Lords Sitting of 3 May 1951

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

  REVEREND J. G. MACMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL
  4.6 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  The Preamble:
  Whereas the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway was declared elected on the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, as a member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and on the twenty-fourth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty, as a member of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  And whereas on the seventeenth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty, the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, upon a reference made by Order in Council pursuant to an Address presented by the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, advised His Majesty that the said James Godfrey MacManaway, having been ordained as a priest according to the use of the Church of Ireland, was disabled by the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, from sitting and voting in that House:
  And whereas by virtue of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the said Act of 1801 applies in relation to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland as it applies in relation to the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same. as follows: —
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of two Amendments in the Preamble, the first being to add to the second recital:
  "and a resolution to that effect was agreed to by that House on the nineteenth day of October nineteen hundred and fifty:"
  The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I informed the House that there would be one or two Amendments to be proposed during the Committee stage, to carry out a promise made by the Attorney-General in another place as a result of representations from the Opposition Benches about the recitals that appear in this Preamble. The Opposition case seemed to be that as the matter of law had been remitted to the Privy Council, and as the Privy Council had tendered advice, there would be danger of it being assumed that membership of the House of Commons could no longer be determined by the House of Commons itself, but must be determined by court of law. We have examined the position put before us, and we have found ourselves able to produce words which we think will meet the point raised.
  In the first Amendment we propose to add to the second recital the words set out in the Marshalled List. If this Amendment is added to the Bill, it becomes clear that all that was received from the Privy Council was advice, and that, having received that advice, the House of Commons itself reached the decision to declare the seat vacant. It may be desirable, for the purpose of record in your Lordships' House, if I read the Resolution passed in another place, so that if we have recourse to the Report at a later stage the Resolution will be in front of us. The Resolution was as follows:
  "That this House having taken into consideration the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway, elected a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the constituency of Belfast, West, declares that he was at the time of his election and is disabled from sitting and voting in the House of Commons by reason of the fact that, having been ordained a Priest according to the use of the Church of Ireland, he has received episcopal ordination."
  The second Amendment, which is to add words to the third recital, covers the case of the House of Commons for the Northern Ireland Parliament. In the present case it is unnecessary for the House of Commons of the Northern Ireland Parliament to make a declaration, because Mr. MacManaway gave notice of his retirement from the Seat. The fact is noted here to make it plain that in both cases Parliament has been called upon to deal with the matter after advice has been

  697
  given. With those few words, I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord said on Second Reading that he was going to move some Amendment of this sort, and we on this side of the Committee certainly have no objection to what he has now moved. In regard to the second Amendment, I wondered why it was necessary to insert words to say that Mr. MacManaway had resigned from the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and not to put in a similar recital as to what happened to him in the House of Commons here. The noble Lord has said that this is put in only to show that the Northern Ireland Parliament dealt with it in a different way from the House of Commons here, and I think that is probably a satisfactory explanation.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move that the second Amendment be approved.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("and the said James Godfrey MacManaway gave notice of resignation from the House of Commons of Northern Ireland as from the twenty-second day of January nineteen hundred and fifty-one:").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), the Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FIRE SERVICES BILL
  4.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a very small Bill and it will require only a short speech to make its contents known to your Lordships so that a Second Reading may be given. The Fire Services Act
  698
  of 1947 transferred the National Fire Service from the Government back to the local authorities. Since the change has taken place, it can be said that the high standards of national efficiency achieved have been worthily upheld by the local authorities, their officers and the members of their fire brigades. The general administrative provisions of the Act, too, have worked extremely well, but, unfortunately, an amending Bill is now required because of the drafting of two sections in particular —namely, Sections 26 and 27. The more important Amendments that will be worked into the Act of 1947 relate to Section 27, and they refer to the scheme of superannuation provided by that measure for firemen who are engaged in fighting fires.
  Because of the circumstances in which firemen are employed, and because of the need for early retirement on their part, the superannuation scheme provided in the Act for these men has been advantageous to them—so advantageous that it ought not to apply to those members of fire brigades who are not themselves engaged in fire fighting. It has been assumed that those members of the fire brigades who are not active firemen will be provided for in the normal superannuation services afforded by local authorities. And, indeed, that thought has been generally followed, so that at this time an overwhelming number of men and women employed in such services have been enrolled in the local authorities superannuation schemes. Barely 900 men and women, however, have been left outside, because, unfortunately, in the section of which I am now speaking there is provision that persons engaged in that service should not be members of any superannuation scheme other than that provided for the firemen, although in fact they were ineligible for that scheme and were not taken into it. The proposed Amendments to Section 27 can be briefly stated as follows. Its object is, first, to legalise action taken by local authorities in enrolling members of the fire brigades into their superannuation schemes; secondly, to give those administering the firemen's pensions scheme the right to bring in exclusive provisions in order to prevent people other than those actually engaged in fighting fires, from coming into that scheme, and thirdly, to provide that members of fire brigades not engaged as fire-

  699
  fighters shall enter the normal local authority superannuation scheme.
  Obviously, a certain amount of money will have to be found by the local authorities, and by Parliament, to meet obligations in connection with the extended membership. To some extent this will mean only a change in the form of payment. We do not anticipate that the cost will be very great. Obviously, also, it confronts those members of the fire services who have not gone into any scheme with the need of joining a local authority scheme and of paying contributions together with any arrears of contributions. Where a member of the Fire Service in this position chooses to join the local government scheme provided for him as from the beginning, arrangements will be made by which the contributions may be made on an instalment plan—that is to say, the entire arrears will not be claimed all at once. Where, however, a member of a fire brigade in this position does not want to pay for the arrears, he will be entitled to commence paying from the moment the Bill becomes law, but he will not be entitled to count his past service when it comes to reckoning his pension.
  Clause 1 of the Bill deals with Section 26 of the Act. I need not explain this clause at length because its purpose is only to cover errors or faults in drafting. Here is a typical example. Under the 1947 Act the Minister has authority to produce orders from time to time to meet circumstances as they arise, but he does not appear to have power to bring in a consolidation order. The consequence is that unless we amend the Act in this way, we shall go on having orders piling on top of each other and adding to the confusion. The rest of the amendments contained in Clause 1 deal with mere points of drafting, such as reference to paragraph (b) when reference to paragraph (a) is meant, so I need not dwell upon them. I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I now beg to move that it be read a Second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Shepherd.)
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, there is no doubt that we shall all wish to give this Bill a Second Reading. Frankly, the men who find themselves outside the Fire Service scheme and the local gov-
  700
  ernment pensions scheme are in that position owing to the faulty drafting of a previous Act of Parliament. If that is the case, then everybody in Parliament will wish to put that matter right at the earliest possible opportunity. We have no question here about the financing of the scheme, but from the Financial Memorandum which accompanied this measure when it was before another place I understand that the scheme will cost about £5,000 a year to the Exchequer and £15,000 on the local rates. All I am concerned about is what is going to happen to those members of the Fire Service who were not covered by the 1947 scheme because they were in ancillary grades—telephonists or men who did not risk their lives in a fire, and who apparently were not included in any local government officers' pensions scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given a full and a better explanation than I could grasp from reading the discussion in another place.
  As I understand him, the men who have been left out can now legally come into the local government officers' scheme. They have the option either of coming in from the start of their service and paying their back contributions (and where a man cannot pay all at once an arrangement will be made for him to pay by instalments), or of coming into the scheme from the date when the Bill becomes an Act, without paying the back contributions, but counting their pension rights from the date at which they begin to pay. I think that is a perfectly fair alternative to give to the men who were unintentionally left out. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, desires the Bill to go through all its stages as quickly as possible, if we can have an assurance from him that the Bill is properly drawn up—because we shall not have a Committee stage and the Bill will not be given the meticulous examination which, in view of the faults discovered in the 1947 Act, I expect we should give to it—we shall be prepared to let him have all the stages of the Bill to-day.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance such as I would be able to do if I were a member of the legal profession, but I am advised that the Bill is properly drawn. I am completely confident that these men will be quite safe in future.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for interrupting the Business of the House for a moment to make an announcement about the dates of the Whitsun Recess. We shall adjourn our sitting for Public Business at your Lordships' rising on Thursday next, May 10, and shall reassemble on Tuesday, May 29.

  LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4.28 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Continuation of certain leases
  (2) This section applies to any lease for not less than thirty-one years of property in Scotland if, immediately before the ish, the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property or a part thereof in pursuance of the lease.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), after the first "or" to insert:
  "(in the case of a tenant dying after the commencement of this Act)."
  The noble Earl said: When I raised on Second Reading the question of the meaning of "a member of his family" in regard to a tenant, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that this matter was established by case law. I should like to ask him what case law he particularly refers to, because there are in several Statutes definitions of a family which have slightly different interpretations. I raise this question for one reason only: so that we may be perfectly clear about what the family is. I am not very concerned about who is in the family and who is not, but we should be clear about
  702
  what is meant. If you are going to find out the interpretation by case law, you must seek legal aid; and, not only that, when you have obtained legal aid you have no assurance that the bench will take the same view as the legal adviser takes. I have put in the suggestion that the family should be ascertained only when the tenant dies, because that, as near as may be, is the situation envisaged in the Rent Restrictions Acts. As at present drafted, this Bill contains an entirely different meaning from that of the Rent Restrictions Acts which the noble Lord mentioned on Second Reading, because it envisages a family alive and living apart from the tenant himself. That situation is quite different from anything that exists in other law.
  I should like to say this. It is now May 3, and the Government desire this Bill to be in operation by May 15. I feel that we should have a perfectly clear picture of who is to be covered by the terms of the Act, and who is not. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. If the tenant dies and leaves his widow in charge of the house at the time of the ish (or termination of the lease) and the property passes by testamentary or other deed to the son who is living apart, is the mother of that son part of his family? As the Bill is drafted, I imagine that she probably would not be. I ask, particularly, that we should not pass a Bill when there is still grave doubt as to who is to be affected by it, and who is not. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 12, after ("or") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): Before I endeavour to answer the noble Earl's questions, it may be as well if I begin by explaining what would be the effect if his Amendment were accepted. The effect would be that the application of Clause 1 would be restricted to the following cases: (a) where the tenant is living in the property immediately before the date of expiry of the lease; and (b) where the tenant dies after the commencement of the Act, and a member of his family is living in the property when the lease expires. These two classes would be covered if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted. On

  703
  the other hand, the restrictions imposed by the noble Earl's Amendment would be that, where a tenant has died before the commencement of the Act, and his widow or unmarried daughter is living in the property at the date of expiry of the lease, she would not get the benefit of the Bill. Similarly, where the tenant is living elsewhere—he may be in hospital —but has permitted his daughter to occupy the property, she would not get the benefit of the Bill if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted. I should be very much surprised if the noble Earl really intended to restrict the application of Clause 1 in this manner; but, having studied his Amendment and taken advice upon it, I am satisfied that that would be the case. I should like to remind the noble Earl that the whole object of the Bill is to ensure that where a property is used as a family home, by reason of its occupation either by the tenant or by some member or members of his family, the occupants should be protected by the Bill. I believe that the noble Earl desires the protection of the family as much as I do, and I hope that the explanation I have given may satisfy him that it would not be wise to pass his Amendment.
  The noble Earl asked me a question about case law, and recalled a statement that I made on Second Reading. Had the noble Earl told me that he wanted specific cases, I would have armed myself with them. However, I have not done so, and I can only repeat that I am advised that there is on this point a considerable body of case law under the Rent Restrictions Acts which would be equally applicable to the interpretation of this clause. It has been held under these Acts that a member of the family may include, for example, a husband, brother, sister, a niece by blood or by marriage, an adopted child or an illegitimate child: it all depends upon the circumstances as to whether the people I have mentioned have been one of the household for a considerable period, and each case is decided in the courts upon its merits. The tenant or member of his family must be occupying the property, or a part of it, in pursuance of the lease. This Bill, therefore, will apply where the tenant has allowed a member of the family to stay in the property, but will not cover a case
  704
  where the member of the family is occupying under a formal sub-tenancy granted by the tenant. I do not think I can usefully add more to that explanation, and in the circumstances I hope the noble Earl will see fit not to press the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I should like to ask one or two further questions. I did not ask for cases. What I asked was why the noble Lord assumes that the definition of "family" here should be the same as in the Rent Restrictions Acts. There is no reference whatsoever in this Bill to the Rent Restrictions Acts. Why should not the noble Lord take the definition of "family" from the Crofters' Act? There it is a different definition. People are entitled to know whether this Bill applies to them or not. As to the point that a man may be in hospital, I would suggest that the correct word to use in the Bill would be "residing" in the property. The Bill as drafted says "living" in the property. If a man is in hospital he is still nominally residing at whatever is his proper address. He might even be in Korea, but he still nominally would be residing in his tenancy, wherever it happened to be.
  But these are the words which the Government have selected. Is the noble Lord quite sure of the case of the widow with a son who is living apart, or, if I may use the wording used in Roman law, who is foris familiated—that is to say, he has left his family and is living apart, and possibly has been away for many years? The heritable property of the tenancy would pass to the son. and the son would be the tenant at the date in question. In those circumstances, will the noble Lord say that the widow, the son's mother, is part of his family? I have grave doubts as to whether, under the Bill as drafted at present, she would be. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should be clear on this and the other matters I have mentioned.
  LORD MORRISON: In answer to the first question of the noble Earl, I should think that there is more connection between this Bill and the Rent Restrictions Acts than with the Crofters' Act. The Rent Restrictions Acts certainly deal with people living in ordinary tenement houses and small homes, and if those

  705
  Acts bear a closer relation than the Crofters' Act, that is the only answer I can give. With regard to the other questions, the noble Earl and I could argue for a long time across the table and get no further. I would remind him that this is merely a temporary standstill Bill, while the Guthrie Committee, which has already started work, endeavours to find a solution to many of the questions he is putting and to find a permanent solution to this leasehold trouble. Frankly, as the Bill will expire in two years from now and cannot be renewed, I think that any answers I could give would only provoke further questions from the noble Earl and would get us nowhere. Speaking personally, I think the widow would be a member of the son's family, but I am not pretending to dogmatise.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: May we take it that the Guthrie Committee, which is starting work now, will have a clear field and will not be trammelled in its work by any precedence which this Bill may establish? The noble Lord has said that this temporary Bill will carry on for a period certain provisions, but that a Committee is meeting to work on the whole subject. Our anxiety is that the continuation of certain provisions by this Bill should not be regarded as a precedent, but that the whole situation should be openly reviewed by the Guthrie Committee.
  LORD MORRISON: I think that the Guthrie Committee have an entirely free hand to review the whole position.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has acknowledged that the drafting is pretty unsatisfactory, and I do no more than to draw your Lordships' attention to that fact. We may pass as a temporary measure something which is unsatisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.43 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (2):
  "but shall not apply to any lease which has been assigned at any time between the twenty-first day of November nineteen hundred and fifty and the commencement of this Act."
  The noble Earl said: I drew attention to this matter in the course of my Second
  706
  Reading speech. This Bill was introduced into Parliament on November 21 and will not become effective until May 15. During that time it is open to anyone, if they want to take advantage of the Bill, to receive an assignation of a tenancy property. It appears to me that it is quite improper that, during the period when a Bill is under discussion, it should be open to anyone to put themselves into a position to take advantage of that Bill. As a matter of principle, I think it is entirely wrong. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will say that it is very unlikely to happen, and will happen in only very few cases. I accept that it will happen very rarely indeed, if at all, but I still say that it is quite wrong that we should accept and pass a Bill through which a carriage and pair could be driven quite openly, and by which it is quite possible that some "smart Aleck" may obtain a material advantage from the existing tenant.
  We have taken the point of view—and I accept it—that anybody who has had a property in his family for perhaps nearly a hundred years and who has looked after it and maintained it well, suffers hard-ship if it is said that he should hand that property over to the proprietor at the end of the period. I accept that entirely, and I have no doubt that any proprietor who took his full legal rights would, in the opinion of the majority of people, be exercising rather sharp practice. But this is an entirely different position. Here is somebody who has had the property assigned to him since November 21, and who knew about this Bill and had seen it. I want to emphasise that. I am not refer-ring to testamentary settlements in an intestacy or otherwise. He is somebody who has had property assigned, with perhaps six months or less to run. I suggest, with respect, that he should not be in a position to take advantage of this Bill. He is in an entirely different category from those who have been in a tenancy for a very long time to whom a great deal of consideration can very properly be given. I am moving accordingly that no assignation which has taken effect since November 21 shall give the benefits which are laid down in this Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: I have taken a good deal of trouble over this Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I make a fairly full reply upon the point which he raises. As the noble Earl knows, his Amendment would exclude from the benefits of the Bill any lease which had been assigned between November 21, 1950, and the commencement of the Act. May I say first, with all respect, that this Amendment does not seem to me to be really appropriate to conditions in Scotland, where, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no evidence whatever of any traffic in what might be called "fag-ends" of leases. In view of the difficulty of obtaining a reasonable price for a lease which is due to expire shortly and which, under the Bill, can be continued for a maximum period of only two years, it seems to me that no tenant in Scotland is likely to dispose of his lease until the recommendations of the Guthrie Committee or the terms of the permanent legislation are known. In any event, this Amendment would mean that where the tenant of a lease had, after November 21, 1950, assigned the lease to his son or daughter, or where the tenant had died after that date and the lease had passed to his trustees and had then been assigned by them to his widow, no protection would be afforded by the Bill. I cannot see any possible justification for excluding protection in such cases, and I should be surprised if the noble Earl suggested that it should be excluded.
  There is a further point. The noble Earl's Amendment does not make it clear whether a partial assignation would exclude the application of Clause 1. If a partial assignation were struck at, I am advised that it might lead to difficulties especially in regard to tenements in Scotland, since the assignation of the lease in respect of one house in a tenement might lead to the loss of the protection of the Act for the whole tenement. I must also draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that there is no restriction on the landlord as regards the date when he acquired the reversion of the lease, and, therefore, this curious position might arise. If I accepted the Amendment we might get a position which would not be tolerated under the Rent Restrictions Acts. For example, a landlord who acquired the reversion in February, 1951, or even later, would be able, by the noble
  708
  Lord's Amendment, to evict a tenant who had acquired and occupied property since December, 1950. It occurs to me that what the noble Earl is aiming at by his Amendment may be to set up a sort of qualifying period for obtaining the benefits of the Bill. If so, it seems to me a very laudable desire, but, if I may respectfully say so, entirely out of place in relation to a temporary Bill designed to preserve the status quo until long-term legislation can be worked out. The desirability of some qualifying period may possibly form the subject of inquiry by the Guthrie Committee, and if that Committee make any recommendation on the point it will no doubt be considered in connection with the permanent legislation. When that day comes in two years' time, it is possible that the noble Earl may be on this side of the House and I may be on the other side, in which case it will fall to him to deal with the recommendations of the Guthrie Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It would, perhaps, be exaggerating to say that I found it over-clear. I think he said that the position in question was not likely; but, having said that, he envisaged a situation in which fathers would assign their leases to sons—which is even less likely. I must say that I think the Bill is sloppily drafted. This is apparent, for instance, in the matter of reversion. The noble Lord spoke of a landlord who would be likely to get the advantage through having acquired the reversion in February, 1951, but there is surely no reason why a landlord should not get the reversion now. I think that in this matter the Bill leaves a great loophole which ought to be filled. The effective date should have been prior to the original introduction of the Bill in the other place; then the Bill could have been made operative for two or three years. That would have made the Bill a more effective one. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Restrictions on enforcement of irritancy, etc.
  3.—(1) While, in pursuance of a lease of property in Scotland for not less than thirty-one years and terminating at an ish falling within

  709
  the period specified in subsection (1) of section one of this Act, the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property or part thereof it' shall not be lawful for the landlord during the aforesaid period—

  (b) to exercise any power conferred by the lease to resume possession of the land or any part thereof; or

  (c) to bring any action of damages against the tenant for failure to comply with any term or condition of the lease

  and any proceedings to enforce such irritancy or to recover possession in pursuance of such power or to recover such damages brought at any time between the twenty-first day of November nineteen hundred and fifty and the commencement of this Act and not finally disposed of before the commencement of this Act shall be sisted until the expiry of the period specified in subsection (1) of section one of this Act or until there is no longer living in the property or any part thereof the tenant or a member of his family, whichever first occurs, without prejudice, however, to the making of any order as to expenses.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1) to omit "or" in paragraph (b) and the whole of paragraph (c). The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment—for one reason only in view of the noble Lord's Statement.
  LORD MORRISON: I was going to ask the noble Earl whether he would agree, since this Amendment and the next two in his name on the Marshalled List are so closely associated, to handle them together.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree, but I propose to do little more than move them formally. There are only two points that I wish to mention. The first is that the amenities of the neighbourhood must be preserved—but that, I think, is already covered by other legislation. The second is that I want to provide for some pressure or sanction to be imposed to prevent the continuance of a bad lease. I read that it was said in the other place that in very bad cases it appeared possible for action to be taken on interdict against a tenant. I am merely asking the noble Lord now whether he is in a position to say whether or not he thinks that is possible. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("thereof") to end of line 19.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: I will endeavour to explain the position to the noble Earl. If his Amendment and the next one in
  710
  his name on the Paper were accepted, the result might be that a landlord by raising an action of damages and obtaining a decree, would deprive the tenant of his means and prevent him from paying the rent and fulfilling other conditions of the lease, thus enabling the landlord to obtain possession of the property. I am advised that the Amendment might thus enable a landlord to force a tenant out of the property by a "back- door" method, and so frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. It is true that the third Amendment provides for the suspension of any action of damages by the landlord but as drafted it provides only for the suspension of proceedings where a lease has actually been continued under Clause 1. A landlord would not therefore be prevented from pursuing an action for damages in the interval between the passing of the Bill and the date of expiry stipulated in the lease. He might, therefore, be able to obtain a decree in any such action of damages before the date of expiry of the lease was reached. This, perhaps, is not the intention of the Amendment. Nevertheless I am advised that this is its effect. It has to be kept in mind that Clause 3 prevents a landlord from raising an action of damages only during the limited period of two years. In these circumstances I see little point in the third Amendment, which enables an action to be brought during the two years but provides for its suspension until the end of that period. I appreciate that the noble Earl's intention is to deter a bad tenant from allowing his property to fall into disrepair, or from contravening any other condition of the lease. I should like to point out, however, that although this Bill prevents a landlord from raising any action of damages against a tenant for any failure to comply with the terms or conditions of the lease, the landlord would have other remedies if the tenant were committing a nuisance or were annoying adjoining tenants or were using the property for purposes prohibited by the lease. The landlord, in such circum-stances, could raise an action of interdict. Moreover, if the tenant failed to implement specific obligations of the lease— for example, to keep the property wind and water-tight—the landlord could raise an action requiring the tenant to implement these conditions. It has also to be remembered that Clause 3 does not destroy the landlord's right to bring an action of damages. His right is merely

  711
  suspended, and at the end of the period of two years, and subject to the provisions of future legislation, his rights will revive.
  Apart from these arguments I must add that I cannot find any suggestion that tenants will use Clause 3 as a means of evading their obligations under their leases. The great majority of tenants actually occupy their properties and it will obviously be in their own interests to maintain their properties in good repair, since to do otherwise would merely increase their liability for repairs at the end of the two-years' period, and per-haps prejudice their chances under the long-term legislation. Further, the possibility cannot be overlooked that an unscrupulous landlord might raise an action or threaten to do so in order to bring pressure to bear on a tenant to surrender his lease. If a tenant has been a good tenant in the past, and the land-lord has had no grounds for taking action against him before the introduction of the Bill, I should think it highly unlikely that the tenant will become a bad tenant during the two years. If, on the other hand, a tenant has been a bad tenant in the past and the landlord has not made use of the remedies then available to him, the landlord ought not to complain that the present Bill will prevent him from using some of these remedies during the short interim period.
  Finally, may I thank the noble Earl for putting down these Amendments and initiating these discussions. I have endeavoured to meet his arguments, but I fear that I have not altogether succeeded, although I have done my best. To have accepted his Amendments would, I am advised, have weakened the Bill to some considerable extent, and probably endangered its further passage into law. I am sure the noble Earl does not desire that. Therefore, bearing in mind that this is only a temporary measure, with a life definitely limited to two years, and remembering also that the Guthrie Committee which will recommend permanent legislation, have already been appointed and are at work, I hope the noble Earl may now see his way to accept the position and permit the Bill to reach the Statute Book without further delay.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his statement: I think he has answered the point I raised. I agree
  712
  that in the vast majority of cases the question of repairs is of purely academic interest, but in my view we are quite wrong in giving the tenant protection by Statute against carrying out repairs. We have recently seen letters in the newspapers on the point. This may turn out to be a more long-lived Bill than we anticipate, and I wanted to make it clear that I consider it highly unsatisfactory as at present drafted. Certainly, by reason of its limited sphere, it seems to me totally unsatisfactory as a permanent Bill. If the noble Lord will agree with me there, I am prepared, by leave of the House, to withdraw this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  RAG FLOCK AND OTHER FILLING MATERIALS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
  5.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, is pleased to give his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may proceed therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 7:
  Felling directions
  7—(1) If it appears to the Commissioners that it is expedient in the interests of good forestry or for purposes connected with their duty under section one of this Act that any growing trees should be felled—
  they may give directions to the owner of the trees requiring him to fell them within such period being not less than two years after the directions have become operative as may be specified in the directions:
  Provided that, in considering whether to give any directions under this subsection, the Com-missioners shall have regard to the interests of agriculture and the amenity or convenience of any farm or dwelling-house or park occupied therewith or of any land held inalienably by the National Trust, and shall take into account any advice tendered by the Regional Advisory Committee for the conservancy in which the trees are growing
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) after "park" to insert "usually." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to meet a point that was raised on the Report stage by the noble Lords, Lord Kinnaird and Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, and also, I think, by other noble Lords, during the discussion on Clause 7. This Amendment makes it absolutely clear that, even if a park has been let by its owner to a farmer for the grazing of his livestock or for other agricultural purposes, the amenity value of timber standing on the part of the park that is let will have to be considered by the Forestry Com-missioners before they are able to issue felling directions. That is an object that I think we share on both sides of the House. Therefore, I shall be grateful for
  714
  the approval of your Lordships to this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 28, after ("park") insert ("usually").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends who took this matter up on the Report stage of the Bill, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his suggestion, which is obviously designed to meet the point raised. In view of the extreme definiteness of the noble Earl's assurance that this Amendment does meet the point, I hesitate to question the matter. I do not profess to be a lawyer but, quite frankly, I have taken some legal advice on this matter and I cannot see how the Amendment meets the point and makes the position, as the noble Earl says, "absolutely clear." No one could contend that land occupied by a farmer who has rented that land from the land owner is, in fact, occupied in connection with the dwelling-house. How the word "usually" alters the situation, I really cannot see. It may be let for a considerable period to a farmer, but you cannot then contend that it is "usually occupied therewith" in connection with the dwelling-house.
  It seems a very small point but, in fact, it is not. It is most important at this moment, particularly when we are desirous of seeing every acre of land in this country used for its proper purpose of food production, that the land owner should feel perfectly free to let his land to a farmer who may well know how to make better use of it than the land owner himself, without depriving him of the protection of this clause. I should like the noble Earl to give us an undertaking that if, in fact, I prove right, and this proposed word of his does not meet the case, then his right honourable friend in another place will deal with the matter. In this House we do not like manuscript Amendments on Third Reading, and therefore I will not propose an alteration now. I should, however, appreciate an assurance on the lines I have indicated.
  5.9 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I say one word on this matter? I do not profess to have followed this Bill in detail but, in spite of the explanation given by the noble Earl opposite, I have a little difficulty in understanding how his

  715
  Amendment does meet the point. I assume, of course, that he and the Government in another place mean the point to be met, and sooner or later we shall find the right words. May I ask the noble Lord to tell me what exactly is the application of "therewith"? The clause speaks of
  "any farm or dwelling-house or park occupied therewith."
  Does that mean the park occupied with the farm, or does it mean only the park occupied with the dwelling-house? It is not very easy to be sure from the words used. If what is meant is the park occupied with the dwelling-house—the mansion house—I suggest that those who assist the noble Earl might consider whether it would not be better to say "the park occupied with the dwelling-house," because otherwise the matter is not very clear.
  Of course, in respect of an estate with a mansion house, a park and farms which may or may not be let off, it is obvious that the occupier of a farm that has been let is not the person who is the occupier of the mansion house; the landlord and the tenant are different occupiers. I assume that the case to be considered is where, although the park surrounds the mansion house, as it happens the park (or part of it, I suppose), has been let off to somebody else. I must say that I feel some difficulty as the language stands. I should not have thought that to say "the park usually occupied therewith" was a very appropriate phrase. Ought it not to be "the park that is associated therewith." It is not a question of the nature of the tenure which the law recognises, because of course the tenure of a tenant is the tenure of an occupier, and the tenure of a landlord is not the tenure of a different occupier—he is both owner and occupier. I cannot think that this word "occupied" is a very happy word, and without wishing to say any more now, I should have thought, in the interests of doing what is meant to be done, that it was worth considering whether some such phrase as "associated with the dwelling-house" would not be a better way to describe it.
  5.12 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I add just one point? I think everybody wants the Forestry Commissioners to take
  716
  into account those trees that have obviously been planted for amenity purposes round a farmhouse or a dwelling-house. I think we are all agreed that that is what we want done. I agree fully with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon in saying that "occupied" is the wrong word. If we leave this word in, and if the landlord now has his park in hand and it is in the interests of agriculture that he should let it to somebody else (perhaps because he has reached such an age that he cannot manage it himself), he will be losing the advantage of these words. If he lets it off to a better agricultural advantage he will have ceased to be the occupier of it. That is a point which I should like the noble Earl to study. I think everybody wants to do the same thing, but I think the word "occupied" is wrong; and that it should be "associated." The avenue leading up to a dwelling-house, although it may be farmed by somebody else, is, of course, part of the amenity of that house. That is the kind of thing that we want taken into consideration, whether it is farmed by the landlord himself or is let out to somebody else. If the noble Earl will give us an assurance that that is what is intended, I have no doubt that the appropriate word can be found in another place.
  5,14 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to all noble Lords who have spoken. Looking even more carefully at this clause, as I have done since I heard what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, said, I do feel, speaking, of course, entirely for myself, that there may be an ambiguity here which ought to be cleared up. I can assure noble Lords that the wording will be looked at again, because the intention is that "therewith" should refer to the dwelling-house. The point must be made absolutely clear, and I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that those words will be looked at again; and if it is possible to remove this ambiguity I am certain that it will be done in another place. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that the amenity of the farm or dwelling-house is covered by the earlier part of this clause. If he will look at the words, he will see that they are:
  "the amenity or convenience of any farm or dwelling-house."

  717
  This is something to which the Commissioners must have regard before they make up their minds about a felling direction; so that point is covered. But what we are considering in this Amendment is the amenity value of the standing timber for the park, not for the house; so, in any event, whether the parkland is let or not, any timber that is within sight of the farm or mansion, or is part of the pleasure ground, is covered in the clause as it stands.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: By whomsoever it is occupied?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Will the words cover the situation where a portion is let off and a portion is retained?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I assume that the pleasure grounds would not be let. They would be part of the immediate surroundings of the mansion, and they would not be let off for arable or other farming purposes. But any part of the park that is further from the house, and which is let for livestock or whatever it may be, would of course come under consideration from the point of view of preserving standing timber for amenity purposes, and from the point of view of the value of the sightliness of the park itself. That is the point we are on. I can immediately give the undertaking for which the noble Earl has asked. I will certainly see that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is asked (I will do it myself), to look at this point and see that the words that we have included really mean that even if a park is let for grazing purposes, or whatever it may be, any standing timber there must be considered from the point of view of its amenity value for the park, quite apart from the question of the dwelling-house, before the Commission decide to make felling direction. I think the noble Earl may feel reassured to some degree by this fact: I am told that the great majority of these leases are short leases, very often for a period of one year—at any rate, they are not leases for a long period—and there is no doubt that in all such cases the wording as it stands is adequate. But I will gladly accept the noble Earl's proposal that I should look into the matter and ask my right honourable friend to take legal advice, in order to introduce the appropriate wording in another place.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us that assurance, for which I thank him. I speak again only by leave of the House, but is this an appropriate moment to ask the noble Earl to deal with the point about policies which was raised at an earlier stage of the Bill, and particularly as to whether policies are included in the word "park."
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving me this opportunity to say something on this point which raised a great deal of discussion during the last stage of the Bill, especially among noble Lords from Scot-land. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, who is not here at the moment, was particularly interested in this matter. I have gone into it again, as I said I would, and I have taken further legal advice. The advice I have received is that the customary interpretation of the word "park" includes a policy. If we were to put the word "policy" in this Bill the effect would be to cast a doubt upon the interpretation of the word "park" in existing forestry legislation. I think that no one wants policies to be thought to be excluded from parks in existing Statutes. I hope that noble Lords, with the assurance that the word "park" does include the Scottish expression "policy," will be disposed to accept the present wording.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 33, leave out ("under section four") and insert ("by him in pursuance").— (The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS BILL
  5.23 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I have been asked to take charge of this Bill in your Lordships' House by some friends of mine who have been waiting for many years for an opportunity to secure the reform of the law as it is applied to spiritualist mediums. I will endeavour

  719
  to be as brief and concise as possible, and I will try to limit myself to essentials, being prepared to reply on any other matters which may arise in the course of debate. I should like to begin by saying that although this is a Private Member's Bill it has received the unqualified support of His Majesty's Government so far as the Home Office are concerned. The Bill has been prepared in close consultation with the Home Office staff. Its wording is that of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and the lily was finally painted in the Committee stage by two Amendments which were moved personally by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Not a word of criticism has been uttered against the Bill during its passage up to this present stage, and the Home Secretary himself has spoken of it in the warmest terms in another place. Altogether, it may be said to have been born into this House with a silver spoon in its mouth.
  The Bill has a twofold object. In the first place, as its name implies, it is designed to ensure that there shall exist penalties adequate to deter the practice of fraudulent mediumship. At present, the maximum penalties on indictment under the Vagrancy Act and the Witchcraft Act are twelve months imprisonment and/or a fine of £25. Under the Bill now before your Lordships, the maximum period of imprisonment is raised to two years and the maximum fine is increased to £500—that is to say, the time is doubled and the fine is multiplied twenty times. There is also a further small alteration in the new Bill in that it raises the maxi-mum penalty on summary conviction, as distinct from indictment, to four months imprisonment instead of three. The object of that, of course, is to give an accused person the opportunity of elect-ing for trial by jury if he so desires. In addition, the maximum fine on summary conviction is raised to £50.
  The second object of the Bill is to abate a present injustice. In the past, both the Vagrancy Act and the Witchcraft Act have proved harsh and oppressive as applied to persons claiming to be spiritualist mediums. Until comparatively recently it was Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act which was normally applied in cases of prosecution of mediums. The Vagrancy Act was passed in 1824 at a time when spiritual mediumship, as
  720
  it is generally understood and practised to-day, was virtually unknown, and Section 4 of the Act was aimed largely at disreputable persons who made a living out of the proceeds of prostitution or by other indecent or immoral methods. Such people were comprehensively classified as "rogues and vagabonds," and spiritualists have long had a legitimate grievance at being treated by the law as though they belonged to this nauseous class of society. It also includes those
  "pretending or professing to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft, means or device to deceive and impose on any of His Majesty's subjects."
  It seems reasonable to suppose that, at the time when this Act was passed, those words were aimed at itinerant gypsies and the like—though personally I think that gypsies should enjoy the same protection from injustice as any other class; it is the intent to deceive which is, or should be, the crux of the matter. The Vagrancy Act was first invoked for the prosecution of a spiritualist medium in 1876, and thereafter mediums have been subjected to all the indignities of street arrest and of classification on a second conviction as "rogues and vagabonds," or "incorrigible rogues." It has even been maintained that the mere claim to be a medium is sufficient to establish an offence. Though spiritualists now have the assurances of the Home Secretary and of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, that fraud must be proved if a medium is to be held guilty of an offence, these assurances are in no way binding upon a court in giving judgment in a case of fraud brought by the public or by a common informer.
  I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the powers-that-be for the wise consideration which they have generally shown in their policy during the last few years. In this expression of gratitude, I think I am speaking for many spiritualists, but that is no reason why the law should not be altered so that mediums may carry on their important work by right, instead of by favour which is cap-able of being withdrawn at any time. I suppose what I have just said about the injustice of treating perfectly respectable people as rogues and vagabonds struck home to the official mind about seven years ago, and these stirrings of con-science, if such they are, were reinforced by the difficulty of proving intention to deceive. At any rate, in 1944 it occurred to somebody to revive the long-moribund

  721
  Witchcraft Act of 1735 for the purpose of prosecuting a medium. If the Vagrancy Act is unsuitable and out of date for dealing with fraudulent mediums, what shall we say about the Witchcraft Act?
  After hundreds of years of persecuting and hanging and drowning people accused of witchcraft, the authorities in 1735 suddenly became very modern and enlightened. They said, in effect, that there were no such things as witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration, and that consequently no prosecutions could be instituted for any such offence. On the other hand, if any person should pretend to exercise any of these arts, undertake to tell fortunes, or pretend by occult methods to find lost or stolen property, that person should suffer a year's imprisonment for each offence. It is reason-able to suppose that the word "pretend" was used then in its archaic sense of claim, in the same way as the Young Pretender was not a deceiver but a claimant to the Throne. This line of reasoning was excellent from the prosecution's point of view, as they did not have to prove fraud. The argument was that there was no such thing as a medium. The accused claimed to be a medium, therefore the accused was automatically guilty under the Witchcraft Act. And under the wording of the Witchcraft Act that was a perfectly sound argument. Since 1944, so far as I am aware, only two other prosecutions have been brought under the Witchcraft Act: but it is still law, and it could be brought into action again to-morrow under control less enlightened than that which we happen to have to-day. It is a bad, antiquated and tyrannous law, and its repeal is perhaps the most important object of this Bill.
  There is a widely prevalent view that fraudulent practices in connection with mediums are very common. I have a certain amount of practical experience in this connection, and in my opinion cases of deliberate fraud are very rare, constituting only a tiny percentage of the total activities of mediums, in this country at any rate. Mediums are not infrequently mistaken. That is something different. They may be mistaken for various reasons, but that does not imply that they are cheating. I know for a fact that spiritualists as a whole are exceedingly jealous of their good name in this connection and have readily concurred in
  722
  the greatly increased penalties for proved fraud contained in the Bill now before your Lordships. Equally, however, they demand that no medium shall be punished unless he or she has been proved guilty of deliberate fraud. They also put forward a strong and, I think, unanswerable claim to be released from the odious implications imposed upon them by the Vagrancy Act.
  There are one or two small provisions in the Bill which I have not mentioned. One of them is that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this Act unless he has acted for a reward or some valuable consideration, which need not have been paid to him but may have been paid to somebody else. That means that if a medium has no financial motive in his actions, he is protected from prosecution. The Bill also contains a proviso that no proceedings shall be brought in England and Wales except by and with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a proviso to protect mediums against frivolous accusations. I am informed that it is not necessary in Scotland, because every prosecution there is undertaken under the direction of the Procurator-Fiscal. Fin-ally, nothing in subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill will apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment. If there is a stage show which either claims to be mediumistic, or leaves it open as to how these tricks are done, and it is purely in the line of entertainment, the person concerned will not be liable to prosecution. I hope that I have made it clear that the Bill now before your Lordships is clearly and simply drafted for the purpose of dealing with persons fraudulently claiming to be mediums or with mediums guilty of fraudulent practices. I confidently ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, and I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Dowding.)
  5.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, on his Bill, which has already passed through another place without dissent, and on the prospects of its early passage into law. I do so the more readily because my own opinions do not in the least coincide with those of

  723
  spiritualists, and I have no personal confidence in the value of communication with the dead through mediums. But that is not the point. The question is whether, since there are honest and reputable people in this country who hold and teach the doctrines of Spiritualism and believe in communication with the dead through mediums, the law as it stands makes a proper provision for their rights as free men, in a free community, where we are all agreed that it ought to be lawful to hold and to promulgate any opinion, as long, at any rate, as what is advocated is not advocated for the purposes of the use of violence or to destroy the foundations of the State. I feel that most intensely, and I regard it as beyond question or dispute that in this country, at any rate, that freedom is one of the essential human rights.
  On the other hand, as the noble Lord has just said, no honest person, whatever his opinions, religious or otherwise, would wish to protect fraud and swindle. It is quite right, and indeed essential, that in this Bill fraudulent pretences, intentions to deceive and fraudulent devices, are classified as a crime, and will be a crime in this connection. Fraudulent pretence by a dishonest medium must, of course, be condemned, and I can well understand what the noble Lord has just said, with his own sympathies in this matter: that nobody feels that more strongly than the devout and genuine spiritualists and mediums in the country; and all the more so, it seems to me, because the dishonest and fraudulent medium is exploiting to his own advantage the sorrow of the bereaved and is deceiving them by pretending to put them in communication with those they have lost, when he does not really believe he has any such power. Therefore, this Bill falls into two essential parts: it protects— and I think it ought to protect—the honest practitioner; and it condemns, and condemns with increased severity, the swindler and the fraudulent person.
  To me it is shocking that we should keep on the Statute Book the Witchcraft Act, 1735. In times past there were people of the highest standing in this country who believed in witches. That great judge, Sir Mathew Hale, who in some respects was so advanced a thinker, believed in witches and punished them accordingly. But to treat an honest
  724
  spiritualistic medium as though he ought to come within the ambit of the Witchcraft Act, 1735, or to class him under an Act which is more than 100 years old as a rogue and a vagabond, is surely something of which we all ought to be somewhat ashamed. The freedom to express and to advocate your own opinions and to practise your own religion in your own way, is not only among the first of human rights but is deeply embedded in the convictions of every decent citizen to-day. The bad old days, when John Bunyan was thrown into prison because he was a dissenter and an inspired tinker; the days when Tom Payne was denounced and his name became a byword, because he wrote The Age of Reason; and the day, not so long ago, when Charles Bradlaugh was pursued and assailed because he declared himself an unbeliever—to me all those days are gone, and gone for ever. In this connection one might well proclaim the famous declaration of Voltaire, and be prepared on occasion to say: "I oppose and abominate your opinion, but I am ready to go to the stake for your right to express it and to preach it."
  I therefore have no doubt whatever that this Bill is very much overdue. Lord Dowding was good enough to refer to me in his speech. What he said related to the last occasion when I was at the Home Office. I am glad that he should remind me of it, because I re-collect his sincere concern as to how the Witchcraft Act, or the Vagrancy Act, might be used against people who quite honestly held the view of spiritualism and, as he believed, were acting in honesty and reverence. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that I told him that the view that had long been held at the Home Office, by Home Secretaries before me (and, as I now know, it has been held by Home Secretaries after me) was that, whatever the Witchcraft Act might say, we would never encourage the police to prosecute in this class of case unless it was a case where they felt that fraud could be proved. Therefore I feel that recent practice, at any rate, has not really done much harm. But, be that as it may, it is quite wrong to keep on the Statute Book enactments which may well be understood to go much wider than that, and then to arrange that to a large extent they shall be a dead letter because

  725
  we do not mean to apply them according to their terms. It is to me a great satisfaction that we are now going to strike this ancient absurdity out of the Statute Book and substitute for it something that we really mean.
  So far as I can see, the Bill in effect does no more than establish the Home Office view. If the medium is an imposter —if he fraudulently pretends, for his own advantage, to exercise these alleged powers when he does not really think he can—then he will under this Bill be guilty of a criminal offence, as he should be, and he may be punished more severely than this antiquated law would punish him to-day. To my mind, without any of us in the least necessarily sharing the opinions which some entertain in favour of Spiritualism, we ought to pass this measure with enthusiasm. What shall we be doing? We shall be getting rid of an archaic Act of Parliament which nobody to-day would really wish to apply according to its terms, and we shall be substituting for it a carefully drawn Statute which, so far as I can see, corresponds both with the practice and the intention which are now pursued, and which ought to be the limits within which the criminal law is applied to this mysterious matter.
  5.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, although I feel certain that the Liberals support this Bill, since it is entirely in accordance with Liberal principles, I should like this evening to say a few words, not as a Liberal but as a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics, being in a minority themselves, do not feel able to oppose a measure which is intended to remove certain disabilities suffered by those who belong to the Spiritualist movement in this country. I understand —and I am reinforced by what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said—that the provisions of the earlier Acts which have been referred to were, as a matter of fact, purely legal and were not enforced in practice. Nevertheless they were, and still arc to-day, part of the law of the land. It is therefore fitting that they should be revoked, and that Spiritualists should receive the same measure of religious freedom and toleration as is given to other religious bodies in this country.
  726
  Of course, the removal of these disabilities does not affect people belonging to my faith, since we are forbidden to take part in any activity which seeks to make contact with discarnate spirits. In case any of your Lordships may feel that a charge of obscurantism lies against the Church in that connection, I should like to add that scientific investigation of such phenomena as levitation and telepathy is permitted to qualified persons, subject to the one condition which I have outlined. The Catholic position is this. We believe that our Faith, and indeed, we hold, our reason, tells us that the soul does survive after death, and that the ultimate fate of that soul, except in very exceptional cases, cannot be known. So much for what we hold. While we feel that the legal basis of the present law against spiritualists is obsolete and absurd—and we are glad that it should disappear—we feel strongly that the penalties imposed in the Bill against fraudulent activities should be strictly enforced. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has said, I am informed that to-day there is a considerable spread of fraudulent practices. I hope that those whom I may perhaps describe as leaders of ecclesiastical spiritualism will watch the situation most carefully. I am quite certain that it is in their own interest to do so. Finally, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and your Lordships that although I thought it desirable to explain briefly the Roman Catholic position towards Spiritualism, I sincerely respect the right of all my fellow citizens to hold freely their own religious convictions, and I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading this evening and will shortly be placed on the Statute Book.
  5.56 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had arranged to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate, but unfortunately at the last moment public business has drawn him elsewhere, and almost at the last moment I have been called on to act in his place. It would be easy for me to put in my own words what I think the Government position would be, but in view of the fact that the Lord Chancellor himself would have spoken, I had better use words which might have been used by him had he been present.

  727
  The attitude of the Government to this Bill is briefly as follows. In the first place, the Government are not concerned with what people believe, and with how they worship or conduct their religious services, so long as their behaviour is not an offence against law and order and public decency. Secondly, the criminal law should not discriminate, or even appear to discriminate, against persons because they practise any particular belief or class of belief, however unorthodox their mode of worship may be. The Government are, however, interested in seeing that the changes which these good people wish to introduce into our law, for reasons which no doubt appear very good to them, do not take away from the public the protection which our present law affords against fraud. The Government have to be satisfied that the Bill does not make it easier for ignorant and credulous people to be exploited. The promoters of this Bill appear to have recognised this fact, and the Bill seems to do little more than to restate what has for some time now been the practice of the police in enforcing the law as it now stands.
  The complaint of the spiritualist, as I understand it, is directed at the letter of the criminal law, and not now at the way in which it is administered. In 1943 the police were in fact advised by the Home Office that proceedings under the Vagrancy Act should be taken only against persons whose activities had been complained of by the public, or where there was sufficient evidence that a person concerned was an impostor or was taking money or other valuable consideration. In 1945 the police were further advised that, in order to secure uniformity of practice, they should consult the Director of Public Prosecutions before taking proceedings under the Witchcraft Act of 1735 against any spiritualistic medium.
  Since then there have been very few prosecutions for this offence. There have been none since 1945 under the Witchcraft Act. Such prosecutions as there have been under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act have been confined to palmists, fortune-tellers, and the like. No complaint about any of these prosecutions has been made through the Government. It appears to His Majesty's Government that this Bill does not bring
  728
  about any really substantial changes in the law, but it is clear, from what has already been said about the subject in another place, that many people attach great importance to the relief which this Bill seeks to give them. The Government understand and respect the motives of the promoters of this Bill, and welcome the occasion it provides for removing from the Statute Book the Witchcraft Act of 1735, which is now an anachronism.
  6.1 p.m.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, the hour is late and I do not propose to say more than a very few words indeed. I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for the encouragement that they have given, and the Government for meeting our wishes so completely. I speak, of course, as a spiritualist. Two points were raised in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which I purposely left out of my original remarks. The first was the question of religion. I know that to many people Spiritualism is very much a religion; they feel this very strongly as the core of their beliefs, and it is the pivot around which their activities revolve. But my point is that Spiritualism is not necessarily a religion; and if you deal with it entirely as a religion, you leave out a large and important part of Spiritualism. A spiritual communication is, in fact, more to be likened to a telephone than anything else; and it is a telephone of which you cannot always postulate who will have pressed Button A in the box at the other end. I only want to make the point that, although Spiritualism does include religion, it comprises a wider area.
  The other point which Lord Perth mentioned was that these ancient laws might make it possible for a defence to be made nugatory because the very claim to be a medium was an admission of guilt. It is a fact that various judges and authorities at different times have definitely held that opinion and have recorded it in writing. I shall be very glad to supply the noble Earl with instances if he is interested. Those are the only two new points that have arisen in the debate, and I hope I have dealt with them. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Bill and to your Lordships who have listened with such attention.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  NEW STREETS BILL
  6.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am not claiming that this little Bill has any of the excitement of the removal of the Witchcraft Act, to speeches on which subject we have just listened with such attention. But it is a completely realistic little Bill, because it deals with mud, puddles, dirt and dust in unadopted streets. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the expeditious taking over and re-making of unadopted streets which, under present regulations, need be dealt with only when and if a local authority desire to make up these streets. I myself came across a considerable number of these unadopted streets and saw their undesirability when I was Chairman of an inter-Departmental Committee on garden cities and satellite towns, which reported a good many years ago. In the course of our visits to various parts of the country we saw the evils of the unadopted street. There is one other point which came particularly to our notice. Sometimes streets were not made up because those who had houses with frontages on these streets did not desire to spend money on their making-up, but preferred to put up with the dirt, danger and discomfort of the un-made-up roads.
  This Bill is a very small one. It puts no new charge on any individual or council where a liability already exists, but it allows for the payment in advance by the builder or owner of the frontaged property of the estimated cost of making-up the road when the time comes for the road to be made up. And it proposes to get rid of the problem which has arisen in a number of cases in which a frontager has suddenly been forced to meet a claim far beyond what he had ever expected— sometimes amounting to two pounds or three pounds a foot of frontage, when, perhaps, he believed that no such claim would lie. That is a problem which the Bill faces.
  Under this Bill, before a building is erected on a new street the owner shall, subject to certain rights of appeal, pay to the local authority or secure the payment of a sum to cover the estimated cost
  730
  applicable to his particular frontage. One other point arises here. When a new street has been half built up, the majority of the frontagers are to have the right to call on the local authority to take over and make up the street. If the money paid by the frontager is less than the proportion of the actual cost of making up the street applicable to him, when the road is made up he must pay the difference; but at least he is saved from having to pay such a large sum at an unexpected and often undesirable moment. If he has paid more than the cost applicable to him of making up the road, he will receive a rebate. If he has paid the money in advance instead of securing its payment, he has a fairly good investment, because under the Bill the local authority will pay him 3 per cent. on his money until the time that the street is made up.
  I am bound to say that—unlike the case of the Fraudulent Mediums Bill with which we have just dealt—there was in the early stages of this Bill some slight dispute in another place as regards the details, but, with the ideas inherent in an advanced democracy, we were, by a spirit of compromise and mutual understanding of the points of view of one another, able to secure complete agreement on both sides of the House in the final stages of the Bill. There was no disagreement. Indeed, one noticed that the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill were moved or supported alternately by Members supporting the Government and by Members supporting the Opposition.
  At this late hour, I do not think that there is any need for me to deal with the ten or eleven clauses in the Bill, except to say that in Clause 1 the compromises reached and the mutual understandings attained in Standing Committee B in another place were embodied in a number of paragraphs providing for exemptions from the Bill. There were cases in which it was felt that there should be a right of exemption. For example, the Bill is not retrospective, and it does not apply if an owner or builder can reach with a local authority an agreement as to frontage charges. Such an owner or builder is able to contract out of this Bill. It is a Bill of agreement. Then again there is the common-sense provision of a local authority being able to exempt a building which is standing alone in perhaps a small portion of a long road

  731
  which is never likely to be made up and perhaps will never need to be made up. These are the types of exception upon which agreement was reached. I do not think that I need deal with any of the other clauses of the Bill. Of course, there is a right for the Government to override an application by the majority of frontagers for a road to be made up if something in the nature of a Defence requirement makes it undesirable that such work should be undertaken. I think we may say that there is nothing contentious in the Bill, and that it is accepted on all sides as being desirable. In the hope that it will secure the support of your Lordships, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Marley.)
  6.15 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I for one am glad that the noble Lord has introduced this Bill into the House to-day. On the whole, it is a good Bill and it was certainly much improved in the course of its passage through another place. This Bill does what the best builders and estate developers have been doing for some time—it is not only the best ones who have been doing it, although it is true that many of the smaller builders have not. I believe that in one or two cases a "mushroom" kind of firm of builders have taken a price for the house which was said to include the road development charges. When, later, the company has been liquidated, or the official concerned has somehow or other absconded, the wretched purchaser, though he thinks that he has paid for that charge, in the end finds that he has not done so. These cases are comparatively rare, but they have occurred. They will not be able to occur again once this Bill is on the Statute Book.
  Whether or not those cases have occurred, there are certainly some un-fortunate people, without there being any fraud on any side, who have bought a house on a plot of land and quite genuinely have thought that that was the end of the matter. They have not realised that later on, because they are on an un-adopted road, there will be further charges imposed upon them. They may have thought that in their original purchase price they had paid all that was neces-
  732
  sary for the ground and for the house in which they proposed to live. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that in some cases it was convenient for people to have what I may call two "bites at the cherry"—to be able to pay originally just for the land and the house, and only later on to pay the development charges for the road. However, I have no doubt that they can arrange to raise the extra money required if they know how to do it, by means of a mortgage on their house. Of course, when the Bill becomes law, the money will have to be found, or a guarantee for it put up, before the building of the house is begun. Indeed, it may be some little time before the local authority decide to make up the road and adopt it, or before Clause 6 (that is, the application of a majority of frontagers) can be applied, because that can be applied, and properly applied, only when a considerable amount of development has taken place.
  There are one or two points that I consider it right to raise at this stage, because I think your Lordships should look into them during later stages of this Bill. As one or two of them are fairly substantial, it is as well that we should have them in mind at this stage. Clause 2 (4) takes away the right of an appeal to the court, and substitutes a right of appeal to the Minister against the assessed charge. Whether this is right or wrong may be a moot point, but what is not a moot point is what is summed up in the last three lines of page 3 of this Bill. In those lines your Lordships will see:
  "On any appeal under this subsection, the Minister shall give the appellant an opportunity of being heard before a person appointed by the Minister."
  That goes some way, but, of course, what is required is not only that the owner shall be heard, but that he shall have a right to cross-examine the representative of the local authority—usually the borough surveyor or somebody from his office—who has assessed either the total charges or the frontage assessment. At present the owner can always cross-examine the local authority representative on these matters.
  In passing, I would say that in some cases local authorities tend to make up these by-roads too extravagantly. In some cases they try to build them up on the frontagers' money as though they were main thoroughfares, which of course they

  733
  are not; and it ought to be permissible for the people who have to pay the bill to be able to cross-examine as to what kind of work is to be put into a road, and why the charges are, say, £3 10s., when in some other locality they work out at only £2 or whatever the figure may be. That can-not be done if only the appellant himself can appear before the person appointed by the Minister. I think he ought to have the right to put questions to the person who has made the assessment. Indeed, without that, and without having them both before him at the same time, I do not see how the person appointed by the Minister can really judge between the two parties. I think that is a matter into which we should look at a later stage.
  There is one other point about which I should like an explanation from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and that is the wording at line 7 of Clause 3. It says that when the sum has been paid or secured the person doing that
  "shall … be deemed to be discharged to the extent of the sum so paid or secured."
  I should like to call attention to the words "to the extent of the sum so paid or secured." I do not know why they are there. I thought the object of the measure was that once an owner has paid the assessed amount he has paid the necessary charge. It is true that if he has overpaid he can get back the amount of the overpayment. But if the work is put off for three or four years with the result, perhaps, that the charges go up, a second charge may be levied because the amount will be deemed to be discharged only to the extent of the sum so paid or secured. I should like the noble Lord to look at that point—I think he has grasped it. I had hoped that once the road charges were assessed and security given, the matter would have been done with, and that the man could then say "I have paid all the charges on this." It rather looks as though somebody may have an opportunity, which I at any rate should not desire, of coming back a second time, and saying, "You are under-assessed, so you have got to pay more."
  It seems to me, too, that Clause 6 is somewhat oddly drafted. Subsection (2) reads:
  "Nothing in the preceding subsection shall be taken as requiring or empowering a local authority to carry out any street works for which an authorisation is required under Regu-
  734
  lation fifty-six A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939…."
  The general point about regulations is that they can be altered more easily than a Statute. That is why these provisions are brought about by way of regulations. The whole of this subsection drops to the ground if somebody substitutes some other regulation for Regulation fifty-six A of 1939. Although one often sees previous Acts of Parliament referred to in Bills, or in subsequent Acts of Parliament, I have never yet seen an Act hinge itself on a particular Defence Regulation. That may be a poor or a good point; I do not know. But I think it is certainly a point to which attention should be drawn. Then I see that Clause 9 says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall only apply to boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales, other than metropolitan boroughs…."
  I do not know whether that means that all the metropolitan boroughs have no new streets to make. I think that may well be the case. But, at any rate, if the Bill adopts that sweeping form, one should glance back to Clause 1 (3) (h), where we find that despite what is said in Clause 9 there is included a metropolitan borough. So I think that little matter also requires attention.
  On the wider point, I am not at all sure that I like the idea of the Minister being able to apply this Act to new districts without any kind of Parliamentary control—which I believe is how Clause 9, as drafted, will operate. The Minister can do that in regard to a rural district, and I believe that it is done not by an order which is subject to either affirmative or negative Resolution procedure in Parliament. I draw attention to that matter because by this Bill we are extending to another range of people a liability to criminal prosecution, which is something for which I think Parliament ought to have some responsibility, and which ought not to be in the hands of a Minister. I have made these points because I think that this is a Bill which we do not want to hurry through. We want it to be as perfect as possible when it leaves us, and I am certain that the points I have raised are worth looking into. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who has moved the measure will agree to do so. With regard to the

  735
  general principle underlying the Bill and the majority of its clauses, I think the noble Lord can rest assured that he will have unanimous support in your Lordships' House.
  6.29 p.m.
  THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, in view of the very clear and concise presentation of the Bill by my noble friend Lord Marley, and of the sympathetic references by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—though he had some criticisms to make of certain of its pro-visions—I think I need say no more to-day than that the Bill also has the good wishes of the Government. As to possible Amendments which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, it may well be that, between now and the next stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Marley, Lord Llewellin and myself can have conversations regarding the points raised. The Government, as I have indicated, are sympathetic to this Bill.
  6.30 p.m.
  LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this Bill, and particularly for the very thoughtful speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I greatly appreciate his contribution. There is only one point with which I should like to deal now. The fact that it has been raised, is, I am afraid, due to my failure to make it clear that if, when an un-adopted street is subsequently made up, it is found that the cost of the frontage to the frontager is more than the amount of money he has paid, he will have to pay the difference. The reason he will have to pay the difference is that if he does not other people will have to pay for the making up of his street. He would have had to pay that larger sum in any case at the time when the street was made up. Therefore, he is doing what the noble Lord suggested was good in reference to another part of the Bill —namely, having "two bites at a cherry." Having paid a certain sum at the time he built the house, then the frontager has to pay only a small addition when the street is made up. I am credibly informed that it is not believed that the cost of making up streets is, in fact, rising. Indeed, we now have new and more productive methods of dealing
  736
  with these new streets, and as the result of their employment the cost of making up the roads may be less than would other-wise have been the case. I will not deal with the other points which have been raised, because, as my noble friend has already indicated, they will be looked into.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to put a request to him. I know that it is not in his power to do this him-self, but will he try to press upon the Government that when this original assessment is made by local authorities they should in every case explain to the individual concerned that there may be more to pay afterwards? If this is not done, there will arise in people's minds similar misapprehensions to those which have given rise to the necessity for a Bill such as this.
  LORD MARLEY: I think that that is a most important point and I will certainly bear it in mind. These people, in my view, should be fully informed of what faces them in the future.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.