§ 4.23 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, when I first began to take an interest in the public affairs of this country, which was, I think, something over thirty years ago, there was a famous public figure in another place, who subsequently became a member of your Lordships' House, named Sir Frederick Banbury. He made it his boast that only once during his entire political career did he ever vote for the Second Reading of a Bill; and that was a Bill to do with dogs. I cannot help thinking that, if the late Lord Banbury had seen the Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading, he might have made another exception in my case, because this Bill is one which, so far as I know, has met with approval in all quarters. Indeed, when I first undertook to introduce it in your Lordships' House I made some inquiries as to what had happened in another place, and I found that, apart from a short speech by its sponsor under what is there called the Ten-minute Rule, there had not been a single word uttered for or 1128 against it on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading. While I am told that it would not be proper for me to hope that its provisions may be given similar treatment in your Lordships' House, I hope that it will excite no greater controversy here.
Your Lordships may be interested to know the background against which this Bill was introduced. For 200 years or thereabouts, the inhabitants of this country slept peacefully in their beds, in the supposition that the late John Wilkes had successfully established the proposition that their houses could not be entered without a warrant—and indeed, so far as police constables are concerned, I believe that is still the case, However. John Wilkes proved an unreliable constitutional guide on this, as on some other matters; and in the year 1952 it was discovered, to the consternation of many, that what was denied to police constables had unwittingly been granted to gas and electricity inspectors, and that those gentlemen were, in fact, authorised by numerous Acts of Parliament to beat down the doors of the Englishman's "castle" and enter without a warrant and without the consent of the householder. Fortunately, these rights, although enjoyed, had been so rarely used that no one was aware of their existence until a certain Mr. Groves, who for this purpose enacted the part of a village Hampden, brought an action against one of the electricity boards for damages, complaining that these rights had been exercised against himself. Like one of the famous orders of chivalry, and like most other village Hampden cases, it was a case without merit, and when it failed few tears were shed. But the constitutional position to which this case gave rise (which to the curious may be found set out in Queen's Bench Law Reports, 1952) caused a certain amount of disquiet. After a while the North Thames Gas Council made recommendations to, the Minister which, although they are not embodied in this measure, no doubt excited the research which inspired the framers of the measure to move the proposals which it contains.
Broadly speaking, the policy of this Bill is this. It does not seek ambitiously to recast the rights which gas and electricity officials in fact possess; but it does provide that, where it is desired to 1129 exercise those rights without the consent of the householder, the official concerned should first arm himself with a warrant obtained from a justice of the peace, with one qualification necessitated by the nature of the subject matter: that in cases of emergency they may be permitted to act without such a warrant. There is ample precedent, fortunately, for these provisions, for when the framers of the Bill sought and obtained the help of the Parliamentary draftsmen, it was discovered that almost exactly similar provisions, with two modifications necessitated only by the nature of the subject matter, were already embodied in the Act of Parliament known as the Water Act, 1945, which contains provisions of an analogous kind relating to the rights of officials of the Water Boards. Therefore, I respectfully move that this Bill be given a Second Reading. There is, in my submission, no harm in it, and a great deal of good. If I may part with the subject by a simple illustration, I am told that such an illustration occurs in to-day's Press. Only the oilier day, I understand, it was discovered that a house had been broken into by the removal of a pane from a window in the front and that all the money had been taken out of the gas meter. There was a great deal of alarm, and the police were called in. It was not until much later that it was discovered that this had been done by the gas official himself, who had been unable to obtain entry in any other way. If this Bill had been the law, the gas official would have had to arm himself with a warrant, and the situation would never have arisen. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has raised this subject. In my view, it is right that subjects which affect the liberties of the people of this country should be raised constantly in Parliament, and it can never be too often for my liking. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Stansgate is not here to-day, because this is the sort of subject which, I am quite certain, he would have relished, and nothing would have dissuaded him—and no one would have tried—from speaking 1130 in support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We hope that his indisposition will be soon over.
We on this side of the House have treated this Bill as a Private Member's Bill, and we, at all events, do not put on the Whips either for Private Members' Bills or for Private Members' Motions; Members on this side are at liberty to say what they think, and to do what they please with reference to it. The Bill raises important principles, and the most important one is the old principle that "an Englishman's house is his castle." I regret to say that this principle has been somewhat blown upon, and there has been a good deal of invasion of it, not only laterally, by those who invade the house from the road, but nowadays by aircraft and by those who drop things on it from above. No doubt, through the march of science in the years to come we shall also have invasions from below—those who come up from underneath. Individual liberty is so precious—indeed, nothing is more precious than the sanctity of the home—that I believe that there is an onus upon those who attempt to invade it to prove not only that Ht is convenient but that it is essential to do so.
To my mind, one of the evils of totalitarianism is that it leads people, in order to combat it, to follow its example. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw a television programme this week in the interesting series arranged by Mr. Aidan Crawley, who was a colleague both of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and of myself in another place. If any of your Lordships did see it, you will have noticed a frightening film, a film of a Senate inquiry in the United States. You will have seen the tight lips, the beady eyes, the sharp questions, the writhing of the victim in the chair—the breath and air of totalitarianism. In a country with such noble traditions as the United States, that is indeed a frightening thought. In case anyone in this country should be puffed up with pride on these matters, may I remind the House that only in the last month or so we ourselves, in one of our Colonies, have invaded one of the most precious liberties that man can have—the right of trial by his peers. So far as I am aware, there has not been a single protest in the Press, and 1131 not a single protest on the B.B.C. There have been no meetings at Exeter Hall, and no learned societies of the Bar, the Law Society or any other body, have marched to the House of Commons protesting against the invasion of the rights of our Colonial fellow-citizens. So far as I am aware, the debate which is to take place in your Lordships' House on March 10 is the only notice whatever that has been taken of this invasion of liberty. It may be that, when the debate comes on, we shall find that it is a necessary invasion. All I say now is that the fact that there has been no public outcry, no demand for information as to why this invasion of liberty should have taken place, shows how little regard is had to liberty to-day, as compared with years ago.
The rights of entry by the gas inspectors and others with which this Bill is concerned have evoked some comment in your Lordships' House: it is not only in the courts of law, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seems to imagine, that the matter has been raised. On December 2, 1952, when a debate took place in this House on the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) enactments, we on this side of the House put down Amendments to provisions regarding requisition and entry. I am glad to say that in the protest I made on the matter I had the powerful support of the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack, because on that occasion (as your Lordships can see if you refer to Hansard) the Lord Chancellor said that he was in great sympathy with my protest. The protest, by the way, was not about gas inspectors: it was really about the requisitioning of land; but the same sort of thing applied. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that he was in great sympathy with me, and he also said he would do what he could personally to invite those interested to see whether the regulation could be dispensed with. Therefore, at least so far as the head of the law is concerned, the general subject, although not of gas inspectors per se, has had some support.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)The noble Lord will remember that within a short time the regulation was rescinded.
§ LORD OGMOREI am afraid that in the press and rush of modern life I overlooked that, and if that is so, and I am sure it is—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORAnyway, it has gone now.
§ LORD OGMOREI am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having done that, and we congratulate him upon the action he has taken. I am delighted to hear it, and I hope that, in view of the action of the noble and learned Lord, his colleagues will look with sympathy upon the proposals in the noble Viscount's Bill to-day. As the Lord Chancellor agreed with me, the logical sequence to the power of entry is the power of forceful entry; and that, of course, is the position with which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is particularly concerned to-day. As I see it, the danger is that if people know that they cannot refuse entry, in all probability they will not make people produce their authority. There is always a danger that people who are not gas inspectors at all, but who want to enter the house for an illicit purpose—to rob or to assault—will gain entry, because people believe that they can force their way in and because there is therefore no feeling of challenge. People feel that they have no right to resist the entry of inspectors in the gas and electricity undertakings.
I suppose that on the whole we can say that matters have gone well enough. I remember that last time I compared the gas inspector to the dragoon's of the reign of Louis XIV. That was hyperbole, and one cannot say that gas or electricity inspectors have acted in the way the dragoons did in the reign of Louis XIV against the unfortunate Huguenots in the South of France. Yet in these days it is a princple that we have to safeguard the whole time. Care, however, must be taken to see that the whole machinery of administration is not prevented from functioning because of a principle which is not at all likely to be invaded. That is the other aspect of the problem, and I presume that statesmen will have to weigh up one matter against the other. For myself, and some of my noble friends—as I say, this is not a Party matter at all; we speak as we wish—while we agree 1133 with the principle of the noble Viscount's Bill, and fully support what he has in mind, we are not quite sure of all its implications. We should like to hear the Government answer and any other speeches there may be on the particular merits of this Bill, and we will then make up our minds, either to-day or on the further stages of the Bill, what we will do with regard to it.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, may I say a few words to show why I hope your Lordships will accord a favourable reception to this Bill? What I have to say is not directly concerned with rights of entry, but it is directly concerned with the reason why powers of this kind should be carefully examined and, if necessary, closely curbed when they are sought by public boards and undertakers of this kind. Ever since 1923, I have had the honour, both in another place and here, to sit every year, with a couple of exceptions, as Chairman of Private Bill Committees upstairs. I well remember a particular Bill some little time ago, when one of our great cities was seeking power to enlarge its boundaries—and, incidentally, to enlarge its powers. We had passed the Preamble and we were getting on to the clauses. We were getting through these quite well—some were common form, and others were unexceptionable—when suddenly we came with a bump to one particular clause which had a sting in its tail. If I may pursue this analogy of head, tail, and body, perhaps I may be allowed to say what these were.
By the head of the clause the city fathers sought power to open fine central offices, with a showroom for the exhibition and sale of all sorts of electric appliances to occupiers of houses with their supply of electric current. The object of the body of the clause was to give the city fathers power to sell those electric appliances by instalments. In the tail of the clause they sought power to cut off the supply of current from a householder if he or she had fallen into arrear with the payments on one of these electric appliances. In other words, the housewife, cooking, with, perhaps, an invalid or a child in the house, might be deprived of electric current for lighting, heating and other necessary uses merely because, either from temporary inability to do so or from 1134 carelessness, the householder had fallen into arrears of payment on one of these extra gadgets bought from the showroom of the local authority, who were also the undertakers for the electric supply. That is all have to say. I wanted merely to illustrate how necessary it is to examine most carefully all these powers in the possession of great public bodies today.
§ 4.42 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, it is generally to the convenience of the House to know the view of the Government on a private Bill. I am not replying in any way, but only expressing the views of the Government. If I may say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, went a little far in some of his rather wild analogies. I should not myself have thought it necessary to cast a slur on the administration of justice in British territories. That seemed to me utterly irrelevant.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, the noble Earl will appreciate that I was dealing with fundamental issues of which this is a part. I made my comment in case we had any false pride. The fact is that this has been done, whether necessary or not, and has not caused an outcry. I contrast that with what would have happened fifty or sixty years ago, when the spirit of liberty in this country had not been affected by two world wars and the totalitarian dreams which have arisen from them.
§ TIM EARL OF SELKIRKWe still have pride, but I do not think we can, in discussing such things as gas-meter inspection, start a debate on trial by jury. The noble Viscount has explained the subject of the Bill quite clearly, and I do not propose to add to what he has said. We think it is a useful measure and we are grateful to the introducer both in another place and here. It should be said that all the powers dealt with by this Bill are exercised under the Gas Works Act, 1871. That is to say, they have been in operation for eighty years or thereabouts; and there has been, on the whole, very little trouble indeed. That speaks well for the common sense with which the gas inspectors have exercised their rights. None the less, I think it is the general view of the House that there is no reason why 1135 a gas inspector should have a higher right than the police. For that reason we think it is wise that this Bill should be passed. We think it right, also, to clarify the position of the householder, and also of the gas inspectors and the inspectors under the electricity boards. As the noble Viscount has said, provisions of a similar character were incorporated in the Water Act. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, I have had the honour on three occasions in recent years to present or to join with others in presenting on behalf of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, Bills for the protection of the liberties of the subject. In those Bills this question of the rights of entry was included, in regard not only to gas and water but also to food and other inspectors, it having been found that under delegated legislation a number of regulations have been made by various Departments which have led to the infringement of the liberties of the subject. The reception given to those Bills in this House was exceedingly favourable in principle but wholly hostile in practice; and on each occasion the representative of the Government said that it was very desirable to uphold the principle as a matter of public policy but not to apply it as a matter of actual law. However, on the last occasion, when my Bill had to be withdrawn because neither Front Bench received it with any particular cordiality and it had no prospect of passing through another place, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that a practical course would be to take up its points one by one and deal with them on suitable occasions, perhaps over a considerable period of time. That piecemeal method is perhaps the best that can be adopted in lieu of a more general procedure.
There has lately been an examination in another place of the powers of delegated legislation and the methods of controlling in that House the exercise of those powers. Similar considerations apply in this House. There has been a report from a Select Committee on that very matter. No doubt we shall be considering here what course, if any, we should take with regard to the control in this House over Orders in Council and statu- 1136 tory regulations. Meanwhile, this is one important measure, coming from another place, dealing with one of the points in my Bill so far as gas and electricity are concerned. I welcome it, of course, with great cordiality; I regard it almost as one of my own flock which has strayed in here from another place: and I was delighted to hear from the speech of the Government spokesman that the Government support and welcome this Bill. I venture to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount for it, and I hope the Bill will receive support.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, there is one question I should like to ask in connection with this Bill. The right of entry on the part of certain inspectors does, of course, open the way to impersonation. In the country, certainly, anybody wearing a peaked cap who presents himself at the door creates a certain feeling of awe on the part of the householder, and has little difficulty in securing admission. Therefore the possibility of impersonation with improper intent seems to me to be very much in the picture. The police, I understand, if they are going to search premises, have to produce a right of search before they can carry it through. I should like to ask whether these inspectors have to carry with them a document which clearly sets out their right of entry for their lawful purposes. Do they have to carry such a document?—because, if so, I think all householders would be well advised, in all cases of inspectors seeking to enter their premises, to ask him in all courtesy to show his authority for what he asks permission to do.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I wish to intervene for one moment only to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that his influence has been more far-reaching than he at present imagines, because another of the points which he made so cogently in this House in his speech was how undesirable it was in these days that the Public Authorities Protection Act should remain upon the Statute Book. I would remind him that in another place there is a Private Member's Bill, to which Her Majesty's Government have given full support, to remove that which he considers a blot on the Statute Book. I think (though perhaps I should not say so) that we shall soon have the pleasure 1137 of having that Bill in this House under the aegis of the same noble Viscount who has moved this Bill.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, before the Question is put, may I, to tae best of my ability, answer the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Winster? The position is somewhat complicated, but I think I am right in saying that the following is, broadly speaking, the answer. Under the existing powers of entry, which are not disturbed by this Bill, a person who wishes to effect entry into a dwelling house or premises has to show on demand not merely a peaked cap but a letter of authorisation from the appropriate authority. That is already the law, and the pity is that that is not generally known. Under this Bill, the position is that if the householder, not being satisfied with the letter of authority, withholds permission, the inspector or officer will also have to produce a warrant from a justice of the peace, and that can be obtained only if the conditions contained in the Bill are satisfied. I think that is the answer to the question. I believe that to be correct.
§ On Question. Bill read 2ª; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.