Lords Sitting of 6 June 1957

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

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I am sorry that there are so many Third Readings of Private Bills to-day: it is the result of our not sitting yesterday. I beg to move that this Bill he read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
B P TRADING BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Gammons.
EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EXPORT OF LIVE CATTLE FOR SLAUGHTER
3.7 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Export of Live Cattle to the Continent for Slaughter has been considered and what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take concerning the Report.]
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food propose to ensure that cows heavily in milk should not be exported for slaughter; that lairages at the ports should be divided and the animals supervised by experienced persons; and that water troughs, hay racks, fodder and detention pens should he provided. They also agree that approved detention premises should be permanent and covered and should normally be within the dock or airport area or adjacent to it. My right honourable friends will provide that cattle should be fed as well as watered on lengthy internal rail journeys.
As regards the recommendation that vessels should not sad if winds of force 6 or over are forecast, my right honourable friends have decided it would be unwise to fetter the discretion of the master of the vessel and they propose to prohibit the carriage of cattle if the master has reason to expect adverse weather. The suggestions that cattle found unfit for shipment should he sent to the nearest slaughterhouse and that a minimum size might be prescribed for vessels engaged in the trade raise difficulties that require further study. My right honourable friends have come to the conclusion that it would not be in the interests of the animals to relax the rule requiring cattle to be tied while on board ship.
Discussions with the foreign Governments concerned, with a view to making satisfactory arrangements for the treatment of British cattle, are continuing and it is hoped to make a further statement about this immediately after the Whit-sun Recess.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the reply, so far as it goes. But would not the whole of this trouble be ended if the Government prohibited altogether the export of live cattle and restricted trade to the export of carcases?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Report of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his Committee dealt with that aspect, and the noble Lord will recall that the Committee did not conclude that this trade should be stopped.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that most of the steps which are now being taken could—apart from those which are to be the subject of further negotiations—have been taken before? Have the Government powers now to take these steps? Were such powers available to be operated earlier? This trade has been going on for about twelve months.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, except in certain cases, to which I referred, I do not think there is very much that could have been done earlier, for the reason that it is necessary to know what has to be done before one can do it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have said little about this, but I have been concerned that, with all the machinery at the disposal of the Ministry—the county agricultural committees, the advisory committees and so on—they had to set up a special Committee of Inquiry to deal with this matter, and allowed this trade to go on, with a good deal of dissatisfaction, for about twelve months.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, a good deal of what has been complained about is well outside the jurisdiction of agricultural committees, who have nothing to do with shipping, nothing to do with reception in foreign ports, and nothing to do with foreign travelling arrangements for the cattle.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a rather less controversial supplementary question. Does what he has just said mean that the inspection of these cattle by a veterinary officer in the ports before
232
they are shipped will be compulsory, instead of optional, as it is at the moment? I imagine that that could be done administratively without seeking any extra powers.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, that is what is intended.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I ask whether the last few words of the original reply of the noble Lord refer to No. 3 in the summary of recommendations on page 11 of the Committee's Report?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the last few words of my reply did, in fact, refer to the unsatisfactory conditions which have been complained of abroad, and every effort is being made to try to improve them. I should like to make it clear that my right honourable friends are entirely in sympathy with the public anxiety that these cattle should be treated as humanely as possible, and that any suffering to which they become subject should be reduced to the absolute minimum.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has sought to ride off answering the question of my noble Leader by saying that the matter did not belong to the Ministry of Agriculture. Is he aware that the question on the Order Paper is not limited to any Department of Government, but is addressed to Her Majesty's Government?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I understood that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had referred to the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, and he specifically referred to agricultural committees and so on. I still maintain that my reply was correct: that the agricultural executive committees have not jurisdiction over shipping conditions and conditions in foreign ports. I should like to add that we are trying to do everything that is possible, and, indeed, that some of the troubles have been subject to some misrepresentation in the past.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to ask one supplementary question which is not controversial. The noble Lord was good enough to say that the Committee would look into the question of hardship in the case of rail travel between farms

233
and ports of embarkation. Can he assure us that investigation will also be made into the position of cattle transported by road, because I understand that there are cases of considerable hardship—of bull calves being crowded together in motor lorries and arriving in a very poor condition?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friends will bear that in mind, as naturally it will be their desire to alleviate suffering wherever it arises.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord represent to his right honourable friend the Minister that, while we accept what he has said about what is within the province of the county agricultural committees, I adhere to my point that the Ministry of Agriculture, who have vast machinery and considerable powers, could have acted as soon as the first complaints arose, will-lout waiting for another inquiry.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is true that my right honourable friends have considerable powers; but, with great respect to the noble Viscount, I too, should like to stick to my point: that I think it is necessary to know exactly what the problem is before it can be tackled.

DOCK WORKERS' EMPLOYMENT SCHEME
3.17 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether the Report, presented in June, 1956, of the Committee to inquire into the operation of the Dock Workers' Employment Scheme has been considered by them, and any decision reached; (2) whether a communication has been received from the Docks National Joint Council with reference to the Report; the date of such communication; and when a reply on the points raised is likely to be forthcoming.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the
234
Report of the Committee to inquire into be operation of the Dock Workers' Employment Scheme recommended that the main structure of the Scheme should not be altered, but that there should be greater co-operation between the employers and the trade unions to make he Scheme work more effectively and that the National Dock Labour Board should be given the opportunity to exert a greater degree of leadership in dealing with various problems of dock labour. On those recommendations the observations of all the bodies in the industry with whom it would mainly lie to implement them have not yet been received.
The Report also recommended various minor amendments to the Scheme. On 8th April, 1957, the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry submitted agreed observations on the minor amendments recommended. The employers' side of the Council forwarded their comments on the main body of the Report on 26th April, 1957. It is understood that those of the workers' side of the Council will be submitted shortly. When these are received the desirability of amending the Dock Labour Scheme under the procedure laid down in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946, will be considered.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I say that it is a little difficult to understand how a National Joint Council does not represent both sides of the industry, if their application has been in order. Considering that is two years since this Committee were appointed, and over twelve months since they reported, is it not time that the Government did something—either accept the Report or reject it, but at least make up their mind on the matter?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that it would be clearly undesirable for the Government to formulate their policy before the views of the unions had been received. I agree with him, however, that there has been nothing precipitate or helter-skelter about the reaction to this Report of the various parties concerned. I will see what I can do to meet the noble Lords' wishes.

EGYPT: BRITISH SUBJECTS' SAVINGS CERTIFICATES
3.21 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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 (1) whether the slogan "Everybody's Gilt Edged Security" is printed in capital letters on the front page of the cover of all National Savings Certificates issued in Egypt during and after the war; (2) whether the warning "National Savings Certificates are of no value to any person but the registered holder" is printed prominently on the last page of the cover of each certificate; (3) whether the purchasers of these certificates are not also notified in print upon the aforesaid certificates, "This book should be kept in a safe place. It should not be left at a Post Office for safe keeping."; (4) how the answer of Her Majesty's Government to a Question in this House on May 15, that the possession of these certificates raises serious and difficult questions of law, can be reconciled with any of the above notices.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my noble friend's description of the wording on National Savings Certificates is substantially correct. The questions of law to which I referred relate not to the Certificate itself but to the contingencies to which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, referred in his Question on May 15. These questions of law depend on the facts of each individual case, and cases can therefore only be considered individually. If my noble friend has any which he would wish to bring to my attention, I will ask my right honourable friend the Postmaster General to examine them.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for his Answer. I should like to put to him two supplementaries, of which I informed him before we assembled. The first is: can the House be informed what the "serious and difficult questions of law" are; and the second: is it not an established principle of English law that we do not recognise, and will not enforce, laws of a penal or confiscatory nature?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, obviously both these supplementaries were posed before the original Answer to the Question was given. I suggest that my noble friend reads this carefully, and he will see that neither of the two supplementaries arises.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the supplementaries appear in writing on the Paper. Could we have an answer?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am sorry.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I, with all respect, say that there may be two views on this? I asked a Question. Am I not entitled to raise these two supplementaries on the original Question? That is a question of fact which the noble Viscount can answer. He said it is irrelevant. How can he prove it is irrelevant?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I only ask the noble Lord to study the two last sentences of my original Answer before he pursues the supplementary. If he does so, he will find that they are already answered and do not arise any further.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell me one further thing? Are these "serious and difficult questions of law," questions of British law or of Egyptian law?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Lord will look again at the Answer of May 15, he will see that I told my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that the questions raised were questions which might arise in the courts. It is not the practice of Ministers to speculate what the ingenuity of private litigants may be.
LORD KILLEARN: I have not had my answer. With all respect, is it English law or Egyptian law? May I have an answer to that question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord has been told that these are questions which might arise in the English courts.
LORD KILLEARN: On the application of Egyptian law?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I did not say that. If the noble Lord will wait until

237
one answer is given, I think he will see that he is getting very far from the point. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross asked me on May 15 whether I would elucidate the position of certain holders of certain types of security, and I told him that questions of law might arise on which it is not the practice for Ministers of the Crown to speculate, since it is unconstitutional to do so. It is not the practice of Ministers, when questioned about potential litigation, to state to either House of Parliament what issues of law might arise for discussion in the courts, and I do not propose to depart from that practice.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I am sorry to go on like this. Quite honestly, the noble Viscount is not quoting correctly what he said. What he said—I have it here—was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 203 (No. 68), col. 781]:
" I am sorry to have to tell him "—
that is, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—
" that I have formed the opinion that both of the cases he poses in the Question raise serious and difficult questions of law which might become the subject of litigation in the courts. In these circumstances, I do not think it would be proper for me to express an opinion upon them."
There was no mention of whether it would be "constitutional" or anything of that kind. I have quoted the actual words.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it seemed to me that I admirably summarised my original Answer, and I do not propose to add to that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I now ask the noble Viscount whether, before the Government took the action which put this British property in the grip of Colonel Nasser, they had considered the questions that now arise? Did they either estimate the amount of British assets in danger or consider the legal questions to which he has now referred?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount failed to notice that both Questions relate to National Savings Certificates in the country. They are not, therefore, "in the grip of Colonel Nasser."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that the noble Viscount means the Certificates issued in Egypt, or purchased in Egypt, but which are now in this country. It would he very much to the comfort of those who have suffered so badly by Colonel Nasser's action to know that there will be no real delay in enabling them to draw upon these reserves, which they have made for themselves in an English investment, although purchased in Egypt. After all, they have lost so much of the rest of their possessions there as a result of events over which they had no control: they could not influence the action of Her Majesty's Government, who must surely bear the largest measure of British responsibility.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, The noble Viscount will see from the last sentence of my Answer that if the course advised is pursued, it may be that something can be done.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I must press my question. Wherever these securities lie at the present time, did the Government, before they took action in Egypt, consider the question of the holders of these Certificates?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not sure that I understand the noble Viscount's question. The question was: What was the position of holder of British National Savings Certificates? I explained to the noble Viscount that these are not "in the grip of" the Egyptians but are, in fact, in this country at the present time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I know they are in this country at the present time, but the owners cannot get the money. What we are asking the Government is whether they envisaged the fact, before they invaded Egypt, that these people would loss the right to cash the Certificates.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will study my Answers he will see they have not lost the right.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I "fire" one final question, and that is whether the money which was put up by these unfortunate people who bought these Certificates was in fact used by Her Majesty's Government for war purposes?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lord repeat that?
LORD KILLEARN: I asked whether the money which was used for the purchase of these Certificates was not in fact used by the British Government for war purposes—whether the Government had the use of the money? Is that not a fact?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: So far as I know, the Certificates were bought in the ordinary way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the Government please explain to the whole country why these people cannot have their money on demand, with the ordinary notice, in the same way as any other British citizen who invests money in National Savings?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as far as I can tell, there is no reason for the noble Viscount's question. I have said that if these cases are brought to my notice I will see what issues arise and do my best to get the money. I cannot deal with individual cases, of which there are a great number, by question and answer. But I have already offered whatever good offices I or my right honourable friend can show to get the money. It is not always easy to identify the holder, or to make sure of the holding.
LORD KILLEARN: With all respect, the holder's name is written on the back of the Certificate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is again getting himself confused. The Certificate which he holds in his hand is presumably one which he could bring to my notice within five minutes of the present time.
LORD KILLEARN: I have already done so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lord mind my continuing? The Certificates to which the Question of May 15 related were not Certificates held by the noble Lord in his hand, but Certificates held in various banks in various names

TRAINING OF TEACHERS
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Question of which I have given Private Notice: to ask Her Majesty's Government if they have any statement to make on the extension of the period of training for teachers.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to make a statement about the training of teachers. The Government have decided to extend from two to three years the course of training which leads to the status of qualified teacher. This change will be made in 1960 and will apply to students who enter the general teacher training colleges in or after September of that year. The necessary changes in the regulations will be made later. The introduction of the longer course will reduce the annual output of teachers from the general training colleges, but the choice of 1960 takes into account the prospect of a sharp decrease in the number of children at school after 1961. The change will not therefore halt the process of reducing class sizes, though there will be some slowing down in that process.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, whilst, of course, I welcome the fact that there is going to be some additional professional training for the teachers, who are doing such an important job, I hope that there will be no real delay in proceeding with the reduction in the size of classes, because in some parts of the country, at any rate, there is still very great overcrowding. I am quite sure the Minister knows about that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I fully agree with what the noble Viscount has just said. Deciding the right course to pursue has caused me considerable anxiety, but I have no doubt whatever that the course contained in my statement is the right one. There must be some delay in the rate of reduction of class sizes, because, if you increase the length of teacher-training courses from two years to three years, there will be a period during which the training colleges are no longer sending out their students. I have

241
done the best I can to ascertain the views of the profession and of the educational world, and I am advised that this course will be generally welcomed. In particular, my predecessor set up a Committee to advise the Ministry on this subject which laid down certain criteria, and these criteria have been observed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask, with regard to the extra year which will be attached to the training of normal primary school teachers as well as others, whether this is going to mean some extra financial provision to be made by the parents of the students or whether the extra cost will be covered by the Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it is very difficult, without notice, to give answers to questions which involve intricate matters of that kind, but I do not think that the balance between the parents, the local authorities and the State is altered in any way by my answer. It is a three-year course instead of a two-year course. I do not think that the shares in which the burden is borne have been altered by that change.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I hope that that will prove to be so. What I am anxious about is that there are many people of the working-class whose children enter training for this profession, and perhaps they have made their plans or the basis that at the end of two years those young people will be able to start receiving their professional salaries. If they will now have to stay another year—I am very much in favour of that—the parents may be placed in some difficulty from the point of view of finance.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think the noble Viscount has been following the matter at all. These courses begin in 1960.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But the same question will arise where people have been planning the future of their children from the age of 11-plus.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That (1) Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Maintenance Agreements Bill through its remaining stages; (2) Standing Order No. 34 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence this day to the Occupiers' Liability Bill, the Naval and Marine Reserves Pay Bill and the New Streets Act, 1951 (Amendment) Bill over the Electricity Bill.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOP MENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER 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.

RENT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, with regard to the Amendment on the Dentists Bill about which your Lordships have just heard, may I just say that paragraph 7 of the First Schedule, which is omitted by the Amendment, becomes unnecessary as a result of the passing of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill which was considered by your Lordships. The Amendment is entirely consequential on the passing of that Bill, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to move that this Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill (77) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
First Schedule, page 34, line 1, leave out paragraph 7.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is made for the reason I have given your Lordships. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Order and the next two Orders in my name are in the usual form and content. I do not think there is anything in them to which I ought to call your Lordships' attention. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hornsea, be approved.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hoyland Nether, be approved.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to move the third Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Pontypool, be approved.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BILL
3.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Validity and alteration by court of maintenance agreements]:
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR had given notice of several Amendments to Clause 1. the first being, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out from "arrangements" to "after" in line 11 and to insert, "whether made during the continuance or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak on all these four Amendments together. I think I am in a position to assure your Lordships that these are drafting Amendments and that if they are passed they will not have any substantial effect on the Bill and will not alter the effect which the Bill will have if it becomes law. The real purpose of these Amendments is to make the Bill a little more intelligible and clear than perhaps it is now.
In supporting this Amendment very briefly, may I just remind the House that on Second Reading I said that the object of Clause 1 of this Bill is twofold. First, it seeks to validate agreements which,

245
owing to the decision in the case of Bennett v. Bennett have been rendered invalid, or would be rendered invalid by that decision. That purpose is achieved by subsection (2) of the Bill. The other main object of the Bill is to empower a court to vary such agreements, subject to a time limit which it is thought right to impose and which is done by the Bill and by these Amendments. I am sure that it would be an improvement if the courts had this power, which they have now not got, to vary these agreements, but no doubt your Lordships will agree that there must be sonic time limit; so one of six months is suggested—that is, six months after the end of the marriage.
Clause 1 of the Bill achieves these objects at present in, I think, a somewhat complicated and roundabout way, and if these Amendments are passed the Bill will, as I have said, be improved and be simpler. These Amendments will apply Clause 1 to maintenance agreements whenever made, and later, by the last of the four Amendments, there will be a specific exemption from the operation of subsection (3) in relation to agreements made more than six months after the end of the marriage. That, as shortly as I can make it, is the effect of these Amendments, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("arrangements") to ("after") in line 11 and insert ("whether made during the continuance or")—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("applies") to ("is") in line 27.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
(" Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an agreement made more than six months after the dissolution or annulment of the marriage.")—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), the Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL
3.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Occupiers' Liability Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

NAVAL AND MARINE RESERVES PAY BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NEW STREETS ACT, 1951 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ELECTRICITY BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I suggest, if your Lordships agree, that we should follow the normal procedure of giving this Bill a formal Third Reading, after which we can take the Amendments shown on the Marshalled List. We can then make any such concluding speeches that may be desired. If this is agreed, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question. Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 4 [Whole-time members of Generating Boad, Electricity Council and Area Boards]:
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, at the beginning of the clause to insert:
" 4.—(1) The office of chairman of the Generating Board or of the Electricity Council shall not be held except by a person appointed as a whole-time member of the Board or Council.
(2) Subject to the preceding subsection,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment requires that the offices of the chairmen of the Electricity Council and of the Generating Board shall be whole-time appointments. This is in accordance with the undertaking that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, at beginning insert the said new subsection and words.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his concession of my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 34:
Special provisions as to public inquiries
34.—(1) Where an application has been made to the Minister for his consent or authorisation under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, or for his consent under section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, and the local planning authority have notified the Minister that they object to the application, and that objection of the local planning authority has not been withdrawn, the Minister (either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other
248
hearing or opportunity of stating objections) shall cause a public inquiry to be held, and, before determining whether to give his consent or authorisation, shall consider the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Minister proposes to accede to the application subject to such modifications or conditions as will give effect to the objection of the local planning authority.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from and including "have notified" down to and including "withdrawn," and to insert instead:
" after giving public notice, considering any objection that may be made and consulting with the local authorities, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other appropriate national and local bodies, have notified the Minister that there are objections by the planning authority or by persons aggrieved by the application or by the local authorities or bodies consulted and that those objections have not been withdrawn,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment appears upon the Order Paper in consequence of the discussion we had upon the Report stage upon one of the three Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, affecting the amenity provisions. I suggested to your Lordships that, while the noble Lord went a very long way to meet us, for which I am sure we were all most indebted to him, he had gone a little too far in trying to safeguard himself against the nuisance individual, and had non-suited the private objector entirely. I suggested for his consideration that the words which appear on the Marshalled List this afternoon should be inserted in subsection (1) of his new clause, which is now Clause 34 of the Bill. In reply to me the noble Lord promised to consider the matter. As his consideration has been abortive, at least from the point of view of results—nothing has appeared upon the Order Paper—I thought I had better put down my Amendment again.
I am not going to go over all the points. Briefly, my main point is this. If your Lordships will look at Clause 34 (1) you will see that the planning authority is the only authority mentioned in this clause whose objection can cause the Minister to hold a public inquiry regarding the siting of either a power station or an overhead line. If the planning authority

249
withdraws its objection it does not matter who else has objected, they are all non-suited. That is how I read the clause. There may be some confusion in my mind, as. I know there has been confusion in the departmental mind. The Statutes governing electricity supply are very involved and have not been consolidated since 1899, so that even the Department did not understand some of them.
There is, however, a statutory requirement for the Minister not only to consult the planning authority but for the planning authority and the Minister—one or the other, or both together—to consult the local authority within the area of the planning committee. The noble Lord the Minister made this abundantly clear in answering my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough on the Committee stage, when my noble friend raised the point about the Bradwell power station. The noble Lord the Minister then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 204 (No. 76), col. 161]:
" It is the intention that all local authorities—not only the planning authority, but the local authorities—shall he consulted on matters relating to the territories which they cover."
May I illustrate the point to your Lordships in this way? If the Berkshire County Council as the planning authority for the County of Berkshire desire to erect a power station on one side of the River Thames, they have to consult all the local authorities within the County of Berkshire. But tie Oxford County Council, twenty yards on the other side of the river, who may have their amenities spoiled for always by either a power station or a row of pylons, do not have to be consulted by anybody. That is my first complaint. I do not consider that that is right. I think that all local authorities who are aggrieved by the granting of planning permission should have the right to appeal to the Minister and to cause the Minister to hold a public inquiry.
My second objection is that this clause as drafted non-suits the private individual. Under existing legislation, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, a private individual who is aggrieved and over whose land a line may go or a pylon may be placed, or a person next door who has no wayleave to grant but whose amenities are disturbed and who is affronted, has ground to ask for—and it is usual for the Minister
250
to grant—a public inquiry. It appears to me that the Minister has now insulated himself against all objection from any private individual. According to my reading of this clause, if a planning authority raises objection to the planning permission, then the Minister shall—"shall" is the word—cause a public inquiry to be held, and then all and sundry can appear. But if the planning authority throw their hand in and do not object to the planning permission, no private individual can get a hearing.
Admittedly, the noble Lord the Minister has to assure himself that the local authorities have been consulted; and if the local authorities under the planning authority say, "We object," the noble Lord, in his judgment, can then hold a public inquiry. But the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, a responsible national body, and, if the project happened to be in Oxford, the Oxford Preservation Trust, a highly respectable local body, and a private landowner or occupier—all are non-suited under this clause. I have therefore put down this Amendment because, as I have said before, I think it is only right that where a statutory body like the Central Electricity Authority in the past, or anyone in the future—whether it be the Generating Board or an Area Board—are given the right of a compulsory way leave across people's private property, or where a way-leave is being granted across one person's private property which affronts the amenity of somebody else, the Minister, if he has the last word, should provide proper safeguards.
I know what the Minister wants to do, and I agree with it. There are cranks, and the Minister does not want hundreds of people from one side of England complaining that they loathe pylons on principle. But because a law is difficult to enforce, that is no reason why the rights of individuals should be overridden quite so much as appears here. I have a letter here, one of fifty which I have received during the passage of this Bill. I will read a small portion of it. Here is a private owner who says:
" I was deprived of essential evidence at the inquiry which was held at…"
I will not mention the name but I will tell the noble Lord, the Minister, afterwards if he wishes:
" The British Electricity Authority posted the map in question three days after the

251
hearing, in spite of continual requests from my solicitors and my surveyors for the document."
I know very well that the Minister has safeguarded this position in the future, but under this Bill that man will be non-suited. He will not be able to go to an inquiry at all unless the planning authority responsible for that area raise the matter. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that I am doing nothing here to alter any principle of the Bill. I am doing only what I believe the Minister himself wants to do: to safeguard amenities by giving this right to authoritative bodies, such as local parish councils and local authorities, and bodies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. But, above all, I want the private individual to have the right to object and to carry his objection to the Minister; and the Minister should be able to hold a public inquiry. With those words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 14, leave out from ("authority") to ("the") in line 16 and insert (" after giving public notice, considering any objection that may be made and consulting with the local authorities, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other appropriate national and local bodies, have notified the Minister that there are objections by the planning authority or by persons aggrieved by the application or by the local authorities or bodies consulted and that those objections have not been withdrawn,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.0 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister replies, may say how extremely sorry I was that I was unable, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, to take part in the debates upon this Bill, though I read the reports. I noticed that during the discussions the question of having an independent chairman for these public inquiries was raised, but as there is an investigation now in progress with regard to that matter, it was recognised that no decision could be taken upon it at present. My noble friend has done his best to secure the adoption of a serious method of handling this matter in the meantime, until the investigators report. I think it ought to be clearly recognised by this time that the ordinary method of investigation by the authorities is not good
252
enough. Whatever the form of inquiry may be in the future, whatever bodies may take part in it, the ordinary inquiry, as it is understood at the present time, is not good enough, in view of the situation which has been created by this Electricity Bill and the general subject with which we are dealing, which touches the production of atomic power.
If one thing is certain, it is that, unless steps are taken in this connection, matters will not improve; they will get worse. I want to say one thing about the Electricity Boards, if I may say it speaking upon this Amendment. I am not so sure that these Boards have anything like the powers which they ought to have to meet the situation which they are now called upon to face, having regard to the use of power produced at the new atomic stations. Those who are concerned with the National Parks have had experience of this matter. They know that if they ask that a certain length of cable—say 200 yards of it—shall be placed underground, there is a great "how-do-you-do" as to whether that can be done or not. An Electricity Board certainly have the power to do it, but usually they say that it would be too costly. In the Lake District, there has been a classic instance in which the supply of electric power has been held up for I do not know how long, simply because of the lack of ability to underground a line for some 200 yards.
I must say that I do not understand how such a situation can come about in the 20th century. All around us in the coalfields we have open-cast working going on. For this purpose machines are employed which could underground all these wires that are to be put over-ground. And let me observe that putting them overground is bound to have a profound effect on the scenery of this country. Pylons will be raised and there will, of course, be masses of material employed for different purposes. It seems to me that the electricity authorities in the 20th century ought to have at their disposal the necessary machinery to enable them to underground wire. They could do this work quite easily if they had some of the bulldozers that are used on the open-cast workings. In a manner of speaking, we now go to bed one night with green fields all around us and a few days later we find that we have mountains of earth that have been thrown up as

253
a result of these open-cast operations. In the course of time, the coal is taken out and the people concerned put the land back in as good a state as it was before—so they say. This is done now in the process of getting power from underground, from coal. Why cannot the electricity authorities have at their disposal the same means to deal with the difficult situation now confronting them?
One of the chief authorities concerned with this matter is the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has included that Council among the bodies which, by the terms of his Amendment, would have to be consulted in this matter. If there is one good thing that the debates on this Bill have done, it is that they have made it clear that there is in this country a great body of people who are apprehensive as to what the result of the application of atomic power is going to be upon some of the wonderful and beautiful places that have been left to us, in spite of the first Industrial Revolution. We are going to have another Industrial Revolution. The Minister probably cannot help it—I do not know—but, if I may say so, I feel that in this matter we are taking a course for which future generations will criticise us strongly, having regard to the experience which we have had and of which we have not made use. For that reason I wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend, designed, as it is, to give the Minister power to consult with various authorities indicated in the manner which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has described in detail. The Minister will have power to consult with the C.P.R.E. and other bodies as well as various authorities.
Let no one be under any illusion as to the strength of feeling which exists in many parts of the country upon this matter. Let us be quite clear what is being done. I have seen one of the great stations in Cumberland, which is very well known, and I have also seen a second one. Do not let anyone be under any illusion that these places are works of art; because they are not. When I saw what I should describe as these great cement monstrosities (I am well aware that they have to be shaped and handled according to the state of development which they are in) I was profoundly affected. Other stations may perhaps be
254
better to look at. I tell your Lordships frankly that when I saw Calder Hall, with its great towers, those monstrous masses of cement, f longed for the sight of a good old-fashioned pitheap, which I think is no less artistic than these new stations. And if I have come here to-day to say anything, it is just to say that. I should like to disillusion the Minister. Whilst I understand the difficulties, in the earlier stages, of constructing these stations to handle this power, I hope that the present stations are not the last word in art; because if they are, the criticism of future generations will not only be hefty but justified. I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, with great interest and great respect. I only wish that he had been able to be present during the lengthy debates we have had on this subject at all stages of the Bill I can assure him that I am fully seized with the consequences of trying to provide this country with the power it needs and, at the same time, I am fully seized with the importance of looking after the amenities of the countryside. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, one would think that in this Bill I had been trying to restrict the rights of authorities and individuals. Of course the contrary is the case. I have been trying to put into the Bill the fullest measure of practice which should properly en into the Bill and to keep out of the Bill those things which do not weigh. Since our debate last week I have consulted my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
In the first place, there are one or two matters on which we should be quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has stressed particularly that some local planning authorities do not do their job as well as others, and seems to imply that if the local planning authority choose to ignore the local authority, the local authority would be helpless. That is not so. Under Section 2 of the 1909 Act, in a power station case, and under Section 21 of the 1919 Act, in an overhead lines case, the local authority has a separate right to be notified and to be heard by the Minister.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Only if it is in the area.
LORD MILLS: The local authority is notified by the Electricity Board concerned at about the same time as the local planning authority, and before the local planning authority in the case of overhead lines. There is a printed form for overhead lines which the Board sends to the local authority; and we will see that it is sent as widely as it should be sent. The local authority record their views on it and indicate whether they wish the Minister to hear them. The form so completed is forwarded to the local planning authority, who do likewise and then return it to the Board for formal submission to the Minister. Incidentally, the local planning authority also record their views on the Board's formal application for "deemed planning permission" on another form, to which I shall refer later.
Since power station projects are comparatively few in number, the local authority is notified of them not by a printed form, but by a copy of the Central Authority's application to the Minister under Section 2 of the 1909 Act. Whatever the views of the local planning authority on an overhead line or power station project, as I have said, the local authority has a right to be heard by the Minister. If both authorities object, the Minister can either hear them together, under Clause 34, or he can hear the local authority separately. Though Clause 34 does not oblige the Minister to order a public inquiry when a local authority objects, he may always do so under Section 66 of the 1947 Act when he considers it desirable, and would always do so if the local authority's comments indicated a substantial volume of local objection. It is the business of local authorities, I suggest, to be in touch with public opinion in their areas. In a rural district council, for example, there is a councillor for, perhaps, every two parishes. A project from an Electricity Board would no doubt first be inquired into by the council's surveyor, who ought to know the local people and what their attitude is likely to be. When the surveyor's report goes before the council, the councillors representing the parishes affected have an opportunity to comment. The local authority is then in a position, if it does its job, to see that local interests do not go by default. Obviously, therefore, the local authority is not left high
256
and dry merely because the local planning authority decides not to object.
I now come to the local planning authority itself. The procedure which Electricity Boards have to follow in referring projects through the local planning authority for the Minister of Power's "deemed planning permission" has been laid down in published circulars of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government) since 1948. The current circular is No. 6351, dated December 4. 1951. This circular provides a form in which the Electricity Boards submit their projects to the Minister. Part I of the form is the application for "deemed planning permission" and is filled in by the Board, who have to give particulars of the project and of any objections which have been made to the Board at the formative stage. The Board then send the form to the local planning authority, who have to fill in Part II. In practice, this often means the local authority exercising delegated powers on behalf of the local planning authority. The local planning authority have, among other things, to give the names of interested parties consulted and particulars of any objections received. They have to state whether they themselves object to the project in principle or approve it subject to conditions. Here again, the various national and local bodies concerned with the preservation of amenities should have ample opportunity to express their views before the application reaches the Minister.
I do not feel able to accept the noble Lord's suggestion that there should be included in Clause 34 of the Bill an obligation on the local planning authority to consult any particular national body, because that body might not be interested in all cases. Nor do I like the suggestion that the local planning authority should be obliged to consult—in the noble Lord's words—" other appropriate national and local bodies." Any hastily formed local society might claim that it had been wrongly excluded from consultation, and local planning authorities would not know where they stood. In my view, nothing is to be gained by further elaboration of the procedure in the Bill. But as I have previously informed your Lordships, every part of the procedure is under thorough examination at the present time. This examination will, of

257
course, have regard to the consultation carried out by local planning authorities with other local authorities, including the neighbouring local authorities, to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, referred on Report.
I mentioned earlier that the application form requires the Electricity Board concerned to indicate any objections to a project which they have already received before applying. The Ministry of Housing's circular, to which I have referred, stresses the importance of informal consultation with the local planning authority before formal application is made. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Chorley, laid considerable emphasis on the need for informing in the embryonic stage of the proceedings those likely to be interested. It is obviously in the interest of the Boards to try to meet objections as early in the proceedings as possible, and whether current practice in this respect can be improved is another matter which I have under examination. But it would be too cumbrous to provide by Statute for this kind of consultation, which would be difficult to define without subjecting the Boards to excessive restriction in the preparation of their schemes.
While on the subject of public inquiries, I should like to make it clear, if it is not already clear from what I said earlier, that public inquiries are not confined to cases within Clause 34 in which the local planning authority objects. It is always open to any authority, body or person to ask the Minister for a public inquiry, and it is open to the Minister, under Section 66 of the 1947 Act, to order such an inquiry. In the light of what I have stated, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is no risk of our leaving local authorities high and dry. As regards other consultations, it is difficult to make statutory provision without saying too much or too little; but, as I have indicated, these matters will be examined carefully to see whether any improvements can be made in current practice. I trust that with this explanation I have given the noble Lord sufficient satisfaction
to enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, although I acknowledge that the noble Lord has taken a great deal of trouble in making h s reply—and we thank him for that—what he has put before us does not meet us at all; and I am afraid we cannot withdraw the Amendment. I am not going to make a speech on the Amendment. I thought my noble friend put all the converging points so clearly before the House that I need not repeat them. What we object to is that this clause which we seek to amend, in fact lays down that only the planning authority, as such, will be the deciding factor with the Minister as to whether there is to be a public inquiry.
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has handled this Bill, and I would say this. In the past, the county council, as the planning authority, have frequently been conscious of what is going on, but the small local authorities have not; and individuals behind those local authorities have been quite ignorant of what was going on—ignorant of their rights, and ignorant of possible injuries that might be done to them. We want this matter looked at from the point of view of seeing that the machinery for advertising the plans of the Authority is improved, so that complaints can be submitted by individuals concerned before, and not after, a decision is taken. I want the Statute to be quite clear about what the proper procedure is; and the right of objection ought not to be confined to the planning authority of a county or a county borough. There ought to be a proper means for the individual citizen to express himself right up through all the authorities. Therefore, I shall ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, B.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Bathurst, E.

Goschen, V.

Braye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cawley, L.

Listowel, E.

Stansgate, V.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonehaven, V.

Denham, L.

Dynevor, L.

Hayter, L.

Rea, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Just, L.

Glyn, L.

Lawson, L.

Sandford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Mathers, L. [Teller.]

Sinha, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Woolton, E.

Chesham, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Ennisdale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Davidson, V.

Gifford, L.

Reading, M.

Furness, V.

Hampton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Jessel, L.

Beatty, E.

Soulbury, V.

Mancroft, L.

Dundee, E.

Mills, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Milverton, L.

Gosford, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Templemore, L.

Grey, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Teviot, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as this is the first time the Government have been defeated in either House of Parliament since the last mandate, it might be as well if we ask the representative of the Government what they propose to do about it. Well, it does not seem that I am to receive an answer. I suppose the Leader of the House does not yet know about the defeat.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in the circumstances I think my noble friend's advice is right.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What is that?—to say nothing?
Clause 37 [Preservation of amenity]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would refer to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. These Amendments have been put down in pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to my noble friend Lord Hurcomb, who, unfortunately, is not able to be in his place to-day but who tells me that they are entirely acceptable to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 1, after ("beauty") insert ("of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest,").—(Lord Mills.)
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 5, after ("such") insert (" flora, fauna, features,").—(Lord Mills.)
4.39 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill do now pass, I should like first, with your Lordships' permission, to deal with one or two questions raised on the Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. As regards public inquiries, the noble Lord asked for additional provisions for notifying local bodies besides the publication of notices in the newspapers. What additional publicity is required will vary with the circumstances in each case and can be ordered by the Minister under Clause 34 (4). This should, I think, be sufficient.
I have consulted my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the noble Lord's further suggestion, that the Bill should provide for an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to accompany the inspector from my Ministry who is conducting a public inquiry. We do not think that a statutory requirement of this kind would be suitable, because it might not in all cases be necessary. But, as I indicated last week, an inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would in practice accompany an inspector of my Ministry in most cases. The last point arising out of last week's debate is the noble Lord's suggestion that something should be done to make better known to the public who the local representatives on the Consultative Council are. This is a matter which I will bring to the notice of the Consultative Councils. I may mention that the new subsection (11 A) of Section 7 of the 1947 Act (which is inserted by the First Schedule of the

261
Bill on page 41) has been introduced to enable the Councils to incur expenditure on contingencies, including publicity.
Perhaps I may now be permitted to make a few general remarks about the Bill. Its main object, as your Lordships are aware, is to transfer the Central Authority's responsibility for generation and main transmission to a new statutory corporation, the Generating Board. This Board will be freed from the duty at present imposed upon the Central Authority by Section 1 of the 1947 Act to co-ordinate the distribution of electricity by the Area Boards and to exercise a general control over their policy. The Generating Board will thus be able to devote itself, without other distractions, to the expansion of the country's generating capacity under the programme which I announced to your Lordships early in March. The Bill also aims to promote the enterprise and efficiency of the Generating and Area Boards by making them individually responsible for paying their way, taking one year with another. The central body of the industry will be the Electricity Council, mainly advisory in character but responsible for a number of common services including capital financing and research. It will also be the task of the Council to subject the Boards' capital programme to the critical scrutiny which the Herbert Committee found to be somewhat lacking.
The interest taken in this measure by noble Lords on all sides of the House has produced at each stage of the Bill debates which have been, if I may say so, both stimulating and fruitful. I should like here to acknowledge my indebtedness to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his invaluable support during the Second Reading debate and to my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence for all the help he has given me in Committee and on Report. Without them, my task would have been arduous indeed. May I also express to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth my admiration for the intense study which he has given to the Bill and for the tireless efforts he has made by way of constructive criticism to improve it. He has also provided me with exercise on three or four occasions during the debate. I hope he will not think that his efforts have been in vain.
262
For the Government's part, we have done what we could to meet such constructive criticism, and the result has been to enlarge the scope of the Bill in two important ways. In the first place, we lave placed a new statutory obligation upon the Boards, the Electricity Council and the Minister to take into account any effect which plans prepared by the Boards might have on amenity. Secondly, we have introduced certain changes in the procedure by which plans for new power stations and overhead lines receive statutory consent. These changes are designed to ensure that individual and special interests receive all the attention they deserve. These important principles are now being given statutory expression. I am glad that we have been able to go a large part of the way to meet the noble Lord in these matters. There is another direction also in which I am glad to say we have been able to meet the noble Lord's suggestions. I refer, of course, to the clause which lays down the principle of a proper balance between whole-time and part-time members of the Electricity Council and the Boards and under which the Chairmen of the Electricity Council and the Generating Board will be whole-time appointments. By another Amendment we have introduced the same field of selection for the Minister's discretionary appointments to the Electricity Council as for appointments to the Generating Board.
Naturalists and geologists will, I am sure, be pleased that at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, we have been able to find a place in the Bill for the conservation of creatures, Plants and minerals of special interest. The authority with which the noble Lord speaks on these matters is well known, and those who heard his broadcast in the Third Programme on Saturday night will have been particularly impressed with the growing urgency of this problem throughout the world as new engineering projects are completed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the reference which he made in his broadcast to the inclusion of this principle in the Bill.
At the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, we have made it clear in the Bill that before fixing a retail tariff an Area Board must consult the Consultative Council as well as the Electricity Council. This Amendment is in tune

263
with our general policy of strengthening the position of Consultative Councils, and they will, I am sure, welcome it. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I hope I have said enough to recall the very careful consideration which this Bill has received in your Lordships' House and the more important Amendments which have been made to it. I beg to move, therefore, that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mills.)
4.48 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, there is one thing we can all be agreed upon, and that is that this is a much better Bill as it passes from your Lordships' House than it was when it came here. I wish that I could feel that it will work as the Government hope it will work: I have my doubts. Time and history are the only things that will prove whether I am right or wrong. I do not know—I still have my doubts—about the desires of the Government in respect of the autonomy of the Area Boards. As I said on the Report stage, or on the Committee stage, two men can use that word as meaning two entirely different things. I hope there will not be overlapping and that there will not be financial competition in a nationalised industry.
I am not at all happy about the price structure. The noble Lord, I feel sure, will do what he can to implement the undertaking, as undertaking it really was, that the price structure within an area will be spread evenly over all consumers. One has only to see in the Press to-day the announcement of another rise in electricity prices to understand that the main object of the noble Lord's exercise on this Bill is to bring down the cost of this commodity. I hope that in the future we shall have abundant and cheap electrical energy at the hand of every citizen of this country. I myself and my noble friends behind me, particularly my noble friend Lord Wise, have voiced our opinion about the inordinate installation charges that are made. I hope the noble Lord will look into those. I hope the noble Lord will look into quite a number of things, and that he will bring to bear upon them his vast experience of industry which has taught him that mass production at a cheap rate and cheap prices
264
is the only possible economic means of bringing the benefits of civilisation to the masses of human beings.
Perhaps the noble Lord's greatest triumph, as this Bill went through your Lordships' House, was in the direction of something that is not mentioned in the Bill at all—that is, his fight to ensure that industrial and commercial standards are the overriding consideration in the appointment of those who have to run this great industry. In my view, therein lies the secret of success. The noble Lord can spend £3,250 million of the taxpayers' money, the bulk of which will be wasted unless he can employ the best brains in this country to direct an industry of that size. I know that I express only a personal opinion, but in my view the most heartening thing about this Bill is that the present Minister is occupying his office. After all, Bills are Bills, and they make very cold print. If the noble Lord can bring into this great economic problem of the country such dynamic personality as he has done in the field of industry, the country will have reason to be greatly indebted to him. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has done with the suggestions I made. The one joy I had in providing what opposition I could to Her Majesty's Government was that it was devoid of Party politics. I think that always shows your Lordships' House at its best, because "none was for the Party and all were for the State".
When we come to the amenity question, I am sure that every citizen of this country who has a love of this "green and pleasant land" will be indebted to the noble Lord for the clauses he has introduced into this Bill and the efforts he has made, a; this late stage of its passage through Parliament, to safeguard, so far as he can, the amenities of our land. I doubt if any Minister has ever done quite so much, and I know that I voice the opinion of everybody in this country who has a love of the English countryside, in expressing our gratitude to him. I await with interest the report of the Oliver Franks Committee. I should think that when that Report is available the debate it may produce in your Lordships' House will be interesting and stimulating. But I care not whether it is an Oliver Franks Committee or any Government action that follows it, I am certain that sooner or later the British public will demand that public inquiries

265
into the rights of the citizen are held by independent tribunals, whatever the Minister responsible may decide afterwards. I would never detract from ministerial responsibility, because Ministers are responsible to Parliament and, in the last analysis, Parliament, too, is responsible. As I have said before, in any position where a Minister has to occupy a quasi-judicial position and come to a quasi-judicial decision, the evidence and the report upon which he bases that decision should be independent.
My Lords, let me say one word about Clause 30. I still do not like Clause 30, though I can do very little about it now. It takes away from the local authority a right that they have had for fifty years. I do not think that is right. I can understand the Minister's reference to an anomaly, as he called it, but I still do not think Clause 30 is right. I still do not think, a; the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, mentioned on a previous stage of the Bill that altering the general direction order will cure the trouble. I am afraid that we now have to accept that the Minister, or the Electricity Authority as the statutory undertakers, will have the undisputed right—disputed by nobody—to put overhead service lines where they please. Our whole reliance has to rest on them. While the present Minister is sitting in that position I do not fear; but Ministers come and Ministers go.
As regards the Consultative Councils I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. When, after the Report stage, I left your Lordships' Chamber, I visited the local showrooms of the Southern Electricity Authority to see if I could find out who was the representative of the Consultative Council in the area in which I live. I found him to be a gentleman named Mr. Wymer, who is, amongst other things, a Bachelor of Science. I will not give his address, because I should think that if I do, and the Press report it, he may have a queue of discontented consumers outside his door. But I am glad that the noble Lord is looking into this matter. Is it right that one individual whose private address
266
is pinned up next to the pay desk of the Southern Electricity Board's office should be the sole means of communication between 100,000 consumers of electrical energy and the Central Consultative Council? That surely cannot be right. I hope the noble Lord will look into it. I think that there should be area Consultative Committees, perhaps within the boundaries of the local authority. If we are going to have Consultative Committees, do not let them be a farce; let them work and let them worry. It is good for an Electricity Authority to have worries—as somebody once said, it is good for a dog to have fleas, because it prevents his cogitating on the fact that he is only a dog.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has done. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his most kind personal references to myself. If, in leading the Opposition on this Bill, I have done my job in a manner that has commended itself to your Lordships, that is all the thanks I require. But may I pay this respectful tribute to the Minister? He came to this House for the first time to pilot a Bill. He piloted the Bill through Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage, and on Third Reading, against, may I say, with what is perhaps ill-modesty, some fierce opposition, with very commendable credit to himself. In my view, that is a Parliamentary performance of no mean order. He has been fortunate in going through the whole gamut of political emotion upon his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in charge of a Bill. He has had brilliant arguments to put forward; he has won victories; he has been defeated in the Division Lobby. Could he want any greater experience than that? The noble Lord the Minister will go down in history as unique—and even with that last event he has produced what is, from the point of view of the general public, one of the best Bills that has been in this House for a very long time.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHEQUES BILL
5.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Anyone who knows anything about this Bill will immediately connect it with the name of Mr. Graham Page, a Member of another place. It was in 1955 that he introduced a Private Member's Bill which was designed to reduce the need for endorsement on order cheques which were not negotiated but paid into the payee's bank account. Although that Bill died a natural death, nevertheless the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day was sufficiently impressed to appoint a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Mocatta, Q.C. Among those on that Committee was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whom I am glad to see here to-day. I hope that he will speak later and will give me some support, and also put me right in any errors I may make; his experience is greater than mine for I am comparatively new to this subject.
The Mocatta Committee held twenty-five meetings and took evidence, both oral and written from every conceivable interested body. This Bill seeks to implement the main recommendations of the Mocatta Committee and to include certain improvements made in another place. It is probably not realised that 90 per cent. of the order cheques drawn are paid by the payee direct into his own banking account. The amount of time wasted in this connection with cheque endorsements is staggering, for 730 million cheques a year are endorsed for no real purpose; and 2 million man hours are wasted by bank clerks looking at them. Probably an equal amount of time is wasted in business by the signing of names on the back of cheques. The law as it stands to-day does not explicitly require endorsement by the payee but the banks have insisted on that to protect themselves. This Bill does away with any need for banks to insist upon endorsements.
May I turn for a moment to the Bill? Clause 1 says that if a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays a cheque drawn on him which
268
is not endorsed, or alternatively is irregularly endorsed, he does not incur any liability by the fact that it is not endorsed. Subsection (2) of that clause extends this protection to various other instruments, whether or not endorsed or irregularly endorsed, other instruments here being such things as dividend warrants, bankers' drafts and so on. Clause 2 gives protection to the collecting banker who receives the cheque for collection. Clause 3 provides that an unendorsed cheque is good evidence of payment by a banker. In connection with this clause, I should mention the common commercial practice of endorsing receipts on the back of cheques. I understand that banks are willing to continue this service to customers by special arrangement if they so desire.
Clause 4 gives bankers the same protection in regard to the collection of uncrossed cheques as they now enjoy under Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, in respect of crossed cheques. Clause 5 brings to the instruments the same protection as is given to crossed cheques under Clause 4. Clause 6 repeals Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, as its provisions are taken care of under Clause 4 of this Bill. Clause 7 needs no particular comment: it makes the Bill applicable to Northern Ireland. Clause 8 says the Bill shall come into operation three months after its passing. I understand that this provision was made at the request of the clearing banks, in order to give them sufficient time to adapt themselves to the new procedure.
I am trying to be brief, but I must emphasise that this Bill, though a short one, is immensely important to industry and has the support of all sections of the community—not only industrialists but the bankers themselves. The principle of the Bill—that the endorsing of a cheque represents a really useless waste of time—has been thoroughly examined by all concerned from every angle; and this Bill represents the culmination of many years' work. I hope, therefore, that it will meet with your Lordships' approval. Before I conclude, may I give one word of warning: this Bill is not yet law, and when, next Monday, your Lordships receive your Derby winnings cheques, please remember to endorse them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jessel.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, I have a kind of interest in the Bill, in that I was a member of the sub-committee referred to by the noble Lord who has moved its Second Reading, and I am grateful to him for what he said. I am afraid, however, that I shall not be able to give him quite the support he evidently expected. The Mocatta Committee, as it is familiary called, was appointed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to do two things: first, to examine the practical need for a reform of the law—that is to say, whether the results would be sufficiently worth while to make desirable what obviously was going to be quite an important change in the law; and secondly, assuming that might be so, to report on the kind of changes which would be needed to carry that reform through, because obviously the repercussions were going to be of some importance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said, the Committee was appointed because of the Bill which had been introduced in another place by Mr. Graham Page, and I should like to take this opportunity of adding my tribute. Mr. Graham Page's pertinacity in regard to this matter has been most commendable, and the banking world is or certainly should be, very grateful to him. I could only wish that his wisdom had been equal to his pertinacity, in which case we should have had a Bill which I could have supported more wholeheartedly than I can support the present one. At the same time, one should, I think, also pay tribute to other people in the banking world, particularly Mr. Papworth, whose enthusiasm and pertinacity, at an even earlier stage, had a great deal to do with enlisting the support of the banking world and other parts of the commercial world for this particular scheme.
I should like, too, to express my own appreciation of the tremendous work which was put into this business by Mr. Mocatta himself. I have worked on a number of committees of this kind, but I have never known a chairman take a matter more seriously. Considering that he is, perhaps, the busiest commercial leader at the Bar at the present time, it was wonderful how much time he forced himself to give to a matter which
270
he clearly regarded as of the greatest importance. We had the advantage of the assistance of important members of the business world, some of whom had served on committees of this kind before; and it struck me, as no doubt it has struck others of your Lordships on other occasions, how much the community owes to the work which is done in this completely self-sacrificing way by prominent members of the commercial and industrial world, serving on committees of this kind without any sort of reward—often, indeed, at financial loss to themselves—very few even getting any recognition in the way of decorations or anything of that kind at the end of the work.
I entirely agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said about the practical importance of getting rid of these endorsements on cheques of the kind to which he has referred—that is, those payable directly to the payee which the payee takes and pays into his own account in the bank after he has endorsed them. An enormous amount of time is wasted on these millions and millions of cheques in this quite unnecessary endorsement Practically all the evidence we had showed that that was so, and we had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was a need, on the practical side, for a reform of the kind which Mr. Graham Page had been advocating. When it came to the question of the changes in the law which were required in order to carry out this reform, the matter was very much more difficult. We found (and this was clearly the opinion of all of us) that if this was to be done without a considerable degree of prejudice to the rights of the ordinary citizen who uses a banking account, and without changes in the law which might have very considerable repercussions and quite grave consequences, it would have to be effected with considerable circumspection and a great deal of caution. And we devoted meeting after meeting to trying to work out a scheme by which this could be done without these grave risks and repercussions. And the reasons for these warnings, I think, are clearly set out in our Report.
In these circumstances, and in view of the importance of this subject—for no-one, I think, can doubt that it is a matter of very peat importance indeed—one might have expected that the Government

271
would take over the job of providing the necessary legislation. But they did not think to do so. Apart from the usual tributes to the Mocatta Committee, and a very pleasant luncheon party, which we all enjoyed enormously, at No. 11, Downing Street, charmingly presided over by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Mocatta Report, so far as the Government were concerned, seems to have been dropped and no further interest seems to have been taken in it.
Mr. Graham Page was left with the job of carrying on with the good work and introducing a Private Member's Bill, which was, in the ordinary way, debated late on a Friday, when very few of those Members in another place who are properly qualified to take part in a discussion of this kind were able to be present, and when, in fact, serious criticisms which had already been appearing in the legal papers were completely ignored—because the Bill departs in a number of respects, which I regard as fundamental, from the recommendations of the Mocatta Committee. It confers on the banks a number of new rights and privileges against their customers for which they did not ask, for which they were quite careful to say they did not wish to ask when their representatives came before us, and which I certainly do not think they ought to have.
I may say that, in making these criticisms. I have the support of Mr. Mocatta himself, with whom I have discussed the matter. He has authorised me to say that he regards these departures as serious, and that he thinks they will be serious defects in the law if they go through as the Bill stands. I have been informed that the Government have lent the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman in connection with this Bill. If that is so, I find it very difficult to understand how he can have allowed these proposed changes in the present law to go into this Bill without warning the Government of the effects which they are likely to have. Yet no real attempt was made to discuss these matters during the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons. Mr. Graham Page, in the course of his speech, said that he was proposing to depart in a number of respects from the Report of the Mocatta Committee. He said that he had had the best banking and legal advice which he could
272
obtain. On that basis he thought that there was a more straightforward method as contained in his Bill. He proposed to ask the House to bear with him while he explained what this was. I have read the rest of his speech very carefully, and that seems to have been the last that he said in reference to it. The Government, through the then Financial Secretary, gave the Bill their general support, but they made no sort of effort to explain why the points made in the Report of the Mocatta Committee had been completely ignored. And, of course, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon has not explained to your Lordships why the recommendations of the Mocatta Committee in this regard have been ignored in this Bill.
The only really satisfactory way of dealing with these defects would be to throw out this Bill and to start again. If the Government were prepared to do the job which I think is really theirs to do, when a change in the law of England of such importance as this is being made, we could take that course to-day—it does seem to me that such changes should be made in a Government Bill and not in a Private Member's Bill. Clearly, it is too much to expect that that would be so. I appreciate the importance of not losing any more time in regard to this matter. We all know that the banks are on the point of introducing important changes in the mechanical methods of handling cheques, which should save a very great deal of time and money, and they want to bring them in as quickly as possible. It is important that these changes should not be held up. I therefore do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide against this Bill to-day. I propose to make some suggestions on the Committee stage, which I hope may commend themselves to your Lordships.
My Lords, I think that, having made these strictures, I ought to attempt to explain why I and why Mr. Mocatta take such a serious view of the defects which we think there are in this Bill. The law of cheques is one of the most difficult and complicated branches of the whole law of England. I have spent much of my legal life trying to understand it and I am far from saying that I do.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I

273
think that it would be convenient if we were to adjourn during pleasure for the Royal Commission at half-past five. Accordingly, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate he now adjourned.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

SUN DERLAND CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.38 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Export Guarantees,

House of Commons Members' Fund,

Rent,

National Insurance,

Solicitors,

Dentists,

Magistrates' Courts,

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments),

Occupiers' Liability,

Naval and Marine Reserves Pay,

New Streets Act, 1951 (Amendment),

Blyth Harbour,

Barclays Bank D.C.O.,

Cattedown Wharves,

Marine Society,

City of London (Various Powers),

Sunderland Corporation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CHEQUES BILL
5.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the House adjourned, I was explaining that the law of cheques is one of the most difficult and complicated branches of our English law. One of the main reasons for this is that it derives from the law of bills of exchange. When modern banking began to develop, a bill of exchange drawn on a banker was the obvious method by which the depositor could get back the money which he had deposited with his bank or by means of which he could transfer it to another person if he wished to do so. Here we meet the important distinction which really is, or should be, at the back of the discussion of this Bill: that, where the depositor is getting the money out for himself, so to speak, the endorsement which he puts oil the cheque, the bill of exchange, is in the nature of a receipt. That is probably not a technically legally correct description of it, but that is the way in which it has been regarded, and it is this receipt endorsement, if I may so describe it, which it is the object of Mr. Graham Page and those who have been working with him to get rid of. With that objective I am certainly in wholehearted agreement.
But, when the cheque is transferred to another person as a bill of exchange, It is a negotiable instrument, and the payee named in it transfers it to some other person by means of endorsing it over. Of course, it is in connection with this endorsement over—a negotiation endorsement, it one can so describe it—that the risk of forgery is so important. The law as it originally stood put the risk of forgery, loss through forgery, upon the paying banker, but in the nineteenth century, when the growth of the cheque system became enormous and rapid, this was felt—and I think was very naturally and properly felt—to be unfair, and the bankers were given protection by various Statutes passed during that period, provided—and his is important—they acted in good faith and in the ordinary course of business.
Now it is the ordinary course of business in banking for a banker to examine endorsements for any irregularity that there may be there, and, if an irregularity

275
is found, to assure himself that the matter is in order, if necessary by referring the instrument to the drawer himself so that the drawer can give his consent to paying the cheque. This obviously is a great safeguard to the customer. Indeed, it is almost the only safeguard which remains to him vis-à-vis himself and his own banker, the paying banker. The Mocatta Committee considered that it was very important that this requirement in regard to negotiation endorsements should be maintained.
The Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon throws away this safeguard completely, as I read subsection (1) of Clause 1, because it does not have regard to this distinction between the two types.
" Where a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays a cheque drawn on him and which is not endorsed or is irregularly endorsed, he does not, in doing so, incur any liability by reason only of the absence of, or irregularity in, endorsement."
So he is no longer responsible for anything in the nature of an irregular endorsement. That I suggest in connection with these negotiation endorsements is a very serious thing. It might have been preserved quite easily, of course, as the Mocatta Committee clearly showed, I think, in the draft proposals for the modification of the law which they appended to their Report.
This same clause would also free a bank from any responsibility in connection with endorsements, in regard to payments made over the counter where a man who has perhaps stolen a cheque turns up with it at the bank on which it is drawn, presents it to the cashier at the desk and obtains money over the counter. The need which at present exists of having to endorse it, of having in effect to put a forgery on it, for which he can be held liable in a criminal court, is a safeguard of great value. That under this clause will entirely disappear. The Mocatta Committee attached a good deal of importance to that and dealt with it in three paragraphs of their Report, paragraphs 63 and the following paragraphs, to which I should like to refer. They point out:
" Where a cheque is collected by a bank it is possible to ascertain the account to which it has been credited and hence the identity of the actual recipient, and this will continue to be so whether the cheque is endorsed or not. Where "—
276
and this is the important point—
" however, cash is paid against a cheque the identity of the recipient of the payment cannot afterwards be established by the same process of enquiry and the presence of an endorsing signature is thus a most important link in the chain of evidence."
Then, after some argument which is to the same effect and with which I will not trouble your Lordships, they say in paragraph 55:
" Further, in all the three cases distinguished above we think that the requirement of endorsement would give an added security to those concerned. If payment in cash could be obtained against an unendorsed cheque, the risk of theft and dishonesty by agents would certainly he increased. The continued need for endorsement in these cases would enable payees to hold cheques without special risks of loss until they were about to be cashed."
Then, in paragraph 66, they say:
" On grounds of both evidence and security, therefore, we consider that endorsement should continue to be required in all cases of encashment of cheques."
This point was raised on an Amendment on the Committee stage in another place, when the sponsor of the Bill tried to get over it by saying that, in practice, the banks would continue to require an endorsement. I have no doubt that they will do so, but a promise of that kind on behalf of the banks is, of course, no equivalent to a section in the Statute Law of England. Nor would it be fair, because at some stage or another a bank official having forgotten to ensure that there was such an endorsement, and an action being brought against the bank on that basis, the bank's lawyers would undoubtedly say, "We are legally all right. Therefore, we will take our stand on the law as enacted by Parliament." I suggest that in regard to the payment of cheques the safety of the customer has been completely ignored in this Bill. That is the most serious aspect of it.
The Bill gives not dissimilar privileges to the collecting banker. I should like to say a word or two about that. It is difficult to explain it shortly, but when the responsibility of the paying, bankers was so much reduced by the Statutes to which I have referred, particularly by Section 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, the courts began to build up a system under which the banking public have been given a large measure of protection through the precautions which the banker who collects a cheque for the credit of his customer's account is required to take, in order to

277
secure the protection of Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act. If a customer who had somehow or another got hold of a cheque to which he had not a title paid it into his bank account for collection, the bank became guilty of the wrongful act of conversion. Section 82 of the existing Bills of Exchange Act gives protection in that type of case in connection with crossed cheques, provided that he acts without negligence and in good faith.
One of the most interesting developments of the whole of banking law over the last fifty years or so has been the building up by the Courts of the required standards of care on the part of the banks, and it seems to me that to a substantial degree this is now removed by the insertion of the proposed Clause 4 in this Bill. In other words, the Bill seems to me to cut into the degree of care which the courts have required that the banks should take in collecting their customers' cheques. There are a number of instances in which it seems to me that this would be so. I will not trouble your Lordships with all of them but will refer to just one. Perhaps the most obvious way in which a banker can be negligent is in not concerning himself with the regularity of the endorsement on the cheque which is paid into the account by the customer for the bank to collect the amount for him. If the endorsement is in fact irregularity then the banker should be put on his guard, and obviously it would be negligence on his part not to go into the matter and satisfy himself that the irregularity did not cloak some criminal offence or some lack of title, at any rate, in his customer.
In the case of cheques which have been endorsed over—negotiation endorsements—this is particularly important, as I think any banker will agree, and as indeed the precautions which are taken by the banks at the present time in handling third party cheques amply prove. Clause 4 (3) of this Bill seems to me to go a long way towards removing, if it does not remove altogether, any need on the part of the collecting banker to pay attention to irregularity in regard to these negotiation endorsements. It is all part of the same weakness in this Bill that the fundamental distinction between receipt endorsement and negotiation endorsement, which is emphasised on so many pages of the Mocatta Committee Report, has, as
278
I see it, been completely ignored when this Bill was drafted.
These matters all come back really to the same point. There are a number of other points which are of lesser importance and with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this late hour. One obvious point is that there are references to Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act in quite a number of statutory instruments. Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act is repealed by the Schedule to this Bill without any regard being taken of a point of that kind. No doubt these matters will be looked at in due course and provision will be made for dealing with them. I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but it seemed to me that your Lordships should be aware of what seem to me to be grave defects in a Bill which has been presented almost as being, of a non-controversial character.
6.7 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am afraid that even at this late hour I must ask your Lordships to hear with rue for a few moments in order that I may make some observations from the point of view of the banks. I would agree without any demur that there is a great deal of waste of time and labour to the public (I am referring mainly to the trading community: such people as shops, insurance companies, local authorities and others) in having to endorse cheques which are going straight into their own accounts with their own bank. There is also, of course, the waste of time and labour in the banks, both the collecting and paying banks, in examining endorsements of cheques which are paid by payees to the credit of their own accounts. I agree at once that it is a good thing to get rid of that.
The system of endorsements has become, I think, both superfluous and cumbrous. One of its disadvantages I can illustrate, perhaps, by an incident which occurred not long ago, when a gentleman who had the misfortune to have to pay alimony to a certain lady, feeling perhaps a little vindictive, had the bright idea, remembering the bank's meticulous attention to endorsement, of drawing the cheque to "naughty Annie, or order." I suppose he hoped the bank would insist upon the endorsement being in proper form—and to doubt, in certain circumstances, had the hank not insisted

279
on that precise endorsement they might have been guilty of negligence. I think I can assure your Lordships that the banker was sufficiently generous to take the risk, whatever it was, of being held guilty of negligence in that case by accepting an irregular endorsement.
My Lords, when I came to the House for the debate on this Bill I had no idea that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was going to take such ferocious exception to the Bill. I had understood that it would he an agreed Bill, and there were just three points which, in those circumstances, I felt it right to put before your Lordships. I think I had better make those points in the first instance and then, if I may, say a word in reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in objection to the Bill. The three points I should like to get on the Record arc, first, that this Bill is primarily designed in the interests of the trading community. It is true that the banks will, incidentally, obtain some relief from work which has been largely useless. Frankly, that relief is welcome, but I must make the point that it is not a relief for which the banks have specifically asked; and we do not expect any really great or material saving in expense through being relieved of these duties.
My second point, which I believe is important from the point of view of the public, is that it might he feared that the elimination of an apparent safeguard would expose the hank customer—the cheque user—to greater risks than those to which he is already exposed. I believe I can give your Lordships a categorical assurance that that is not so, and that there will be no greater risk involved than at present. I can illustrate that simply by pointing out that in a way it is safer from the point of view of possible theft to send an unendorsed cheque through the post than an endorsed cheque, because if a cheque to order is unendorsed nobody can get money without putting on the endorsement—and that would be forgery. On the other hand, if the cheque is endorsed, then it is payable to bearer.
My third point is that I wish to make clear that, in spite of what the noble Lord opposite has said (at all events this was my view before I came down to the House), the Bill does not confer new protection on the banks, except in one
280
particular point. I am instructed that under Clause 4 the protection of Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, is extended to open cheques. I believe the noble Lord mentioned that point. That is a change which was proposed by the Mocatta Committee.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, I am in entire agreement with the extension of the protection to open cheques. The position there was quite illogical and the Mocatta Committee recommended that that concession should be made.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. That is what I was about to say when the noble Lord interrupted me. We welcome the concession, though we did not seek it. Before I pass to the other remarks of the noble Lord, I should like to confirm that which fell from the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill: that the banks are willing to continue to co-operate in the matter of combined cheques and receipts which are of importance, particularly, I believe, to insurance companies.
May I now say a word about Lord Chorley's two main criticisms of the Bill, as I understood them? The first is that Clause 1 goes wider than the Mocatta Report. The noble Lord cites paragraph 66 of that Report. I entirely agree that the Bill certainly goes outside the Report; but I can tell your Lordships that truly the noble Lord need not worry; for, from long experience, the banks have found it necessary to protect themselves and I do not think it at all likely that the banks will pay order cheques over the counter without getting an endorsement. It seems to me that they would be foolish if they did so. I am not in a position to give an undertaking, because, for one thing, I did not know that the point was to be raised; and even had I known I should not have been in a position to give an undertaking on behalf of the banks. But if an Amendment is necessary on that point, I do not think the banks will object.
On the noble Lord's second point on Clause 4 (3), which refers to the collecting bank—it is a rather large point—I must tell your Lordships that the advice given to the banks on this point is different

281
from the interpretation put upon it by the noble Lord. The banks have been advised that Clause 4 (3) would not enable them safely to collect for the account of a third party a negotiated cheque without looking for an endorsement which would be required to confer title upon the third party. I have no doubt that they will continue so to act for their own protection. I do not know whether Amendments will be moved en that point, but here again I do not think there will be any objection taken by the banks. I do not think I need add anything else.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that my view of the effect of Clause 4 (3) is correct, and that the banks are, in fact, being given a very substantial advantage?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I cannot agree, because, as I have told your Lordships, the banks have had legal advice in a different sense. However, that is a legal matter which I am not competent to judge: I can only tell your Lordships of the advice which has been given to us. I need only add that we welcome the Bill and I have no doubt that any difficulties such as the noble Lord anticipates can be threshed out at a later stage.
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it falls to my lot to indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this Private Member's Bill. In doing so, I should explain that I have not been in a position to inform myself fully upon all matters of detail which have been raised. My own feeling about most of them is that they are primarily Committee matters and are very different, individual and particular points which might have to be discussed in detail at a later stage. In general, Her Majesty's Government endorse—if I may use the word—the provisions of the Bill—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, to what kind of endorsement is the noble and learned Viscount referring—a receipt endorsement or a negotiation endorsement?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think this will be a receipt endorsement, and I shall seek to negotiate the instrument with the House afterwards. Her Majesty's Government support this Bill. I should like to add the thanks of the Government to the Committee who,
282
despite the noble Lord's disavowal of parentage, still remain, in our view at any rate, substantially the author of this Bill. The tribute was paid in another place. The noble Lord himself rendered his thanks to the Chairman of the Committee and its other members, but I feel it would be at least graceful for me to repeat here en behalf of Her Majesty's Government what has been said.
I do not think it is correct to complain, as the noble Lord did, that this is a Private Member's Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House for the very adequate reason that it was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place, and it is the invariable practice of your Lordships' House to pursue a matter of this kind on the same footing as that on which A has been received from another place. I am advised that it would not be altogether in accordance with the Rules of Order—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, my complaint is that Her Majesty's Government did not introduce the Bill in another place originally. I quite appreciate that after it had gone so far in another place it could not become a Government Bill in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the thought had flickered across my mind, and I was proceeding, in my own way, to deal with it when the noble Lord rose. I am advised that it would not be within the Rules of Order to speculate as to the motives which led a private Member in another place to introduce a particular measure—a fact which somewhat limits what it would be appropriate for me to say. But the noble Lord really gave the answer to his own question, when he said that he understood that the services of the Parliamentary draftsman had been invoked in this matter. Those of us who have served in both places know very well the way in which these things are done, and how very much in accordance with Parliamentary custom it is that when a particular Member of either House has interested himself in a private capacity in a public matter it is considered appropriate for the Government to allow the initiation of what is virtually a public measure to fall to the lot of that particular Member as a recognition of his public

283
spirit in initiating the discussion. I think that I have now gone to the extreme lengths of what the Rules of Order will permit me to say. So much for that point, in which, I venture to suppose, there really is very little.
Of course, one is necessarily sorry that the noble Lord should feel not merely that we should have set about, or that the Bill should have set about, the solution of the problem with the objects in view which the Committee maintain but that it should have followed with complete correspondence the draft of the measure contained in the Annexe to the Committee's Report, and, indeed, the ways in which the substance of that Report recommended that the problem should be solved. This is where I find it difficult to answer all the noble Lord's points without indulging in a discussion of detail which I fear would prove intolerable to your Lordships at this stage of the Bill and at this hour of the day.
Broadly speaking, what I would say at this stage is this. So far as Clause 1 is concerned, the Committee suggested that it should be provided that it was to be no requirement that a cheque should be endorsed. According to the advice I have received, there is no requirement that a cheque should be endorsed otherwise than in existing practice. Therefore the proposal in the form in which it was originally recommended would have been an inappropriate way of drafting the particular clause. Clause 1 (1) gives protection to the paying banker notwithstanding that the cheque is not endorsed. According to the view held by the Government's advisers, that is the appropriate way in which to achieve that result. So far as the position of cheques paid across the counter is concerned, the view of the Government is that the exclusion from subsection (1) of cheques paid in cash might produce an anomalous result in that it would appear to imply that a paying banker was not absolved from liability if he paid over the counter on an unendorsed cheque presented by the wrong, person, whereas under Section 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, he would in fact, be absolved from liability if he paid that cheque on a forged endorsement. If that view be correct, I should have thought that the Bill in its present form was a preferable solution. I would say
284
that it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the only certain way for a drawer to protect himself against payment being made to the wrong person is to use a crossed cheque.
Concerning Clause 2, it is, as the noble Lord opined, correct that the clause goes somewhat wider than is recommended in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the Report of the Mocatta Committee. Paragraph 53 of the Report recommended that endorsement should still be required in the relatively rare case where a customer presented for collection a cheque which was endorsed specifically to him by name. The clause, as drafted, will dispense with endorsement not only where the cheque is to be paid into the payee's account but also where the cheque is specially endorsed. In our view, there is no essential difference between the two cases. So far as third party cheques are concerned—by which I mean cheques negotiated by the payee—the clause does not in any way destroy or lessen the necessity for an endorsement, and a regular endorsement, by the payee.
The third point which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, raised was related to subsection (3) of Clause 4 of the Bill. Subsection (3) is necessary to clarify the position of collecting bankers in relation to negligence and endorsements, and makes it clear that a collecting bank is not to be held negligent in an action for conversion merely because it did not concern itself with the absence of, or irregularity in, endorsement of an instrument. The Bill as originally drafted did not include this provision, for the reason that it was not thought necessary; it was felt unlikely that any court would hold negligent a collecting banker who failed to look for something with which a paying banker need not concern himself as a result of Clause 1 of the Bill. During the passage of the Bill through another place, however, clearing banks and their legal advisers represented that the risk, however small, did exist, and that it should be removed. The subsection does not give bankers any protection additional to that already afforded by the law (that, at any rate, is the view of those from whom I receive advice), and does not seek to excuse them from any risks other than those arising from the abolition of the need for endorsement—which is again a purpose of the Bill. It was thought that

285
the subsection would remove this slight element of risk.
I cannot say how far these explanations will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Perhaps he will be good enough to look at them and consider them and, if at a later stage he still finds himself unsatisfied, what remedies he would apply. I should be glad to be the recipient of his confidence in this connection, so that the matter can be discussed at a later stage. I must confess that I have not fully informed myself on these points. I should like to add a word of thanks to my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which, in our view, is a useful and necessary measure and one which will be widely welcomed in the business world.
6.28 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says his final word about it, I think it would be appropriate that a word should be said by one of my nationality, that being a nationality which looks upon anything relating to money as being worthy of very special attention at all times. When any guidance is sought by my fellow-countrymen with regard to this measure, they will net find in the Bill any reference to Scotland. There is a reference in Clause 7 to Northern Ireland, which is made necessary because of certain circumstances. In order to resolve any doubts that might be in the minds of my fellow-countrymen as to how far this Bill goes (they certainly would not get any guidance from the debate that has taken place here, because there have been several references to the law of England, but nothing to indicate that this is a Bill which is intended to be made the law of the United Kingdom), I rise to express the hope that the sponsor of the Bill will say that it is intended to apply to Scotland.
6.30 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to thank till noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I would especially like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for giving the Government's blessing to this measure and for dealing at some length with the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has advanced. I think that we are all trying to do the same thing, and perhaps the only point we are arguing about is how we are going to do it. If,
286
having heard the noble and learned Viscount's remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, feels he ought to put down some Amendments on Committee stage, I think he would be quite right to do so. Then we can consider his points and see what is the best way of doing what we want to do. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his remarks, and especially for the comment that this Bill involved no greater risk to the public (I think that was the phrase he used). I think that that is very important and I hope that it will reassure everybody. The mention of Scotland by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, took me by surprise, but I will consult the sponsors of the Bill and see whether we can meet his point.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Bill applies to the whole of Scotland, but I thought that it might be made clear for the guidance of anyone reading the record.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I say that, if I am not mistaken—because I was taken by surprise like my noble friend—the general rule as regards Statute Law covers the point, and the absence of any reference to Scotland in the Bill will guide Scots lawyers completely as to the intention.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that the House will meet at 11.30 o'clock tomorrow to receive the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill and that thereafter the House will adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL
WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL
WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK (TRANSFER) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before seven o'clock.