") and insert ("have a frontage").—(Lord Marley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to this Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This Amendment adds the words "or a previous owner thereof" in order to make the matter clear. It is practically a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 10, after ("erected") insert ("or a previous owner thereof").—(Lord Marley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: This obviously makes the wording much clearer than it was before. It is clear that the subsection should include a reference to the previous owner, although I doubt

  1161
  whether it did before this Amendment was put forward. I am in full support of it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 30, leave out ("building will front") and insert ("frontage of the building will be").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This also is a drafting Amendment. We forgot to put in the word "private." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 38, after ("appropriate") insert ("private").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 45, leave out from ("building will front") and insert ("frontage of the building will be").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This is a small Amendment of some substance, and its effect is that where buildings are erected on land belonging to the British Transport Commission, or to any of their Executives, the Commission or Executive will be exempt from the obligation to pay or secure in advance the sum needed to cover their ultimate liability for the cost of making up the street. Station approaches, for instance, are involved. I should make it absolutely clear that if and when a street is subsequently made up the Commission or Executive will be responsible for the payment of their share of the cost. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 10, after ("of") insert ("the British Transport Commission or any Executive established by or under section five of the Transport Act, 1947 ").—(Lord Marley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask the noble Lord whether this Amendment is proposed because the Transport Executive have such large profits in hand that there is obviously good security for these payments?
  LORD MARLEY: I gather that they have £8,000,000 this year, which would cover any liability under the clause.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord is thinking of the Coal Board!
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This Amendment exempts from the application of the Bill a building to be erected by a trading or industrial estate company. These companies are non-profit-making concerns and are formed by the Board of Trade for the purpose of laying out industrial estates, and of building factories upon them. They are financed by the Board of Trade —that is, by all of us—and they provide the streets and services themselves. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(i) in a case where the building is proposed to be erected by a trading or industrial estate company within the meaning of section fifteen of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the cost thereof is to be defrayed wholly or mainly by a government department ").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Determination of liability for and amount of payments]:
  LORD MARLEY: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 31, leave out ("building will front") and insert ("frontage of the building will be").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Sums paid or secured to be in discharge of further liability for street works
  3.—(1) Where a sum has been paid or secured under section one of this Act by the owner of land in respect of the cost of street works to be carried out in the private street on which that land fronts, the liability of that owner or any subsequent owner of that land in respect of the carrying out of street works in that street under the appropriate private street works code shall, as respects that front-age, be deemed to be discharged to the extent of the sum so paid or secured, and if, when the street is declared to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, the said sum is found to exceed the total liability aforesaid in respect of that frontage or there is no liability because the street was lot made up at the expense of the local authority, the local authority shall refund the amount of the excess, or, as the case may be, the whole of the sum, to the person who is for the time being owner of the land.
  Where any land in respect of which a sum has been so paid or secured is subsequently divided in two or more parts so that two or more owners incur the liability aforesaid, the sum shall be treated as apportioned between those owners according to their respective frontages.
  LORD MARLEY: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 4, leave out ("fronts") and insert ("has a frontage").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in sub-section (1) after "secured" [where that word occurs a second time] to insert: "and to that extent only."
  The noble Lord said: During the debate on Second Reading we had some discussion whether the original payment made would be the full and final payment which a man had to pay under this Bill. It became apparent that that was not so, and that if the original assessment had been too low the frontager would be liable for a further payment. My Amendment is moved to make that clear at first glance to anybody who reads. this Bill when it becomes law. Incident-ally, I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will forgive me for asking him not to rely on these loudspeakers; they are not doing much good so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and it is very difficult to hear what he says.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, after ("secured") insert ("and to that extent only.")—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD MARLEY: I will do my utmost to make myself heard. The promoters of this Bill greatly appreciate the co-operative efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and all he has done to make this a better Bill. We are delighted to accept the Amendment which he has just moved.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "shall refund" down to the end of the first paragraph of the subsection, and to insert:
  "(a) if the sum was paid, shall refund the amount of the excess or, as the case may be, the whole sum to the person who is for the time being owner of the land;
  1164
  (b) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is for the time being owner of the land, shall release the security to the extent of the excess or, as the case may be, the whole security;
  (c) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is not for the time being owner of the land, shall pay to that owner an amount equal to the excess or, as the case may be. the whole sum, and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount so paid."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a little difficult to explain. Clause 3 deals with sums paid or secured to be a discharge of further liability on street works. There is no trouble about the cash payments: the problem arises when people cover themselves by a security. As regards security the new Amendment is intended to cover a case in which the security was more than the cost of making up the road, or where there was no cost in making up the road—not because the work cost nothing but because under the 1875 Act local authorities can compel frontagers to make up the road themselves, at their own cost, if they choose to use that power. If the security consists of a charge on the property the new owner is liable, and the Amendment provides that if there are no costs involved, or the cost is less than the security, thus cancelling the liability of the new owner for the balance of the cost on the road, the security will be cancelled.
  When some other security is involved we have to assume that, if there has been a sale, the new owner has paid additional money in advance to cover the cost of making up the road. Here the fair thing to do is to repay the whole of the debt to the new owner, and to realise the security as against the original owner to the extent which is necessary to recoup the local authority for the cost of what they have paid to the new owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Marley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: It was clear that in the original Bill the different ways in which this system would work were not fully provided for. I think the new draft is a great improvement, and it certainly has my support.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This is virtually a drafting Amendment, which covers the case where liability does not in fact materialise, so that it is necessary to insert the words I have put down. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 18, after ("incur") insert ("or would incur").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (1):
  "and, if the sum was secured and the security is the property of one only of those owners, the local authority shall only be required under paragraph (b) hereof to release the security to the extent to which the amount apportioned to that owner exceeds his liability aforesaid or, as the case may, to the extent of the whole of that amount, and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount or amounts paid to the other owner or owners under paragraph (c) hereof ".
  The noble Lord said: This deals with the case where the original owner sells off his land in plots of which he may retain one or more himself. The Amendment, like the previous Amendment, deals with the case where some security other than cash or in the form of a charge on the land itself is given by the original owner. The purchasers of plots will have paid extra because of this security, and they will have payments under paragraph (c) of Clause 3 which we have just amended. The effect of this Amendment is that, as respects the amount due to the original owner, the security will, for any parts retained by him, be cancelled; and so far as any plots are sold, the security will be realised to the extent necessary to recoup the local authority for the sums paid to the other owners. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I have not put down an Amendment on a point which I now wish to make, but I would point out that under the provisions of Clause 3 as it stands at present the local authority can take this money in advance but do not pay any periodical interest on it. They pay accrued interest only when they have finished the works and the final sum has
  1166
  come to be assessed. I am one of those who think that if a local authority take a man's money in advance, they, just as much as any other person or body who holds such money, ought to be prepared to pay interest upon it. The local authority can themselves invest it and get interest on it—and should be doing so. At any rate it will free them from the need of borrowing sums on which they would have to pay interest for this period. I think, therefore, it is worth while considering between now and the Report stage whether local authorities ought not to pay interest year by year on this money. It will be largely in their hands how soon they do the works for which it is paid. I raise the matter now only to warn the noble Lord that I may well put down an Amendment on that point between now and the Report stage. It is a matter which I should like to consider between now and that stage of the Bill.
  LORD MARLEY: Perhaps I may say a word in reply to that point, because the noble Lord will realise that it is one which we have in fact discussed and considered. I do not say that any final decision has been reached. The problem we have to face, however, is that if a local authority are to act as a sort of banker and deal with the paying out of interest, half-yearly or yearly, to individuals, they will have quite a different problem to face in the way of expense and responsibility. It will be quite different from a position in which they merely add to the original sum year by year a book interest, which will be dealt with in the aggregate when the road comes to be made up. It is so much simpler merely to make a book entry which will be perfectly secure and will, at simple interest, if there is a long delay, amount to a considerable sum of money. I am sure one would not wish to saddle local authorities with the expense of keeping banking accounts, and things of that sort. However, naturally, we will consider this matter, and perhaps we may have a word about it at some time.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Of course, it would be much simpler for any limited liability company that borrows your money not to have to send out yearly dividends, to have forms printed and to go into all the rigmarole of sending you interest on your money. If it is a question of simplification, it will be simpler

  1167
  to fund it and not to pay it out annually. The point I have in mind is that, in many of these cases, the man concerned will be a small man. Probably he will have to put down £100 or whatever it may be. If he had been able to keep that money in National Savings Certificates, or in whatever he had it invested, he would have been receiving perhaps 3 per cent. on it. That is a point to be looked at, even though in a few cases it may give more trouble to a local authority. In equity the man ought to receive this interest upon which, if he is a small man, he very likely relies, because, until he builds his house, he is a man who has to pay rent on another house.
  I hope the noble Lord will look at the matter with an open mind. It is not likely to cause a great deal of extra trouble to the local authority. It is an easy accounting matter. When you are demanding money in advance from a man, and when he does not get value from that money because it is not possible for the local authority to make up the road for a year or two, you ought to pay him interest. If that causes the local authorities trouble, it will be a spur to them to speed up the making up of the roads on which they have already received the deposit.
  LORD MARLEY: I will willingly give that assurance, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will join with us in an examination of the problem he has raised. We should appreciate his help in that matter.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Determination to cease to have effect when plans are not proceeded with]:
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved to leave out Clause 4 and to insert the following clause:
  Determination to cease to have effect when plans are not proceeded with.
  "4.—(1) Where, on the occasion of the deposit of any plans for the erection of a building, the amount to be paid or secured under section one of this Act has been determined under section two thereof, and subsequently—

  (a) the local authority declare under section sixty-six of the Public Health Act, 1936, that the deposit of the plans shall be of no effect, or

  1168

  (b) before any work has been done in or for the purpose of erecting the building the owner gives notice in writing to the local authority of his intention not to proceed with the building,

  the said determination and any payment made or security given in accordance therewith shall, unless street works have already been carried out or commenced in the street under the appropriate private street works code in respect of which the owner of the land on which the building was to be erected is liable, be of no effect for the purposes of this Act.
  (2) Where by virtue of the preceding sub-section a determination is of no effect and any sum has been paid or security given in accordance therewith, the local authority—

  (a) if the sum was paid, shall refund it together with simple interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the date of payment to the person who is for the time being owner of the land;

  (b) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is for the time being owner of the land, shall release the security;

  (c) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is not for the time being owner of the land, shall pay to that owner an amount equal to the said sum, and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount so paid.

  Where any land in respect of which a sum has been so paid or secured is subsequently divided into two or more parts so that two or more owners would, if street works were carried out, incur liability in respect thereof, the sum (together with any interest thereon) shall be treated as apportioned between those owners according to their respective frontages and, if the sum was secured and the security is the property of one only of those owners, the local authority shall only be required under paragraph (b) hereof to release the security to the extent of the amount apportioned to that owner and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount or amounts paid to the other owner or owners under paragraph (c) hereof.
  (3) Where a person notifies the local authority in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section of his intention not to proceed with the building and by reason thereof a determination is of no effect, and subsequently notice is given to the local authority by the owner of the land that he intends to proceed with the building in accordance with the plans as originally deposited, the notice to be served under subsection (1) of section two of this Act by the local authority shall, in lieu of being served as required by that subsection, be served on him within one month after the date of the service of the notice of his intention to proceed with the building, and the said section two shall have effect accordingly."
  The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause is not greatly different from the existing clause, but it includes some

  1169
  matters which we think more clearly explain what is intended. It deals with precisely the same problem as did the original clause—that is, where building has not been proceeded with after the amount of the payment has been decided under the New Streets Act (as this Bill will be). But we think that the provisions for this should be a little amplified, and this new clause applies either where the local authority have declared the plans to be of no effect or where the owner himself has given notice that he is not going to proceed with the building. In either case, the decision as to the amount and so on will have no effect. The provisions under subsection (2) in the Amendment follow the same three possibilities which we have already covered in the Amendment to Clause 3. I do not think that noble Lords will require any further explanation, except that, of course, there will be no partial repayment, because there is no cost. There is one other addition to the clause: we have worded it to cover the case where, after abandoning his determination to build, the owner changes his mind and decides that, after all, he is going to proceed with the building. Subsection (3) allows for serving a notice at the proper time and restarting the machinery of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Marley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The only point I should like to ask the noble Lord on this Amendment is this. By paragraph (a) of subsection (1), I see that the local authority can—
  "declare under section sixty-six of the Public Health Act, 1936, that the deposit of the plans shall be of no effect."
  Reading on, we find that
  "any payment made or security given … shall, unless street works have already been carried out or commenced in the street … be of no effect for the purposes of this Act."
  Can the local authority make the declaration under paragraph (a) even if works have already started, so that by making that declaration the man will not get his refund? That is the point I should like to put to the noble Lord.
  LORD MARLEY: That is a material point and I do not know the answer. I will look into it and will give the noble
  1170
  Lord an answer at the next stage. Would that be suitable to him?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. If the last part applies only to paragraph (b), where the man himself does not go on with the house, But the works have already started because it was expected that he was going on with the house, then that is his fault. But I am not sure that the second part of the clause (which I will not read out) should apply to paragraph (a). That is the point I should like the noble Lord to look into before the next stage.
  LORD MARLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. That is just the sort of helpful criticism that the promoters of the Bill so much value.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Power of majority of frontagers to require adoption of private streets
  6.—(1) Where a majority, either in number or in value, of the owners of land fronting on any built-up private street request the local authority by notice in writing to exercise their powers under the appropriate private street works code so as—

  (a) to secure the carrying out of such street works in that street as the local authority require under that code before declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large; and

  (b) to declare the street to be such a highway,

  the local authority shall proceed to exercise their powers, accordingly:
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply unless, in at least one case, a payment has been made or security has been given under section one or' this Act by the owner of land fronting the street.
  (3) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) a street shall be deemed to be built-up if the aggregate length of the frontages of the buildings on both sides of that street constitutes at least one half of the aggregate length of all the frontages on both sides of that street;

  (b) any part of a street, being a part not less than one hundred yards in length, may be treated by the owners of land fronting on that part of the street as constituting a street for the purposes of this section.

  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in sub-section (1) to delete "a majority, either in number or in value" and to insert:
  "either a majority in number or a greater part in rateable value."
  The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment at an early stage, since when the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has put down the Amendment that succeeds it on the Marshalled List. My Amendment, which is little more than a drafting Amendment, was put down because it was thought that the original words in the Bill were not applicable both to the majority in number of the owners and to rateable values. But, as I understand the noble Lord's Amendment, he now relies entirely on frontage, and not on the question of numbers at all. Frontage always has been the test of the contribution of frontagers under the Private Street Works Act, and since the noble Lord has changed from the rateable value, which he had in as part of the decisive factor, to the frontage, I am not sure that my Amendment is necessary. If the noble Lord will give me an assurance, it may not be necessary for me to proceed with my Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("Where") to ("of") and insert ("either a majority in number or a greater part in rateable value"). —(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD MARLEY: I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the Amendment standing in my name which is to follow this Amendment was intended to meet the very case that he has raised. I do not think there is any material alteration, except that it clarifies the position. So when the time comes for me to move my Amendment, I hope he will feel able to support it.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MARLEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for withdrawing his Amendment, and I will try to explain the meaning of my Amendment, which I now move. The original words "Where a majority, either in number or in value," followed one of the precedents, but the municipal authorities suggested that the criterion should be the number and length of frontage. Those of us who are anxious to secure the passage of this Bill felt that that was entirely reasonable, but we did not want to go much further than that. We have made the wording more readable, and I am
  1172
  grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for agreeing to this Amendment rather than pressing his own.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("majority") to ("request") in line 44 and insert ("of the owners of land having a frontage on any built-up private street, or as many of those owners as have between them more than half the aggregate length of all the frontages on both sides of the street").—(Lord Marley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the position is not quite as the noble Lord put it. This Amendment takes the amount of frontage, and not the value; in the original Bill the word "value" was used. It was a question of what value should be taken, and the easiest value to find was the rateable value. So I suggested putting in "rateable value," when there would be no argument as to what the value would be, because it would already be in the rating assessment. The use of the word "value" alone might have meant calling in one valuer on one side and another valuer on the other in order to find out what the true value was. But as the noble Lord has cut out "value" and relies solely on the amount of frontage my Amendment becomes unnecessary, and I think his makes the position adequately clear.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 8, leave out ("fronting") and insert ("having a frontage on").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.44 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided also that this subsection shall not apply in cases where a piped water supply and main sewer have not first been laid in the street and connected to the buildings abutting on the street and the local authority are reasonably satisfied that such piped water supply or main sewer will be laid and connected as aforesaid within a period of ten years of the receipt of the notice in writing referred to in this subsection."
  The noble Viscount said: May I say at once that my purpose in moving this and the other Amendment in my name is no less helpful than the attitude shown by other noble Lords. I am entirely in favour of this Bill, and my purpose is to do what little I can to make it better

  1173
  if possible. I believe this Amendment tends to do that. It is a perfectly simple Amendment, and one which is in the interest alike of the ratepayers and the local authorities. The Committee are aware that it is the invariable practice of local authorities not to execute street works until main services have been laid. It is clearly an act of waste and extravagance to rip up a road which has already been made up and adequately surfaced, in order to insert water supply and sewers. Not only is such an act in itself wasteful, but once the road is ripped up and subsequently repaired it is not in fact the same road. Noble Lords who have experience of these things know that once a road has been ripped up it is never quite the same again, and it is more costly to maintain. So that, not only has one wasted money in the first instance by doing the thing twice over but there is what I may call a recurrent element of waste in the added cost of maintaining the road once ripped up and then restored so far as may be possible. I have no wish to labour the point; it is plain and simple, and obvious to all.
  My noble friend may well feel that the Amendment in its present form is a little too wide—that it might enable the local authority to postpone for too long a period the making up of a road, which is certainly not what I should wish to see happen. But I do ask him—we both have the same purpose at heart—even if he rejects the wording of this Amendment, not to reject its principle, which I sincerely believe to be one helpful to all parties interested in this measure. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
  LORD MARLEY: I should like to express my warm thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for the co-operative way in which he helped us when we were examining the four Amendments he had originally put down. Two are left, and I want to try to explain to him the precise difficulties that arise in accepting the Amendment that is before us at the moment. I would remind the Committee that Clause 6 deals with the power of the majority of frontagers to require the adoption of a private road, and we do not want to do anything which will impair the rights which the Bill is intended to provide. I entirely agree with
  1174
  the noble Viscount in the points he made with regard to the laying of a road and the subsequent damage if it is ripped up for laying water supply or sewerage; the broken-up road will probably take many years to restore.
  Let us, however, take an example of the difficulties that may arise from this Amendment. Assuming that the local authority have received the money for the road from the frontagers, they are able to say one of two things. They may say, "We hope to get water pipes and sewers laid in nine years, so you cannot have a road"; or they may say, "You can have a road now, and we promise you you will have no water and sewers for at least ten years; for all we know, it may be not for twenty years; the later the better." The later the water mains and sewerage are installed, the later will the road be broken up. There is the dilemma offered by the Amendment moved by the noble-Viscount. It seems to me that what it really amounts to is that the local authority will be encouraged to put off providing water and sewers, and at the same time will be able to frustrate the object of the Bill which is to help people to get their roads made up. That is the dilemma.
  Let us see how things stand at present without the Amendment. Again, the local authority have the money, and again the frontagers want the road. The local authority have every inducement to save extra expense by trying to make up the road and to provide water and sewers at the same time. They would render themselves liable to great criticism if they did not do that. And if they were not in a position to give water supplies and sewers immediately, I feel certain that, availing themselves of the opportunity of compromise which is characteristic of our democracy, when they received the demand from the frontagers for the making up and taking over of the road, the local authorities could get together with the frontagers and say: "If you will wait for another year or so before you press your demand, we shall be able to give you water and sewerage and make up the road at the same time." That seems a commonsense way out of it, and I think it would be the solution which in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred would be adopted.

  1175
  There is a further point which I would make in this connection. When this Bill was going through another place, there were, at the beginning, great differences of opinion in regard to the two aspects presented by it, but those differences of opinion were solved in a way that was almost miraculous by mutual concessions on each side. The result was that a balance was achieved which I think it would be most undesirable to modify. It is that balance that those of us who are concerned with the Bill are anxious should be retained and not upset by overloading one side as against the other. The only other point I would make is that under Clause 6 (2) of the Bill the Minister can refuse authorisation to do work if he is satisfied that there is good reason. Whether he would feel that this was a good reason, I do not know, but I suggest that it is a point to bear in mind. I have tried to explain our reasons for not feeling able to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment but I want to assure him that we have approached this matter with the greatest possible sympathy because of the strength of the objective behind his Amendment, an objective with which, I am sure, no one can find himself in disagreement. But, for the reasons which I have given, the Amendment does raise great difficulties and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Viscount will see his way not to press it, realising that we have reason for the line which we have taken.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. If he will allow me to say so it was one of the most helpful to which I have ever listened on occasions such as this when moving an Amendment. I must say, however, that I am disappointed in it, and I should like to point out one thing to the noble Lord. In regard to a compromise between frontagers and a local authority who, as in the instance he mentioned, said: "We cannot give the main services now but will give them later," there is this difficulty. The delay in delivery of the pipes required for the services (I am aware that this is a two-edged argument and that it can be used against me) makes it difficult for the local authority to say: "We will do this thing for you in a year's time, if you will be patient with us." Further, I think with
  1176
  regard to Clause 6 (2), to which Lord Marley referred, that the Defence Regulations—the noble Lord will correct me if I am at fault here—are not permanent legislation. Now we are dealing with a Bill which will become a permanent Act of Parliament, and I do not think it is a full answer to say that certain regulations which are annually renewed cover the point. I had hoped that the noble Lord would be able to suggest some compromise in the shape of an alteration in the period of ten years—that possibly a shorter period might be acceptable. However, in view of the full and careful explanation which he has given, I shall now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. But the noble Lord will understand that I am free to bring it forward again in a modified form on the next stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MARLEY: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 27, leave out ("fronting") and insert ("having a frontage").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.56 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to subsection (3):
  "provided such part of a street is contiguous to a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large."
  The noble Viscount said: This Amendment again is a perfectly simple one, and it is also one which I believe to be helpful. Although my noble friend has been obliged to harden his heart against the first of my Amendments, I hope that it may be rather softer when he applies himself to the second one. The matter is simple. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the local authority shall not be called upon to make up a stretch of road—and under the Bill they can be called upon to make up anything not less than one hundred yards in length—unless that stretch which they are asked to make into a road actually touches an existing highway which is maintainable by the local ratepayers.
  I have—I will not say confidence, but at least some hope that other noble Lords will, in no Party spirit, feel that this proposition is not unreasonable. One finds the position where a building estate

  1177
  is developed, and where the builder has made a rough, hardcore track and then develops the estate in pieces. Under the Bill as it stands, small sections might have to be made up though they would not necessarily adjoin other made-up stretches. That in itself I think is bad. There is this further physical aspect of the matter. In such a case it would be asking the local authority to transfer machines and materials across roads which are unmetalled and not made up, in order to carry out its obligation in regard to a comparatively small stretch. My noble friend has been patient in listening to my argument, and he has suggested to me that Clause 6, may not be the proper place for this Amendment, and that means to ensure its purpose may be found by some modification of Clause 1. The noble Lord did not bind himself in any way to that, he merely said that it was a possibility. I hope that that is a possibility which, if he objects to my Amendment in its present form, he will not rule out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 28, at end insert ("provided such part of a street is contiguous to a high-way repairable by the inhabitants at large").— (Viscount Buckmaster.)
  LORD MARLEY: The noble Viscount was again good enough to give us a great deal of assistance when we were discussing this matter. I am not going to pretend that we have passed a sleepless night over the possibility of transferring what he wants to Clause 1. But we have spent a good many hours upon the Amendment, because we have every sympathy towards it; and I think that possibly the noble Viscount will agree we have achieved some success. Let me try to explain the problem as we visualise it. I only wish I could agree that the matter is, as the noble Viscount said, "perfectly simple." I am afraid that to us it appeared neither perfect nor simple, but on the contrary imperfect and highly complicated. As I see the meaning of the Amendment, I visualise an area of land in which a projected street had to go down the middle. Perhaps three or four hundred yards from the nearest highway, in the middle of the area, an enterprising investor had bought a plot of land, and along the projected street had sold plots and built houses, with the resultant possibility of a demand for the making up of a road. In such a case (here is where I may give the noble
  1178
  Viscount some help) the local authority could act under Clause 1 (3) (e) of the Bill and exempt such houses from the Act, because clearly such a group of houses, without other houses on the line of the road would not—I quote the Bill:
  "… justify the use of powers under the appropriate street works code for securing the carrying out of street works in the street or part thereof…."
  In the case which I visualise, I cannot help thinking that these houses could be exempted from the operation of the Act.
  Another point occurred to me when I was thinking over the matter—namely, that often, when there is an unadopted street running at one end into a highway, there are corner plots reserved for an hotel or a public-house, or a shop or tea garden, or something of that sort; and it may be that we should never get such a road contiguous to a main road if that part were not made up. It would not affect the corner houses, because they have access to the main road, but they would not be anxious to join in paying for the making up of a road which would not be of benefit to them. Therefore, I should have thought that the local authority were covered against having to do unnecessary work. Here again. I think the Minister might have something to say about the waste of labour and materials involved in making up a long street merely because, three or four hundred yards away, a dozen houses have a hundred yards of road made up. I should have thought that Clause 6 (2) could be used. Of course, if the 100 yards or more which we have under consideration are only a very short distance from the highway, then there is presumably no reason why they should not have the road made up: it would not cost very much. But I think that would be precluded by the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount. For these reasons, I hope he may be able to see what is behind our difficulties, and will not press his Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: From the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I am not at all clear how far Clause 1 (3) (e) affects this matter. Clause 1 (3) (e) exempts people who have either given security or have paid up in advance. Clause 6 provides, in the proviso to subsection (1):
  "that this subsection shall not apply unless, in at least one case, a payment has been made or security has been given under section one of this Act…"

  1179
  We are dealing with a later stage of this procedure, and I did not follow Lord Marley's explanation on that point. This clause says that if a majority of frontagers, at least one of whom has paid up or given security, demand that the road shall be made up, the local authority shall proceed to make it up; and that that will apply even to part of a street, so long as that part is not less than 100 yards in length, in which case it may be treated by the owners as constituting a street for the purposes of the Act. So, if the owners living in 100 yards or more of a street ask for it to be dealt with under Clause 6 of the Bill, unless there is a loophole in subsection (2) the local authority are bound to make up the street. The only point about this Amendment is this. Where a section of one of these private streets has no houses on it for the first 100 yards or so, and then has a 100 yards' stretch which—perhaps because of the better view, or because the owner of the land had been enterprising and had it fully built up—is developed, are the local authority required to make up that 100 yards, although it may still leave a rough unmade part of the road between it and the nearest road repairable by the inhabitants at large? The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, says it would be unreasonable to ask the local authority to make up one part of a street which does not connect with another street repairable by the inhabitants at large, and the noble Lord, Lord Marley, says that is quite reasonable. That is the short and simple point of this Amendment.
  I find it very difficult to know which is the best way of dealing with this problem. It is not much good having a stretch of road made up in front of your house if you have to drive over the frightful potholes in an unmade road before you get your car to the door. I should have thought that subsection (3) (b) went a little far in allowing frontagers of even part of a street to compel the local authority to make it up, though they were not the majority of frontagers of the street as a whole and were not contiguous to a road repairable by the inhabitants at large. There is nothing of Party politics in this matter: it is all a question of common sense about what ought to be done. I should have thought the right way to deal with this problem was to make up a road from the point at
  1180
  which is was properly repairable. I think there is a great deal in the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has moved. In the light of that, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marley, will agree to look at it before the next stage of the Bill. I should think that the local authority organisations would be glad if he accepted the Amendment.
  LORD MARLEY: I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the admirable clarity with which he has expressed the dilemma. I should have thought that it would be solved in that commonsense way in which we solve all these problems, by saying, first, that the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would make it impossible to complete the road demanded by the frontagers if it were not contiguous to a main highway; in other words, if there were fifteen feet between the end of the 100 yards demanded by the frontagers and the main highway, the local authority could not do it.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Surely the noble Lord is wrong about that. The local authority could not be compelled to do it, but they could do it.
  LORD MARLEY: I meant that they could not be compelled to do it. But not being compelled to do it, they might refuse altogether the request of the frontagers that the 100 yards should be built up. That would be unfair on people who had paid their money, but could not "take their choice." That is how it strikes me. I do not know whether I fully understood the noble Lord. Does he think that Clause 1 (3) (e) could not be applied? As I understand it Clause 1 (3) (e) deals with the exclusion from the operation of the Bill, of certain groups of people. When I said just now that we had achieved a balance in another place in the rival interests, that balance was achieved largely by adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and so on, to Clause 1 (3). Paragraph (e) says that Clause 1 shall not apply:
  "… where the local authority, being satisfied that the street… is not likely within a reasonable time to become sufficiently built-up to justify the use of powers under the appropriate street works code for securing the carrying out of street works in the street or part thereof, by notice in writing exempt the building from this section."

  1181
  That means to say that if this financial magnate has purchased a field in the middle of the developing area, and sold off the plots cheaply because there is no access, making a good profit on the transaction, the local authority are free to say that the road is not likely to be made up, because it is a mile and a half long. And if, right in the middle of that length, a dozen cottages are going up, the owners of those cottages are exempted from the necessity of paying a frontage charge for the making up of a road which is never likely to take place. That is the reason why I thought the local authority were protected to the fullest possible extent against the case envisaged by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I understand that my interpretation is correct, and I hope that I have made myself clear.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Reading Clause 1 (3) (e), I thought that the kind of case to which this applied was a rather long country road with somebody building a couple of cottages—probably farm cottages, or something of that sort—somewhere towards the end of it, where there was no great likelihood that there would be any further building on the road; that it was not to be part of a built-up area, and, therefore, was not the kind of road that would be taken over under the Private Streets Works Act; and that you would not get the security from the person erecting the houses, because you would say: "We are never likely, in the foreseeable future, to make up this road, and there is no reason why you should put down any security for the buildings you are putting up." But when we come to Clause 6 we are getting to a later stage in development. It is clearly visualised in Clause 6 that part of a road, at any rate 100 yards in length, will be extensively built up, and that a majority of frontagers in that part can demand that their part of the road be built up, provided, of course, that one of them has given security. That road cannot have been exempt under Clause 1 (3) (e) because, if it had been, no security would have been demanded from anybody. Here under this clause there must be one of the frontagers who has paid up, or given security for the payment. I do not see that those two clauses will work in one with the other. Clause 6 of the Bill will apply to a different kind of street, and at a different stage of time, when it has been developed and is likely to be
  1182
  taken over by the local authority and made up under the Private Streets Works Act.
  LORD MARLEY: I see that I have not made my point very clearly. All I meant to say was that the one man would not have paid his frontage charges, because he would have been excluded by Clause 1. However that may be, I think this is a case in which it would be wise for us to look into the matter again. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, will withdraw the Amendment, and will discuss the matter with us between now and the next stage of the Bill; and if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, would also be willing to take part in those discussions, it would be most helpful.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord. May I say at once that I do not think we should fall out on the question which he raised of fifteen, twenty, or thirty yards separating the end built-up piece from the highway? Obviously I would gladly modify the Amendment in any way to meet that point. But, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I will gladly avail myself of the opportunity of a further discussion with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Extent of Act
  (3) Where this Act is in force in any rural district,—
  (b) the rural district council shall inform the county council of the passing of any plans deposited with them relating to the erection of a building in any case to which section one of this Act may be applicable;
  LORD MARLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 2, leave out ("to") and insert ("in")—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 9, leave out ("to") and insert (" in ")—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This is also a drafting Amendment, based on the fact that the responsibility for making up private streets rests with the county council who are the highway authority, but for bylaw purposes building plans have to be deposited with the rural district and not the county council. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 15, leave out from ("one") to ("shall") and insert ("the reference in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of that section and the references in subsection (1) of section four and the first two references in subsection (3) of that section ").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This Amendment merely changes the order of words in the paragraph. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 17, after ("district council") insert (" in any case to which section one of this Act may be applicable ").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (3) (b) after "shall" to insert, "within one week." The noble Lord said: I believe that somewhere in this section it is laid down that the county council shall act within a month, but they cannot act until the rural district council have given them the necessary information. In that case, I suggest that the rural district council shall inform them within a week. It is the county council who have to do most of the work, and the rural district council, as the Bill is drafted, have no time limit within which to advise the county council. I am well aware that even if we impose a limit of a week, not much may be done about a rural district council who do not do it within that time. But when the clerk of a rural district council reads an Act of Parliament and sees that he is to do something within a week, he knows that at least he has to do it fairly promptly. If there is no time limit, the rural district council may just put it off for quite a long time and put the county council in a dilemma. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 17, after ("shall") insert (" within one week ").—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD MARLEY: The promotors of the Bill are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the assistance he has
  1184
  given in this matter, and the Amendment can be accepted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This Amendment arises only because of the new drafting of Clause 4; otherwise it makes no difference. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("building ") to end of line 20 and insert (" of the making of any declaration that the deposit of any such plans is of no effect or of the giving of any notice by an owner of his intention not to proceed with any building or to proceed with the building in accordance with the plans as originally deposited; ").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.24 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "(5) The power of making orders under subsection (2) and subsection (4) of this seclion shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted applies only to boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales, but it can be extended to rural districts. At the moment it can be extended by a simple Order, which need neither be affirmed nor laid, on the Table of either House of Parliament, where, of course, it could be negatived within the appropriate time. To pass the Bill as drafted would mean passing an Act to apply to part of the country but which could be extended to other parts of the country without any information being given to either House of Parliament. Some people consider that the Order should need the affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. As your Lordships know, however, I am a very moderate chap, and so I have put down a much more moderate Amendment stating merely that the Order must be laid on the Table of the House. That will give an opportunity to a member of either House to raise the matter and say that the provisions of the Bill ought not to be extended to a particular area. By that means, if there happened to be a dispute between a rural district council and the county council of the area, there would be the forum of Parliament in which the dispute could be properly ventilated. I think it is just as well that in this moderate way Parliament should keep its

  1185
  fingers on the extension of this measure and should be able, if there were any local feeling about a new extension, to voice that feeling either in your Lordships' House or in another place. It is solely for those reasons that I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD MARLEY: Once again we are indebted to the noble Lord for the moderation of his approach and the acuteness of his analysis. I would remind him and the Committee that this measure applies also to the Isles of Scilly. If, therefore, there were any dissatisfaction in that remote area, this Amendment might save us from the selfdetermination of a former part of the United Kingdom.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Interpretation):
  LORD MARLEY: The Amendment printed on the Marshalled List should read "leave out from the first ('shall')," because there are two "shalls" in the line referred to. The local authorities have to deal with two codes concerned with the making up of streets. This pro-vision ensures that the public shall be clearly informed as to which code is applicable to the particular street. I do not think it requires any further explanation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 16, leave out from the first ("shall") to the end of line 18 and insert (" in the case of any private street in the borough or district, by resolution determine whether the said local Act or such one of the other codes as is so in force is to be the appropriate private street works code for the purposes of this Act in relation to that street, and shall publish any such resolution by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating within the borough or district and otherwise in such manner as the council thinks sufficient for giving notice thereof to all persons interested").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MARLEY: This Amendment again deals with the definition of "frontage." The frontage of a garden upon the street will count as the frontage of the house. The opportunity has been taken to make it clear that joint owners of a piece of land are to be treated as one owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 45 leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  (" (2) For the purposes of this Act the frontage of a building or proposed building on a street shall be deemed to be the frontage that the building itself and any land occupied or, as the case may be, proposed to be occupied with the building and for the purposes thereof has or will have on the street.
  (3) For the purposes of this Act joint owners shall be treated as one owner.")—(Lord Marley.)
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not think that this involves any alteration in the existing law. If the contribution of persons under the Private Street Works Act is being determined, the frontage of their garden is taken as the frontage actually occupied by the house. I do not think we are making any alteration in the law by the definition now being moved, but I should like to be assured on that point.
  LORD MARLEY: It is not easy to answer that question. I have a note here citing as an example "a garden which is occupied with and for the purposes of a house." That is really the point: "with and for the purposes of a house "—whatever that means. All I can say is that the frontage of such a garden on the street will count as the frontage of the house. If the noble Lord so desires, we will examine this matter and give him an answer to this abstruse problem at or before the next stage.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord read out the words with great emphasis, but I do not know what "occupying a garden for the purposes of a house" means. I do not know that the words are very apt, but if they are the words of the Private Street Works Act we had better stick to them. However, as the noble Lord says, we can look into the matter between now and the Report stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Short title and commencement]:
  LORD MARLEY: This is the last part of this stage of the Bill. The interest in the Bill has been such that I fear we have had to change "July" to "October." It is a good thing that people

  1187
  should be interested in this rather difficult little measure. I submit that it is a good measure and that it is desirable that we should maintain agreement and give ample time for various questions to be settled now, and not afterwards, when the Bill has become law. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 51, leave out ("July") and insert (" October ").—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  PET ANIMALS BILL
  5.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD AILWYN: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I am in the happy position, I think and hope, of asking your Lordships' consideration for a measure which is entirely nonpolitical and, therefore, nonParty— and, in so far as that is possible in this imperfect world, non-controversial. It deals with a subject which will, I am confident, whatever may be our preoccupations at this difficult period in world affairs, appeal to all of your Lordships, and, unless I am much mistaken, it will enlist your wholehearted sympathy and support. The Bill has come up from another place after passing through all its stages in a matter of four weeks. It aroused there universal interest and approval, and has reached your Lordships' House with, I am glad to say, the blessing of His Majesty's Government. As was pointed out by the honourable Member for Wembley South, in introducing the measure in another place on April 6, this is not the first attempt to be made since the war to persuade Parliament to pass a Bill regulating the sale of animals. A Bill was introduced two years ago by the honourable and gallant Member for Devon North; but after an unopposed Second Reading, and passing through the Committee stage with certain Amendments, no more time could be found for it. To-day we have a Bill about which the Government spokesman in another place said on the Third Reading:
  1188
  "I can say on behalf of His Majesty's Government how much we like this Bill."
  The object of the Bill, briefly, is so to regulate the sale of pets as to eliminate cruelty and prevent suffering to the animals concerned. The sale of animals at pet shops, at markets and in the streets, has been a continual source of concern to the R.S.P.C.A. for many years. A very large number of complaints are received from the general public as to the conditions under which animals are kept at some of these stalls and establishments. The existing law resides in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and its counterpart, the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912. These two Acts give power to the courts to punish anybody guilty of cruelty, but give no power to inspect pet shops, stores or markets in order to ensure that conditions are reasonable and humane.
  The operative section of the Protection of Animals Act reads as follows:
  " If any person (a) shall cruelly beat, kick, illtreat, override, overdrive, overload, torture, infuriate or terrify any animal …
  such person shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act."
  The experience of the R.S.P.C.A., who are responsible for the initiation and the original drafting of the present Bill, is that unless animals offered for sale at pet shops, or in the street, are in a really bad physical condition as a result of illtreatment or prolonged suffering, proceedings under this Act very rarely succeed. In other words, the law as it stands is inadequate to deal with any but the crudest or most glaring forms of cruelty. This Bill, therefore, provides for the licensing of all pet shops, including stalls in markets. It provides for the inspection of all such places as and when local authorities desire. It prohibits the sale of animals in the streets; it forbids the sale of pets to children under twelve years of age; and it authorises local authorities to prosecute for offences under the Act.
  Having given your Lordships briefly the history and objects of the Bill, may I now turn to the various clauses? Clause 1 is the licensing clause. The fact that under this Bill any person who desires to keep a pet shop will have first to obtain a licence from his local authority will go a long way towards ensuring that only reputable people, with suitable premises, are authorised to do so. The local authority will satisfy themselves as to the accommodation, lighting, ventilation,

  1189
  cleanliness, and so on, of the proposed pet shop premises. They will pay regard to the need for securing that animals are adequately supplied with food and water; that they will not be left untended for lengthy periods; that mammals are not to be sold before they are properly weaned; that reasonable precautions are taken to prevent the spread of infectious diseases amongst the animals; and that there are efficient means of dealing with fire or other emergency.
  It will be noticed that local authorities may grant a licence: they are not bound to do so, should they consider that the applicant or his premises, or both, are unsuitable. There will be a right of appeal against the refusal of a local authority to grant a licence. Your Lordships will realise that at the present moment anybody who so wishes can start a pet shop business. He may be utterly ignorant of animals and their care and maintenance. He may be a sadist or a halfwit; he may be a pervert or a clown. Even when prosecuted and convicted for cruelty to animals, he may continue with his business without infringing the law. There was a case as recently as January 11 this year. An R.S.P.C.A. inspector reported that the man concerned had had three convictions for cruelty to dogs. On his last conviction he was forbidden to keep a dog for a year. He left the court, went straight back to his shop, put up a notice "Under new management" and carried on the business under the name of his daughter. Your Lordships will agree that this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the only effective way of putting an end to such a situation is, I submit, to adopt this licensing procedure.
  Clause 2 prohibits the sale of animals as pets in the streets, or in the highways and byways. They may be sold only on premises, or at a stall or barrow in a market, provided always that the vendor is in possession of a licence from the local authority. Under present conditions, this arbitrary selling of puppies, kittens and so on in the streets is one of the worst features of the sale of pet animals today. In this connection, with a view to arming myself with visual evidence, last Sunday morning I went along with the Parliamentary organiser of the R.S.P.C.A. to a notorious locality called Club Row, in the East End of London. I wish that
  1190
  some of your Lordships who may not have visited this Sunday market could have accompanied me. There, among a milling crowd of jostling human beings, on every Sunday throughout the year, winter and summer, wet weather or dry, you find displayed for sale by a queer assortment of men, and occasionally women, dogs of every size and description, cats and other animals, and hundreds of birds in cages. It is the dogs that rivet the attention: there is everything from a fullgrown Alsatian to a four or five weeks' old puppy. One man will have a single dog on a string; another a litter of puppies in a soap-box; another a small puppy in each hand, and several more in his pockets; another a couple of greyhounds. Many of the puppies, and kittens too, are clearly unweaned with, one would imagine, considerably less than a 50 per cent. chance of survival.
  One has to observe that scene to appreciate the full iniquity of it all. It was a bright sunny spring morning the day I was there, yet many of the animals were languishing and panting from lack of air in the middle of the seething mass of humanity crowding round them. One shudders at the thought of the suffering that must go on in rain or snow, or in midsummer heat. One must not be emotional or over-sentimental about these things. I am trying to give your Lordships the view as I saw it. I saw pigeons being bundled into canvas bags, rabbits packed into suffocating boxes, young day-old chicks being handed out in paper bags to children; a boxful of tortoises crowded on top of each other, three and four deep. This is what goes on at Club Row. If the selling of pet animals in the streets were confined to this one market alone, the provisions of Clause 2 would, I submit, be thoroughly justified. But, in fact, this kind of thing, I am told, goes on in varying degree all over the country.
  Clause 3 forbids the sale of animals as pets to children under twelve years of age. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a reasonable provision. Children of tender years seldom know how to handle animals and, with all the good will and affection in the world, will inadvertently cause suffering to dumb creatures. Cases are occurring all the time of young children purchasing puppies, kittens, and day-old chicks, and taking them home

  1191
  where parents more often than not have no wish for them in the house, and take no interest in their welfare. There are countless reports from R.S.P.C.A. inspectors referring to the sale of day-old chicks, in particular to children—handed out to them in paper bags, for the most part. A small child often looks on such a thing as a toy, with the almost inevitable result that comparatively few of them survive. This clause will at least limit the sale of animals to children who are beginning to think and understand, and who have a certain responsibility.
  Clause 4 deals with the inspection of pet shops. It gives power to the local authority to authorise a veterinary surgeon or other officer to visit and inspect premises for which a licence has been granted for the keeping of a pet shop. In this way, the health and wellbeing of the animals will be safeguarded; unsuitable conditions will be revealed; ventilation, heating, protection from the sun, where necessary, adequate drinking facilities, and so on, will all receive attention. Many pet shops to-day leave nothing to be desired, and reputable and highly qualified pet shop proprietors will have nothing whatever to fear from this power of inspection or, indeed, from the Bill as a whole. There are other shops, on the contrary, which leave a very great deal to be desired, and one of the worst I visited was a horrible place away down in South-East London, where every sort of domestic animal was living in unsavoury and miserable conditions. There were lifeless puppies (and a puppy has to be very miserable to be lifeless), unweaned kittens, rabbits, guinea pigs, chicks, mice, tortoises. Many of the cages had open fronts, and the inmates were crawling out of them and entering the cages of their next-door neighbours —so that any animal with an infectious disease among this sorry population was able to pass on its complaint to (and indeed could not avoid infecting) all and sundry. People walked in and out, handling the animals, and children fondled the healthy and the diseased at will. It is in respect of places like this that the Bill before your Lordships will have such a beneficial effect, and I am told that there are already signs of many of the questionable pet shops being cleaned up against the time when
  1192
  licensing and inspection become the law of the land.
  Clause 5 lays down a maximum penalty of £25, or three months imprisonment, or both, on summary conviction of an offence under the Act. A fine of £25, only, is the maximum penalty for wilfully obstructing authorised entry and inspection. The court may cancel a man's licence, or disqualify him from keeping a pet shop for such period as they think fit, if he is convicted of an offence. Right of appeal is given under Clause 4. Clause 6 is self-explanatory. Clause 7 deals with interpretation. Subsection (1) defines what is meant by a pet shop, and its two paragraphs safeguard genuine breeders of pedigree animals. It was never the intention of the promoters of this measure that it should cover breeders of pedigree animals, and the definition of "pedigree animal" is given under subsection (3) of this clause. Clause 8 needs no explanation, I think, other than to say that since it is desired to give local authorities ample time to inspect and make inquiries about all pet shops in their area, April 1, 1952, appears to be a convenient date for this Act, as we hope it will become, to come into operation.
  I hope that I have said enough in this brief survey to convince your Lordships of the need for this Bill. May I add that I understand the Bill will be welcomed by the proprietors of reputable pet shops? They know that they have nothing to fear from its provisions. We in this country are generally credited with showing greater kindness and consideration to animals than the majority of other countries. That may well be so; I think probably it is so. But all things are relative in this world. And certainly while we have in our midst such black spots as Club Row, and the pet shop which I have already described to your Lordships—to quote only two examples which happen to have come under my personal observation —and while last year there were no fewer than 894 convictions for cruelty and 11,839 cautions by inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A., your Lordships will agree that there is no room for complacency on our part.
  It is at least good to know that in the midst of perplexing world affairs, and in times of great and increasing anxiety, the British Parliament still finds time to devote an hour or two to the considera-

  1193
  tion and care of our dumb animal friends. In this connection it would perhaps not be out of place, or ungraceful, to pay a tribute here to the honourable Member for Wembley South, who introduced this Bill in another place from one side of the House, and to the honourable Member for Rossendale who supported it from the opposite side of the House. It is of interest to note that, of the twenty-eight speeches in the debate on Second Reading, not a single speaker opposed the Bill. I think we may take this as a measure of the universal interest and approval which all Parties feel for the Bill, and as an indication of the overwhelming support of the people of this country for what may well become a Charter for Pet Animals. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships' consideration, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Ailwyn.)
  5.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think noble Lords on all sides of the House will welcome this Bill and pay tribute to the honourable Member who first introduced it in another place, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who is piloting it through your Lordships' House. I, for one, welcome it very much. My hobby being aviculture, I have seen more than my fair share of some of these pet shops, and I can assure your Lordships that the description of the scenes given by the noble Lord is in a large number of cases by no means exaggerated. Such cases are far too frequent. So many of these people who earn their living from the sale of birds and animals have no affection for or knowledge of them. Somehow or other they have slipped into that form of earning their livelihood. They really do not care or bother about them at all.
  There are two questions that I should like to raise and which the noble Lord may be able to answer. In regard to this Bill I am not quite clear how a man stands who does not earn his living primarily by selling pets—a man such as a gamekeeper, or the people employed in the mining areas who breed pigeons as a hobby and sell them to make a little extra money. I am not sure how they come in under this Bill, or even whether they come within its terms at all. With regard
  1194
  to my second point, I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether it would be possible to incorporate in the Bill a clause dealing with and tidying up the present regulations concerning the importation of animals. As your Lordships may know, largely owing to the war a number of restrictions on importation, particularly relating to birds, have been brought about and are in force. However, many dealers, most of them reputable, say that there are as many of the restricted birds coming into the country as ever before. The average Englishman likes pets, and in flats and smaller houses a bird is a more convenient and easier pet to keep than perhaps a cat or dog. The result is that there is a very ready market for birds, and particularly the hardier ones and those of pretty plumage. These birds are being smuggled in in great numbers and in the most disgusting condition. They go first to the worst type of pet shops that have been mentioned, and the places in the port towns. Those which survive are bought by the more reputable firms and so come into the hands of private individuals. Whether there is any means of dealing with this matter I do not know, but I think it is one which should be looked into, and if some provision covering it could be incorporated in this Bill, I think it would be most useful.
  I myself have wasted quite a large amount of money salvaging some of these creatures, and my amateur veterinary knowledge has been defeated. Apart from the cruelty inflicted on these birds and animals there is the real danger of disease being imported, particularly psittacosis. If proper arrangements are made in regard to the importation by private importers and the more reputable professional importers of birds and animals, so that they come into the country in a much better condition and in the open, cruelty would be largely abolished, prices would drop, and the very real danger of serious disease being introduced would be nearly if not completely nullified. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer, and I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.
  5.58 p.m.
  LORD O'HAGEN: My Lords, I rise for only a few moments to commend this Bill to the House. I do not think it needs much commendation. Anybody who has

  1195
  had access to the information in regard to the condition of some of these pet shops will realise that they are a disgrace to the country, and the proposal that steps shall be taken to cope with this matter is one which I believe will commend itself not only to members of this House, but also to the public. Many of the things that go on are not generally known, and often the perspective of those who possess the information is distorted by sentimental reasons. In the case of the problem that is being dealt with by this Bill, however, the facts are blatant and are very well known, in particular, of course, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I happen to be connected with that Society, and I think that probably everybody is aware of the extraordinarily valuable and useful work it does.
  This Bill comes to your Lordships' House as a result of the care and attention given to the matter by those who possess the greatest amount of knowledge of it. They have backed this Bill, and, as your Lordships have already been told, it received support from every Party in the State during its passage through the House of Commons. As my noble friend Lord Ailwyn said, it found favour with Members on all sides, and I am especially glad that it had the support of the Home Office. In fact, thanks largely to the cooperation of the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, great assistance has been given in redrafting and putting on a more effective footing provisions that were originally in the Bill. I should like to pay my tribute to him and to the two gentlemen who proposed and seconded the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons. I should also like to express gratitude to members of this House and to the Society which is in the background of this Bill, for all the help which has been given.
  I have here quantities of reports disclosing the state of affairs that exists in many pet shops, but I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them. Whether these establishments are situated in Cumberland, Bath, Bristol, or Southampton, or whether they are in that part of the Metropolis which my noble friend mentioned and in regard to which he described so vividly the conditions that obtain, there can, I think, be no question
  1196
  of the need for this Bill. I do not wish to harrow your Lordships feelings; and, indeed, these matters are so widely known, that I do not think it is in the least necessary for me to enter into any further details in order to induce you to vote that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
  There are one or two features of the Bill which strike me as being very important. The necessity for these pet shops to be licensed by the local authorities concerned and to be subject to inspection emerges clearly from what is known to anyone who has gone into this matter at all. One aspect of the Bill which I think particularly valuable is that it is made an offence to sell to children under twelve years of age. Allusion has already been made to that point and I do not wish to do more now than to emphasise the importance which I think should be attached to it. It is all very well for children under twelve, at the discretion of their parents, to have pets in their homes, the influence of the parents being such that the pets are properly looked after and adequately safeguarded. It is quite a different thing that a child who has a few shillings should go—as a child may now do—to any of these shops, or should approach a street dealer, and purchase mice or birds or some other small creatures, which are then taken home into conditions which make it impossible for them to be properly looked after. In many cases these creatures are taken into homes where they are not welcomed by the parents of the children. I think the part of the Bill which deals with that matter is of great importance.
  Like other noble Lords who know something of the selling of pets in the streets, I am very glad that that is now to be dealt with. We have often seen men with tiny puppies under the lapels of their coats trying to dispose of them for a few shillings. Frequently, these puppies are not weaned, and the conditions under which this trade takes place makes it almost certain that the animals will suffer very greatly when purchased by children. I am glad to see that street sale is to be made an offence under the Bill. I think that is a very good provision. I do not wish to delay your Lordships further in considering this measure. I hope very much that the Bill will receive a Second Reading because I feel it is important that having got so

  1197
  far with the consent of all political Parties —indeed, this is a nonpolitical matter altogether—it should now go on to the Statute Book in the shortest possible time. I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend's Motion.
  6.6 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure that the promoters of this Bill will be grateful for the welcome which it has received to-day, and for the speeches of the noble Lords to whom we have just listened. If there is one outstanding trait of the people of all classes, of this country, it is a love for, and an inherent kindness towards, animals. It is, therefore, I suggest, of great importance that trade in animals should be carried on under decent and humane conditions. This Bill, seeks to ensure that these decent and humane conditions, are enforced. It is clear from the speeches which have already been made that the Bill was considerably improved during the Committee stage in another place. A number of Amendments were made, and those Amendments were the subject of consultation between the promoters of the Bill, Parliamentary Counsel and the Home Office. In the debate on the Third Reading, the promoters of the Bill made it clear that they were in agreement with the Amendments made in Committee, and that they felt that the Bill had been greatly improved. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that the Government are in sympathy with the objects of the Bill which, as previous speakers have stated, was widely supported by all Parties in another place. During the Third Reading, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State expressed the view that the Bill, when it became an Act, would be "a real Charter of Pet Shops." I am therefore able, without reservation, to commend the Bill to the House. I sincerely trust that it will receive a Second Reading by the unanimous assent of your Lordships.
  6.9 p.m.
  LORD AILWYN: My Lords, if, by your Lordships' leave, I may be allowed to speak again, I should like to thank the House sincerely for the welcome which has been given to the Bill. I wish particularly to express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have spoken. With regard to the two questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, may I say this?
  1198
  I think the answer to his first point, which referred to an individual such as a gamekeeper, is to be found in Clause 7 (1). Unless that man is setting up a business of selling dogs, the fact that he sells one or two does not bring him within the category of keeper of a pet shop. As regards the importation of birds and animals, the noble Earl has my full sympathy and agreement, but I do not think it will be possible to include this matter within the present Bill, which deals essentially with pet shops in this country. I shall, however, be very happy at any time to discuss with him the possibility of dealing with the question he has in mind. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for giving us the assurance of Government support, and I thank the House as a whole for their reception of the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL
  6.11 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the Bill for which I am asking a Second Reading from your Lordships this afternoon is designed to remove some small but unsightly blemishes from our criminal law. I hope that I shall be able to explain the Bill's provisions fairly shortly. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which this Bill will amend, contains a number of provisions which are designed to prevent, so far as it is possible to do so by legislative means, the procuring of women for sexual purposes; but it contains a number of exceptions by means of which prostitutes or women of known immoral character are excepted from its protective provisions. The object of the Bill which is before your Lordships is to remove these reservations.
  For example, Section 2 (1) of the 1885 Act, which deals with young women and girls under twenty-one years of age, and is designed to protect them against procuration, makes it a criminal offence to procure such women for purposes of sexual intercourse with third parties, but this protection is expressly withdrawn from prostitutes or women of known immoral character. Again, Section 2 (4)

  1199
  makes it an offence to induce a woman to leave her usual place of abode to frequent or live in a brothel; but again there is the exception of a woman who is already living in a brothel. In other words, protection is withdrawn from prostitutes and women of known immoral character. This applies whatever age the woman may be. Finally, in Section 3 (2) protection is given to women, whether or not they are of full age, against procuration by means of false pretences or false representations. But here again, as in the earlier subsections, there is the exception of prostitutes or women of known immoral character. As I have said, the object of this Bill is simply to remove these reservations and to place prostitutes or women of known immoral character in respect of this protection by the law on exactly the same footing as their more virtuous sisters. It does so by excising from the subsections in question what one might call the peccant words—the words "not being a common prostitute or a woman of known immoral character" in two of them and the words "such place not being a brothel" in the other subsection.
  It would be tempting to speculate how these exceptions ever got into the Act of 1885. The debates which took place, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, throw no light upon the matter. It may be that it was only an attempt to disarm a possible opposition; or it may be that at that time there was a feeling in the community that a prostitute was a woman of such low character that she hardly deserved to be treated as a human being at all, or, at any rate, did not deserve to have the sort of protection to which other women were entitled. Whether that be so or not, I am sure that we shall all agree now, without in any way condoning an occupation which was aptly described in the United Nations Convention a year or two ago as being "incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person," that the time has long passed when a woman who is following this wretched occupation should have the protection of the ordinary law withdrawn from her.
  Moreover, quite apart from the justice of the matter, there are practical reasons of considerable cogency why this reform should be enacted. There is an obvious possibility of reformation in the case of
  1200
  some of these women, particularly of the younger women. Obviously, that possibility is considerably weakened by the existence of these exceptions in the law, because it means that when efforts are being made to withdraw a young woman, who perhaps has just started on a life of this kind, from a career of vice, there is this legal obstacle in the way. Even in the case of a hardened prostitute, surely she is entitled to some consideration in respect of the possibility of her being induced to go to another country where she may become an inmate of some horrible foreign brothel in which conditions of life are quite unspeakable and from which it is often impossible for a woman who has once become an inmate ever to get away. The existence of these blots on our criminal law is a real hindrance to our playing our full part in international action against the white slave trade. For example, we were unable to ratify the 1933 International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women, and these exceptions in the 1885 Act have long been a source of shame and frustration to those who have represented this country at international conferences on matters of this kind. This country has been a pioneer in trying to establish conventions for the purpose of preventing this sort of disgusting and disgraceful traffic, and it has always been a weak place in our armoury that these exceptions still remain on the Statute Book.
  This Bill is entirely a non-Party measure and I hope it will be supported by your Lordships, on whatever side of the House you may sit. Nevertheless, on these Benches it is a source of gratification that this measure, which I hope will remove these blemishes upon our criminal law, has been introduced and pushed up to the present stage by a member of our Party, the honourable member for Blackburn, East. If I may say so, it seems to me that this is an instance of the great value of having women members in Parliament, because these blemishes have remained on our criminal law for many years, and over all that time no effort has been made to excise them. It has fallen to a woman Member to take the initiative in this matter—and if I may say so, in parenthesis, I would express the hope that it will not be long before your Lordships' House also has the advantage of women taking their place in our deliberations. I do not think it

  1201
  is necessary for me to add anything further in advocacy of this measure, for its very clauses speak for themselves. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Charley.)
  6.21 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I wish to say in a few words that I support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I, too, hope that this House will shortly, by general consent, see that it is passed into law. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, is seldom the subject of Parliamentary discussion or public debate, but the problem with which it deals is one upon which every good citizen must from time to time reflect when considering the society of which he forms a part. I can well understand that it is necessary to examine the present provisions of the Act with caution before altering them, though I have no more knowledge than the noble Lord who has just spoken as to why these exceptions were inserted. It ought to be clearly understood, of course, that the offence of procuration, as it is called—the effort made by a man or woman (a pimp, really, or a pander) to secure a woman or a girl for the purposes of sexual intercourse— means the securing of that woman for sexual intercourse with a third person, a client.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that it may be that sensitive public opinion has gone through some change since the Act of 1885 was passed. But to judge whether this Amendment should or should not be made, it is just as well to take in imagination the kind of case which may arise. Our law has laid down quite clearly that women and girls should be protected from the coldblooded endeavours of such people as those with whom this law deals to provide the women to gratify the sexual appetites of their clients. But it is still the case that, if a procurer of a girl for another man is prosecuted, and if it is proved that he has procured her, or attempted to procure her, he is guilty of no offence if the woman is a prostitute or if she is a person of known immoral character. That remains true, even though, instead of being a woman of age, she is a mere girl. Once a mere girl is found to be of
  1202
  immoral character, no offence is committed now under our criminal law, whatever be the circumstances in which she is procured for another man's pleasure by these most disreputable tradesmen.
  There are in this connection two features of the law which it is just as well to bear in mind. One is that the offence of procuration is not committed if the woman or the girl is all the time perfectly willing to do what is wanted, because then, quite correctly, it is said that the person charged has not procured. The sentence from the textbook which lawyers use for this purpose says:
  "There must be some real procurement, and this may be negatived by evidence which shows that the girl was not really procured because she needed no procuring at all and acted of her own free will."
  That is quite right. But just consider what is the situation in the case of a girl who may be quite young, of whom it may be said that she is of known immoral character, but who is trying to return to a better mode of life, or whom people are trying to influence to save her from herself. It may be that she is in the situation in which she is not too willing. Yet, as the law stands at present, if she is a girl of known immoral character the procurer who persuades her cannot be convicted. It seems to me that a law so framed proceeds almost on the assumption that these unfortunate sisters of ours are beyond all hope of reform.
  The second consideration I would mention is this. The framing of the criminal law is a practical matter, and whatever be our natural sympathies and strong feelings, it is most necessary that it should be framed in a way which will really do justice; and in this class of case one can easily see that it has to be so framed as not to encourage blackmail. That is a most necessary and proper provision to bear in mind. But there is a provision in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which will remain an essential part of the law when this little measure is passed and which is designed to secure that. It is the provision that no one can ever be convicted under this legislation on the evidence of one witness, but that there must always be confirmation. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the words of the section:
  "Provided that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this section upon the

  1203
  evidence of one witness only, unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused."
  I do not claim to have any special knowledge of the administration of the criminal law. I have never, I am glad to say, had to deal with a case of this kind; but I feel sure that the care which is exercised in our courts before an accusation is regarded as proved—the experience of judges and magistrates, which stands us all in such good stead, and that fundamental rule of British justice, that nobody is to be regarded as guilty until the case has been properly proved against him— together with the provision which I have just read from the section, supply an adequate protection against the risk of blackmail.
  In those circumstances, I hope that we shall agree with another place in carrying this Bill into law. By common consent, the operation of the procurer, the pimp and the pander of either sex is the most contemptible of trades, and I am glad that it should have fallen to a woman Member of another place to have introduced this piece of amending legislation. I feel confident that your Lordships' House will be glad to assist in passing it into law.
  6.33 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I have had the privilege in bygone days of holding the office of Home Secretary and, therefore, have had to familiarise myself with this department of the law. I rise to express in a few words my agreement with what has been said as to the desirability of this amending Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who introduced it, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, have stated the case so fully and completely that it is unnecessary for me to add to what they have said. Certainly I do not dissent from any of their observations, and I need do no more than commend this Bill for the approval of your Lordships' House.
  6.34 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, only a few words are required from me, first of all to explain the Government's view about the range of the Bill—and that I shall do very shortly—and then to give the mind of the Government upon three points made by the sponsors of the Bill with which the Government are in
  1204
  agreement. The scope of this Bill is limited. It seeks simply to extend to common prostitutes and women of known immoral character the protection which Sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, give to other women against procuration in general while they are under twenty-one, and against procuration by false pretence at any age. The Act as it exists protects all other women in this way, and the Bill before your Lordships' House makes no difference in the position of other women. The Bill also seeks to extend to women whose place of abode is a brothel the protection which the law now confines to women who do not live in a brothel. Women whose place of abode is not a brothel are already protected, and the Bill makes no change in their position.
  The sponsors of the Bill claim that it will produce the following good results: first, that it will help to prevent the unfortunate young woman, newly embarked upon a life of prostitution, from being irredeemably drawn into it by procurers; secondly, that it will remove a discrepancy between the expression of the policy of the United Kingdom on this subject in the United Nations, as compared with its expression on the Statute Book. Moreover, it is contended that it is wrong in principle to withhold the protection of the law from any citizen because of his or her moral character, and the amendments introduced by the Bill remove this disability. On the first point, the Government have no evidence that prostitutes have been victimised by procurers from lack of this protection, but if there is no practical need for the amendments of the law proposed, the Government none the less see no objection to these Amendments being made.
  On the second point, the amendments which the Bill introduces into the law on this subject will, as its sponsors claim, bring our law into closer conformity with the views which we have expressed at the United Nations. But I should add that they will not necessarily enable us to ratify any conventions on this kind of subject which we have hitherto felt unable to ratify. On the third point, the Government welcome the opportunity which the Bill provides of removing a disability from unfortunate women while extending the sanctions of the law against the procurer who makes a profit out

  1205
  of their misfortune. With those few words, I beg, on behalf of the Government, to give their support to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  6.39 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my thanks to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, and particularly to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for his powerful advocacy of this measure. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the Government, for their welcome to this Bill. I hope that now we shall be able to remove this blotch from our criminal law.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  FIREWORKS BILL
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, as the hour is getting late, and I understand that it would be for the general convenience of your Lordships, I will postpone the moving of the Second Reading of this Bill until Thursday of next week.

  SAINT BENET GRACECHURCH BILL
  Reported, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.