Lords Sitting of 28 June 1956

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

  EVICTIONS FROM FARM LANDS
  3.5 p.m.
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether discussions are to be held to review the operation of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): Yes, my Lords, my right honourable friend has had these matters under consideration for some time. The Wilson Committee also reported that they had met with a variety of conflicting opinions on the operation of these provisions. I hope that discussions with the organisations concerned, which must inevitably take some time, will start within the next few weeks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is proposing similar discussions in Scotland.
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and for the assurance that discussions are going to take !place with the interested bodies over the implementing of the Agriculture Act, 1947, with particular reference to Part [I. I hope that the noble Earl will impress upon his right honourable friend the desire fostered by many people that he eviction of people from their own arms and their own homes will become I thing of the past.

VALUATION AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION OR DER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME, 1956
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the last Annual Review it was decided to continue the grants for the ploughing up of grassland unchanged at their existing rates. The scheme now before the House gives effect to this decision as from June 1 of this year. Neither the rates nor the detailed conditions are changed.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 13th of June, he approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1956
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, This is a similar scheme to the one that we have just passed, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 13th of June, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (ENGLAND, WALES AND SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1956
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this scheme extends for another year the arrangements for the fertiliser subsidy which was first paid in 1952. The scheme relates to the fertiliser year ending on June 30. In accordance with the decision at this year's Annual Review, the rates of subsidy are being increased in such a way as to increase the total amount payable by £3 million in a full year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (England, Wales and Scotland) Scheme, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 13th of June, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (NORTHERN IRELAND) SCHEME, 1956
EARL. ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a similar scheme dealing with Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on June 27, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) BILL
3.9 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.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Regulations for securing safety and health of employees]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to the clause:
"(8) Section nine of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 (which provides for increasing the rent of an agricultural holding upon which the landlord has executed improvements in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of that section) shall have effect as if in that subsection the reference to compliance with a direction given by the Minister shall include compliance with regulations made under this section."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I move because the County Councils Association, as landlords of a number of smallholdings, are rather anxious about the provisions of Clause 1. Under subsection (2) the Minister can make regulations which apply to the employers and workers, and the last three words of that subsection are "and on others". It is thought that under Clause 1 (3) (f), which deals mainly with handrails, staircases and other general
128
improvements to buildings, it may be that the regulations will be made putting certain obligations on the owners. At the moment, under Section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, if there is agreement between the landlord and tenant, to make improvements, then there is provision for adjustment of the rent. If the Minister serves a direction on the owner, in that case, too, there is provision for the adjustment of the rent. But there is considerable doubt whether, if a regulation is made under this subsection and an owner carries out those improvements—that is, without the agreement of the tenant—there is any provision for adjustment of the rent. It seems to me that there might be a certain amount of hardship if an obligation was put on the owner to carry out an improvement without subsequent adjustment in the rent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I feel that there is some misunderstanding as to the intention of this clause. It deals primarily with the relationships between employers and workers, and it affects the landlord and tenant relationship only in a secondary way. We contemplate that the regulations under this clause will, in general, place obligations on the employer. My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney asked about the position of the landlord if, at any future date, regulations should be made which compelled him to carry out certain works on the farm. As I see it, it would be impossible—or, if not impossible, certainly impracticable—to compel a landlord, by regulation, to carry out work on property which was in the occupation of somebody else, without requiring the tenant's consent to that work. The moment the tenant's consent is required, then the provisions to which the noble Lord has referred under the Agricultural Holdings Act would auto-matically apply, and any question of rent would go to arbitration. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord wil withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: It view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I wish to raise a general point on this clause for the sake of clarity, and to be quite certain where we stand. I know that it is the intention of the Government that forestry workers, as well as farmworkers, should be covered by the safety provision and other provisions of the Bill, but I am not by any means certain whether the wording of the clause, as it now stands, will in fact enable the Government to use their powers to benefit forestry workers as well as farmworkers. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:
"Provision may he made by regulation under this section for protecting workers employed in agriculture…"
Everything hinges on the definition of the word, "agriculture". If we turn to the definition of "agriculture" at the end of the Bill, we find that it includes woodlands, and it may be the case, of course, that, by including woodlands, this 13i11 is technically covering forestry workers as well as farm workers.
I should like to make one further comment. If that is the case, it is using the word "agriculture" in a completely different sense from the way in which it is ordinarily used. When we speak of forestry and the growing of trees we use the word "silviculture," rather than the word "agriculture." "Agriculture" is used to apply to animal husbandry and the growing of crops. If the Government are using "agriculture" in this technical sense to cover forestry, then let us know that that is the case; and let us be assured that, wherever possible, the word "agriculture" will not be used in this purely technical sense, because it is forcing language into quite a different meaning from that in which it is used in ordinary speech. And, of course, it is undesirable because it may create doubts and may result in court cases.
There is one other point that I should like to raise, on the assumption that the Government intend to cover forestry workers by including woodlands in the definition of "agriculture". The people of whom we are thinking as being engaged in forestry are not only the people who are felling trees in the woods and, therefore, are working in the wood;, woodlands or forests, or whatever you like to call the wooded areas of the country, but they are also people who are working in yards sawing up the tree
130
trunks and preparing the timber for the markets. These sawmills may not be situated in a woodland or, indeed, close to a woodland. I should like to ask the Government whether, on this definition, workers in sawmills, who clearly need protection rust as much as people who are felling timber in woods, will have the same measure of protection. Of course, an alternative method of procedure under this Bill might be to apply Clause 18, which enables the Government to use their powers under the Act to benefit persons who are employed in conditions comparable to those who are employed in agriculture. It may be that the Government are contemplating proceeding under this clause, but I think it is most important from the point of view of being quite certain that forestry workers, as well as farm workers, are covered by the Bill and to avoid doubts which may afterwards give rise to litigation, to know exactly where, at any rate on the Government's interpretation of the BIN, we stand at the moment. Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to explain this matter.
3.21 p.m.
LORD WISE: Before the noble Earl replies to that particular point, may I raise another point which I believe can be raised only on the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? The noble Earl may remember that on the Second Reading I raised the question of the carrying of guns and firearms on tractors and other moving machinery. I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government have considered that matter, and whether it can be covered by the Bill.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the noble Earl that this Bill does apply to forestry workers and that they are within the category of agricultural workers. As the noble Earl pointed out, under Clause 24 there is the wore. "woodland". That is based on the definition contained in the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948. This in itself was a consolidating Act in which the principal ingredient was the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924. The definition of "agriculture" in this Act includes the use of land for woodland and has always been regarded as covering the type of worker who is now generally described as a forestry worker.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl whether forestry workers include workers in sawmills which may be owned and managed by timber merchants, as well as workers employed by the Forestry Commission or by woodland owners?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No. The worker in the sawmill would not be covered by that term but, as the noble Earl is aware, there is an additional category of worker which can be included and the sawmill worker could come under that.
THE EARL' OF LISTOWEL: Under Clause 18?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, raised the question of the carrying of guns on tractors. I should point out that any general provision of the kind which he suggested on the Second Reading debate would be outside the scope of this Bill, because, apart from the clause dealing with the prevention of accidents to children, the aim of the Bill is to secure the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in agriculture. Therefore, provision can be made in regulations under Clause I only for the workers' safety. Whether we shall, in fact, make regulations must depend on the degree of risk that there is. There is a great deal of work which has to be done on the collection and analysis of accident statistics, but I can assure the noble Lord that this point will be borne very much in mind when we are studying safety problems.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Lilting excessive weights]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to raise a point on Clause 2. The general desirability of the clause is undoubted—that is, that there should be protection, so far as possible, against lifting unduly heavy weights. I observe that the clause is to be made administratively for operation by regulation. I am not quite sure what type of regulation the Minister may have in mind. I should think that most farmers would be in favour of this provision. A good deal is done already by sack-hoists, special wheelbarrows with hoists on them, and that kind of thing, to
132
obviate, in most general cases in the yard, the necessity of lifting heavy weights by hand but there are many young persons under the definition of, say, over school age and up to eighteen who now do a great deal of field work on their own. Sometimes they are in charge of machinery. Sometimes something goes wrong and a heavy piece of machinery has to be lifted. The difficulty about the matter is not that there is any wrong intent on the part of the farmer or farm manager, but that very often, the enthusiastic young person bends down to lift something which is quite heavy simply for the sake of getting on with the job. It is supervision that is the real difficulty. If we could have some sort of idea of the kind of regulation that will be made in that respect, it might be helpful.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am afraid I cannot go into any detail at this stage, because a great deal of consultation has to take place with the workers' representatives and, of course, the farmers' representatives as well. To forecast at this stage the form that these regulations will take would, I am afraid, be quite out of order. But I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Viscount has said.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Inspections by sanitary authority]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided also that entry shall not be made on land by virtue of this section, if the land is a place or area or a portion of an area declared to be infected by an order made under section ten of the Diseases of Animals Act. 1950."
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively small point. Clause 11 gives power to sanitary inspectors or their deputies to come on to farms to see whether the sanitary conveniences et cetera are adequate. The Minister, under Section 11 of the Diseases of Animals Act, has power in certain circumstances —say, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and that sort of thing—to make regulations preventing certain movements of animals and preventing people from coming on to farms. The point here, which is again one with which the County Councils' Association are slightly concerned, is that under this Bill the sanitary inspector would have a statutory right to

133
come on to the farm, and the farmer, under Section 2, would be committing a crime if he prevented him from doing so, That means that the inspector is given a power over and above the powers contained in the Diseases of Animals Act. The Minister's inspectors who come on under Clause 10 would presumably be prevented by administrative action, but apparently the Minister has no power to prevent the sanitary inspector, or his deputy, if he is brave enough. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I feel that the noble Lord is assuming that in this country we have a type of sanitary inspector who is entirely devoid of any sense of public responsibility. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that any inspector of a local authority would deliberately go on to a farm which was suffering from an infection such as foot-and-mouth disease when it was not absolutely essential for him to go there. I cannot absolutely guarantee it, but I feel that it is a fair presumption that these inspectors would arrange their visits to coincide with periods when the farm was free and not suffering from any infection. I do not feel that there is any need for a special provision such as the noble Lord has suggested. After all, there are other rights of entry on to agricultural land to which the same considerations apply, and I think it would be extremely dangerous to single out this particular one. I would point out to the noble Lord that, even if the inspectors did insist on going on to the farm, they would still be governed by the regulations requiring them to disinfect their persons, their hoots and their hands before leaving the farm. Therefore, I feel that this Amendment is unnecessary, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I quite see the basis upon which the noble Earl pursues his argument, but I can sec which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had generally in mind—namely, the protection not merely of the farmer whose premises are under order under another Act, but the, prevention of the carriage of disease, through, the farms all round. I am quite sure that, as a general body, the sanitary inspectors are excellent in these matters; but there are areas in the country, some especially adjacent to industrial areas, in which the sanitary inspector's duties are, as a rule, not much concerned with farms. I should have thought it might be possible for the noble Earl and his Ministerial colleague, 'When they are making regulations, to see that in the regulations under this Act special provision is made in regard to the particular requirements concerned with notifiable diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, and that such orders, if in operation, should be drawn to the special attention of the sanitary inspectors in the district. If something of that sort is done, either by regulation or by specific Ministerial circular to the inspectors, it may meet the situation; otherwise, I should be most happy to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should much prefer the suggestion of the noble Viscount that a directive of some sort should go out to sanitary inspectors covering the point that has been made, and I will certainly bring that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: With the assurance that a directive will go out, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) BILL
3.34 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Payments in respect of unfit houses occupied by owners]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved, in subsection (5) (a) to leave out "security of the house" and insert "terms of the mortgage or charge;". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, with your Lordships' consent I shall go a little outside the scope of this Amendment in moving it, because certain points were raised on the Committee stage with regard to subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 1, to which we have given consideration. The first was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the compensation to be paid to the owner-occupier by the local authority should cover all his outstanding liabilities, including any mortgage debt over and above the payment prescribed by Clause 1; and the noble Lord further suggested that the local authority should have the right to apply to the county court for an order varying or discharging any mortgage agreement.
The second point was made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that the discretion of the court to relieve the mortgagor in whole or in part of his outstanding liability, should be limited to cases where there was something harsh and unconscionable in the original bargain. The third point, which was made by my noble friend Lord Conesford, and I think supported by the noble and learned Earl, was that subsection (5) should be amended to put it beyond doubt that the county court should be able to take the circumstances of the whole transaction into consideration, and should not necessarily be obliged to regard a friendly mortgagee as having acted unreasonably if he relied on the mortgagor's personal covenant, although he knew the house did not afford full security for the sum advanced.
I ought to tell your Lordships that, having given the best consideration I could to these three suggestions, I felt bound to find that that made by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin—that the local authority should have to shoulder the burden of all outstanding liabilities over and
136
above the provisions of Clause 1—was not acceptable. If it were accepted it would entail an entirely new approach to Clause I. since all question of a payment related to the market value of the house would have been lost sight of. From the point of view of the purchase of land for public purposes it would create a dangerous precedent, since, whenever land is acquired at a price related to current market values, there is a risk of the compensation payable not being sufficient to meet a mortgage debt. I must remind your Lordships that the basic principle is that unfit houses are worth nothing. Clause 1 already makes a substantial concession to the exceptional hardship suffered by the class of owner-occupiers whom it is designed to benefit, and, having made that concession. I do not think that it is reasonably possible for us to go further and make the very full concession that the noble Lord desires.
Now I come to the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. My own belief is that in the vast majority of cases where the applications to the court will be made under subsections (4) and (5) for a discharge of liabilities, there will be something harsh or unconscionable in the original bargain. As I said on the Committee stage, it follows from the nature of the case that the purchaser must have been constrained by his circumstances into giving an inflated price for the outworn house, and often the case will be that of the vendor taking advantage of scarcity prices, perhaps aware of the threat of slum clearance, and leaving the bulk of that inflated purchase price on mortgage. The position of building societies was mentioned, but on reflection, and having had the best information I can, my view is confirmed that in the ordinary case no reputable building society advances money on a house without an adequate survey to ensure that its security is good.
I would remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. He said that even on the present words—that is, on the test of reasonableness—a county court judge might be reluctant to exercise his equitable discretion except in cases where it is proved beyond doubt that the mortgagee acted improperly. The noble

137
Lord's view of a matter like that is, of course, entitled to great respect; and if that is his view of the word "reasonable" then I think if the test were substituted of "harsh and unconscionable" it would mean that there is little likelihood that the courts would intervene at all, and the provision would be likely to fail in its purpose. Therefore, while I always pay great attention to what the noble and learned Earl suggests, I feel that this would not meet the circumstances of the case.
With regard to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Conesford, the main purpose of the subsection is to provide the means of possible relief to the owner-occupier for his outstanding liabilities, while at the same time ensuring that the balance is maintained between the conflicting rights of mortgagor and mortgagee, and that any hardship likely to be suffered by either party is taken into account. It was realised from the beginning that there might be cases where a friendly mortgagee advances money primarily on the personal bond of the mortgagor, knowing that the house itself afforded insufficient security. We thought originally that the words "taking into account all the circumstances of the case" in lines 12 to 13, page 3, would be sufficient to protect the mortgagee's interest in such a case, but the concluding limb of subsection (5) had not been given sufficient consideration. I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble and learned Earl for urging further consideration, and as a consequence we have put down the Amendments that appear on the Order Paper. In order to carry out what is suggested by my noble friend I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("security of the house") and insert ("terms of the mortgage or charge;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will give me the same indulgence to go a little wide of the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount assumed, quite rightly, the House would give him. When the noble and learned Viscount undertakes to examine a question, the whole House has learned to appreciate that he really does examine it conscientiously and with care; and when he says that he cannot accept a
138
particular proposal, whether one agrees with his conclusion or not, one is quite satisfied that he has gone into it thoroughly and has satisfied himself that there are good reasons for not accepting it. So I must leave the proposal that I myself put forward. I am not in a position to carry it any further, although I still think that if the Government really desire to benefit the owner-occupier whose house has been unfortunately condemned, the only way to benefit him is not only to pay him a reasonable value for his house but to relieve him of any obligation. I would just repeat that his position is that he is losing his house and may be left with a liability which he will find it difficult to discharge.
The noble and learned Viscount says that he is unable to do anything about it, and I take it that what he really means is that the local authorities are not prepared to shoulder this additional burden. I am not impressed with the suggestion of creating a precedent, because he himself is creating a precedent under this Bill. It is a precedent that I am sure he will not want to follow in the future, because I imagine that owner-occupiers of the future will get merely site value For their houses. This is a precedent which will come to an end in ten years, and I can see no great harm in doing an act of generosity to the owner-occupiers of slum houses which this Bill is intended to do. However, I do not propose to carry the point any further May I say also that I agree with this Amendment. I think it makes the position clearer. Nobody wants to penalise a person who has loaned money not entirely on the security of the house but also, perhaps, in order to help out a friend; and I am satisfied, as the noble Lard, Lord Conesford, was satisfied, that in the Bill as it stood the position was, or might have been, that a person would be penalised for an act of kindness.
I still feel that the Bill does hot entirely carry out the purpose that the Government have in mind. Their purpose is that where a mortgage has been granted on a house unreasonably, or using any other terms you like, the owner-occupier shall have the right to go to the county court. Except in one kind of case that I can visualise, I still find it difficult to visualise circumstances in which the county court will say to the owner-occupier "You are discharged of the mortgage; you need

139
not pay". The exception is where, as I know has been the case quite frequently, people who are owners of a number of houses have gone round to the tenants, knowing that the houses were likely to be condemned in the near future, and have persuaded them to buy. And they have held out the inducement that they would grant a substantial mortgage on the property. I think that is the kind of case where a county court judge might say that the owner-occupier ought to be relieved of the mortgage, but I cannot see any other kind of case where that would be the position, and I think it is putting into the Bill a remedy which is quite illusory. Therefore, I feel that it really is not very much comfort to an owner-occupier.
In the general case, I think there should be justice as between the owner-occupier and the mortgagee, and I cannot see that, except for the case where the mortgagee has acted improperly, there would be justice in discharging the liability for the mortgage as between the two parties. In general, I cannot see that the county court judge will have any option but to refuse to discharge the mortgage. That is the reason that led me to feel that the right course in these special circumstances was to place the obligation on the local authority. However, there it is. I think that owner-occupiers will be extremely disappointed when they find, as I believe they will, that not only will they not get compensation for their house but if there is a mortgage they will be left to foot the bill themselves. However, on this particular Amendment, I have no objection to raise. I think it clarifies the position, and is an improvement. Therefore, I support it.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Government Amendment entirely meets the point which I ventured to put to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor when the Bill was in Committee, and I would thank him for making it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which deals with the same point. I should like also to take the opportunity of thanking Lord Silkin for what he was
140
good enough to say at the beginning of his speech. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("the house") and insert ("in all the circumstances of the case the terms of the mortgage or charge").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE LAITY MEASURE, 1956
3.51 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Southwark, in whose name this Motion stands, I beg to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1956, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. Forty years ago, when the constitution of the Church Assembly was being drawn up, one of the problems which had to be solved was the method by which the laity in the parishes could be represented in the House of Laity of the new Church Assembly. Out of the discussion which then took place the present system of electoral rolls, parochial church councils, ruri-decanal and diocesan conferences and the House of Laity arose. The electors are those who, having the necessary qualifications, voluntarily put their names upon the electoral roll of the parish. The electors meet annually to elect the parochial church council and the representatives of the parish on the ruri-decanal conference and in most, but not all, dioceses, the diocesan conference. The representatives of the dioceses in the Church Assembly are elected by the lay members of the diocesan conference. This system was embodied in the Rules for the Representation of the Laity which were attached as a schedule to the constitution of the Church Assembly, drawn up by the Convocations in 1919 and presented by them to His Majesty King George V.
In 1929 new rules were prepared and substituted for the original rules by the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1929. The new rules did not change the method of representation but merely filled certain gaps and provided for the filling of vacancies and for improvements in the

141
machinery. The Rules for the Representation of the Laity created the parochial church councils, and one of the Church Assembly's first tasks was to prepare and pass a Measure—The Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1921 —to determine the powers and duties of parochial church councils. Much of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure deals with mere machinery which might more appropriately have been contained in the rules.
By 1949, experience had shown that there were a number of points which required clarification and further consideration. As a result, a committee was appointed by the Assembly to prepare two Measures which would consolidate and rearrange the existing law in such a way that it would be easier for those who have to work it to understand and to find it. The two Measures with which I have to deal to-day are the results of the work of this committee. Neither substantially alters the present system, but the opportunity has been taken considerably to clarify the language in order to remove what were in the past points of doubt or dispute and to make certain amendments.
The provisions of the Representation of the Laity Measure—the first of these two Measures—are fully dealt with in the appendix to the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it will, I hope, suffice if I do no more than draw attention very briefly to the principal changes which have been made in the existing law. The Measure incorporates a substantial part of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1921, and also replaces the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1929, and the House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937, all of which are repealed.
The minimum age for entry on the electoral roll has been lowered from eighteen to seventeen. This was considered to be desirable on general grounds, and in particular it allows young men to be enrolled before they go to do their military service. Again, a person may be on the rolls of any two parishes provided the parochial church councils of both consent. At present persons cannot be on the rolls of two parishes in the same diocese, but otherwise there are no restrictions. This amendment is designed principally to assist the churches
142
in the centres of large towns where there is little resident population.
After very careful consideration the Assembly decided to omit from the Measure the present rather unsatisfactory disqualifications on moral grounds for holding lay offices and has instead left this matter to the good sense of the elect3rs. All licensed assistant curates are to be ex officio members of the parochial church council instead of one only in each parish as at present. There is a tendency to-day in large parishes with several churches to put each under a curate with considerable independence who ought to be on the parochial church council. If I may strike a personal note. I recall that I once had a parish in the North of England where there were four curates, and I was allowed to have only one of them on the parochial church council. All four were really needed there.
The method of voting at annual meetings has been altered to permit a person to have as many votes as there are places to be filled, but to give only one vote to any one candidate instead of three if he as under the present law. The purpose of the present method of voting was apparently to facilitate the representation of minorities, but it does not appear to be of any particular value to that respect and it is generally disliked as an unusual and confusing method of voting. The unsatisfactory and inadequate provisions relating to the composition of ruri-decanal conferences have been replaced by a rule empowering diocesan conferences to set them up and provide them with a constitution. Clause 3 provides the necessary transitional provisions.
My Lords, this Measure passed through the Church Assembly without a Division and has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope that your Lordships will feel no hesitation in allowing it to go forward. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1956, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
VISCOUNT ALEXAN DER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House

143
would desire to welcome very much the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate who has just addressed the House. It sometimes happens that a Minister accuses a member of the Opposition, or a member of the Opposition accuses a spokesman of the Government, of not having submitted their particular case with clarity. No-one could deny that the right reverend Prelate has dealt with his subject to-day with the highest form of clarity. The general procedure under these arrangements for Church government has certainly relieved Parliament of a great deal of the burden of that kind of business. The only question I have in mind, after listening to the very clear exposition of the right reverend Prelate, is: when Measures of this kind are under general consideration, what chance have the church congregations of expressing their views of the alterations, which sometimes are fundamental, in regard to the representation of the laity? Has this set of proposals, which seem admirable to me, been referred to, say, the parochial councils? At a time when the Church is giving so much consideration to the question of amending the Canon Law, I am interested in the general procedure, and I should like to know exactly the steps which are taken to ascertain the majority view of the members of church congregations.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, it is a little difficult to answer the noble Viscount's question. I feel inclined to say that one democracy works very much in the same way as another. We can do it only through the principle of representation. There is a succession of representation, either upwards or downwards. The electors of a parish elect the parochial church councillors, with whom they are supposed to keep in touch with regard to various matters. The councillors go a step further to the diocesan conference, and then there is a step further to the House of Laity at the Church Assembly. As one who has been for a long time a member of the Church Assembly. I think I can say that every possible consideration is given to the views of members of the House of Laity, who themselves are representatives of the laity in the various parishes throughout the country.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCILS (POWERS) MEASURE, 1956
4.3 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, again on behalf of my right reverend friend, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The first seven clauses of this Measure replace the first six sections of the 1921 Measure and an amending Measure which was passed in 1949. Clause 8 replaces Section 8 of the original Measure and clauses 9 and 10 replace Sections 16 and 17 of the original Measure. Very little alteration of any substance has been made in the existing law and the Measure aroused little comment in the Assembly, through which it passed without a Division.
The principal amendments are these. If, in connection with an educational scheme, a financial undertaking is given by the parochial church council to the Minister of Education or to a local authority, such undertaking shall be binding on the parochial church council as such. At present, it would be revocable by the next parochial church council and therefore it might be illegal or improper for a grant to be given at all owing to the absence of any safeguard. The provisions whereby the diocesan board of finance, or an equivalent body, consents to the acquisition of capital property by the parochial church council and holds the legal estate while the parochial church council administers the income are re-enacted with minor modifications and clarifications. In particular, first of all, it is no longer necessary to obtain the consent of the diocesan board of finance for the acquisition of a lease from year to year or for a shorter period: and secondly, the consent of the diocesan board of finance is required for the acquisition of personal property only if it is to be held on permanent trust—that is, property where it is intended that the capital shall be held indefinitely. The legal estate in such property is I vested in the diocesan board of finance.
This Measure has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee, whose Report contains the comments and explanations of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, which set out in greater detail the changes which have been made. As I have pointed out, the Measure gave rise to little debate in the Assembly and is not, I venture to think, at all controversial.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1956, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.— (The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
On Question. Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL now HOTEL PROPRIETORS BILL
4.7 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Modifications of liabilities and rights of innkeepers as such.
2.—
(2) Without prejudice to any other liability or right of his with respect thereto, the proprietor of an hotel shall not as an innkeeper be liable to make good to any guest of his any loss of or damage to, or have any lien on, any vehicle, or any horse or other live animal or its harness or other equipment.
(3) Where the proprietor of an hotel i liable as an innkeeper to make good the loss of or any damage to property brought to the hotel, his liability to any one guest shall not exceed fifty pounds in respect of any one article, or one hundred pounds in the aggregate, except where—
(a) the property was stolen, lost or damaged through the default, neglect or wilful act of the proprietor or some servant of his; or
Provided that the proprietor shall not be entitled to the protection of this subsection unless, at the time when the property in question was brought to the hotel, a copy of the notice set out in the Schedule to this Act printed in plain type was conspicuously displayed in a place where it could conveniently be read by his guests at or near the reception office or desk or, where there is no reception office or desk, at or near the main entrance to the hotel.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), after "vehicle" to insert: "or any property left therein". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that, this Amendment will please the hotel proprietors, if it does not please the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. Under Clause 2 (2) as it stands the proprietor of an hotel is not to be liable as an innkeeper to any guest in respect of loss or damage to a vehicle. He may or may not be liable under other provisions, but he is not liable as an innkeeper. As the clause stands—and I am sure that this was an oversight—it does not apply to goods that: are in vehicles. Therefore, an hotel proprietor might be held to be liable as an innkeeper in respect of damage to or loss of goods which are inside a vehicle. As a matter of tidiness and fairness, it is better that the words proposed in the Amendment should be included, so as to make it clear that he is not liable for any property left therein. I admit that this proposal has its counterpart. The hotel proprietor will then have no lien. But the exercise of a lien is a rare thing—indeed, I do not know in what circumstances it could arise. I am sure that the hotel proprietor will have the advantage by the addition of tits Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will appreciate the generosity of my moving this Amendment, particularly when we come to the next one, in which I am asking that a further advantage should be given to the guest at art hotel. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16. after ("vehicle") insert ("or any property left therein").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that this Amendment might not please me, but I am happy to say that he is incorrect. I have no objection whatsoever to this Amendment. Those noble Lords who attended on Committee stage will remember that this was one Amendment which I was going to accept, but the noble Lord forestalled me by not moving it. I agree with the noble Lord that it, is quite illogical that any distinction should be drawn at this point between the vehicle and the property left in it. If the owner of the property does not like that situation, he can deposit the property with the innkeeper. That, undoubtedly, is his proper course. I entirely agree that this

147
Amendment removes an unnecessary distinction; it tidies up the Bill and it is quite acceptable. Therefore, I have no hesitation in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "two" for "one" [hundred pounds]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I just clear up one small misunderstanding. I did not mean to say that I thought the noble Lord would not accept the Amendment; I meant to say—and I thought I did—that I thought he would accept it. I hope that he will accept this Amendment, too. We had a discussion on this matter on the Committee stage it went to a Division and, on a narrow margin, the Committee agreed with the clause as it stands. I feel that the House ought to reconsider this point. This is the provision which limits to £100 the liability of an innkeeper in respect of the contents of a case of a guest which may be lost or damaged in circumstances where he is not guilty of any negligence. The view of those who supported the amendment in Committee was that in present-day conditions £100 was a wholly inadequate sum. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in a "last fling," put forward the argument that if £30 was reasonable as a limit immediately bfore the war, then £100 was not an unreasonable limit at the present time. But the fact is that this limit of £30 was fixed in 1863, under the Innkeepers' Liability Act, and it was regarded at that date as a reasonable figure. I ask the House to think again. If the £30 limit was reasonable in 1863. I am astonished at my own moderation in asking, the House now to put the limit at £200.
What are we asking in this Amendment? We are asking that the maximum liability of an innkeeper in regard to lost or damaged luggage of a guest who goes to his hotel—it may be lost or damaged through no fault of the innkeeper but it may be through his fault, although negligence cannot be established and it is difficult for a guest to establish negligence on the part of an innkeeper—should be £200. I submit that that is not unreasonable. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I put forward on the Committee stage. I am prepared to take the value of the contents of an ordinary
148
week-end case, although in many in! stances a guest might go to an hotel for more than a week-end. I think that any noble Lord, putting a modest figure on the contents of such a case, would find that certainly £100 would not cover it; and, generally speaking, £200 would not cover it.
I hope the House will think again and agree to this modest Amendment to raise the liability of the innkeeper to a maximum of £200. After all, he can, and does, insure; and to him the extra liability from insurance cannot be great. But to the guest who wants to insure against these contingencies—and I want to stress this fact—the premium is somewhat high. It may interest your Lordships to know that the kind of insurance that one takes out for this sort of thing is an all-risks policy, and a good many insurance companies—indeed, I think, virtually all of them—would want a premium of the order of £1 per cent. That is quite substantial. So far as the innkeeper is concerned, it would not be anything like that. I feel that this is an Amendment that might well be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out the second ("one") and insert ("two").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I feel that I must oppose this Amendment. I do not propose to argue it at length, because it was fully dealt with on the Committee stage. The figure in the old Act was £30, and it has now been more than trebled and put at £100. I feel that that is quite adequate. I feel that for the ordinary guest who is staying one night in an hotel (I am afraid that here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin), £100 should cover the value of his luggage. The noble Lord mentioned insurance by the innkeeper. Surely, if we are going for a holiday and taking a great amount of money, or some valuable, it is prudent to insure ourselves and our baggage. The guest has every opportunity of putting valuable items of jewellery and such things in the safe deposit, and I feel that the hotel proprietor ought not to be put to a greater liability than the £100 at present in the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Gifford in his resistance to this Amendment I do not intend to go through all the points

149
that have been raised, but I should just like to put this point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the date of the £30. The £100 was suggested by the Law Reform Committee who were fully aware of the original date of the £30. As recently as 1954, with all the facts before them, and after due consideration, they came to the conclusion that the proper figure to-day was £100. I cannot see why your Lordships should be asked to alter the view of that Committee.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, again without going through all the details. There seems to be a great cleavage of opinion about what one's suitcase and its contents are worth. Surely, it matters very much whether one is going away for a night or for a month or two. I feel that your Lordships, calculating on Lord Silkin's basis, and adding up the costs of suits, clothes, hair brushes and the case itself, would agree that the increase from £30 to £100, far from being adequate is really most inadequate. The noble Lord has taken the point I wished to make about insurance: no wise innkeeper would carry this risk himself but would naturally insure himself. I am told that the increase of his liability from £100 to £200 would mean an almost infinitesimal increase in the premium demanded. As for Lord Gifford's excellent sponsoring of insurance companies, I never insure my luggage when I travel. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am bound to say that there is a great deal in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. One of the difficulties, of course, is the question of keys. Innkeepers have great difficulty in getting back their keys from their guests The whole thing ought to be better organised, because the real trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, is the stealing of one's luggage from one's room by somebody who has access to the hotel. Anybody who has stayed in an American hotel knows what a terrific hubbub there is immediately anybody reports that his room has been entered. In these very big hotels they are on to it like a shot as soon as there is any suspicion, and if they catch a fellow with a hotel key. I think it is an important point, because
150
a guest may easily lose at least £200 if his luggage is stolen from an hotel.
4.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, from the way the debate went on a previous stage, and the way it has gone to-day, I was hoping that the decision on this apparently small matter was not going to be treated as a Party issue. This is a Private Member's Bill which deals with a point of substance affecting all Parties. I hope, therefore, that we shall not vote on this Amendment from the point of view of whether it affects the Government or not—I do not think it does—but that we shall try to vote upon the facts. I am not greatly concerned over what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said about the Law Reform Committee's view upon what the increased liability should be, because, if I may put it this way, we have not yet reached a firm basis in our price schedules.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was anxious to save your Lordships' time, and not to have a kind of analysis of the contents of ordinary hotel resident's luggage. But I think everybody knows quite well that the progressive increase of prices in the last ten or eleven years has been such that, if you take your wife away for one week and you analyse the contents of your suitcases, the value is nearer £200 than £100—leaving out altogether articles of value, which it might well be suggested by a hotel proprietor should be deposited in a safe place. You may have a couple of suits, and maybe to dress at night; and you may have a wife who is almost certain to want not only what she arrives wearing, bat three changes. If to the value of these items you add the total cost of the ordinary stuff that anybody wants to deposit in a safe place (the hotel provides special wardrobes and things of that, kind to be there at the service and for the general use and pleasure of the visitors they invite) I think your Lordships will agree that we are not asking too much in suggesting that the hotel keeper's liability should be brought into line with the economic facts of the present time.
It is perhaps of pertinence to say, to your Lordships that when some of us discussed this figure in private before we came, we thought that £200 was not enough. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin,

151
has indicated that we have come to a lower figure and are now agreed upon this figure of £200. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will be prepared to meet us on the matter. If he is not, then I hope your Lordships will vote upon the facts and not upon any idea that it would not be quite correct to support the Amendment because it happens to be moved from this side of the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I underline what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said with regard to its not being a Party issue? I am fortified in that by my memory, which I think is correct, that in another place an Amendment was moved from the Labour Benches to reduce the figure from £100 to £30, as it is at present. Therefore, one can understand that there is no firm Party line on this point. But my feat of memory in remembering that brings out what is, I think, the important aspect of this matter.
Here we are trying to strike a balance, and a fair balance, between the interest of the guests and of the proprietor. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, took me to task in a kindly way for saying on the last occasion that the relevant time was before the war, and he pointed out that the provision for the £30 came into a Bill in 1863. But I do not think my point was an unfair one, because, so far as I know, there was no suggestion in the years before the war that this figure should be increased, and I should have thought that a 3⅓ times increase of a figure which was accepted at that time was a fair and, indeed, rather a generous estimate of the increase in the price of clothes. I am glad to say that mine are not quite that, although I would not say that they are far off the increase of 3⅓ times. However, they are not as much as that at the present day.
With regard to the general position, I think it is fair to make a distinction between the guest who is going to make a short stay, and the guest who is going to make a long stay. After all, this is strict liability. One need not prove negligence. Property may have gone by reason of the action of an extremely clever hotel thief that the proprietor could have done, nothing to prevent, and he still has
152
to pay this amount just because the loss takes place. That is a strict liability, and again I think it is fair to remember that that was imposed, by what I think is the wisdom of the Common Law, to meet the case of the traveller who arrives at a place for the night and has no other place to go except the local inn; he was driven to go to that place. Then the Common Law placed that strict liability that, however careful the innkeeper was, if the property went he had to pay for it. That is the liability we are looking at to-day.
I believe that broadly it does meet the case of the guest who goes for a short time. After all, I should think most of us who go for a short stay take a dinner jacket and a change of clothes. That, with the clothes we have on—I speak for myself at any rate; I do not know how many of your Lordships are in a condition more approaching Beau Brummel, but I am sure many of you are, so I can speak only for myself—is well covered. I remind noble Lords of this: that, assuming one has to claim, one does not get replacement value for the loss; one gets the actual value. A Member of your Lordships' House once said, "I have a new suit for every day of the week, and this is it." If that suit has been worn for some time, you have to allow for depreciation and years of wear and you cannot have the replacement value as being the sum the innkeeper would pay, any more than it is the sum your insurance company would pay Therefore, on consideration, I think that the position is reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made a fair point that if one is going to make a long stay at an hotel, one could take out an insurance for that period.
This Bill is useful in itself because it clarifies and modernises the law on a difficult subject. It is also a good thing because, as I have put to your Lordships, the Law Reform Committee is a collection of distinguished people who are doing valuable work. It is important that we should try to translate their work into legislation. I do not mean for a moment —and I hope that the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will not misunderstand me—that we should take the ipse dixit of the Law Reform Committee there; but what is important is that we should not lose the opportunity of giving effect to their recommendations

153
in this Bill. It is not a question of the position of this House or another place; it is a question of trying to hold what the majority of people think is a fair balance between the two interests affected, the guest and the innkeeper. I feel that if, in this matter, we change the figure, we are jeopardising that balance and the chance of a very useful Bill. For that reason, I hope that the change will not be pressed on this occasion.
4.33 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I must confess that my sympathies tend to lie with the noble Lord who raised the Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, if you go away you never, or hardly ever, insure your baggage. If you go to an hotel, you assume its honesty. Should one find that the contents of one's case or cases were, in fact, removed, and should the contents of one's case or cases amount to the sum of £200, one would justly feel most perturbed to find that one could claim only £100. As to the hotel keeper being liable for the extra £100, to bring it up to £200, I agree that that would be a rare occurrence. Where that is necessary, however, one would feel very upset to find that one could claim only £100.
LORD SILKIN: I believe I have the right of reply, have I not?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say a few words? It is not my intention to repeat what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount, but may I, first of all, mention one point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He spoke of a man and his wife going to an inn. I want to point out to the House that the total amount then would be £200, because it is £100 for any one guest. So that, if a man and his wife go to an inn, the figure is £200. Secondly, I thought the House might like to know a little factual information which I do not mind admitting might not be considered in my favour; but, whether it is in my favour or in favour of the noble Lord, I think it might be helpful for the House to know what is the law in one other country, the only instance I have been able to discover. In Switzerland, the limit is 1,000 francs, which works out, I am told, at £83. That is below the figure which I
154
am proposing in this Bill. But I must own—and this is what your Lordships might hold against me—that that figure was fixed in the year 1911. It is 1,000 francs. I state a fact and your Lordships can draw what deductions you like from that. Of course, I entirely echo the noble and learned Viscount's view that this is by no means a Party matter. The fact that the luggage of noble Lords opposite seems to be worth much more than that of noble Lords on this side of the House I regard as purely coincidental.
Finally, in asking your Lordships to pass this Bill, it seems to me that my task is to strike a just and reasonable balance between two parties whose interests may confict—the innkeeper and the public. That is my purpose. What is a just and reasonable balance is a matter of opinion, and on this point it is a matter of degree. We are divided only upon a figure. It is purely a matter of degree it is not a matter of principle in any way at all. Whatever figure your Lordships decide is right shall be incorporated in the Bill. But, having said that, I can odd only this. As was pointed out by my noble friend, Lord Derwent, this figure is in the Bill, rightly or wrongly, because it was the figure recommended by the Law Reform Committee. I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that we are not bound to follow that recommendation. The question is what we decide, and not what they decide. At the same time, that Committee was an extremely responsible Committee, I should say entirely unbiased, and they arrived at that figure after full consideration of all the facts and the evidence, only two years ago. Whatever your Lordships may think of it, I followed that figure in this Bill. I think that, although it is not conclusive and is not bound to be followed by us, we should think seriously before we depart from it, because I would remind your Lordships that this figure is just one of many points which were incorporated into one Report and thereafter into one Bill, all collectively in what is an attempt to arrive at an even balance between two conflicting interests.
4.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, let me first deal with the point that seems to have created some impression on the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Lord Derwent, that this is the figure from the Law

155
Reform Committee's Report. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the learned gentlemen who constituted the Committee and who reported. At any rate, they came to the conclusion that the original figure was inadequate. On that I think they are very good judges; but are they necessarily good judges as to the value of somebody's suitcase at the present time? In any case, it was 1954 then, and now we are in 1956. I should have thought that any one of your Lordships was in as good a position to judge what the value of the normal contents of a suitcase was as members of the Law Reform Committee were. I ask noble Lords to judge for themselves whether a maximum of £100 is adequate at the present time.
Secondly, I do not presume to know what noble Lords have in their suitcases, although the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, appears to know what we on this side have in ours. But I do know that in my own family I could not replace the normal luggage of a male—and I am not at all extravagant—for £100, even allowing for the point the noble Lord, and I think the noble and learned Viscount, makes, that it is not replacement value but actual value at the time—I accept that, of course. Still less could you replace women'

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

luggage for that figure, especially if they are going to a number of evening functions and they want a change of attire.
But my final point is that we are not seeking to insert in the Bill an automatic figure of what is to be the compensation; it is based on actual loss. If the loss is not £200, then the innkeeper will not be liable for it. Why should not he pay if that is the actual, ascertained loss? If it is greater, then the guest himself is responsible. I cannot see the argument for limiting it to a figure which everyone in this House must know within his heart of hearts will, in a great many circumstances, be inadequate. It may not be inadequate if you go for the night to an hotel without necessarily requiring a change of attire; it is inadequate if you are going to stay several days in an hotel. If you know it is inadequate, then why do you want to impose a lower limit than will be adequate for the occasion? I hope, therefore, that, even at this very late hour—at five minutes past twelve—the noble Lord will see his way to accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Lothian, M.

Amulree, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Rea, L.

Albemarle, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Salter, L.

Attlee, E.

Colyton. L.

Saltoun, L.

Ferrers, E.

Greenhill. L.

Sherwood, L.

Listowel, E.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Lucan, E.

Kershaw, L.

Sinha, L.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Wise, L.

Thurso, V.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Derwent, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President)

Stair, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Fairfax of Cameron. L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Freyberg, L.

Gilford, L. [Teller.)

Fortescue, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hawke, L.

Munster, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Onslow, E.

Cherwell, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Merthyr, L. [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to add to the proviso:
"and, at Me time when the guest in question first occupied the bedroom allocated to him, a further such copy either was placed in that bedroom in such manner that it might conveniently he read by him or had been handed to him".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. With this confidence in the House having been restored, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will see his way to accept this Amendment. As the clause stands, there is an obligation on an hotel proprietor, if he wants to take advantage of this limitation of his liability, to exhibit a notice in a conspicuous place at the entrance. The point I should like to make is that this notice will not necessarily be seen by people who come to the hotel. It is, of course, the intention that it should be seen, and I think the noble Lord, in the Clause under consideration, does his best to make certain that a guest coming to the hotel will see this notice.
On the other hand, where it is desired to limit the liability of a person it is essential that the persons affected should be made aware that there is this limitation. I am not satisfied that in all cases a guest arriving at an hotel, especially if he is a foreigner, will read all the notices exhibited at the entrance and appreciate the position as to liability. I suggested, therefore, in an Amendment in Committee, that in addition to this notice, a notice should be exhibited in the bedrooms. A number of noble Lords, representing, so far as I could gather, the interests of very luxurious hotels, objected to spoiling the harmony and symphony of the decorations of the bedrooms by having such a notice exhibited. I never suggested it should be stuck on the wall, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, accused me of suggesting. It could be quite well done in a neat frame, but in order to meet his susceptibilities and the feelings of those who think like him, I am putting forward an alternative. That is that the notice limiting the liability should be handed to the guest, instead of being placed in the bedroom. The Amendment leaves it quite open as to how the notice should be made available for the guest for him to read. If the noble Lord does not like the idea of a notice in the bedroom, it is open to the proprietor to hand the
158
copy to the guest when he arrives. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to this Amendment, except that it might cost the hotel proprietor something for printing these notices. If it is going to be done for tie benefit of the very luxurious hotels the expense cannot amount to a great deal, however, so I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I just want to say a word on this Amendment. I am afraid that on the last Amendment I supported the noble Lord in the Division Lobby, but to-day I want to oppose this Amendment. I do not see any useful purpose in it, mainly because I do not think people look at notices in their bedrooms. Under the clause a notice will be posted in the front hall by the reception desk, and in my opinion that should be quite enough to cover the point in question. If a notice were to be given to each guest when he arrives, not only would it be a fairly expensive business, because a large number of people stay in hotels in the course of a year, but I am sure that no particular purpose would be served and it would be an annoyance. It was bad enough in the old days when we were all compelled to register. If we are now going to be given bits of paper, I think it will be more annoying. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not accept this Amendment.
LORd DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry Lord Silkin believes that I was thinking only of the beauty of rooms in large hotels, because in such hotels the smaller the proportion of the wall the notice would cover. There, are many small hotels which have been tastefully decorated, and there, too, the proprietors dislike the idea of having notices in their rooms. I do not believe that people are more likely to read bits of paper in their rooms than at the reception desk.
The idea of handing a piece of paper to the guest, I must say I dislike even more than I do the idea of putting notices in the bedrooms. Apart from the fact that there is the cost of printing, I can visualise the small hotel with three or four lots of guests arriving at once. It will often be the proprietor himself who receives them and shows them to their rooms, and if the Amendment is accepted

159
the poor man will have to present a bit of paper to each one. Suppose he forgets one. I do not know how it is to be known that he has forgotten. Is there to be a "snooper" in the hall saying, "You have broken the law"? It really seems entirely unnecessary. I repeat what I said at the Committee stage. This Bill sets out two places in which he can put up the notice, and it states quite definitely that the notice must be conspicuous. If there is any proprietor who does not carry out that duty the fact can easily be seen. Somebody comes into the hotel and there is no notice which he can easily see; the notice is not conspicuous. I feel that this Amendment would add to the burden of the hotel proprietor without any additional safeguard for the guest.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has ever been in a small country hotel when a 32-seater coach comes in with a party. It is pandemonium as it is, with the luggage. If 32 little pieces of paper have to be handed out, as well as dealing with all the luggage, and with the staff distracted. I am sure that within ten minutes the lounge or reception hall would look as if a paper chase had taken place there. I think the handing out of notices is impracticable. It is not done, so far as I know, in any country in the world. I have been to hotels in six countries, including Soviet Russia, in the last month. I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this is not a point, I confess, upon which I feel very strongly, but having heard the arguments, not only to-day but in Committee, I have come to the conclusion with no hesitation that on balance the best course is to adopt the Bill as it stands and not to alter it in either direction. I would just invite your Lordships to consider the position under the Bill as it stands. The proviso to subsection (2) says:
"The proprietor shall not be entitled to the protection of this subsection unless, at the time when the property in question was brought to the hotel, a copy of the notice…was conspicuously displayed in a place where it could conveniently be read by his guests at or near the reception office or desk…"
That is one alternative. The other alternative is, according to the Amend-
160
ment, that the notice must either be placed in the bedroom or handed out to the guests on arrival. We have heard the arguments against placing the notice in the bedroom. I do not object very much to having the notice in the bedroom, but I understand that the hotel proprietors do. We have heard their reasons, and on the whole I think they are proper reasons—reasons which are weighty and which should be given effect to.
I would ask the House to consider this question not only as one of convenience but as one in which law is involved. What is to happen if there is a dispute which is taken to court? In this connection, I submit, the Bill has an advantage, because, I suggest, it would be simpler and far easier to prove whether or no a notice had been conspicuously displayed "at or near the reception office or desk," and so forth, than it would be to prove that a slip of paper had been handed to a guest. What is to happen if the other side says: "No such slip of paper was, in fact, handed out"? There is going to be an argument, and I think it will be far more difficult for the court to decide that issue than to decide whether there was a conspicuous display of what, after all, would be a permanent notice—no doubt in a frame. That reason compels me to suggest to the House that, on balance, it would be preferable to reject this Amendment, and to leave the Bill as it is. There is little more I need say. Whichever way the decision of the House goes, I think this provision can be worked. But I think that the Bill can be worked better as it is now than if it is amended in the way the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has taken the same view about every Amendment which has been put forward—that on balance it is better that it should be rejected. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I feel that those who have spoken have really not appreciated its point. I originally put down an Amendment to ensure that a guest was certain to see the notice. I thought that a safe way of doing that was to have the notice exhibited in the bedroom. But some noble Lords said that a bedroom was not a good place in which to have it. They said that it might spoil the beauty of the rooms in the case of certain hotels—possibly in half a

161
dozen luxury establishments. My feeling was that there could be an alternative to meet these few cases—let them hand out a notice to the guest. Lord Gifford has said that there would be hundreds of notices handed out, and that it would lead to confusion. But the hotel proprietor if he wished would have the simple remedy of putting a notice in the bedroom. It is the same with regard to the arguments that might arise in the courts. If there was a notice in the bedroom, there could be no argument as to whether a slip of paper was handed out or not. I think I have demonstrated that this Amendment is not as unreasonable as some noble Lords have tried to make out, but I will not press it. With your Lordships' permission, I will now withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE
  NOTICE

    LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO GUESTS' PROPERTY
    Under the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, a hotel proprietor may in certain circumstances be liable to make good any loss of or damage to a guest's property even though it was not due to any fault of the proprietor or staff of the hotel.
    This liability however—

    (a) extends only to the property of guests who have engaged sleeping accommodation at the hotel;

    (b) is limited to £50 for any one article and a total of £100 in the case of any one guest except in the case of property which has been deposited, or offered for deposit, for safe custody;

    (c) does not cover motor-cars or other vehicles of any kind or horses or other live animals.

    The display of this notice does not constitute an admission either that the Act applies to this hotel or that liability thereunder attaches to the proprietor of this hotel in any particular case.
    5.3 p.m.
    LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 4, line 15, after ("kind") insert ("or any property left in them").(Lord Silkin.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether I might just say this, with the permission of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has carried his Amendment to substitute "two hundred" for "one hundred" on page 2 of the Bill, a consequential Amendment will be needed in the Schedule—that is, on page 4 at line 11. The Amendment needed will be to leave out £100 and insert £200. I hope that in order that it may be dealt with at this stage, the noble Lord will move that as a consequential Amendment.
    LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 4, line 11, leave oat ("£100") and insert ("£200").—(Lord Silkin.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment to omit the words "The display of". My reason is simple: the words are unnecessary. If you can save three words in a notice—the noble Lord opposite was anxious about saving cost—it may well improve, the notice and it reduces cost. Here is way of saving cost. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 4, line 17, leave out ("The display of").—(Lord Silkin.)
    LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I agree that these words are unnecessary, and I accept this Amendment.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
5.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this Bill has two primary purposes: first, it extends the basis on which a family allowance is payable; secondly, it establishes what I would suggest is an improved system of payments of benefits to widows. May I take family allowances first? The Bill provides 2s. a week additional by way of family allowance for the third and younger children in the family, making 10s. in all. In the second place, it raises the qualifying age from fifteen to eighteen in cases where children are undergoing full-time education or full-time training as apprentices—though this word is not taken in any narrow sense. It also raises the age from fifteen to sixteen during which family allowance can continue to be paid for those very unfortunate children who, because of illness of mind or body, have never been to school or are unlikely to be able to work. From the age of sixteen they qualify in their own right for National Assistance. It is important to note that the higher age limit for family allowance applies equally to all National Insurance benefits for children, so that a man on sickness benefit can get an allowance for a son or daughter who is at school.
I know that there are a number of people who question the value of family allowances, and the suggestion is made that they are sometimes misused, though concrete evidence of that is normally absent. The major political Parties agree on the importance of family allowances, and I think it is fair to say that in the Coalition Government it was the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who carried out the major departmental work in framing the original scheme. This will he the third Act which has been passed under a Conservative Government (if it is passed) and that is why I should like to say a word about the reasons why we think family allowances are important. In the first place it is obvious that two men may be working side by side in some office or factory and carrying an entirely different burden in their domestic life,
164
according as to whether they have children or have none. In other words, the basis on which their remuneration is paid bears no relation whatsoever to the obvious social value of the family which they bring up.
In the second place, the burden of a large family does not always come in a man's life when he is earning his peak salary. I suppose in the majority of cases the cost of bringing up a family is at about its highest in the early thirties of a man's life, whereas his salary in many cases will go on increasing steadily until he is sixty or over. So in that sense, when his remuneration is at its highest, he is carrying a much smaller burden than when his family were all at home and requiring his full attention and a good deal of expense. Family allowances are intended to be a contribution which will reduce the wide diversity of the burden which has often to be borne at periods of life when it is least convenient to do so. Many of us who have considered this problem have been grateful for the plain, simple logic with which Lord Beveridge expounded the solution which has been adopted.
To these theoretical considerations I would add the practical experience which is generally revealed by the annual food surveys carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. These tend to confirm that large families particularly are the section of society which are most in need of some assistance at the present time. Family allowances are of course subject to income tax, but they provide assistance in maintaining the standards of the family, thereby making it easier for the larger families to hold together. I do not think any of us doubt how important a part families play as the foundation of our way of living.
I should like to refer to other minor provisions affecting family allowances. Clause 4 enables reciprocal arrangements to be made with foreign countries. We have been able to do this up to the present in National Insurance matters, but we have not been able to provide reciprocity in family allowances, and we hope to make such an arrangement very soon with France and with Belgium, who have been very generous in paying our nationals without any waiting period.
Clause 5 arises from practical experience where a child under seventeen years

165
of age has to be taken away from its family by a court order and committed to the care of a lit person, usually the local authority. A practice has grown up which was not envisaged in the Children's and Young Persons' Act. Local authorities have experimented by allowing children committed to their care to return home for a trial period, and they have done this without revoking the order. There is no express legal authority for the practice, and in any case it cannot carry with it the right of family allowance. This clause regularises the practice and will enable such a child to count for family allowance. This will not, however, affect the power of the local authority to take the child away from its parents, because the court order remains in force and therefore the child is still under the control of the local authority.
Clause 3 somewhat surprised me when I first read it. Its purpose is to allow a marriage, even if potentially polygamous, to be accepted by the statutory authorities who determine the claim for benefit provided it has in fact at all times been a monogamous marriage. I understand this is to meet a situation which might arise in certain British territories overseas where polygamous marriages are permitted, even if to-day they are becoming increasingly rare.
Now let me turn to the other main purpose of this Bill: that is, the provision for widows. I think it is fair to say that over the last thirty years opinions have varied a good deal as to what is the best and fairest way in which provision shall be made for widows. The Contributory Pensions Scheme of 1926 provided a pension for all widows, subject, of course, to their husbands being insured, but at a relatively low rate. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, made a comment about the scheme which I think goes to the root of the matter. He said that these pensions were
"inadequate in many cases and superfluous in other cases"
and he recommended what I think might be called the selective approach: by that I mean the provision of more substantial benefits in the categories of widows where they were likely to be most needed—that is to say, in cases where there are children, where the widow is incapable of self-support, and where she is over retirement pension age.
166
These principles were generally accepted, subject, however, to modification, and I believe are generally recognised to-day as the soundest basis on which provision should be made to widows by the State. This view has now been endorsed by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Indeed, the proposals in the Bill are substantially those recommended by the Committee. This is done, first, by increasing the amount payable as a widowed mother's allowance in respect of children. This Bill makes increased payments of a week to all children. If we add this to the existing payments, plus family allowance, we find that a widow now gets 16s. 6d. for the first child, also the second child, and 18s. 6d. for all subsequent children. This is, in respect of the first child, twice as much as she was getting in 1948, and in respect of the third and subsequent children nearly four times as much as she received in 1948. I think it is fair to say that that is a substantial improvement.
Moreover, the widowed mother's allowance will continue to be paid until the youngest child has reached the age of 18, even where the child is working. The object of this provision is to seek, to emphasise the need to keep the family together, at least until the children have grown up. All these improvements for widowed mothers will apply equally to the corresponding benefits under the industrial injuries scheme for women who have lost their husbands in industrial accidents or by prescribed industrial disease.
With regard to women who, for one reason or another, are not eligible for widowed mother's allowance, by Clause 2 (6) we have taken power to make provisions to re-establish such widows in insurance. This will give full and immediate cover for sickness and unemployment benefit, and regulations for this purpose will be covered by Affirmative Resolution procedure. When these regulations are made there will be no further awards of pensions to widows who are incapable of self-support; however, they will be entitled to sickness benefit. If this were not done, a woman would have to be at work for six months to qualify for pension. At the same time, we raise the age at which a permanent pension becomes payable from forty to fifty. This will not apply, however, to women who

167
are already widowed, whose rights will be preserved in Clause 2 (5).
These readjustments are to meet the Advisory Committee's criticism that the present situation results in serious anomalies—indeed, they have called them "gross inequalities"—as between one widow and another. We believe that this will be a very much fairer arrangement. One further point I should mention. Women who are widowed from the age of fifty will get a permanent pension if the marriage has existed for three years, instead of ten years as at present. The benefit of this provision will be given to those widows who fail to get a pension because of the 10-year condition at the present time.
The cost of these proposals will be about £3½? million a year from the National Insurance Funds. This figure will tend to fall, however, in about ten years' time. The increase of 2s. in family allowances for the third and younger children will cost £10 million, and will affect four million children in over one million families. The raising of the age for family allowance will cost £2 million a year. It is hoped to bring the higher age of family allowances into operation on August 1. On October 2, it is hoped that the increase in the amount of family allowances for younger children will be brought into operation, together with the 5s. increase under the widowed mother's allowance.
May I sum up this Bill? It is intended to help where help is most needed and to give support to the family, which I am sure we all regard as the true basis of our civilisation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.18 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to tell your Lordships that we on this side of the House give our full support to this measure, which passed through another place not only without opposition but with considerable approval expressed on all sides. As the noble Earl has already told us, the Bill has several objects. I am going to class them under two heads only. First, it goes some way to raising benefits in accordance with the rise of prices which is a result of inflation and
168
other causes. That is one of the necessary changes that have to be made from time to time when we are living in an inflationary state; otherwise, as time goes on, the benefits which Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided should be given become less and less effective, and people are forced to ask for public assistance in order to meet the bill which was supposed to be met by the benefits decided by law.
When the noble Earl tells us that the children's allowances are being put up, we are glad to know that. It is a good thing that they should be put up, and, as a result, they more than meet the rise in prices which has taken place in these years. I was also glad to hear the noble Earl say that there was a prospect of further arrangements between this country and other foreign lands for reciprocal payment of benefits to pensioners. That reciprocity seems to me to be wholly desirable, and any arrangements which the Government can make that are reasonably fair to this country will certainly receive the support of noble Lords on this side of the House.
Another provision to which the noble Earl made special reference, and with which, again, I am sure we all agree, is the reduction in the length of time a woman must have been married before, at the death of her husband, she can claim benefit. The period is reduced from ten to three years. I remember well the discussions that took place when these arrangements were originally made. It was felt that a woman might marry a man on his deathbed in order to secure benefits, and that, but for that purpose, the marriage would be entirely fictitious. That would still remain possible, of course, if the period of marriage required were brought down to a matter of hours instead of a matter of years. But I do not think it applies to cases of widows who have lived in married state with their husbands for over three years; and I do not think there is any danger in the amelioration effected by the terms which the Government have introduced in this Bill. With all those proposals in the Bill I thoroughly agree.
I have personal reasons for favouring the proposals to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred in the last part of his speech, and, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to make a personal reference. Some thirty or forty

169
years ago my wife and I were instrumental in bringing to this country, at a time when there were no provisions for widowed mothers—in fact, there was little compensation or benefit of any kind—a man who had been successful in getting widows' pensions established in a great many States of the United States of America. That man was Judge Neil. As a result of that, I think I can claim to have been one of the earliest promoters of widowed mothers' pensions. The propaganda that I was able to carry out, through the medium of this gentleman from the United States, was some of the earliest propaganda in this country in favour of widowed mothers' pensions. I fully realised at that time that it was an impossible task for a widow who had children to be both the breadwinner and a homekeeper at the same time; and, in fact, in the case of a certain Mrs. Savage, a poor woman who was trying to do both those things, who was sentenced by the court to a term of imprisonment for failure to do so, my wife was instrumental in securing her release when the true facts of her position were made known.
I always felt that the widows' pensions subsequently introduced did not fully meet the case, because they did not provide enough to a widow who had several children to bring up. I will not say that widows were paid too much, but if there was only a limited amount of money going it was the widowed mother, rather than the widow, who was entitled to the benefit of it, because a young widow, after her grief and personal sorrow had been taken into account, was not necessarily in later life in a worse position to earn her living than an unmarried woman. What was true all those years ago is true to-day in these days of full employment. I always took the view at the time that the benefit had slightly gone astray, in that the widowed mother with several children to provide for was not properly looked after by the laws relating to compensation and benefit for persons who were distressed. My maiden speech in another place thirty-two years ago was devoted to the question of widowed mothers' pensions, and I am glad to be here in your Lordships' House to-day speaking in support of the principles that I was advocating so long ago, before any of these benefits had come into being. I support the noble Earl on both the main
170
sections of the Bill: first, in raising benefits fully to meet the rising cost of living and expense, and secondly in readjusting such benefits as are available so that the widowed mother is put into her just position with regard to insurance and benefit under the laws of this country.
5.27 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, there are just a few words I should like to say in support of what my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has said. We are indebted to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for a concise and fair presentation of its clauses. He mentioned, quite rightly, that the major political Parties are fully committed to the principle of family allowances; and he referred to the fact that my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt had a good deal to do with the piloting of the Bill through during the period of the Coalition Government. Surely, it is not inappropriate, in connection with this, the third Bill, broadening and extending the principle of family allowances, to remember the untiring work clone by a former Independent Member of another place, the late Miss Eleanor Rathbone.
There is one further point that I should like to make. I particularly welcome Clause 5 of the Bill, which gives local authorities who have taken a child into care and protection the right to allow that child to go back into the care of the parent, guardian, relative or friend without revoking the order, and at the same time providing some benefit for the child. I believe that that clause will give a flexibility in the administration of the principal Act which will be of great value; and, what is more, it will enable local authorities to watch carefully what is happening:, so far as a child taken into care is concerned, with a view, if it is humanly possible, to arranging for that child to get back into the normal family atmosphere. It is not often that my friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence makes a personal reference, but I was interested to hear him today. Having said that, I am sure that the noble Earl opposite will be glad to know that we on this side of the House will do all we can to facilitate the passage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to bring forward a Bill which is received with such warm

171
welcome by noble Lords who sit opposite. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, referred to Miss Rathbone, who undoubtedly played an important part in the early work connected with this type of development. Indeed, we can say that this is an important step in a long evolution to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, so properly referred from his experience. We have moved a long way. It is, of course, partly due to inflation, but there is also in this Bill a substantial alteration in emphasis. I do not think there is anything more for me to say, except to thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL
5.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Bill, which deals with workmen's compensation, is, like many other Bills which deal with the same subject, complicated to understand. Indeed, it may surprise your Lordships that sixty years after the first Act was passed, and the complete reform of the industrial injuries system in 1948, we are still adding to the list of Workmen's Compensation Acts. New cases of workmen's compensation do not arise after July 5. 1948, but compensation payable under the awards already given continue to be made. There has been more than one increase in the awards under the Industrial Injuries Act since 1948, and the purpose of this Bill is to bring the awards in the most severe cases under Workmen's Compensation Acts more into line with those made under the Industrial Injuries Act. Consideration has been given, both at the time of the Industrial Injuries Act and since then, to the possibility of absorbing the old Workmen's Compensation Acts into the new scheme. The fundamental difficulty has always been that the two systems operate on completely different bases, with the result that some people are better off under workmen's compensation than they would be under the Industrial
172
Injuries Act. This difficulty still remains, in spite of improvements in the industrial injuries rate in 1952 and 1955.
This Bill does not attempt to absorb the older scheme in the newer, but tries to bring the rates of award more into line in respect of total disablement. It does this by providing a supplement of 17s. 6d. a week to those who are totally disabled and are receiving a weekly payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This is approximately in line with the 100 per cent. disablement pension under the Industrial Injuries Act. Payments will be made not only to those receiving workmen's compensation, but also to those drawing benefit for total disablement under the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis benefit scheme. The effect of this will be that the maximum rates of workmen's compensation will be increased from 50s.—if I may take a standard case of a married man—to 67s. 6d. But this, of course, is not the whole story, because since 1948 there have been one or two important improvements in the position of disabled men and workmen's compensation. They can now draw sickness benefit in addition to compensation, and they can also draw constant attendance allowance. These benefits fall to be added both to payments under workmen's compensation and to benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act.
Perhaps I may give an example just to show how this works out. If we take the 100 per cent. disablement pension, which is 67s. 6d., and the new rate of a married man for maximum workmen's compensation, which is the same figure—when I say the new rate, I mean the new rate under the Bill—there can be added to this 40s. for sickness benefit for a man, and 25s. for a man's wife. This brings the total to £6 12s. 6d. With constant attendance allowance this rises to £9 12s. 6d. I mention this only to indicate that the figures we are dealing with in the Bill are not the whole extent of the benefit which can be made available to those who are injured in the course of their work. I think it is quite striking that this figure of £9 12s. 6d., in an extreme case, is comparable to 50s. which was payable in 1948 when the new scheme was brought into operation. I think it shows beyond peradventure that it has now been put on a much more satisfactory basis.

173
Questions have been raised as to why the partially incapacitated have not been brought into this scheme. The reason is that they are in an entirely different category, and in part are probably better off than if they were brought under the industrial injuries scheme. This is particularly likely to be the case for those on maximum compensation, who would have benefited by any increase in the maximum compensation rates. On the other hand, those below maximum compensation are able to get a review which can bring compensation more into line with modern wage rates. It was therefore felt that there was not the same justification in these cases as in those of total disablement.
It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the number of people who will benefit under the Bill, but it is probably between 13,000 and 14,000—that is, some 10,000 to 11,000 people drawing workmen's compensation, and nearly 3,000 beneficiaries under the pneumoconiosis scheme. The cost will be met out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, and it is estimated that it will be £650,000 in the first year, though this will diminish as time goes on. It is hoped to bring the scheme into operation before the middle of September. May I add that, in these cases, which almost all involve a measure of personal tragedy in the lives of certain individuals, we can get some satisfaction in that this measure will be of some assistance. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2·.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.38 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am glad to be able to give the noble Earl the same assurance that I gave him on the previous Bill: that we support the Government in this measure and, as in another place, we will take every step we can to facilitate its passage into law. Of course, this Bill is quite different from the one to which we have just given a Second Reading, and it affects a much smaller number of people. Nevertheless, they are people who are deserving of our consideration, and the advance which this Bill gives in their benefit is one that will be of great value in tragic cases. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything further, because the noble Earl has explained the terms of the Bill. Of
174
course, they are highly technical, and only those who have experience in these matters can fully understand them. The broad principle that we should make some effort for people who have suffered different kinds of injuries and are incapacitated and cannot earn their own living, should have our sapport. This Bill goes a long way to do that, and has our support. For my part, and those who sit on these Benches, I am quite sure that we shall give our full assistance and facilitate its passage into law.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say a word on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches. I wish to associate myself strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence has said. I personally have had some experience of these unfortunate people who suffer in this kind of way. I am sure that the provision which is being made for them now will be most welcome and will do away with a great deal of suffering. We shall do all we can to assist in the easy passage of this Bill through the House.
5.41 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I add one further word from these Benches? We welcome this Bill. May I be allowed one personal reference. We have travelled a long way since the main Act of 1906 or 1907—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 1897.
LORD BURDEN: I know there was a very small one in 1897, belt I mean the main Act in 1906. I remember that Act clearly because it contained a definition of "manual labour". There was a struggle, in which I took some part with my Association, to get the word "manual" deleted from the Bill and make it, throughout apply to office workers as well. That was in 1905. We on this side of the House will do all we can (subject to minor details, which I do not think will arise) to facilitate the passage of this useful piece of legislation, which applies, as the noble Earl said, only to small numbers but nevertheless to people who are suffering grievously as a result of gainful employment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the House for the welcome it has given this Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, speaks with great experience in these

175
matters. I should also like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Burden.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and commined to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHARITY OF FRANCES BARKER AND CERTAIN OTHER CHARITIES (CITY OF YORK) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL CHARITY AND CERTAIN OTHER CHARITIES (LUDLOW) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HOSPITAL OF ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER CHARITY (WARWICK) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SUTTON'S HOSPITAL (CHARTER-HOUSE) CHARITY BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE UNITED KINGDOM-CUBAN AGREEMENT
5.44 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether since signing the 1951 United Kingdom-Cuban Agreement comparative figures of United Kingdom exports accepted by Cuba in that year compared with 1955 show sufficient compensating advantage for the damage done to the Jamaican cigar industry resulting from decreased exports to the United Kingdom since completion of this Cuban Agreement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name. In doing so, I ask leave to detain your Lordships for a very few minutes. The matter is one of some importance. The Trade Agreement mentioned in my Question was signed in 1951, and the
176
chief reason for its signature was the acceptance by this country of raw sugar from Cuba in varying amounts. During the negotiations for that Trade Agreement, the Commonwealth was kept informed, and I personally have no criticism of the conclusion of that Agreement; but what my Question asks is whether the results of that Agreement have proved worth while.
I would ask leave for a moment to examine the then President of the Board of Trade's Press statement which accompanied the White Paper setting out the details of that Agreement. The Press statement by the President of the Board of Trade stressed the value of the reduction of the preference received in the United States from Cuba and stressed the value of the reduction of Cuban duties on some eighty items which can be imported into Cuba from this country. The President of the Board of Trade described it as:
"of the greatest significance to United Kingdom exporters".
Then, warming to his subject, the President of the Board of Trade said:
"We could now export on equal terms with the United States of America in 85 million dollars of trade. Cuba should be an important export market."
In return, we granted Cuban sugar an advantageous and secure position in varying amounts. We also accepted Cuban cigars in direct competition with the Jamaican cigar industry—500,000 dollars' worth in 1952–54, 250,000 dollars' worth in 1955 and 1 million dollars' worth in the year 1956.
Finally, the President of the Board of Trade said that he viewed the Agreement as one of great advantage to the British Commonwealth as a whole. If we look at a part of the British Commonwealth, it is difficult to discern the advantage to Jamaica. Jamaican exports to the United Kingdom in 1950 of cigars, a highly important industry to Jamaica, were worth £465,000. Now they have dropped to £369,000. Look at the facts as against the expectations in the Cuban dollar market. The expectations of the President of the Board of Trade were that this was going to be a great new export market. In 1951, our exports to Cuba stood at £7,400,000. In 1955, they stood at £4,800,000—scarcely a justification for this optimistic statement of the President

177
of the Board of Trade as to the results of this Agreement. Jamaica accepted from the United Kingdom in 1951 £11·4 million worth of imports. In spite of the economic blow that was dealt to Jamaica, in 1955 she accepted over £16 million worth of imports. I repeat that it is hard to discern the advantage to the British Commonwealth, so far as Jamaica is concerned, of this Cuban Agreement, and it is hard to see what justification there is to-day for the optimism which was expressed by the President of the Board of Trade when this Agreement was made. We cannot do anything to help Jamaica in this matter because to-day the duty on tobacco coming into this country is some 58s. per lb. and Jamaican preference is 1s. 6d. per lb.—that is all. It is virtually insignificant and, unfortunately, owing to our tying ourselves to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we cannot give any increased preference to Jamaica. If we raise it to one country we have to raise it to the others; if we reduce it to one, we have to reduce it to the others.
I raise this Question for the reason that I have just told your Lordships: that I want to know from the Minister whether the advantages of the Agreement have really outweighed the disadvantages to Jamaica. I submit to your Lordships that this is an example of where we have granted Cuba advantages and where the promises of increased trade for this country, which we were led to expect when we agreed that this Trade Agreement should go forward, have not materialised. Better by far, I believe, to turn away from the doctrinaire principle, of non-discrimination and regain the path of reasonable discrimination, in order to give a priority of position to those of our own kith and kin within the British Commonwealth—a priority which, in this particular example, is steadily declining.
5.50 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this is an important matter and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for raising it. This is a matter about which I know he feels, and has felt, strongly. The Trade Agreement with Cuba of 1951, to which my noble
178
friend refers, expired in December, 1953, and was superseded by the current Agreement. Both Agreements have been published, but I think it may assist your Lordships if I briefly recall their main provisions.
Under the 1951 Agreement, the Cuban Government reduced the duties on a wide range of United Kingdom goods. For their part, the United Kingdom committed themselves to certain purchases of Cuban sugar and opened an import quota for Cuban cigars, thus relaxing the prohibition which had been imposed during the war. Under the 1953 Agreement Her Majesty's Government secured the renewal of the tariff concessions for United Kingdom exports and, as to Cuban exports, they increased the import quota for cigars but did not renew the sugar commitment. I might add that this Agreement was in no way disadvantageous to this country for, without it, the higher duties which prevailed in 1951 would again have been levied on United Kingdom exports.
On the comparison which the noble Lord's Question might persuade your Lordships to draw, it is, if he will allow me to say so, a little misleading to speak in terms of assessing the balance of advantage as between the industries of Jamaica and the United Kingdom The decision to relax the prohibition on the import of Havana cigars was taken by the Party of noble Lords opposite in 1951, because it was their view, which they stated at the time, that under our international obligations the prohibition could not have been maintained indefinitely. Her Majesty's Government share that view, and I hope your Lordships do as well. It would be contrary to our policy to maintain such a prohibition longer than is justified on balance of payments grounds and contrary to our general policy of liberalising trade.
Since 1951 there has been a fall in our imports of cigars from Jamaica from the peak figure they reached while they enjoyed a virtual monopoly of our market for hand-rolled cigars. They now have rather more than half the trade in imported cigars, and Cuban cigars rather less than half. I should perhaps add that Jamaican and Havana cigars together account for only a small pail of our total consumption of cigars, if we include the cigars we make in this country. Your

179
Lordships may be interested to know that our own British machine-made cigars account for no less than 80 per cent. of our total consumption, and the Cuban and Jamaican for only 15 per cent.
My Lords, I will not say anything against the Jamaican cigars. I myself like them, and I think that some of the best Jamaican cigars very nearly approach the Havana cigar. But I am afraid there is no getting away from the fact that the prestige that attracts the Havana cigar smoker must be taken into account. I am told that now, if a choice is offered to experienced cigar smokers, four out of five will take a Havana cigar, despite the fact that they cost between 1s. 6d. or 2s. more. I think perhaps if a cigar is offered to them free, the figure would probably be five out of five. I have confirmed that fact from our own cigar consumption in your Lordships' dining room.
LORD BURDEN: They are not free there.
LORD MANCROFT: As the noble Lord, Lord Burden, says they are not often given free there. It would not, I think, be tactful for me to ask my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye what he himself smokes in the way of cigars, but I think he will agree with me that there is a strong prejudice, perhaps unjustified, in favour of the Havana cigar.
I turn now to our whole export problem—not only cigars. Our total exports to Cuba, as the noble Lord has indicated, declined from £7½, million in 1951 (which, incidentally, included an abnormal shipment of over £2 million worth of buses) to £4 million in 1953: but in the first five months of this year they have been running at an annual rate of nearly £8 million. Over the period of the current trade Agreement our exports to Cuba have been steadily improving. Imports from all sources into Cuba have remained at about the same level, so that our share of the Cuban market has also increased. In particular, the Cuban authorities have this year imported British aircraft for the first time. They have bought three Viscounts and have placed their order for four more Viscounts for delivery in 1958. They have also this year, for the first time, placed an order with a London firm for the printing of bank notes.
180
As regards our import trade, it is true that there has been a reduction in our imports of cigars from Jamaica, and this reduction is obviously due in part to the licensing of quotas for Cuba. But total imports of all goods from Jamaica to the United Kingdom have increased steadily during the last few years, while total imports from Cuba have fallen off considerably. Her Majesty's Government fully realise, and are naturally in agreement with, the desire of my noble friend to see all possible assistance given to colonial trade. Apart from the substantial benefits which Jamaica and other British West Indian territories derive from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, in a remunerative price for a large part of their production and an assured market in the United Kingdom, they have recently been accorded increased preferences here for both bananas and lime oil. In addition, a price assistance scheme has been agreed with British West Indian Governments for citrus fruits, which will cushion the effect of fluctuating prices on the growers. Interest-free loans are also being provided from Colonial Development and Welfare money.
My Lords, we have old and friendly ties with Cuba which we value highly. Our ties with Jamaica are of quite a different kind and of a different value. I believe, however, that our present arrangements place a proper accent on both these ties.
5.58 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I just say a few words, as apparently the Party to which I belong was responsible for the difficulties in regard to Cuban cigars? May I say, too, that I warmly welcome the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. In regard to Cuban cigars we need to remember that cigar-making in Cuba is a prestige industry, and the Cuban Government and people have for a long time been fretting under this total prohibition of what they regard as their prestige industry. Undoubtedly, under this prohibition there was growing up a generation which did not know what was the flavour of a Havana cigar. But, quite apart from that, there is to be remembered the wide insurance business which is conducted in Cuba on behalf of British commercial insurance firms—a matter that was not mentioned by the noble Lord, though I am sure he knows of it. I do not want to develop

181
the subject, because it is perhaps rather dangerous, bearing in mind the Cuban feeling on the matter, of which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye will be aware.
Another factor to be borne in mind in regard to the Havana cigar is this. We in this country depend a great deal on tourism, and in particular from visitors from America, whom we welcome.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for just one moment. At no time in my speech did I say, nor do I wish to convey any impression, that I am against the importation of Havana cigars. I was dealing with the trade position in general, and the fact that we could give a greater preference to the Jamaican cigar so as to allow it to come in at a better rate than one has to pay for one's Havana.
LORD BURDEN: I agree; but in spite of the general explanation of the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord
182
Mancroft, I think one has to remember that our American friends and visitors smoke far more Havana cigars than Jamaican cigars, and it had been a source of complaint for a number of years that Havana cigars were not available for our American visitors. Apart from that point, I will only add that I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has given the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Irchrye, a good deal of information on this point, and I am sure that in some measure he will be satisfied.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before the House adjourns I have to inform your Lordships that there will be a Formal Sitting of the House at one o'clock to-morrow to receive a Bill from another place.
House adjourned at one minute past six o'clock.