Lords Sitting of 12 March 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEER CLOSE SEASON AND POACHING BILL
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the reported agreement between the Scottish Landowners Federation, the Nature Conservancy and the National Farmers' Union, the Close Season and Poaching Bill for deer will now go forward; and, if so, when it is expected that this action will be taken.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, since December 12, when I replied to my noble friend's previous question on this subject, the Nature Conservancy have provided sonic additional information to assist Her Majesty's Government in their consideration of the joint report. But I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Lord will make a statement within the next three months?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should not like to put a date on it. This is a somewhat complex matter, as my noble friend probably realises, and Her Majesty's Government will need to give full consideration to the whole subject.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: May I take it that the matter will be considered within the next six months?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it will be considered without any unavoidable delay.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, has not this matter dragged on for a very long time, and is it not time something was done to end what is really a public scandal?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it may well be that a considerable period has elapsed since the matter was first introduced, but, as I have said, it is one of considerable complexity, and Her Majesty's Government, therefore, have to go very fully into it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is it not rather astonishing that this information, of which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, tells us to-day, should be brought forward at such a late date? And can the noble Lord give the House an assurance thaw if and when Her Majesty's Government are prepared to introduce legislation they will introduce legislation in this House, so that opinion outside can be tested?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, that is a matter which will be considered in clue course.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords. I should like to remind the noble Lord who answered for Her Majesty's Government that on July 7, 1952, the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Committee of nine gentlemen to consider the desirability of introducing a close season for deer in Scotland. Prior to this date the Poaching of Deer (Scotland) Bill had been given its First Reading in this House. On the recommendation of the above Committee, certain progress with the Bill was delayed until it reported on the close season proposals. This Bill actually followed the Report of the Scott-Henderson Committee on Wild Animals, and it was in October, 1954, that the Committee reported its findings. Previously the Committee had agreed in principle to a close season, but three members voted for a reduction in the number of deer and for them to be brought under control before receiving statutory protection. There was much

435
conjecture as to the number of deer in Scotland, no one appearing to have reliable evidence even of the number in my own forest—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Is the noble Duke asking a Question?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I should have asked: is the noble Lord aware of that?

SCOPE OF OXFORD ROADS INQUIRY
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, under the procedure for public inquiry at Oxford by an independent person, as announced on 13th February by the Lord President. It will be open in the course of an inquiry on any proposal from the City Council for a new road, to persons interested in the rapid development of adequate shopping and social centres in Cowley, and other neighbouring districts, to submit proposals for this purpose, as an alternative to, or accompaniment of, a new road; and whether it will be open to the person holding, the inquiry to include in his report recommendations as to these accompanying or alternative proposals.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the answer to both parts of my noble Lord's Question is in the affirmative.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, may I express my great gratification, and I am sure the gratification of many Members of this House, at that answer? May I add just one thing: that I hope that the City will act with such speed in submitting proposals for a public inquiry that it does not become necessary for me to put down the further Question which was most kindly suggested to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of this House at the end of the recent debate, when he said that if
436
I felt that there was undue delay in submitting proposals for an inquiry I might consult him as to putting down a further Question. I hope that that will be quite unnecessary and that the City will listen to what I say upon that point to-day.

ST. JAMES'S PARK BRIDGE
LORD DERWENT: 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) What will be the cost of the new bridge over the lake in St. James's Park;
(2) When will the work be finished;
(3) What was the amount of the lowest tender;
(4) What was the shortest period for the completion of the work given by any tenderer.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the cost of the new bridge is to be met entirely from an anonymous bequest of some £23,500. The cost, including ancillary works, is estimated on the basis of the lowest tender for the demolition of the old bridge and the erection of a new one to come within this figure. It was a condition laid down by the trustees of the fund that the work must be finished by the end of this year. The firms invited to tender were not asked whether they could complete the work in a shorter time, but the contractor would be liable under the terms of the contract to pay a penalty if he took longer.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I want to get one point clear. Am I right in thinking that the cost of the work will come within the figure named?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I certainly hope so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the purpose of demolishing the old bridge and building the new one?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am not sure of the purpose, except that I suppose the new bridge which is to

437
be built will be more artistic: and more use than the old one which is now being pulled down.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is sure of that? What authority has authorised the new bridge without being certain that it is going to be an improvement on the old one, both for the amenity of foot passengers and as being pleasing to toe public eye?
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord opposite. What is the actual reason for destroying a very lovely-looking old bridge and replacing it with a modern structure of dreary cement?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would refer both noble Lords to the statement which my right honourable friend made in another place in April, 1956, when he invited the views of Members of another place about the demolition of this bridge and the erection of a new one. In fact, a model of the new bridge was displayed in the Members' tea room in another place, and after the model had, no doubt, been carefully examined, the response to my right honourable friend's statement clearly favoured the erection of the new bridge.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I, with respect, ask whether it is not the fact that the old bridge which is now being demolished was erected by the great Duke of Wellington and, therefore, is of great historic importance? Would it not have been appropriate that something should have been placed in one of the tea rooms of your Lordships' House, as well as merely in a tea room in another place? I should also like to reinforce the query which has been raised as to what is the authority for the demolition of the old bridge.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I just add this comment to what has been said about the bridge? I walk across this bridge sometimes. I have never found any difficulty in walking across it. It gives one great pleasure to watch the ducks, and occasionally to feed them. I feel that we shall lose a great amenity in walking through the Park if we lose this bridge.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, let me assure my noble friend Lord Teviot that he will be able to look at
438
the clucks and to feed the ducks just as well from the new bridge as from the old one.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, before the First War, some of us in the House of Commons defeated a proposal which was brought forward in connection with a memorial to King Edward VII to straighten out the winding paths on each side of the bridge? That proposal would have had the effect of virtually separating this lovely little Park into two parts. And can the noble Earl give us an assurance that no such vandalistic scheme as that is in contemplation?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords. I seem to have got myself into enough trouble by merely answering the noble Lord who first asked the Question about the new bridge in St. James's Park. I can assure the noble Viscount that, so far as my knowledge goes, there is no intention whatever of altering in any way the footpaths leading to the bridge.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I point out that the noble Earl has still not answered the question which has been put to him from more than one quarter of the House. In view of the fact that this work is being done, apparently, without any consultation or discussion in this House, formal or informal, what is the authority under which this historic monument is being destroyed?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would not for one moment regard this bridge as an historic monument. In any event, my right honourable Friend, as I have said, explained the position in the statement which he made in another place in April, 1956, and he had the concurrence of the Members of that House in the project for the erection of a new bridge.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl and with great respect to another place, what the noble Earl has just said does not answer the questions that noble Lords have raised in this House. Surely we have the right to know under whose authority the old bridge is being demolished and what the new bridge is going to be? Is it going to be constructed

439
of reinforced concrete? Has any design been submitted to noble Lords in this House? After all, this House is still a part of Parliament.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the answer is clearly what I think every noble Lord knows. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works is responsible for the upkeep of the Royal Parks.
LORD KILLEARN: May I intervene at this point to remind the noble Earl that we have not yet been told why the old bridge is being destroyed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I suppose I ought to make my apologies to the House because that statement was not made in this House, but I am afraid that I was not aware at the time that it was being made in another place. But I do not think that that really apportions blame entirely to the Government. This matter was public property. A statement was made in another place, and it was open to any noble Lord at that time to ask a Question in this House. No noble Lord did ask a Question, so I do not think that the Government are entirely to blame.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether this is not part of the settled procedure nowadays for the destruction of things which are old and beautiful and of historic interest?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course any noble Lord can have his own opinion about the old bridge. I think it was an interesting bridge. It is true. I think—at least so far as my memory serves me—that it was put up by the great Duke of Wellington. But it was put up, I understand, in order that troops, and even cannon, might be moved across it in case of civil disturbance, and not because it was a beautiful bridge.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of what has been said in this House to-day, would the noble Earl consider asking his right honourable friend to abandon the proposal for building the new bridge and to retain the old one?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the new bridge is now actually in course of erection, and the old bridge is in course of rapid demolition.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, may I ask whether the new bridge has been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am afraid that I should require to have notice of that question. If my recollection serves me correctly, I think the position was that while the Royal Fine Art Commission would have liked to retain the old bridge, they did, in point of fact, approve the new one.

PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS (DEPUTIES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
2.50 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Plea of guilty in absence of accused
1.—(1) This section shall apply where a summons has been issued requiring a person to appear before a magistrates' court, other than a juvenile court, to answer to an information for a summary offence, not being—

(a) an offence which is also triable on indictment; or

(b) an offence for which the accused is liable to be sentenced to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months,

and the clerk of the court is notified by or on behalf of the prosecutor that the accused has been served, together with the summons, with—

(i) a notice containing such statement of the effect of this section as may be prescribed; and

(ii) a concise statement in the prescribed form of such facts relating to the charge as will be placed before The court by or on behalf of the prosecutor if the accused pleads guilty without appearing before the court.

(2)
(iii) if the court convicts the accused in his absence under this subsection, the court

441
shall not without adjourning ender the said subsection (3) sentence him to any term of imprisonment or to any other form of detention, or order him to be subject to any disqualification.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "other than a juvenile court,". The noble Lord said: This is a Bill which I welcomed very much when it was introduced, and I still think that, though small, it is an excellent Bill. There is, however, one feature of it, which was mentioned on Second Reading, which I regret: it does riot carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that the Bill should apply, not to children but to young persons. It is true that on Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said the reason was that the Government wish the matter to be left to the Ingleby Committee, who are at present considering the whole position of the law and juvenile courts. I do not find that statement a very convincing one, because the fact is that this Departmental Committee, the Sharpe Committee, affirmatively recommended that this Bill should apply to young persons.
If your Lordships will permit me, I will read a sentence from, first of all, paragraph 48 of the Report:
"We see difficulty in denying to a young person, who may be earning and contributing to the support of a family, the privilege of being allowed to plead guilty without appearing before the court, a privilege which would be enjoyed by somebody over seventeen."
Then again, in paragraph 49, the Committee say:
"We think that there are few cases in which the prosecution would wish the new procedure to be applicable to young persons, or in which a juvenile court would be willing to deaf with a case in the defendant's absence."
Here, may I say that I entirely agree with the Committee. I think that the number of cases in which the new procedure would be applied to young persons is few. It would not be applied to cases in which young persons are charged with offences involving dishonesty. The sort of case I have in mind, which I gave on Second Reading, is that of a lad of sixteen summoned for riding a bicycle without a light, particularly if he was accompanied at the time by a man over seventeen committing a similar offence. It seems to me that it would be a bit hard that the procedure should he different as between the two, one perhaps just under seventeen and the other just over seventeen.
When it is borne in mind, as it must be, that the whole of this procedure is entirely voluntary; that it cannot be brought into force at all unless the prosecution elect that it shall be; and, further, that even if the prosecution so elect, it cannot be used unless the court decides that it should be, it seems to me that this Bill might well be applied to young persons. I should make it plain that if this Amendment is accepted, there would have to be a consequential Amendment to make clear that it would not apply to children. I feel that it is right that this matter should be raised again on Committee stage because I am sure that your Lordships will agree that if the Government mould a Bill on the Report of a Committee and then deliberately ignore one of the recommendations of the Committee—though I admit that they are entitled to do so—I think it needs an explanation, and I was not quite satisfied with the explanation made on Second Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out (" other than a juvenile court,").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. As he said, if the Amendment were passed, it would allow the new procedure to be used in juvenile courts for such offences as riding a bicycle without lights or with inefficient brakes. At the present time, in many juvenile courts defendants in minor cases do not attend but send a letter, and after the case has been proved, they are dealt with in their absence. This is more especially the case where these junior defendants have left school and are at work, in which case attendance would mean the loss of a day's work. Another advantage I find in the Amendment is that the use of the new procedure in such cases would relieve police officers of the necessity of attending court. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, whether it is not the case that if the words in Clause 1 were deleted, as he proposes, it would also be necessary to delete similar words in Clause 3, so as to bring the whole procedure within the ambit of the juvenile courts
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILKUIR): My noble friend Lord Merthyr has stated with complete frankness that, while the Bill does not go so

443
far as the Sharpe Committee's Report, his Amendment as it stands at the moment goes further than the Report. Of course, I came here to face the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, and I think that, as the Amendment is in this form, we ought to consider the question fully and get the sense of your Lordships upon it. My noble friend limits this to the elder class of juveniles and cuts out children. I think he will appreciate that there would be considerable difficulty in applying this procedure to children. I am sure that your Lordships will think that there is something incongruous about allowing a child to be dealt with in his absence by a criminal court, even for one of the type of offences which my noble friend mentioned.
But the major difficulty, which I should like my noble friend Lord Merthyr to consider, and my noble friend Lord Winster also to bear in mind, is to reconcile the application of the new procedure to juveniles with certain provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. These provisions were not mentioned by the Departmental Committee in their Report. As my noble friend will remember, because I am sure he has had to deal with this point often, Section 34 of the 1933 Act provides that:
." Where a child or young person is charged with any offence or is for any other reason brought before a court, his parent or guardian may in any case, and shall if he can he found and resides within a reasonable distance, be required to attend at the court…unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require his attendance."
I think that my noble friend would agree that this section clearly envisages that a juvenile charged with any offence shall be present at the hearing and that the parent shall normally be present as well; and I think that my noble friend will also agree that any change in that policy should be brought about only by a measure dealing with juvenile courts and not by a side wind.
If I may now take my noble friend twenty-one sections further on, Section 55 of the Act of 1933 provides that, instead of imposing a fine, damages or costs on a juvenile,
"…the court may…and shall if the offender is a child, order that the fine, damages, or costs awarded he paid by the parent or guardian…unless the court is satisfied that
444
the parent or guardian cannot be found or that he has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person."
It is further provided that an order to this effect may be made against a parent or guardian who, having been required to attend, has failed to do so, but that in all other circumstances
"no such order shall be made without giving the parent or guardian an opportunity of being heard."
If the procedure of this Bill were to be applicable to juveniles, it would be necessary to require that notice of the various documents which are to be sent to the defendant be served also on the parent or guardian; and unless the parent had been required to attend, and had failed to do so—and such a requirement itself would be incongruous where a juvenile had been told that he, the juvenile, need not attend—the court would have to adjourn after conviction to give the parent an opportunity to attend and make out a case against being ordered to pay a fine, and so on. Alternatively, the parent might be allowed, on receipt of the documents, to submit in writing his reasons for not being required to pay the fine. But whichever method was adopted, a more extensive modification of the Bill would be required than is provided for by this Amendment. That is a serious point, and, in the case of juveniles, I think it creates a difficulty which has to be faced.
As I have said, the Departmental Committee, in the paragraphs to which my noble friend Lord Merthyr referred, recommend that this procedure should apply to young persons, but they make no recommendation with regard to children. I agree with my noble friend that there are unlikely to be many cases in which it would apply, and I think that in a great many of these cases it would be a good thing if the juvenile was brought before the court in order to realise the importance of the offence. There is the other point, to which my noble friend referred: that the Ingleby Committee has been set up to inquire into and make recommendations on the working of the law in England and Wales relating to proceedings and the powers of the courts in respect of juveniles brought before the courts as delinquent, or in need of care, and so on; and a number of other sections of its terms of reference are, I am sure, well known to my noble friend. The three years that I spent at the Home

445
Office made me most interested in the workings of juvenile courts. I think they have done a great job, and without in any way wishing to prejudice the position of the Committee, I do not think anyone who has had much to do with the work of juvenile courts would take a contrary view. But I do think there is something to be said—I do not say this in any delaying way; I merely ask your Lordships to consider it—for not pre-judging any alteration in juvenile court procedure and for awaiting the Report of the Ingleby Committee.
As my noble friend said, I do not think this will affect a great many offences. I do riot like standing by calculations on a point as difficult as this, but I should be surprised if it affected more than something between 1 and 2 per cent. of the offences otherwise within the Bill. We must remember that the main purpose of the Bill is to save the time of witnesses. The third point that I to my noble friend is the point that I have raised about the technical difficulties concerned with the provisions of the Act of 1933. I think we are all agreed that the Amendment as it stands would not be enough in itself. What I suggest is that my noble friend Lord Merthyr should withdraw his Amendment at this stage, and that he should, if he will be so good, apply his mind to the difficulties I have raised with regard to the Act of 1933. I, in turn, will apply my mind to the real purpose of his Amendment, which is to exclude children and to try to do something for young persons between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. It is a difficult point, and I hope that my noble friend may think that this is a reasonable way of considering the difficulties with which we are faced.
LORD MERTHYR: I have no hesitation in concurring with the suggestion that has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount, and I shall certainly withdraw this Amendment. As I think I indicated, I never had any intention of applying it to children. However, I must confess that I had not realised all the difficulties that would arise because of the terms of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the clerk of the court is notified by or on behalf of the prosecutor that." The noble Lord said: Thy words which I propose should be left out of this Bill seem to me on the face of it unnecessary. It appears that this is simply a piece of unnecessary machinery. I want this Bill, which, as I have said before, I think is a good one, to be a simple one and one that is easily worked, because it has to be worked by the clerks and magistrates in nearly a thousand courts up and down the country. The words which I want to leave out are,
"the clerk of the court is notified by or on behalf of the prosecutor."
It is simply a compulsory notification which must happen in every single case in which this Bill is operated It seems to me—and I may say that this has been pointed out to me from at least two entirely independent sources—that that little piece of machinery is really redundant or unnecessary.
It may be asked: "If this Amendment is made, how will the clerk of the court get to know that there has been a service?" The answer surely is that he will hear from the defendant himself or from his solicitor. Could we not so arrange it that it should be presumed that if the clerk hears from the defendant or his solicitor, he should be entitled to assume that the service has been duly effected? That is all there is in the point. I am not moving the Amendment because I think the words are objectionable, but simply because, as I said, I think they are unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, they will take up a little time that may be spared. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out from (" and ") to the first (" the ") in line 13.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is purely a utilitarian Amendment, as I understand my noble friend, and did it meet the situation entirely I should accept it without any difficulty at all. But I am not sure that it does. The Amendment would have the effect that the prosecutor would not be required to notify the clerk of the court that the accused had been served, together with a summons, with the notice containing the prescribed statement of the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill, and the concise statement of the facts relating

447
to the charge which will be put before the court if the accused pleads guilty without appearing. In the normal case, where the accused uses the form which will accompany the notice sent to him, the clerk of the court will know, from receiving this form, that the prosecution are content that the Bill procedure shall apply and have sent the necessary documents to the accused, which, of course, is a very important matter. But the defendant, human nature being what it is, may easily spoil the form—one knows how easily this may happen—and send in his plea by ordinary letter. Or he may, in any event, prefer to send a letter instead of the form, since he is not obliged to use the form, and no doubt letters purporting to be pleas of guilty and advancing mitigating circumstances will continue to be sent, as they are at present, in some cases in which the defendant has not been given the option of pleading guilty in absence under the new procedure.
This is the difficulty as I see it. When the clerk received such a letter, he would not know, if the Amendment were accepted, whether the case was one to which Clause 1 (1) applied, because he would have no means of knowing whether the defendant had been served with the documents required to be served on him before the new procedure can operate. I think my noble friend will see what that would entail. If the clerk did not have this information, he would not know whether to put the case in the non-witness list. I think my noble friend will agree that it is likely that all cases within the Bill will be heard in a batch, either before or after the witness cases, or by a separate Bench, and it would be difficult to arrange the court business in the most efficient manner.
That is the difficulty that I see, and my noble friend will appreciate that the position we are dealing with here is the notification that the documents have been served on the accused. It is important that the court should know that, and I do not think that without this procedure the court can be certain and can arrange to take full advantage of the provisions of the Bill. If my noble friend sees an answer to that objection, I shall be pleased to consider it. That seems to me to be the practical difficulty, and if my noble friend agrees there is something in it, perhaps he would like to consider the
448
matter again. We have both the same objective, which is to get the Bill to work as speedily and as equitably as possible.
LORD MERTHYR: I am bound to confess that I am still not quite happy about this matter. Perhaps I should have said this before, but may I point out to your Lordships how the Bill would read if this Amendment were passed? Going back to line 5, it would read:
"This section shall apply where…"
then, in line 13—
"the accused has been served…"
Now that is a question of fact, and the court would have to be satisfied that the accused had been served. In the same way as now, if the defendant does not appear, the court have to be satisfied as a matter of fact that the summons has been served. I should have thought that that was sufficient, and that it was not necessary to go on to say not merely that the court must be satisfied that the accused has been served, but that a formal notification has been sent to the clerk to that effect.
I will certainly pay great attention to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but although I do not wish to press this point, I still think there could be a useful simplification if this Amendment, or something like it, were passed. If I withdraw this Amendment, as I certainly will, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will consider just a little further whether it would not be sufficient if the court had to be satisfied that, in fact, the accused had been served. I leave it at that for the moment, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.16 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "together" and insert "simultaneously". The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Viscount may say at once that my word means the same as the word in the Bill, but I would say that quite a number of people have independently made the point that they are not satisfied that the words, "together with" mean, "simultaneously with" or, "at the same time as". This is another case where everybody wants the same thing there is no dispute about what is required. I suppose the draftsman might not agree, but other people might, that the words, "together with"

449
are capable of ambiguity. It may be that they have crept into the language in such a form that people use the words, "together with" without meaning them absolutely strictly—without meaning "simultaneously". In fact, they may mean simply, "with". The point is as simple as that. If the noble and learned Viscount can give me an assurance that the words, "together with" mean the same as "simultaneously"—in other words, that the notice must be served at the same time as the summons—that will go a long way to meet my point. But I justify this intervention by saying that several minds besides my own have raised this doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out (" together ") and insert (" simultaneously ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a logical philosophical and psychological refinement which presents me with the very greatest difficulty. May I refer the noble Lord to another paraphrase? The Departmental Committee recommended that the statements of facts should be served on the amused "along with" the summons. I think my noble friend will find that in paragraph 41 of the Report. As he will remember, they did not consider that separate proof of the service of the statements of fact and the summons would be necessary. That is the position. I have honestly tried to see whether I could find any difference between, "together with" and, "simultaneously", but I have not been able to find any—except this. I suppose that, in a land of high fantasy, if someone had read one document first you might have a sort of argument as to whether there was true simultaneity, but I do not think my noble friend is really thinking of points of that kind. So far as the actual receipt of the documents by the accused is concerned, I cannot find any difference. Whether, in these circumstances, it was my proper course to accept the Amendment or to stand by the Bill I was in grave doubt; but I thought that, after all, if someone proposes a change, there is some onus on him to show that the change makes a difference. Therefore I should prefer the original draft. I cannot myself see any difference at all.
LORD MERTHYR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he cannot see any difference.
450
That will comfort a number of people who have raised this point, but I was wondering, if only because people are doubtful, whether there would be any harm in making this change. If it be a fact, as appears to be the case, that people do understand "simultaneously" and do not understand "together with", would there really be any harm in putting in the word? I will leave it at that for the moment. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to think it over before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD MERTHYR: In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CIBLWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CIBLWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to acid to proviso (iii):
"or order him to pay a fine in excess of five pounds."
The noble Lord said: May I preface my remarks on this Amendment by saying how delighted I personally am to see the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill at this particular moment, when the series of Amendments down in my name will appear before your Lordships for discussion. I say that because I am very conscious still, if he will permit me to say so with respect, of the most distinguished part he played in the discussions we had in this House in 1956 on the Road Traffic Bill which did so much to strengthen the law upon traffic offences. The noble Viscount may think it rather incongruous that I should have this Amendment upon the Order. Paper, but may I assure him that it is put down purely for the purpose of interrogation, and I do not intend to press it.
The reason I put it down is a simple one. Your Lordships will remember that under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, by and large the penalties for road offences were stepped up to practically double. With that I have no quarrel whatsoever, but when one comes to think what the maximum penalties can be in the future, and what the average penalties have been up to now, I think perhaps it may be advisable for the Home Office to give some direction to the magistrates as to how to lighten the initial load. I have no fixed

451
ideas upon this matter. I should like to have the opinion of the Committee and of the noble and learned Viscount.
This Bill seeks to do something which we all agree is advisable. It seeks to ease the burden of police power. It seeks to bring into the law of this country the novelty of being able to get over the overcrowding of magistrates' courts for road offences. As I said on Second Reading, it is a compromise by the Government, and I think perhaps a very wise compromise, between having specific traffic courts, on the one hand, and fining on the spot, on the other. And so the prosecuted can plead guilty and be dealt with, up to a point, by the magistrates' court if a plea of guilty is put in without either the defendant or the prosecutor appearing before the magistrates. I say "up to a point", because if your Lordships will look at proviso (iii) of subsection (2) of Clause 1, you will see that
"if the court convicts the accused in his absence under this subsection, the court shall not without adjourning under the said subsection (3) sentence him to any term of imprisonment or to any other form of detention, or order him to be subject to any disqualification."
So, broadly speaking, the magistrates cannot inflict a penalty which involves disqualification upon a motorist unless the court is adojurned for the purpose of the motorist or the alleged offender being present. But, under the Act of 1956, the court may impose a penalty up to, I think I am right in saying (the noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong) a monetary fine of £40, whereas, before, the average fine for a similar offence was something in the region of £5, without disqualification in his absence.
I am wondering whether the magistrates' court should not be given some indication by the Home Office that some discretion should be used in this matter, and that, if they feel that anywhere near the maximum fine should be inflicted, they should exercise their right to adjourn the court so that the prosecuted individual has the opportunity of attending if he so desires. In many cases up to now the poor individual has written a letter to the magistrates' court pleading guilty, more often than not thinking that it is far cheaper to plead guilty than to pay the railway fare to the
452
court—a process which has been profitable in the past, though it may be far from profitable in the future. Until it is generally recognised throughout this country that the infliction of these penalties by the magistrates is real, and that in future a defendant will not be able to get away with writing a very polite letter to the court pleading guilty, so escaping with a fine of a few shillings; until that sinks into the minds of the vast number of motoring public in this country. I think it would be advisable for the Home Office to give some directions to the magistrates' courts as to how they are to deal with these cases. I have no strong feelings upon this Amendment. Perhaps the weighty words of the noble and learned Viscount in reply to me may do as much good as this Amendment could ever do. As the noble and learned Viscount has made some very weighty pronouncements in the past, during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, on this question of penalties for road offences, I thought I would seize the opportunity of elaborating the reason why I put down this Amendment, now that the House has the great advantage of having the noble and learned Viscount here to answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 47, at end insert (" or order him to pay a fine in excess of five pounds.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: I fear that I am not quite clear about the reason behind this Amendment. It is of course, quite open to my noble friend to say that he can only give me his reasons, and that he cannot give me the wits to appreciate them. The noble Lord has quite correctly quoted the words of proviso (iii) of subsection (2) of Clause The words which the noble Lord now seeks to add to this proviso are:
"or order him to pay a fine in excess of five pounds."
It seems to me that to do this would mean that, although the court had convicted the accused, its powers of penalty would be limited to £5 unless the magistrates adjourned the case. That would surely be detrimental to the working of this Bill. In many cases, at the present time, a penalty exceeding £5 is inflicted in the defendant's absence. If this clause were amended in the way proposed, this might possibly influence magistrates to

453
keep the penalty down to £5, in order to avoid adjourning the case and the particular magistrates coming to court again on the adjourned hearing.
I fully appreciate that under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the magistrates who inflict the penalty need not be the same as those who convicted. I feel sure that the noble and learned Viscount will agree that in practice it is most desirable that the magistrates who have convicted should, if possible, also deal with the question of penalty. If the Amendment were accepted, for example in a case of first or second conviction for exceeding the speed limit, where the justices thought that owing to the circumstances of the case the penalty should be in excess of £5, they would have to adjourn the matter. Alternatively, they would have to keep the fine down to one of £5 or less. Thuse are the reasons why, to my personal regret, feel unable to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend.
LORD MERTHYR: I, too, should like to say that I hope that this Amendment not be accepted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not intend it to be.
LORD MERTHYR: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has put his finger on the right place. There is, of course, real danger that benches of magistrates might be tempted to keep the fine down to £5 in order to avoid an adjournment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may say that the same thing applies the case of disqualification or imprisonment. I think he raised that particular point on Second Reading—and it is a very real point. It cannot be denied that, if this Bill goes through, there must be a temptation to reduce the penalty in order to avoid adjournments. I, for one, hope and think that that temptation will be resisted; but to deny that it exists is quite unrealistic. Therefore, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who made that point. But when it comes to a fine, or the amount of the fine, which is purely a question of degree, it seems to me that the danger will be increased, and there will surely be some cases in which a fine of £5 would be imposed in order to avoid an adjournment; whereas if the Amendment had not been passed, as I hope it will not be, the fine might have been £10.
454
It the noble Lord, Lore Lucas of Chilworth, will allow me to say so, it comes a little strangely to hear him moving this Amendment, which will undoubtedly be for the benefit of defendants, and in particular of motorists. Yet, if I remember aright, it was not many months ago that he was proposing a minimum fine of £50 for dangerous driving, a proposal which nobody could accept and which had never been heard before. Be that as it may, may I just say that I think the wording of this proviso is just right as it stands. I think it is reasonable that, before a court disqualifies or sends a man to prison, it should insist on his being present at an adjourned hearing. But when it comes to a fine, the position is different. After all, a man who is charged, let us say with a motoring offence, and who pleads guilty, expects to be fined. All too often, what he does not expect is to go to prison or to be disqualified. Sometimes he is greatly surprised when either of those two things happens; but he is not a bit surprised if he is fined. Therefore, I see no harm at all in rendering him liable to a fine of more than £5 without insisting on his presence.
There is just one further point. I am the last person to say that we should not adjourn cases. On the contrary, time and tame again I have said that magistrates should adjourn more cases than they do. But we should all remember that circumstances are a great deal different in small country courts from those in London. In rural districts there are a great number of courts which sit only once a month, and where to adjourn means at least one month's delay. That is very different from a metropolitan court, where a case can be adjourned until two days hence, and the defendant has only to pay a bus fare in order to attend court. It may he absolutely different in the country, where a man may have to come twenty miles and may have to wait a month before he does so. For those reasons, I venture to hope that this Amendment will not be passed.
LORD SILKIN: Before the learned and noble Viscount replies, I feel that my noble friend has raised a question which requires some consideration. It may be that £5 is too low a figure, but both my noble friend Lord Winster and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, have

455
addressed themselves much more to the fact that a maximum fine of £5 without attendance might induce the magistrates to impose that fine in order to avoid the need for adjourning the case. But they have not addressed themselves to the dilemma which my noble friend put forward, the case where a person writes and pleads guilty in the belief that, as it is his first offence, and possibly not a serious one, it is much cheaper to plead guilty by sending a letter, and risk the sort of fine that one expects, rather than to attend court.
If, however, the fine is anything of the order of £40 it becomes rather a different matter, and those involved are leaving themselves entirely in the hands of the court, who may not have the opportunity of hearing any extenuating circumstances. Of course, the person concerned has pleaded guilty, and that is the end of it. But there may be extenuating circumstances. After all, this is not the case of dangerous driving; it is the case of a first offender and careless driving. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will find some way by which, if the fine is intended to be much heavier than a person might reasonably anticipate, or can afford, such a person should be afforded the opportunity of stating his case by way of extenuation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested, the words that I speak in reply to this Amendment may meet his purpose, which I fully appreciate. I think it would be useful for that reason if I quoted the words in the Report from which we began consideration of this matter—I quote from paragraph 45:
"We have already recommended above (paragraphs 33 and 34) that, before a court decides to impose imprisonment or order disqualification for holding a driving licence, it should first be required to adjourn the case and summon the defendant to attend. We think that the courts will also adjourn, and summon the defendant, where they have it in mind to impose a large fine, or where they regard it as desirable to have information about his means. That being so, we consider that there is no need to require that the defendant should be informed of the maximum penalty to which he will be liable if convicted."
I think it will be useful if I say to-day that I entirely approve of what is suggested in paragraph 45. And I believe
456
that I am not being immodest in thinking that magistrates will pay attention to that as a suggestion from me—which, of course, is all that I can make.
We all agree on the difficulties that have been put forward in regard to this matter. The Committee suggested two considerations; one, where a large fine was to be imposed; and the second, where it was regarded as desirable to have information about the means of a defendant. I should like first to say a word on the second consideration, because it is important that your Lordships should have that in mind. Section 31 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, requires a magistrates' court, in fixing the amount of the fine, to:
"take into consideration among other things the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court ".
One knows from experience in these courts that in many cases knowledge of a defendant's means may be derived from a letter which he has sent to the court or from the facts of the case, or from the police after conviction. That happens constantly, and in a great number of cases it works all right.
There may well be a case, however, where the court is doubtful about the means of a defendant. I want to make it quite clear that I am giving my view that in proper circumstances that, also, may prove a reason for an adjournment. I wish to make that clear. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that the courts will be in exactly the same position under this procedure. There is no alteration here with which we have to deal. I wish to make clear first that I entirely endorse the suggestion of the Committee and to express the strong hope that magistrates will abide by it. I am rather doubtful about the imposition of a limit. Two points have to be borne in mind. We all agree that this Bill meets a great need, for there has been a great waste of police time and defendants' time in consequence of defendants' being kept about the court while police give evidence in other cases, although the facts are not really in dispute at all. This Bill is a good one and it would be a pity to endanger it by encouraging too many adjournments; for if there are too many the purpose of the Bill is ipso facto defeated.

457
A second point has been made by two noble Lords and indeed was made perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in introducing his Amendment. He said he was not wedded to the figure of £5 and had put that amount as an exploratory basis for the remarks that he had to make. I think he would agree that £5 would be too low and might have the effect which I know very well he is the last person to desire—that Benches would not impose a proper penalty for a road traffic offence because of the difficulties which an adjournment might cause. I should prefer, therefore, to leave the matter fluid and to make it mandatory that there should be an adjournment in the case of imprisonment or disqualification; but that in regard to the line we should leave the position as I have suggested, with these remarks of mine on record as to the course which I desire magistrates to pursue. If your Lordships would leave it like that, I believe it would meet the situation. If, on consideration, your Lordships have any doubt and would like to get in touch with me, I shall be very pleased to discuss the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With his very clear perception, the noble and learned Viscount seizes my point immediately, and had I written every word of what he has said I could have said nothing better to suit my own purpose. That was the only reason at all why I raised the question. I thought of putting not £5 but 1s. and I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not propose to press the Amendment but had put it down only for the purpose of trying to tempt the noble and learned Viscount to say precisely what he has said—that magistrates, before they invoke the increased penalties under the 1956 Act, must "temper the wind to the shorn lamb", the shorn lamb being the defendant of very moderate means who may be fined £40 "out of the blue" when his past experience is perhaps that all his friends have got off with a fine of £5.
458
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who is Chairman of the Magistrates' Association, that I am surprised that he should fall into the trap of quoting against me what I said in the case of dangerous driving. This has nothing to do with dangerous driving. In all questions of dangerous driving where there is suspension of licence involved, there must be an adjournment. I am quoting the fact that a fine can be imposed without any of the penalties set out in the clause to which I am addressing myself, so that there need be no adjournment at all. My power of exposition must be getting very weak, because neither the noble Lord, Lord Winster, nor the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, seized upon my argument, which I am very glad the noble and learned Viscount seized upon immediately.
To take this matter one stage further before I withdraw the Amendment, may I suggest that the words which the noble and learned Viscount has just uttered be conveyed by the appropriate authorities to the benches of magistrates? That was my purpose. Because unfortunately the Press do not seem to be much interested in this Bill that widely affects the welfare of three million people in this country; and the only means by which to bring it to the notice of magistrates is via the machinery of the Home Office. Perhaps a copy of what the noble and learned Viscount has said could be addressed to all Benches. I feel sure that not only the administration of the Bill would benefit. I agree that the acceptance of any Amendment like mine would nullify the whole purpose of the Bill, its purpose being to enable summary and petty offences to be dealt with summarily and without full expense on both sides. I put the Amendment down to get that point established and to make it clear beyond any doubt. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

REMUNERATION OF DOCTORS AND DENTISTS
4.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the business of the House, but I thought it would be the wish of your Lordships that I should intervene to make a statement on the Royal Commission on Remuneration of Doctors and Dentists which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answer to questions there. It is as follows:
" The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment as Chairman of the Commission of Sir Harry Pilkington. With permission, I will circulate the names of the other members of the Commission in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will, if I may, recapitulate the main events that have led up to the appointment of the Commission. Last June a claim was submitted for an increase of not less than 24 per cent. in the remuneration of doctors in the National Health Service. Apart from the very large sum involved the Government felt that the claim raised important questions of principle which required further investigation. They therefore concluded that the general interest, including that of the professions concerned, would be best served by calling in the advice of an independent body. It would perhaps be convenient to restate the terms of reference:—
'To consider—

(a) How the levels of professional remuneration from all sources now received by doctors and dentists taking any part in the National Health Service compare with the remuneration received by members of other professions, by other members of the medical and dental professions, and by people engaged in connected occupations;

(b) What, in the light of the foregoing, should be the proper current levels of remuneration of such doctors and dentists by the National Health Service;

(c) Whether, and if so what, arrangements should be made to keep that remuneration under review:

And to make recommendations.'
I have asked the Chairman to regard the work of the Commission as a matter of urgency.
"I have already explained that the appointment of the Commission does not preclude an interim adjustment in advance of and without prejudice to its recommendations. The Government have already decided to make such an adjustment without delay in the remuneration of junior hospital staff, both medical and dental, up to and including the grade of senior registrar, all of whose remuneration will be increased by 10 per cent. from April 1 next. We are also considering what should be done by way of an interim adjustment for the other doctors and dentists covered by the Commission's term of reference. I shall make a further statement on this matter in due course.
"The Government are convinced that this procedure is a fair and proper one. They are also confident that with good will on all sides it should result in the position of the medical and dental professions in the National Health Service being placed upon a mutually satisfactory and lasting basis."
Following are the names referred to:

Mrs. Kathleen Mary Carver Baxter.

Arthur Desmond Bonham-Carter, Esq.

John Henry Gunlake, Esq., C.B.E., F.I.A., F.S.S., F.I.S.

Professor John Jewkes, C.B.E.

Ian Donald McIntosh, Esq.

Sir David Hughes Parry, Q.C.

Sir Hugh Watson.

Samuel Watson, Esq., C.B.E.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are, of course, much obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving us a repeat of the statement made in another place. Do I understand that this statement was made by the Prime Minister or by the Minister in charge?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By the Prime Minister.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: That is interesting, because we understood that a deputation from the doctors was received in the course of the last few days by the Prime Minister. I was wondering whether this statement was couched in the light of that interview. I hope very much that the inquiry will be successful in bringing understanding and

461
peace to these professional men who have served the State and the nation at large so well. I still do not understand, looking at the terms of reference, what is the reason for this delay in dealing with the matter and why the Commission is necessary. There is nothing here really which was not covered by the details of the Report of the Spens Committee, I suppose it is no use saying anything further, however, for now that the Government have made up their minds they will not move in the matter. But I should have thought that the Spens Committee, with a legal chairman with great legal experience, could have dealt with these persons, as they did in their Report, at least as ably as a Commission of this sort.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Viscount is probably aware, the Government have decided that they cannot accept the interpretation which the profession puts upon the Spens Committee's Report. It was thought, therefore, very important to have a completely impartial inquiry, so as to get a Report which would be satisfactory to all concerned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I read this statement as meaning that instead of taking up the position of a few weeks ago—that no interim adjustment was possible except in respect of junior officers of hospital staffs—the Government have withdrawn from that position, and it is now possible to have an interim adjustment for anyone concerned in the profession?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount will refer to the statement he will see what the position is. I would refer him to the sentence:
"We are also considering what should be done by way of an interim adjustment for the other doctors and dentists covered by the Commission's terms of reference."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: "Considering what should be done "—that means something or nothing.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
4.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (3):
"Service of a notice of adjournment shall be effected in accordance with the requirements of Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952, applicable to the service of a summons."
The noble Lord said: As I mentioned when speaking on the last Amendment, this Bill brings in a somewhat new procedure, and in my view, there is one serious omission from it. A magistrates' court cannot, without giving notice to the defendant and requesting his presence before the court, send hint to prison or any other form of detention or order him to be subject to any disqualification. He cannot have any disqualification of his driving licence unless he has been notified by the magistrates' court that he has been found guilty and that he must go to the court for the purpose of receiving sentence. But in the Bill there is no machinery and no procedure for notifying the defendant of the adjournment—notice of the adjournment in this case being equally as important to the defendant as service of the original summons.
I have another Amendment following this one to revise the rules for the service of summons, but that does not alter the point that I tin now arguing, that in this Bill no procedure is laid down for the proper serving of a notice of adjournment. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor intends to tell me that it is taken for granted that in regard to notice of adjournment in these cases, the procedure shall be precisely the same as obtains in the serving of a summons. If he says that, I am quite satisfied. But if he does say that, might I suggest that it should be written into the Bill and then there can be no mistake about it? That is the simple case for the Amendment which I am moving. It is a procedural one and it is intended to safeguard the defendant. I am certain that the noble and learned Viscount is with me in desiring that the interests of the defendant shall be safeguarded at all points. I will not now mention the reason why I have put down this next Amendment. I will do that later. I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: As I understand the Amendment, notice of the adjournment would have to be served in the same way as a summons—that is to say, by hand, personally, or by registered post. I understand that to be the purpose of the Amendment, and if that is so I think it would be a great improvement to the Bill and I strongly support it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, as to the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment would have the effect that where a court adjourns, either because they decide not to accept the accused's written plea of guilty in his absence or because they have it in mind to impose imprisonment, detention or disqualification, or where they intend to impose a large fine or are in doubt about means, then notice of adjournment should be served, first, personally; secondly, by being left for the accused with some person at the last known address; or thirdly, by registered post. With regard to one of these cases the noble Lord's other Amendment "bites" later on.
Let me remind your Lordships that the general power of adjournment of magistrates' courts is contained in Section 14 of the 1952 Act, subsection (2) of which provides that the trial shall not be resumed
"unless the court is satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice thereof."
That is an important provision which should be borne in mind. But no method of service is prescribed in that section or in the Magistrates' Courts Rules. All that subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill does is to require that the notice required by Section 14 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act shall, where a court adjourns by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, include notice of the reason for the adjournment, but makes no special provision for service.
The noble Lord has urged, and I see the force of it, that where a person has been encouraged, so to speak, by this Bill to keep away from the court and has to be brought to the court on another occasion, we ought to be careful about it. I have given thought to that point. Under Rule 76, if service is effected by registered post and the defendant fails to
464
appear, service may not be treated as proved unless it is proved that the summons came to the defendant's notice. If the service of a notice of adjournment had to be proved in the same manner, a defendant could prevent the court from proceeding in a case merely by refraining, either wilfully or negligently, from acknowledging the notice, and the court would be prevented by proviso (a) of Section 15 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, from issuing a warrant of arrest in these circumstances. In other words, while admitting the difficulty which the noble Lord sees for the defendant, in that he is encouraged to keep away from the court and is now brought back, if we do this we are making it possible for a malevolent defendant to upset entirely the working of the court. That has been my difficulty in the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If I understand the noble and learned Viscount's argument, to prevent the abuse of the court by a malevolent offender, we are going to inflict injustice on those who do not fall into that category.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I am inflicting injustice, because I am maintaining the position as it exists already. May I remind the noble Lord of what I was relying on to prevent injustice—that is, the provision in Section 14 (2) of the Act, that the trial shall not be resumed
"unless the court is satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice thereof."
That is matter of fact, and a trial cannot be resumed unless the court is satisfied on that point. I am not submitting the defendant to any injustice, but, to put it frankly, I am not being as generous to the defendant as the noble Lord would have me be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What would "adequate notice" be? When a summons is issued, adequate notice is laid down under Rule 76. Here we have a case where the court must adjourn in the circumstances that are laid down in the Bill. If it is intended to send a man to prison or impose any restriction on his licence or, as the noble and learned Viscount said, a substantial fine, the court cannot do that without adjourning for him to be present. What does the noble and learned Viscount

465
consider to be adequate notice of adjournment, when nothing is laid down about it in the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will appreciate that this is a situation which arises frequently at the moment. I will give examples of what I should accept as adequate notice if I were sitting in a magistrates' court. One would be that the offender was represented by a solicitor at the time the case was adjourned and it would be for the solicitor to inform him. Secondly, and I think this is the usual method, though the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will correct me if his experience is different, where an officer was sent round to say that the case had been adjourned to such-and-such a date and the officer saw the defendant. Thirdly, where the clerk of the court has sent a letter to the defendant to say that his case was adjourned to such-and-such a date. If ally one of these three things were proved, I should say that that was adequate notice.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not worrying about the man who goes to court originally or about the man who is represented by a solicitor. I am worrying about the man who has written to court pleading guilty and has been persuaded not to attend by this Bill. In this case, what would be adequate notice that the court has adjourned and desires his attendance? If the noble and learned Viscount requires notice to be given, why not put it in the Bill? At present, there is no period of notice in the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount is relying on the words of another Act—namely that the court must be
"…satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice thereof."
But there is nothing in this Bill to say what constitutes adequate notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point between us. I should prefer that to be left for the magistrates to say, as a question of fact, whether it was adequate notice in the circumstances. That might easily tell both ways. On one occasion they may say: "Clearly, the letter has been sent, and we have no reason to believe that he was not at the house, and that is adequate notice." On another occasion they may say that there was reason to suppose that he was not at the house, or that the evidence that he was at the house was shaky and they
466
wanted something more than that evidence; that he had been seen personally, or that someone had been to the house and found out whether he was still staying there. It is difficult across the Floor of the House to imagine all cases. Therefore I think there is something to be said for flexibility.
As I indicated, these Acts must be read together. We tried in the 1952 Act, when we consolidated, to get a code to work to, and that is why I referred to that Act. Of course, this Bill when it is an Act will be read together with these other Acts. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord to rest content with that at the moment, because there are a number of important reasons for which adjournments are given, apart from this one. It is a matter which courts have to take into account. It should be loth to disturb a flexible procedure which, on the whole, I think, has worked well, in favour of another, unless I had very good reason. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord. Lucas of Chilworth—he is always so ready in these matters—to consider what I have said to-day, and if he still feels doubt, if he will have a word with me I will, if necessary, get the people from the Home Office and we might consider it together. However, I think he will see that flexibility is quite a reasonable end in itself.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: am ever ready to meet the noble and learned Viscount, who is always so helpful. I am not going lo discuss this point further now, but will withdraw the Amendment. We shall then proceed to the next Amendment, which I think may have a bearing on the whole problem. So may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he, on his side, would also give close consideration, not only to the arguments I have now advanced, but to those I am about to advance on the next Amendment, because I think they are all tied up together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only want to tell the noble Lord, as we are discussing it in this friendly way, that on his next Amendment I shall put forward a procedural suggestion for his consideration to meet his point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.17 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) As from the date when this Act comes into operation the provisions of subparagraph 1 (b) of Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952, shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This is a thorny problem. We now arrive at the stage where the magistrates have decided that they are going to inflict a penalty; either they have found a defendant guilty, or he has pleaded guilty, and it now becomes necessary for the previous convictions to be presented to the court. This is where I quarrel with the procedure laid down in Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Court Rules, 1952, which I have just mentioned. That Rule says:
"(1) Service of a summons issued by a justice of the peace on a person other than a corporation may be effected,
(a) by delivering it to the person to whom it is directed;"—
that is, physical delivery—

"(b) by leaving it for him with some person at his last known or usual place of abode; or

(c) by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to him at his last known or usual place of abode."

To paragraphs (a) and (c) I have no objection but to paragraph (b) I have.
This matter relates to his previous convictions. They may be left with somebody who might open them—possibly his wife, who may be entirely ignorant of them; and they may date back to the time when he was a juvenile. Or his last known address may be that of his employer, who may open them. The Sharpe Committee did not like this procedure at all. I will not read out the whole of paragraph 55, at page 23 of their Report, because it goes into detail, but it starts:
"We think that special precaution should be taken to see that a defendant's previous convictions do not come to the notice of anyone other than the accused. This is one of the objections commonly raised to a system of the kind which we recommend."
Then they go on to say
"…we do not consider that the second of the three methods "—
that is, the one I mentioned to your Lordships as the one to which I object—
"of effecting the service of a summons which are prescribed by Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952, namely, leaving it for the defendant with some person at his last known
468
or usual place of abode, should be a permissible way of effecting service of a notice of previous convictions. The proof of service would appear to be already covered by Rule 55 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, 1952."
What I say to cover that point is that the notice of the previous convictions should be sent to the defendant at the same time as the original summons. I think it would be helpful to him.
Suppose that a man receives a summons to appear at a certain court to answer a charge of careless driving, I think that at the same time he should receive a notice stating that, if he is convicted by the court, or if he pleads guilty and the plea is accepted, "these are the previous convictions which will be placed before the justices". I think that would help him to decide whether he should plead guilty or not guilty, because that would help him to assess, at the first stage of the proceedings, whether he is likely to receive a heavy or a light sentence. I think that is common justice, because nobody would know of his previous convictions other than the police, who issued the summons. The court would not know of the previous convictions, unless the police told them; and they would be very much out of order in so doing; but it would ensure that the defendant knew all the facts of the case that was going to be made against him, and that, I think, is an essential element of English justice. If, as the Bill reads at the present time, they are sent within seven days after the adjournment, they may be lost. If they are sent with the summons, then from the word "go" the man knows all the facts that are going to be put against him, because the statement of case has been sent to him and he knows that if the magistrates decide to convict on that statement, what are the offences that will be read out to the court before it passes sentence. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider that point.
There is one other point. As the noble and learned Viscount has already indicated, he may have some procedural suggestion to make. Although this is not strictly with my Amendment, it has a bearing on it. I suppose that the defendant will have to acknowledge receipt of the list of previous convictions, whether it comes with the summons or at any other time. I am rather apprehensive as to what form that receipt will take. I envisage that the list might not be an

469
accurate list. If he signs a receipt that it is a correct and proper list of his previous convictions, is there any obligation upon him to point out that it is not and that he has some more? That is rather a difficult position in which to put the defendant. If he does have to acknowledge receipt, I should like to ask for an assurance that he is not going to be trapped into committing perjury. If the list he has been sent by the police contains only two previous convictions, when he knows that he has half a dozen others of which the police do not know, or have forgotten, is he to admit them, and to say, "You must treat me more harshly than this"? That is another point that is niggling in my mind. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that it would be advisable that, at the time of the serving of the summons under this new procedure, the defendant should be told also all the facts that are to be stated against him, and, if he is found guilty, what are the previous convictions that will be taken into consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: I do not feel quite certain about this Amendment. The subparagraph which it proposes to repeal altogether gives the power to serve a summons by leaving it for the defendant with some person at his last known or usual place of abode. I feel it is important that this provision should be retained for summonses, otherwise it would mean either personal service in each case or service by registered post. The latter service is, of course, ineffective unless the bench have evidence that the registered letter has come to the attention of the defendant. If this sub-paragraph were repealed altogether, would it not mean that the police would have to serve a summons mainly at night, and sometimes, late at night, when a defendant has returned from work? Surely, that is not an altogether desirable procedure. In some cases, the police would be quite unable to serve the summons at all except by registered post, and the defendant might ignore such service so that it became ineffective. If this Amendment were limited to notices under the Bill, I do not think I should see any objection to it, but as it stands I see the objections which I have mentioned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I said earlier, I think I can go a long way to meet the difficulties of the noble Lord and, incidentally, to take the noble Lord, Lord Winster, with me, by three suggestions which I should like to put forward to deal with this problem. I think one ought to realise the valuable side of the proposal which the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would admit. It is much better, with an important document in this field, that it should be given into the possession of somebody who will, one hopes, bring it to the attention of the accused, rather than that it should be put through the letter box. I am taking it only at that stage. One knows the awful risk of anything that is put through the letter box, at times other than the regular post, going under the mat, or being swept up, and that sort of thing. It goes beyond that, and means that it is left with someone, and that someone knows that an important communication, to which the addressee's attention should be drawn, has arrived. Equally, it means that if the man is not living there, the odds are that the person who intends to use this method will be told he is not living there, which may be useful. But, of course, I admit that no method other than personal service gives a complete guarantee—we all must admit that. But again, I think we shall all admit that to insist on personal service in every case would be too laborious and expensive for the general use.
I had in mind a point which I mentioned on the last Amendment—that if service is effected by registered post, it may not be treated as proof unless it is proved that the summons came to the defendant's knowledge. Your Lordships will remember that I mentioned that point. It is usually proved, of course, because it draws forth a letter from the defendant from which that can be found. My first suggestion is that we should apply that rule to the kind of service with which the Amendment deals, because at the moment there is no provision in relation to service by delivery to some person at the defandant's last known or usual place of abode, such as there is with regard to registered post. There are historical rea tons for the difference, with which I need not trouble your Lordships today. But on this point I should like to undertake to consider

471
amending Rule 76 to require proof that the summons came to the defendant's notice, if either form of service, other than personal service, is employed. I cannot go further than saying that it will be considered, because it is a matter for the Rules Committee. They must exercise their discretion on it. I think that goes a long way on the first point.
The next point I want to deal with concerns previous convictions. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dealt with that point in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. He made the point that notice of such convictions ought not to be sent by post, since, in the absence of the addressee, it might be opened and read by anyone. He referred, as I think he did to-day, with approval to the recommendation in paragraph 55 of the Committee's Report, that leaving the notice with some person in the defendant's last known address should not be a permissible method of service. With regard to that, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that this recommendation has been accepted and it is proposed, again subject to the advice of the Rules Committee, to restrict service of this notice to personal service or service by registered post.
The third main point which the noble Lord made was with regard to receipt. The noble Lord asked whether the defendant can be expected to acknowledge a receipt of the notice, and whether such a receipt would be an admission that the list of convictions was correct. The noble Lord will remember (if he cares to verify it, he will find it in paragraph 57) that the Committee pointed out that it would not be practicable to require the defendant to return a receipt, since he can effectively block the procedure by not doing so. If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 58, he will see that the Committee recognised that previous convictions might very occasionally be wrongly attributed, but considered that this possibility should not stand in the way of a system which would in most cases work satisfactorily.
Having reminded the noble Lord of the Committee's views, I should like to tell him that the form which it is proposed, subject again to consideration by the Rules Committee, should be prescribed
472
will advise the accused to write to the police at once if he maintains that any of the alleged previous convictions is wrongly attributed to him. They will not say anything about the obverse of the medal which was put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, so the man will not be drawn into any trap. It will simply be: "If you say that any of these is not attributable to you, then write and say so." I think that is the fairest way of dealing with it. I hope that, although it is not put in statutory form, I have shown the noble Lord that we have tried to meet what he has in mind, and that these procedural methods will go a long way to deal with it.
May I refer to another point, if it is not trespassing on Amendment No. 9, about the service? It is very difficult to serve notice of previous convictions with the summons. There is a great deal to be said for issuing summonses in good time, but there are many nervous people in the world, who worry terribly about whether they are to be summoned. The noble Lord will appreciate that, with regard to previous convictions, the chief constable who is applying for the summons may not be the chief constable of the district where the defendant lives. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made that point in regard to many matters in the Road Traffic Bill. Therefore, he has to write to him; inquiries have to be made and checks have to be instituted—because, of course, previous convictions are a matter on which one wants to use the greatest care. Therefore, that is why I do not think it is possible to issue notice of them at the time of the service of the summons. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will forgive me for anticipating the point. As he raised it, I thought it only right and courteous that I should mention it.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I think he has adequately met my point. I am glad he recognises it. With regard to previous convictions, I think we must leave out sub-paragraph 1 (b) of those Rules. I am glad he has met me on that point. Of course, it is far better for this to be done by rules than by being put into the Statute—I agree with the noble and learned Viscount

473
there. I put the Amendment down because I could not think of any other way of wording it. It is always a difficulty. When one wants to raise a point, perhaps one does something which is completely wrong, because it is the only wavy of drawing attention to it.
If I may have your Lordships' consent, and to save your Lordships' time, I will formally move Amendment No. 9 subject to any of your Lordships wanting to speak upon it. I am not quite so happy about that Amendment. I wish the noble and learned Viscount would look at that again. I do not think that seven days' notice is adequate. When a motorist—I am thinking of the motorist, I must confess—is stopped and given notice by the police that he will be reported, sometimes a long time elapses before he receives the summons, because notice at the time that he may receive a summons lets the police out of the old 14-day rule. I have known it to be three weeks or more. If it takes three weeks to get out a summons, seven days' notice of previous convictions does not seem to me to be very long.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to be kind enough to look into the other point that I raised. It is far better for this new procedure to start off with the defendant not thinking he is to be victimised. Let him see the whole of the case at the start. He must have a statement of the case against him in far fuller language than that on the summons to day. That is implicit in this Bill. Surely it would be common justice to let hint have it at the same time, even if it means a little delay—because, after all, there is an unconscionable delay now. Sometimes it is three weeks, and it has been known to be much longer than that, from the time the police give notice that he will be reported and may receive a summons. It has been a month. Surely in that month the police have time to consider when they are issuing this summons and to collect the previous convictions. It is only justice to the individual that the whole of the case should be sent him at the same time. Then he knows whether to plead guilty or not. I think it is wrong that a man should be tempted by this new procedure and that, to save the time of the court, he should plead guilty. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, informed your
474
Lordships' House when I raised this point on the Second Reading, once a man has pleaded guilty there is no withdrawal from it.
The defendant may have forgotten. I do not know how many previous convictions I have—it may be two or three, but memory is short when one reaches the age of sixty and when one has been driving a motor car for forty years or more. I should think I have had two or three convictions, but I may be hopelessly wrong in making that estimate. Having pleaded guilty, I am told suddenly, when I have no chance of putting forward another plea, "These are the convictions that will now be laid against you." Included in those convictions may be indiscretions of boyhood that one has forgotten. This list is not confined to motoring convictions. They are all there—some of which may have passed from the memory. I do not think that that is right. If we want this new procedure to work and to carry the confidence of the public—we all want that and we all want this Bill—then I suggest that it would be only justice if the noble and learned Viscount would reconsider this point. I feel sure that he as much as anybody wants this Bill to work.
I will withdraw the Amendment now. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has anything further to say in answer to my plea in regard to Amendment No. 9, but I move that Amendment formally when it is called. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for meeting me on this Amendment, and I ask permission of the Committee to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.42 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to raise one small point on this clause. I do not want to alter any of the words, but I am not entirely happy about the arrangement of the provisos in subsection (2) of the clause. I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount for not giving him notice of this point, and I certainly should riot dream of pressing it, but I should like to ask this question. Would it not be an improvement if the second proviso to subsection (2), beginning at line 31 and extending to line 42, were made into a separate subsection? If that were

475
done, I would further suggest that the third proviso as it stands now should be transformed into a proviso to the new subsection. I am suggesting this because it seems to me—though I am well aware that I may be wrong, because I do not think this is an easy matter—that whereas the first proviso is a genuine exception to what has gone before, the second proviso is apparently not an exception to what has gone before; it appears to be leading on to the next step in the procedure. The third proviso, about which I have a little doubt, I would have said was really a proviso to the second proviso. I may be quite wrong about this matter, but I hope that it may be looked at before the next stage of the Bill. I think it will be agreed that this subsection is not entirely an easy one because it extends over more than a page, and it might do no harm if it were subdivided into an additional subsection.
To sum up, my suggestion is that the second proviso in line 31 should be made into a separate subsection, and consequently proviso (iii) dealt with, possibly, as a proviso to the new subsection. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would have a look at that suggestion before the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do so with great pleasure. I appreciate the care which my noble friend has given to the Bill, and I will see that the draftsman and those in the Home Office fully consider his points. It goes without saying that I, too, will give them the same consideration.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Proof of identity of driver of vehicle]:
4.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to delete the proviso. The noble Lord said: I raised this matter upon Second Reading, but I must say, with respect, that I was not satisfied with the answer I received from the Government, so I have put down this Amendment. The whole object of this Bill is to simplify the procedure, to make it cheaper, and not to waste the time of the police. The Committee's Report goes into the pounds, shillings and pence, and the police hours that are wasted through magistrates'
476
courts being packed with policemen when these trivial offences are being tried. In this Bill there is a simple procedure outlined by which the identity of the driver of the vehicle can be taken as proved if the individual who was driving the vehicle admits in writing that he was the driver. But in the proviso to Clause 2, these words appear:
"Provided that this section shall not apply in relation to any offence mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1956 (which relates to offences in respect of which disqualification for holding, or endorsement of, a driving licence may be ordered)."
Quite frankly, I cannot see the sense in this proviso. If I am summoned for leaving my motor car for an undue length of time by the kerbside, thereby causing an obstruction, I can write to the police and say that I am guilty because I was the driver of that vehicle. But if on the same day I am stopped for driving at 35 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. limit area, and I receive a summons from the police, I cannot by writing them a letter prove to them or satisfy them that I was the driver of the vehicle. It may be that the offence took place in Edinburgh—perhaps I had better not speak in terms of Scotland, as the noble and learned Viscount may tell me that there the law is different. Let me say that perhaps the offence occurred in Newcastle, and I may be living in London. I have to go all the way to Newcastle—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I let the noble Lord into a secret? We ought really to have here one of those Shakespearean directions—" Enter Kilmuir with drum and colours ". I am going to accept his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What can I say to that, except "Thank you very much".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Proof of previous convictions]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by arguing this point all over again. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will at least say that he will reconsider the matter. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out (" not less than seven days previously ") and insert (" at the time of service of the summons ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Having explained the difficulties in regard to this matter, I am sorry that the experience of the noble Lord has been that there has been delay in issuing summonses. I have put my views on that, and I should like to look into the whole matter. For the reason that I have given, I cannot hold out any great hopes, but I will look into it. I am glad to think that the noble Lord will be content with that assurance.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORIH: I ant grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that. I, too, will consider very carefully what he has said, and if I feel obliged to put down the same Amendment on the Report stage I know that he will consider it. I will put it down only after very careful consideration. Now, with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Mitigation of penalties
".Section twenty-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which confers upon a magistrates' court certain powers with respect to tit:, mitigation of penalties in the case of offences under any enactment passed before the commencement of that Act) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if in subsection (1) of that section for the words passed before' there were substituted the words whether passed before or after '."
The noble Lord said: In order to make this little picture complete, may I first say that Section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, gave the power to any court (I think for the first time in history) to impose a fine for felony. Following upon that, Section 27, subsections (1) and (3), of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, gave to magistrates' courts the power to fine for misdemeanours in the case of offences:
"under any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act "—
that is, before 1952. This latter power had originated in the Act of 1879. So from 1879 to 1952 magistrates had power to impose a fine for misdemeanours or, as the case might be, to reduce the maximum
478
fine for misdemeanour in any case brought before them. But because these words were inserted is follows that if a punishment is imposed under a Statute passed since 1952, unless there is an expressed power to fine, the magistrates cannel now impose a fine whether they want to or not.
lf, for example, a penalty of imprisonment is laid down in an Act passed since 1952, then there is no power to reduce the penalty to a fine. Prior to 1952, it was possible for a draftsman of a new Bill to omit any reference to a fine in laying down the penalty to be imposed because he had in mind the fact that there was a general power to mitigate the penalty to a fine. Since 1952, the draftsman has had to be extremely careful to remember that, unless he expressly gives the power to fine, the court will be unable to do so. I do not find it easy to understand why these words were ever put into the 1952 Act. They seem to me merely to have created the possibility of difficulties and of breaches of the law being committed, quite inadvertently, by the courts; because I am sure that many magistrates are tempted in such cases to impose a fine and might be very surprised if they were told that they had no power to do so. That being so, I seek to leave out these words, thereby restoring the position to what it was before 1952 aid had been, as I understand it, since 1879. The effect of the Amendment, if passed, would be that if a new Statute were passed in the future creating a criminal offence and not specifically authorising the court to impose a fine, nevertheless the justices could do so by virtue of Section 27, subsections (1) and (3) of the Act of 1952. I have been unable to find any real objection to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Merthyr for correcting the slip that has been made in the Consolidation Act; and, as I explained to your Lordships, this Bill, by Clause 4, is to be construed as one with the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1952. This is, therefore, an appropriate time to make the correction, and I gladly do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Citation, construction, extent and commencement]:
LORD MERTHYR: This Amendment is almost consequential. The Bill as drafted comes into force two months after the passing of the Bill into an Act, but I take the view that it is desirable that the new clause which your Lordships have just agreed to should come into force at once, in case it is desired to reduce the penalty to a fine. I am therefore proposing that, whilst the rest of the Bill should not come into force at once, this new clause should do so. While I agree that the Amendment is almost, if not quite, consequential, I thought I ought to explain why I want this clause of the Bill to come into force before the remainder. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, at beginning insert (" Sections one, two and three of ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In accepting this Amendment, may I say that, clearly, if we are to make a correction in the law that correction should be made as soon as possible, and I entirely agree with this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved in subsection (4) to leave out (" two ") and insert (" three "). The noble Lord said: Clause 4 (4) provides that this Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of two months beginning with the date of its passing. It has teen represented to me from more than one quarter that two months is rather too short a time. After all, this Bill has to percolate down from Parliament to all the justices' courts in the country. Every justices' clerk has to get a copy of the Bill, digest it and act upon it and pass it on to his justices; and thousands of magistrates have to get to know this Bill so that they may act on it properly. I am inclined to agree with the representations that have been made to me that two months is rather too short a time. Sometimes people have difficulty in getting hold of copies of Acts of Parliament immediately they have been passed, and I would suggest to the Committee that little harm would be done if this period was somewhat extended. I do not want to extend it too much, although one person has suggested six months instead of two. I should have thought that three months instead of two would be fair. I move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD WINSTER: From a working point of view, I should certainly like to support this Amendment. In fact, I would go further and suggest an extension to four or six months instead of three, because after this Bill becomes an Act a great deal of work will have to be done. Rules of Procedure will have to be made and Magistrates' Courts Act forms will have to be printed; and when the Act and Rules are received, as my noble friend has said, they will have to be studied carefully and digested, and the police will have the quite lengthy job of preparing the necessary forms under the Act. I feel that for all these reasons three months at least is desirable. Three months might be sufficient for all this work to be done, but I believe that perhaps four or even six months would be preferable. So I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, if he is disposed to accept the Amendment, to consider whether three months would give sufficent time for all this practical work to be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Lord Winster, for putting these practical aspects of the matter. In coming to a conclusion on this Amendment, I have taken into account all the points that have been raised. From the Home Office point of view, they are anxious that the Bill shall come into operation as quickly as possible, and they think that they can deal with the points adequately in the time suggested in the Amendment. Therefore I propose to accept the Amendment. I will draw the attention of the Home Office to what Lord Winster has said. I think the extra month is a good thing, and therefore I suggest that we agree to settle for three months.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title.
LORD MERTHYR: This Amendment is consequential upon the passing of Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, after (" matters ") insert (" and the mitigation of penalties by magistrates' courts; ").—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title of the Bill, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
5.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see, it is a short Bill and of very limited purpose. Its object is to remedy a minor defect in the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925. The difficulty with which the Bill deals arises out of Section 36 of that Act. That section provides that the property and endowments relating to any particular parish shall be used in the first place to meet the proper requirements of the parish or its neighbourhood, as these may be determined by the General Assembly of the Church or by any body to which the General Assembly delegates the power and that any remainder shall form part of a general fund at the disposal of the General Assembly. This has proved to be a very valuable provision. It has enabled the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee, under authority delegated by the General Assembly, to reorganise the endowments of many parishes, so that more appropriate stipends may be provided for the various churches now se-wing these parishes or their neighbourhood.
The proviso to the section, however, placed an initial limitation on the exercise of this power. It specified that
"except where a benefice is actually vacant at the passing of this Act or has become actually vacant thereafter ",
the power under the section should not be used in such a way as to decrease the minister's stipend. It was, your Lordships will see, a safeguard for ministers who held charges when the 1925 Act came into force. Unfortunately, that proviso has had one unintended effect. In some parishes there are collegiate charges with two ministers. This presents
482
no difficulty in the normal case, where the charges comprise two separate benefices—that is, a first and a second charge. As each of these benefices falls vacant the stipend attaching to it may be adjusted.
But in one particular parish—that is, St. Cuthbert's in Edinburgh—the proviso has operated to prevent any adjustment at all. It has been established that St. Cuthbert's constitutes a single benefice, although it has two incumbencies—that is to say, places for two ministers. In the nature of things these two places are unlikely to be vacant simultaneously, and in fact they have never both been vacant during the past thirty years. The result has been that, because of the proviso to Section 36 of the 1925 Act, it has never been possible for the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee to reorganise the endowments of St. Cuthbert's. The Committee, with the authority of the General Assembly, recently represented to us that that was an anomalous situation, and that the anomaly should be removed. We have received assurances from the Presbytery of Edinburgh and from the Kirk Session of St. Cuthbert's that they unanimously agree with the Committee. So the principle of this Bill has the support of all the Church bodies which are directly concerned.
The Bill proceeds by providing that the benefice will be deemed to become actually vacant, for the purposes of the proviso, on the termination of the last interest of any minister who is an incumbent of it when the Bill passes into law. In that way, your Lordships will see that the stipend of the existing minister or ministers is fully protected and further that the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee will have precisely the same power to reorganise the endowments of St. Cuthbert's as they have to reorganise the endowments of all other benefices in Scotland. In short, St. Cuthbert's will be brought into line in this respect with every other charge in the Church of Scotland. I suggest to your Lordships that that is an entirely reasonable arrangement. In commending this small measure to your Lordships' House I would only repeat that it is supported in principle by all the bodies in the Church of Scotland which have a direct interest in the matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
5.9 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have not been briefed with regard to this Bill, and I have no special qualifications for speaking upon it. If the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had not been sitting there, I was going to suggest that my noble friend, Lord Mathers, would have been perhaps the most appropriate Member of your Lordships' House to deal with the matter. I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is going to give his blessing to the Bill, and I should like simply to add my blessing to the one which he is about to give.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, when I read this Bill, I was at first a little anxious about the wording, which I found very difficult to follow; but, after listening to the explanatory speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think I understand the Bill perfectly. This is an illustration of the fact that sometimes a few words in legal jargon might mean a great deal to many people. I think that that is going to be the case with this Bill. I have had a letter from my noble friend, Lord Mathers, in which he says how very sorry he is that he cannot be present to-day to go even a little further than my noble friend who has just spoken, because he says that he will miss very much the opportunity of uttering a few words of commendation of the Church of Scotland for their work and for the measures which they now propose. I should like it to be known that this is the view of my noble friend, who has such a devoted interest in the Church.
I would add only that, as a mere Sassenach, I have always had a feeling of the greatest respect for the Church of Scotland. They seem to know how to manage their affairs very well without too much interference from Parliament, to exercise on the whole a much better discipline over ministers selected to preach the Word, and to maintain a Protestantism which is of universal admiration in this country, whereas there seems to be an enormous amount of indiscipline in maintaining the Protestant demonstration in our Established Church. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will mean a great improvement to ministers whose stipends will eventually—I think
484
that word should be introduced—be improved. May they continue in their steadfast Protestant faith!
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount and the noble Lord for supporting this Bill. I would thank the noble Viscount particularly for the commendation which he has given to the Church of Scotland. I am sure that we all regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, who speaks with such great authority on all matters in connection with the Church of Scotland.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee on re-commitment of the Bill (according to Order): the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.
NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPEN SATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
5.15 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.—(The Earl of Monster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Rateable value of shops, offices, etc., for purposes of existing valuation lists
1.—(1) Where the net annual value of a hereditament which is neither a dwelling-house nor a private garage or private storage premises is an amount ascertained by reference to its gross value as defined in section sixty-eight of the Rating and Valuation Act. 1925, and the rateable value of the hereditament would but for this section be equal to its net annual value, the rateable value of the hereditament shall be ascertained, for any rate period beginning after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven for which the valuation lists in

485
force at the commencement of this Act remain in force, by making from its net annual value the deduction mentioned in the next following subsection.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the first "is" down to and including "premises" and to substitute "consists of or includes a shop". The noble Lord said: The Government seem resolved to proceed with this Bill, Clause 1 of which contains a proposal which, in the view of those on this side of the Committee, is both inequitable and unjust. Before proceeding to deal with the Amendment, I should like to make one or two general comments. I confess that I was a little intrigued and somewhat mystified by the words which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, used in his speech of reply on the Second Reading of this Bill on March 5. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202 (No. 41), Col. 207]:
"The shops and offices had been singled out, as we see it, for specially severe treatment."
By whom were they singled out? These properties were valued by independent valuers, by valuation officers of the Inland Revenue, so they were not "singled out," and they were not subjected, in my submission, to "specially severe treatment." When reading these words again, I formed the opinion that perhaps the noble Earl, speaking as he was on that occasion "off the cuff" and being, I judged, desperately in need of some argument in justification of Clause 1, used words which he did not intend, or the meaning of which did not represent his mind on this point. I think that it would he of interest to your Lordships if the noble Earl would indicate how it came about that, as he alleges, these properties had been "singled out…for specially severe treatment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to mitigate the mischief which will be done by the proposal in Clause 1. It is proposed to limit this rebate to shops, and to shops only. The total estimated rebate which will be given in the rateable value of properties as the Bill how stands is some £44 million. Of that, it is estimated that three-eighths is in respect of shops and five-eighths in respect of commercial and other buildings. So, if the Amendment were accepted by your Lordships, some £27½ million of rateable value will be prevented from being cast upon
486
the household ratepayer, and relief to the shopkeeper will be limited to £16½ million.
The small shopkeeper has been pleaded in aid by the supporters of this Bill. His alleged distresses in a time of booming consumer activity have been used as a kind of protective shield for a proposal to grant to commerce and business this relief of 20 per cent. in rateable value. The small shopkeeper is in gave danger of finding a place beside the widow and orphan in the idiom of the Conservative Party. Unhappily, it not possible or practicable to distinguish between the small shopkeeper—that, is to say, those who have shops in what I may call the narrow back streets—from the great chain, multiple and departmental stores, whose claim to this rebate is quite shadowy, if indeed it exists at all. But that being the case, the Amendment which I ant moving would, if passed, operate to grant a 20 per cent. derating to shops, but would leave unaltered the assessments on business and commercial premises.
It is our submission that no case can be made for any relief to offices and business and commercial premises. It is fanciful to suggest that the new assessments are in any way unjust or unfair. As I sought to indicate in ray speech on Second Reading, these assessments do no more than correct the under-assessments which have been enjoyed for over fifteen years. I do not think that any fair-minded business ratepayer would take any other view. He realises that this revaluation has been carried out on a perfectly fair and legal basis, and the assessments do no more than reflect the change in values, the change in costs and the change in the value of money. I think perhaps he congratulates himself that he has enjoyed this quite important and valuable benefit and advantage for the last fifteen years, and does not think it unreasonable that it should now come to an end. Apart from that, he will, as a household ratepayer, have to pay in one place or another, wherever he may reside, a proportion of the additional rate poundage which will result from this derating of business and commercial properties. All he will pay extra in rates, he will pay out of taxed income—he will get no income lax abatement from it; whereas up to 50 per cent.—more in certain cases—of what he will save as a business ratepayer

487
will inure to the benefit of the Inland Revenue and of the Exchequer. It is our view that this Bill is a bad Bill. This Amendment, as I have said, has for its purpose the mitigation of the mischief the Bill will do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to (" is ") in line 7, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment took me to task for some words that I used in replying to the debate on Second Reading. Perhaps I might remind the noble Lord and your Lordships of the statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in December of last year, in which he used these words:
"Nevertheless, sufficient information is now available to show beyond a doubt that the recent valuation has placed an unduly heavy share of the burden upon the occupiers of shops and other commercial property."
I do not think the words I used on the last occasion were very dissimilar to those which my right honourable friend used in his statement of December 20 last.
The noble Lord, as he has told your Lordships, seeks to limit the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill to hereditaments which consist entirely of, or include, a shop. The noble Lord believes that everything else should be excluded from, the relief which is given under Clause 1 of the Bill. I should like to take your Lordships back to July 11, 1955, when your Lordships were discussing the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill of that year. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and no doubt speaking as the representative of the Opposition, on that occasion used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 563]:
"Therefore, we may expect as one of the outcomes of this Bill a considerable reduction in the amount which the householder will pay and a heavy increase in the amount which will be assessable on business premises. I suppose all of us welcome any relief which we get from rates, but we have to consider what are going to be the effects on business premises, and they may well be very grave indeed."
Then, later the noble Lord said (col. 564):
"It would have been of help if the noble Earl "—
488
that is myself—
"could have given us some forecast of what he expects to be the outcome of these violent changes in assessment over the next few years. It would have been even better if he could have suggested some way of cushioning these violent changes, because they are most undesirable."
It is clear that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was not only in support of the proposal in Clause 1 of this Bill, but was one of the few who foretold that the increase of the burden on offices and other commercial properties would be unduly heavy. The former Minister of Housing and Local Government, in 1954, in a statement in another place, said that after the assessments had been fully drawn up he would consider whether an undue burden had been placed on any particular class of hereditament. Therefore, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in passing, that I am surprised he should now move an Amendment which I feel certain would not have the support or the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
The rateable value of these hereditaments which this Amendment seeks to exclude rose on an average about 120 per cent. upon revaluation, as compared with 126 per cent. for shops, and my right honourable friend and, indeed, the Government feel that there can be no justification whatever for excluding them from relief or for differentiating between them. Back in December, 1954, the Government stated that it was their intention to review the valuation of shops, offices and other commercial properties assessed on present-day values; and that, in effect, is what we have done. We are now implementing the pledge by Clause 1 of this Bill. Although the noble Lord did not say it in his remarks, to say that there are a large number of rich ratepayers who obtain relief is, therefore, quite contrary to the undertaking which was given by my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, knows as well as I do that rating has always distinguished between different types of property, and, so far as I am aware, it has never been the practice to differentiate between a poor and a rich ratepayer in assessment of similar properties. One and all must be treated the same, and that is what we have endeavoured to do under this clause of

489
the Bill. If we give relief to one shop, we must give it to the other. If we give relief to one premises, office buildings, or whatever it may be, we must also give it to the other. Therefore, I think it is wrong to try now to exclude front the purposes of the first clause of this Bill a number of premises of all sorts and kinds. The occupiers of such premises will undoubtedly achieve a great satisfaction from the clause, which will assist their finances—and in many ways their finances require assisting. At the same time, these occupiers will be satisfied that the pledge my right honourable friend gave in 1954, and again at a later date, has in fact been carried into effect and operation. I hope that on second thoughts the noble Lord will not divide the House on this Amendment, because it is one which I could not possibly accept.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Earl has, as always, addressed the Committee in very felicitious terms and put his case exceedingly well. I must say that these are the sort of Amendments about which it is always advisable for us to recall the Prayers we utter at the opening of each day's Parliament and to remember that we must put away all partial affections and the like. If I were to try to pursue what I consider my best interests, and the interests of those in business with whom I was brought up, I should be inclined to have a good word to say for the owners of offices. But if I put away partial affections and examine the case in more detail—say from the point of view of the local authorities, and from the point of view of the effect of the new assessments upon householders—then I take a different view.
The noble Earl has quoted my noble friend Lord Silkin, who, I am sure, will remember the passage in his speech which was quoted. He was not here to hear the citing of it. At that time, when the consideration of this matter was still in the formative stage, and as it was certainly likely to produce such wide—I think "violent" was the word used—fluctuations from the then standards of valuation, it was well to look at the matter with caution to see whether or not (and I quote the words of my noble friend) it might be necessary later to have
490
some cushioning effect upon these violent fluctuations. I would say that my noble friend was speaking as much for his Party on that point of view as for anyone else. That was a wise precaution he was taking, and consideration has been given to it.
Now we have the proposals of the Bill. This is a rethinking after the other Bill had passed through all its stages and had been applied all over the country. All the rating authorities had made their budgets. They dealt not only with general industry, but with shops, offices and houses. I have met householders who in some cases had their assessments under the original arrangement doubled, although there had been no change in their property whatsoever. They had to suffer heavy impositions. And now we have this Amending Bill which confines relief to the two classes, shops and offices. I am bound to say that I have a stronger feeling of sympathy with shopkeepers than with the owners of offices. That is not because I do not think that, in some cases, the increase in the valuation of shops was unjustified One reads of companies who are in ownership of a large number of shops and who have on more than one occasion written up the value of their premises in the balance sheet as the basis for a further manipulation of their capital and the distribution of profit. I should have thought that that particular class of shop would have some difficulty in objecting to revised assessment by the Sate and the local authorities of the valuation of these properties.
In regard to the ultimate effect of the re-rating of properties, I think the Government, in their second thoughts, in view of the general situation of the economy of the country, have done something right making some adjustment in the case of shops, because the rating of shops at a high figure would be likely to result in a general increase in prices of consumer goods. It is an expense which would have to be met, and, therefore, arguing from that point of view, the steep increase in the amount to be paid on shops upon the new graduations would probably increase the general cost of living.
As regards offices, I think there is far less of a case for the Government's new proposals in this Bill. I should like to

491
take this opportunity of saying a word of thanks to my noble friend, Lord Latham, for his extraordinarily clear speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was a great service, not only to his Party, but to the House, in helping us to understand what the effect upon the local authorities is likely to be. I must say that he is perfectly justified in what he said then. One sees from the newspapers, day after day, that these poor rating authorities have been charged with the duty of resettling their budgets after they had all been cast and planned. The general comment in the morning and evening newspapers, which cite a particular local authority, is "Rates up and up." The tendency is for the Press to direct attention to what looks like more new and extravagant expenditure by the local authorities, whereas what is happening is that the sums which are being saved by the office-owners, as well as by the shopkeepers, is being added to the general rate level in the area. I am sure the noble Earl will not challenge my general assessment when I say that, although there may be one or two cases where the increase is not much over 1s., in the great majority of cases the effect of the alteration of local authorities' budgets has been that the general rate upon householders, businesses and everybody concerned has gone up by from 1s. 6d. to more than 3s. in the £—a very steep rise. The general impression created in ratepayers' minds by the news as it appears in a good many of the national papers is that rates are going up and up because of some particular fault on the part of the local authority. That is quite unreasonable.
I come next to the point explained by my noble friend, Lord Latham, this afternoon, about the actual division of the two great sections dealt with in this Bill, the shops and the offices, in the amount received in revenue. We find that a very much larger proportion—I think the noble Lord said something like £27½ million out of £44 million of rating valuation—is attributable to offices and only about £16½ million is attributed to shops. I think the Opposition have, in fact, proposed a meritorious Amendment in the circumstances. Some owners of offices are pretty wealthy. Many office buildings are in the hands of the big investment trusts who are not unable to meet the kind of bill that the original
492
Act would have imposed upon them. A very great service can be done to the householders and to the general level of the rate levied upon other businesses and industries.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will think again; or, if he is not prepared to think again this evening, that he will make further representations to the Minister responsible for recommending to the Government any final reconstruction of their views upon the matter. Speaking as an ordinary ratepayer I know that I shall have to pay considerably more as a result of this Bill than would otherwise have been the case, although, in the case of my local authority, I think that the increase in the rate this year will be something under 2s. in the £ rather than more; but that increase could easily be reduced to below 1s. in the £. I put that point before your Lordships because, in arguing the other case as between partial affections and no partial affections, it is just as well that we should all understand that, when we talk upon these matters, we probably have an interest in some way or another. But that, to me, is the smallest aspect of the case. I see that people in some of the suburban areas in the Greater London district have been reassessed on their houses up to double, and more, of their original valuations, although that, of course, does not apply to every single district. They could be greatly relieved in their current burdens if the Amendment moved by my noble friend were accepted.
5.44 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: May I say a word on this Amendment? Knowing his connection with the London County Council for many years, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, perhaps quite naturally, is dealing rather with the big towns where the stores are big and the offices, in particular, are big, belonging to large firms. In the majority of towns in this country, most of the shops are comparatively small. There is the odd Woolworth's and so on, but the shops are comparatively small; and the offices are largely, though not entirely, occupied by small businesses and small professional men. In those towns, both professional men and small businesses are having the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. It is not a question of making an enormous profit. There is no doubt about it

493
that the new scale of rates for those people is desperately hard. In many cases—one cannot generalise in this case—the ordinary wage-earner who works for somebody else, particularly in towns where there is a shortage of labour, is far better off in these days than the people who own offices, and in many cases can afford to pay a higher rate in proportion to, say, the professional man. It varies throughout the country, but one is apt to talk of offices as if they were offices in the City of London and therefore able to afford to pay, or of shops as if they were like Selfridge's. That may be so in London, but in the small country towns big shops are very much in the minority. From what I know of my own locality, some of these occupiers with increased rates have had a desperately hard time to make any living at all.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Before the noble Lord, Lord Latham, replies, perhaps I may say one brief word in reply to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. As I understood him, the noble Viscount said he thought that shops had been assessed at a fairly high figure, and that, because that might have the effect of increasing the cost of living, he supported the proposal in Clause 1 that shops should have the benefit of the reduction of one-fifth.
I want to remind the noble Viscount—I am sure he will remember this—that all these shop properties were assessed at current rental values, whilst houses were assessed at 1939 rental values. It was not the present Government which did this: it was the Government of the noble Viscount's Party, acting under the Local Government Act, 1,948. The mistake that was made then was obvious to the noble Viscount to-day, in that he supported the action that Her Majesty's Government had taken in giving some relief and remedy to shops all over the country. As regards the offices, the noble Viscount mentioned the fact that these wealthy offices could probably quite easily afford to pay the increase on rates that has fallen upon them due to large increases in their assessments. I am certain that the noble Viscount is correct there, but to suggest now that we should have a system of rating for wealthy offices separate from that used for not-so-wealthy offices is a new conception of rating which has never
494
been tried in this country, and never will be. As I said in the course of ray remarks in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, the system of rating we follow here has been the same for different classes of property. To single out one class—in this case, offices—and to say that, because the noble Viscount has a rich office and I have a poor office, we should start to assess them on completely different bases from that or which they have been assessed hitherto is a proposition which I could not commend to the House on this occasion.
LORD LATHAM: I have a kindly feeling for the noble Earl because I feel that with his years of experience and service on the London County Council, his heart is not really in this proposal. He rested his earlier speech upon what had been said by my noble friend Lord Silkin, and what had been written by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government. The latter, the noble Earl stated, issued a letter in 1954 Lull another in 1955, in the latter of which I gather he referred to what he described as an undue burden arising from the revaluation. It is of the essence of our case chat those revaluations are fair, legal and properly based, representing current values, and that they did not, as an element in the general economy of the nation, and they do not now, cast an undue burden upon the occupiers of those premises. They cast an appropriate, corrected burden which ought to have beer, borne many years ago.
The noble Earl referred once again to the valuation of houses. It is the case that it was a Labour Government which in 1948, by Act of Parliament, not as a single ad hoc action, but al a part of the general consideration of rating and valuation at the time in relation to the severe persistent housing shortage, determined that the assessment of houses should be on the 1939 basis, because, generally speaking, owing to controls, the rents receivable from those houses were 1939 rents. In my submission, therefore, both categories of property halve been valued on current values, and it is unfair and inequitable to grant to ore category of property, namely, shops, and especially now in relation to the Amendment, offices and commercial premises, a rebate of 20 per cent.

495
My noble friend Lord Silkin is here and will speak for himself, but I am sure he will permit me to make these comments upon the statement made by him which was read out by the noble Earl. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out that certain adjustments would have to be considered as a result of the revaluations which were to take place. But, so far as I know, my noble friend Lord Silkin did not advocate as one of those adjustments the derating of another category of property, which it is proposed to do by this Bill. When he spoke of a "cushion", it may well be that he had in mind not a "cushion" to be provided at the expense of the local authorities, not a "cushion" to be provided by the household ratepayer, but one to be provided by grant, which in fact was done with industrial derating. When industrial derating first came in, there was a specific element of grant in respect of the estimated loss of rates as a result of the derating of industrial premises, and if the Government take the view that there is a case for mitigating the burdens of rates as a result of the new valuations, then the Government should make the local authorities a grant appropriate to such loss of rates by local authorities, as was done in 1929. There is an additional reason why the Government should do that, because, as regards business premises, they stand to get half, and in some cases more than half, the benefit of the reduction of rates flowing from the reduction by this 20 per cent. of the assessments on those properties. In those circumstances, I invite the Committee to support this Amendment which, in any event, if carried would largely mitigate the mischief that will otherwise be done by Clause 1 of this Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON moved, in subsection (1) after "Act, 1925," to insert:
"or where the hereditament consists of sewage disposal works occupied by a joint sewerage authority,".
The noble Lord said: This is quite a different type of Amendment. The Bill gives relief to certain properties which it is felt are being unduly penalised by revaluation, and it has been submitted to us that sewage disposal works occupied
496
by joint sewerage authorities should be included among the hereditaments to which the provisions of Clause 1 are intended to apply. The local authorities who are interested in these joint sewerage authorities have approached us and have asked us to put down Amendments; so I am proposing in Clause 1, after the words "Act, 1925," to insert the words on the Marshalled List.
The noble Earl, Lord Munster, referred to the remarks made by the Minister in another place in introducing this Bill, the text of which was that some unduly heavy burden was being borne in certain directions. May I indicate to the Committee some of the unequal and unduly heavy burdens which are being borne by these joint sewerage authorities? I know most about the Birmingham area, of course. On April 1 the Birmingham Tame and Rea Joint Authority had their rateable value raised from £31,216 to £115,250—a rise of 269 per cent. I think that they come under the umbrella of the Minister's reference to an "unduly heavy burden". Their annual expenses in constructing, maintaining and operating their disposal works have increased from 8·5 to 20·2 per cent. That is just one example that has come to our knowledge. The Colne Valley Authority, though not such a large Authority, are, in proportion, even worse hit. Their rateable value has been put up from £9,500 to £42,000—an increase of 342 per cent.
The point I wish to emphasise is that if this Bill becomes law in its present form the disposal works of the sewerage authority will be one of the few classes of properties which are assessed on 1955 values and rated without any reduction whatever. We all know that agriculture is entirely derated, and that industry pays at the moment only 25 per cent.—although how long that situation will remain we do not know. Private houses are assessed at 1939 values and, as a result of this Bill, shops and offices, which are at present assessed at their 1955 value, will have their rateable values reduced by one-fifth. Therefore, one of the few classes which will pay the full rates on current values are these sewerage authorities.
On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary explained why properties assessed directly by reference to net annual values were excluded from Clause 1. These

497
properties include sewage disposal works, but they also include such things as water undertakings, piers, racecourses, holiday camps and crematoria. Some of these undertakings are assessed on the basis of their accounts, and accordingly the rate charged is calculated by reference to their net income. In such cases, the Amendment which I am proposing would not be applicable. Sewerage boards, however, are not in this category. I understand that they are assessed on their capital value. Moreover, they differ from piers, racecourses and holiday camps by reason of the fact that the sewerage authorities are non-profit-making bodies.
In the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on February 14, the Minister gave his reason for refusing to extend the scope of Clause 1 to holiday camps, piers and market halls, and though it was put forward that sewage disposal works were quite different, the Minister replied to the effect that Her Majesty's Government were not willing to extend the concession to "the whole gamut of properties assessed at net values." I have tried to show that the sewage works could be included without "going the whole hog" and including the whole gamut of which the Minister speaks, because they are quite a different class. Yet one is put off, as the Minister put off ray friend who raised this question in another place, with the story that one of these days there is to be a major local government Bill, and that then will be the time to include matters like this. I wonder how often I have heard that story told, and been put off with the suggestion that some day there is to be a massive Bill dealing with local government and that minor matters like this which are brought forward can always wait till then. I doubt whether I shall live to see that major Bill come forward, but when it dies, it will be a massive Bill and many other matters will be crowded out. I therefore think Her Majesty's Government might deal with milers which are brought forward and not put them into the "never-never" class of provisions which some day, if we live long enough, we shall see brought in.
I believe the proposal which I have made has certain merits, because the sewerage boards can be distinguished from other organisations which are directly assessed on net values. For one thing, these boards are not assessed by
498
reference to annual accounts, and they are non-profit making bodies. I understand that there are some thirty joint sewerage authorities in England and Wales, though not all of then are affected by this Amendment. Not all of them own sewage works, and some of them are not joint bodies. Where a body owns its own sewage works, its rating authority makes the rates and they pay for themselves. This Amendment is therefore put forward to help those who feel that they have a case. There is nothing partisan or Party about it, and I hope that it may have the support of all who look at local government in the broad sense and will help local authorities in any way they can. I have much pleasure in moving this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after (" Act, 1925,") insert (" or where the hereditament consists of sewage disposal works occupied by a joint sewerage authority,").—(Lord Bennett of Edgbaston.)
LORD BURDEN: One can follow the noble Lord who has just spoken on the general case on behalf of joint sewerage authorities, but I suggest that the Amendment as it stands is too limited in scope. Secondly, I query in my own mind whether this is the Bill in which the remedy for the injustice should be sought. The Amendment applies to:
"sewage disposal works occupied by a joint sewerage authority ".
As the noble Lord was speaking, it occurred to my mind that, for example, the northern outfall of the London County Council (I speak subject to correction by my noble friends Lord Listowel and Lord Silkin) is owned entirely by the London County Council, and I have, no knowledge of what the increased assessment of those works may be; but any increased assessment, as I understand the position, will be a windfall to the local authority of Barking. I believe the outfall is within the area of the Municipal Borough of Barking and the amount ultimately will be payable by the people living within the area of the London County Council. But again, if my memory is correct within the Borough of Barking there is a joint sewage works, that of Barking and Ilford, and again I expect they will have the benefits of the increased assessment—another windfall for that local authority.

499
I wonder whether, in the long run, it will bring them any benefit. I understand that, with this increased rateable value, the grants from the central Government will be correspondingly decreased; so, if one works it out, the subtle fact emerges that the ratepayers of London and Ilford and Barking will be shouldering responsibilities in relieving the Exchequer of payment of grants to their respective authorities. It seems to me that while, taking it broadly, the Party to which I have the honour to belong have always objected to derating, it was always understood, from the time it was introduced in 1929 by a distinguished honourable Member from the Birmingham area, whom noble Lords will remember, that it was to help the distressed industries. Its scope since then has been much wider. But while derating remains, any help to the sewerage authorities should be through derating rather than through a Bill of this kind. Even then, with due respect, I suggest the Amendment is a little too limited in scope.
LORD CROFT: I should like to say a few words on this Amendment. As your Lordships are aware, a number of non-industrial buildings are excluded from relief under Clause 1 of this Bill, owing to the fact that there is other land included with the buildings. Such are racecourses, commercial sports grounds, holiday camps and sewage disposal works. There is another group of hereditaments, such as advertisement hoardings, sporting rights and wireless relay stations, which in any event are not buildings, and there are public utility undertakings which are valued on their profits. All these hereditaments fail to qualify among those for which a gross value has to be ascertained, as specified by Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, as amended by the Act of 1955. Your Lordships may ask why joint sewerage authorities should be singled out for attention by this Amendment. The answer is, I think, that they appear to be the most deserving of relief of all hereditaments which do not qualify for relief under Clause 1. Nearly all the other hereditaments which I have mentioned are, in effect, run as commercial propositions, whether or not they are run by local authorities. Seaside piers, for instance, are almost invariably owned by local authorities, though they may be
500
leased to commercial enterprises. These commercial concerns can set off their rates against profits assessable to tax. Nor is it easy to see why hospitals, for instance, or welfare homes or public baths should enjoy the relief afforded by Clause 1 and not sewage disposal authorities.
I would submit to your Lordships that this is another reason for supporting this Amendment. I would remind your Lordships that joint sewerage authorities are non-profit-making bodies and, unlike commercial undertakings, are unable to set off their rates against profits assessable to tax. I regard that as rather an important point in favour of this Amendment. As the Bill has remedied a very serious inequality in the case of shops, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will go one step further and accept this Amendment.
6.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As my noble friend behind me said when introducing this Amendment, it is very different from the previous one which was introduced by Lord Latham. That, indeed, is true. It has this great difference: that it is a far more difficult Amendment to dispose of. As I think my noble friend Lord Bennett of Edgbaston pointed out clearly, the effect of his Amendment is to extend the class of hereditaments which are entitled to relief under Clause 1 to include the sewage disposal works of joint sewerage authorities. As the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment well know, as the clause is drafted it excludes from relief all hereditaments the net annual values of which are ascertained direct instead of by deduction from gross values. These include sewage disposal works of all kinds. The argument was raised by my noble friend behind me in support of his Amendment that these particular sewage properties have suffered an even larger increase in rateable values than, on the average, have shops—or even office premises as a whole.
As I understand it, the Colne Valley Sewerage Board, to which my noble friend referred, suggested to the other boards in the country—I understand there are thirty in England and Wales—that representations should be made to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing to indicate to him the increases

501
which have occurred in the assessments for joint sewerage authorities. Out of those thirty, only ten boards (including the Colne Valley Board) have done this. Out of the ten, only seven have quoted figures. It is true to say that in six of these cases there have certainly been very large increases in assessments.
My right honourable friend feels, however, that even if these six cases could be taken as typical of the thirty, it would be quite wrong to single out from the general class of all hereditaments which are assessed direct to net annual value small groups of properties for special treatment. There may be—indeed I have no doubt that, there are—other properties with just as strong cases as, or possibly even stronger cases than, the joint sewerage boards, and the information about increases in rateable values in these cases is not available at the moment in sufficient detail to make it possible to test claims group by group, even if that were desirable. I feel certain that even Lord Latham and Lord Silkin would deprecate testing these various groups individually to see whether it was desirable or not that they should have their assessments reduced. My right honourable friend feels that, in any event, it would be quite anomalous to rate a sewage disposal works which has been occupied by one kind of local authority—that is to say, a joint board—differently from a works occupied by another kind of local authority—say by a county borough council, in a place which may be, and will be, outside its own boundary.
Apart from the objection in principle which I have tried to explain to my noble friend, this Bill, as I think I stated on a previous occasion, has the very limited object of giving a measure of justice to a broad, general class of property which, I think all sides of the House recognise, has had too large a share of the burden thrust upon it by the revaluation. My right honourable friend thinks that it would not be desirable to extend the relief further by picking and choosing among farther claimants to it—in this case joint sewerage authorities. Let me add that is is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a major Bill—I think I might even call it a massive Bill—on local government quite soon that will cover both reorganisation of local government and the finances of local government as well.
THE EARL OF LISTOWLL: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? The statement which he has just made is extremely important because we are all waiting anxiously for this further legislation. Did the noble Earl mean, when he said "quite soon," that there would be legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is what my right honourable friend has said. He made a statement to that effect in another place.
LORD GREENHILL: Presumably that would be a United Kingdom Bill and not an English Bill only.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps we had better wait and see. I cannot anticipate the Bill, though no doubt Scotland might have to wait a period of time to be covered as well. It is not for me to judge, it may be for my noble friend behind to judge, whether it will be appropriate on that occasion to bring forward the matter on which he has addressed your Lordships to-day—that is, whether there should be some alteration in the system of assessing the joint sewerage authorities. As I am advised at the moment by my right honourable friend, he would not be willing to accept this Amendment.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: I am naturally disappointed, because I feel that Her Majesty's Government could have met this point and included the sewerage boards without sacrificing anything in the way of principle. It is cheering to, hear that this major Bill, as I have heard it called over the last ten years—and no doubt some of my noble friends on the other side have heard of it for a larger time—which some day is going to reform local government is at last being seriously considered and that some of the things which we have had to put up with will be included. In the circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot press the matter any further. Naturally, I will reserve the right to being the matter forward again at a later stage, if I can find any justifiable reason for doing so; but as the thing stands a: the moment, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to the clause:
"(7) As from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the provisions of subsection (7) of section one of the Act of 1955 shall cease to apply to a hereditament of which in accordance with subsection (1) of this section the rateable value is to be ascertained by making from its net annual value the deduction mentioned in subsection (2) of this section."
The noble Lord said: I need hardly say that as Clause 1 of the Bill reduces the rateable value of shops, offices, and other business premises, it will reduce the amount of rates that will be collected. It is common knowledge that a considerable number of appeals have been lodged against the assessments made under the 1955 Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which this Bill seeks to amend. Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act provides that when an appeal has been lodged against an assessment made under the Act, the local authority can recover only the amount levied on the hereditament for the year previous to the new valuation list. The balance perforce remains outstanding until the appeal has been decided one way or the other. At the present moment many local authorities have large sums outstanding and it is understood that a considerable period is bound to elapse before all these appeals are finally settled.
Taking into account the concessions contained in Clause 1, concessions not shared by the ordinary householder—I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong at the moment—I submit that it is only fair that the new assessments (that will be, the previous assessments reduced either by one-fifth or one-seventh) should be paid in full when this Bill comes into operation. If an assessment after reduction is still considered by the occupier to be too heavy, then there is the ordinary machinery for appeal, which should be used. I submit that there is no justification for the withholding of the new assessment when it comes into force. I assure your Lordships that local authorities are greatly concerned at the effect which this withholding of payment is having on their financial position. Seeing that the Minister claims that the concessions in this clause would right what the Minister himself calls an injustice, it would be only just and right that the occupants of premises, having had an
504
injustice put right, should pay up, or, if they think that the assessment is still too high, should have recourse to the normal machinery which other ratepayers have to use. I beg to move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I really marvel how well the noble Lord can explain this highly complicated matter with such completely effortless lucidity, and I only hope that my reply will be as lucid in explaining why I am unable to accept the Amendment. As the noble Lord said, Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act enables ratepayers, after they have made their appeals for the reduction of their assessments, to avoid paying rates in excess of the amount which they paid in the year 1955–56 until their appeals are settled. The noble Lord's Amendment provides that the right which a ratepayer has under Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act should not apply to properties which have had a reduction under Clause 1 of the Bill. I have been advised that since 1925, as every quinquennial valuation period comes round, all ratepayers have a right similar to that afforded under this section of the 1955 Act to withhold payment of their full rates pending the settlement of their appeals. I feel sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that I should be very reluctant to abolish this long-standing right for one particular class of property.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, asked what the position was in regard to appeals. Up to January 31 of this year, there were 757,000 proposals for alteration of the valuation lists and up to that time 374,000 of these, just under 50 per cent., had been settled. To further strengthen my argument why we cannot accept this Amendment, I think my best course would be, if the noble Lord would be good enough to listen, to quote a letter which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government caused to be sent to the Manchester City Council, who brought this matter to his attention some time ago. The letter read as follows:
"I am directed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to refer to your letter of 11th February and to say that he does not consider that the fact that a hereditament is

505
within the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill constitutes sufficient justification for excluding it from the provisions of Section 1 (7) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. Even after the reductions made by the Bill are taken into account, the properties relieved will still bear on average a substantially larger share of the rate burden than before the revaluation, and the Minister would not think it equitable to deprive them of a right to which others bearing no larger a share than in 1955–56 would still be entitled.
"When an appeal relates to the assessment of a hereditament of the kind to which Clause 1 applies, the local valuation court are primarily concerned with determining the gross value. Furthermore, when the proposal giving rise to the appeal was served in the year 1956–57 (as it trust be if Section 1 (7) is to be invoked) the count will be concerned with the circumstances of 1956–57, and any reduction under the Bill for 1957–58 and subsequent years would clearly be additional to and entirely separate from any reductions made by the court for 1956–57. It therefore appears to the Minister that the Bill and the average reduction secured upon appeal is irrelevant to this issue. By reducing the total amount of rates chargeable in 1957–58 and subsequent years in respect of hereditaments within Clause 1, the Bill as drafted will of course automatically reduce the difference between the amount chargeable and the amount recoverable under Clause 1 (7)."
I have quoted that letter in full to the noble Lord because it seems to me to set out clearly the reasons why my right honourable friend cannot, in the circumstances, accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.
LORD BURDEN: I readily admit that the statement the noble Earl has made on behalf of the Minister has some substance in it. But undoubtedly the fact is that large sums of money will continue to be outstanding, although I agree that some of the amount may be reduced as a result of consideration of the position. I take it that approximately one-half of the appeals have been dealt with and we have only up to March 31 of this year before a new assessment will come into operation. It is going to be cumulative, too, I take it. I warn the Minister that local authorities will be forced to raise mere money by getting what money they can from banks, or drawing upon reserves, which they will not like doing. It seems to me that the effect of the proposals in this Bill, as they stand, will add to the load on the long-suffering ratepayers, who somehow or other will have to raise the money to meet the deficiencies. However, in the circumstances, I agree that no useful purpose would be
506
served in pressing the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Repeal of inoperative enactments
"5. Whereas in consequence of the passing of subsection (6) of section five of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act have ceased to have effect to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule; the said enactments are hereby repealed to the extent so specified."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment looks somewhat formidable, but I am advised that we want to include this new clause in the Bill merely for the purpose of tidying up the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Extension of s. 144 (2) (c) of Local Government Act, 1948
". In paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section one hundred and forty-four of the Local Government Act, 1948, after the words `made within' there shall be inserted the words a period of two year; from '."
The noble Lord said: Although this Amendment may appear a little technical, its purpose is quite simple. In accordance with the Seventh Schedule to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, alteration in rateable value following appeals is taken into account by the Minister for the purpose of grant payments to local authorities under Sections 2 and 130 of the main Act of 1948; and those grants will be made for the year 1956–57.
I am informed—and what the noble Earl said in connection with the previous Amendment supports this—that there is little hope that the majority of appeals in connection with the larger properties—and I emphasise "larger properties" will be disposed of during the present financial year. It follows, therefore, that if this Bill is not amended the intention of the 1955 Act will be defeated: that

507
is, so far as taking the loss of rateable values into consideration when making the grants is concerned. A further important consequence will follow if this Bill is not amended. If the appeals are not settled before March 31, not only will there be that outstanding rateable value, but there will be a potential loss of revenue which will follow if there is any consideration given to the appeal. But the further loss will arise owing to the non-adjustment in the grants payable under Sections 2 and 100 of the 1948 Act.
My Amendment seeks to ensure that the intentions of the 1955 Act, seeing that, through no one's fault, those intentions have not been carried out during the present financial year, shall be carried into effect by extending the provisions of that Act, so far as this particular point is concerned, for one further year. I feel sure that it is not the desire or the intention of the Minister to evade the promise (or call it what you will) given to local authorities in the 1955 Act because of the inability of those concerned to get the appeals settled before March 31, 1957. I am attributing, no blame to anybody in that connection; it is due to circumstances over which no one had any control. But without these adjustments the grants will be paid on an artificially enhanced rateable value, for which the local authorities have no responsibility, because the valuations were carried out by the Inland Revenue Department in accordance with previous legislation. I would respectfully submit that this Amendment is fair and just to local authorities. I trust that I shall have better fortune with this than with the previous Amendment, and that the noble Earl will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As the noble Lord has rightly said, this is an extremely technical subject. I have been informed that Section 144 of the Local Government Act, 1948, provides that, subject to certain provisos, a reference to the rateable value of an area for a year is to be construed for the purposes of that Act as the total of rateable values shown in the valuation list on the first
508
date of the year. This figure is required to be ascertained for the purposes of the Exchequer equalisation grant, the London equalisation scheme and the distribution by the Department of payments under Part V of the Act by the British Transport Commission and the Central Electricity Authority. Proviso (c) of the subsection, which was inserted, as the noble Lord rightly said, by the Valuation Act, 1955, provides for certain alterations made in the new list in its first year, as the result of the settlement of appeals, to be taken into account in computing the total as though the alteration had actually been made when the list came into force.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would provide for such alterations made within the first two years of a new list to be taken into account. The noble Lord has contended that this is quite reasonable, because it is now clear that a substantial proportion of the proposals which were made in the first year—that is, in 1956–57—of the new list will not have been disposed of by the end of that year. I told the noble Lord just now that up to the end of January, 757,000 proposals had been made, of which 374,000 have now been settled.
LORD BURDEN: I said nearly 50 per cent. outstanding.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There are just over 50 per cent. outstanding—that is true. It was never expected that all, or even the great bulk of, the proposals which had been submitted would be settled in the first year of the new lists. Section 144 (2) of the 1948 Act in its original form—that is to say, not amended by the 1955 Act—was so drafted in order that the final settlement of grants should not be unduly delayed. Proviso (c), which was added by the Act of 1955, was a limited departure from the original provision to meet the special circumstances of a revaluation, and my right honourable friend does not think that it should be extended now in the way in which the noble Lord proposes in his Amendment. There is one further difficulty which I am loth to invoke, because it is not the custom to do so in this House; but, as I understand it, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, there is the chance that it might be out of order as being outside the0 scope of the

509
Financial Resolution. I mention that only in passing, because I think that the noble Lord has an important point. But for the reasons which I have mentioned, I hope he will not press this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am conscious of that last point, and I am sure that no one would allow a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House to transgress in that direction. But this is a complicated matter, and the local authorities feel That, with the provision in the 1955 Act coming to an end, and these outstanding proposals not being put into operation—or, as I would put it, round the other way if the noble Lord will agree—there will be some substantial reduction in the net amount arising from the consideration of these proposals by the appeals committees. As the Amendment contained in the 1955 Act stands, those redactions would be taken into account in grants made to local authorities, but that will not be done unless this clause is extended. Bearing in mind the complicated character of the Amendment, and also the financial arrangements, and bearing in mind the other complication which the noble Earl mentioned, would it be possible for these to be considered by the noble Earl and his right honourable friend with the offices concerned and with representatives of the local authorities? I am asking that because, owing to the exigencies of time, if you like, in another place, a similar Amendment was put down but was not called. Taking all those circumstances into account, I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment to-clay, if those discussions can take place. In fact, I plead with the Minister to agree to those discussions taking place in order, if possible, to get an agreed solution and arrangement between the Minister and the representatives of the local authorities.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am quite willing and happy to convey to my right honourable friend the views which the noble Lord has expressed, but I could not, of course, say definitely, here and now, that he will be prepared to meet the local authorities on this particular question before the time that this Bill must become an Act of Parliament which, if it is going to have any value, must be the last day of this month. But I will certainly convey the noble Lord's views to, my right honourable friend.
LORD BURDEN: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment consequential on Amendment. No. 3 which stood in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Claus 6, insert the following Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Session and Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

32 & 33 Vict. c. 67.

The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.

In section four the definition of "gross value".

1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 42.

The Valuation for Rating Act, 1953.

In section two, in subsection (1) the words from "or in section four "to" 'the Act of 1869 ')".

In section four, in subjection (2) the words "or the Act of 1869, as the case may be".

In section five, in subsection (2) the words "or the Act of 1869, as the case may be".

In section six, in subsection (3) the words "or in section four of the Act of 1869". ")

—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.