Lords Sitting of 21 March 1957

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

GUARANTEE PAYMENTS FOR CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS
3.5 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs respectively certified during the last two years ending 31st December, 1956, or other convenient date, as being eligible for deficiency payments, with the total annual amount of such payments and the total live weight of such animals in their respective categories for each year.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, as the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The numbers and weights of certified animals and the guarantee payments in the calendar years 1955 and 1956 were as follows:—

—

Numbers

Weights—actual or estimated

Guarantee Payments

'000 head

'000 tons

£ million

1955

Cattle

1,124

569 liveweight

0·45

Sheep

7,378

150 dressed carcase weight

4·73

Pigs

10,260

611 deadweight

52·20

1956

Cattle

1,916

953 liveweight

27·47

Sheep

8,696

169 dressed carcase weight

8·67

Pigs

9,417

565 deadweight

32·05

The standard prices for cattle are per live cwt. and in the above figures cattle sold and certified on a deadweight basis have been converted to liveweight. Guarantees on sheep are
690
paid on the actual or estimated dressed carcase weights. The standard prices for pigs are on a deadweight basis and in the above figures pigs certified live have therefore been converted to deadweight.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that short Answer. I shall look at the figures with great interest when they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He will understand that, in the circumstances, it is impossible for me to ask him any supplementary question today, but when the figures are seen I may refer to the matter at a later date.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—
(1) How many animals amongst the 80, 000 head of cattle exported to the Continent for slaughter up to the end of 1956 were certified as being eligible for deficiency payments to be made to the British farmer, the total amount of such payments; and, if this export trade is allowed to be continued, can some arrangement be made in the interests of the British taxpayer whereby sums equal to the deficiency payments can be recovered in future from the exporter or foreign importer, inasmuch as the cattle will be exported for slaughter and consumption abroad;
(2) What was the amount of the deficiency payments paid by the United Kingdom Government to the Australian Government in respect of beef exports to the United Kingdom during the year 1955–56, and if Her Majesty's Government can say what this subsidy to Australian farmers is likely to cost the British taxpayer in the current year.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the Answer to the first of these two questions is that we do not know the exact number, but it is estimated that subsidy amounting to about £500, 000 has been paid on rather less than one-third of the cattle exported in 1956. The question of whether this trade should be allowed to continue is one that is being considered by the Committee, under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which has been set up to inquire into the whole question of this

691
export trade. It would clearly be wrong for the Government to anticipate any action which they might take as a result of the Committee's Report. On the second part of this question, the amount of the deficiency payment on beef paid to the Australian Government was £2,603,465 for the year ended on October 26, 1956. I cannot now anticipate the estimate of the deficiency payment for the current year, which will be published in due course in the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the next financial year.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I deal first with the first part of my Question? I do not want to deal in any way with the humane aspect in regard to these cattle, but there is an economic point which I think might well be raised, and that is the saving of a sum of £500,000—and possibly more, if more cattle are exported. Is it not possible for the Government, in some way or another, to levy a toll upon the exporters, in order that we, as British taxpayers, do not have to face these deficiency payments on cattle which are exported and consumed abroad? Is it possible to do that?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not know whether that would be possible. We certainly could not levy anything on the foreign importer; we have no means of doing that. As regards the exporter, I do not say that it would not be possible, but there would be considerable difficulties, first, in identifying which of the exported beasts had attracted a deficiency payment, and, secondly, because such action might depress prices here, as it would mean that the exporter would be paying a much lower price than he is paying now. The exporter would presumably pay a lower price on the cattle on which he was not being taxed as well as on the ones that he was and so on. How it would work out I could not say. But in any case I cannot anticipate what we shall do when we have the Report of the noble Lord's Committee, to which I referred earlier.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I put a further question on that point? It seems to me that at the present time the exporter may be making much higher profits, by reason of the fact that we are paying a deficiency payment on the cattle.
692
If that is so, then he gains all his profit, or the consumer overseas does, to our disadvantage. I should have thought it would be possible to levy some sort of toll—a fixed toll, if you like—per head on the exporter, in order that the Treasury may be reimbursed for something which is paid out by ourselves. With regard to the second question, may I ask the noble Earl if this amount of £2 million-odd goes into the pockets of the Australian farmer or the Australian meat companies, and whether, if there is an agreement of a long-term nature, it is possible to terminate that agreement so that the Australian farmers do not get unduly rich at the expense of the British taxpayer?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The meat agreement was signed in 1951 with the Australian Government and covers all their exportable surplus, other than a very small amount which they are allowed to export elsewhere. That runs until Septemmber 25, 1967. The minimum prices will, in fact, be reduced by 5 per cent. after October, 1958, so that there will be a reduction there. There is no other break that we could make at the moment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether this is the full extent of deficiency payments of this kind to meet imports from overseas? We have been given the Australian figure. What is the total figure made in respect of meat generally imported?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should not like to say categorically that there is nothing else at all, but the figure I quoted is virtually the whole figure, because under the meat agreement with Australia, though we are also liable for deficiency payments on mutton and lamb, the prices of these have been such that no deficiency payments have been due. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, the sum I have mentioned is the total figure.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it to be understood that we are, in fact, paying out of the British Exchequer a certain sum per annum in a manner which, however desirable it is from the Commonwealth point of view, depresses the price to the British farmer?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, it does not depress the price to the British farmer at all.
LORD SALTER: May I ask whether, apart from the reasons which have been given, the Government have considered the undesirability on general grounds of the principle of giving export subsidies? This is, in effect, as I understand, an export subsidy.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: That seems to me a very much wider aspect of the question, and I do not think we can really go into it this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is as well to be thinking in advance about it. In this particular case, a sum of over £2 million a year is involved.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: It was over £2,500,000 last year
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes, and this was in respect of a trade which it was vastly important to do something about at the time, because there was such a paucity of meat imports from South America. Now, we are getting very near the old flood level of imported meats from South America, yet we are paying out of the British taxpayers' funds money to depress the price, as it has been depressed, to the British farmer. Is it not time notice was given of some reconsideration?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No.

RATIFICATION OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: 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 dissatisfaction expressed on all sides of the House and in the Press at the reply given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the questions addressed to them on 26th February concerning the delay in ratifying the 1949 Geneva Conventions, they will take an early opportunity to introduce into the House legislation to implement our honourable international undertakings to ratify these Conventions.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Answer is, Yes. The Government have now decided to introduce legislation on this subject during the present Session of Parliament.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for that very satisfactory reply, which will obviously meet with satisfaction in all parts of the House and, I think, in the country.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to associate myself with the noble Earl's comments. I am much obliged to him for the steps he has taken in the matter, because we have been a little unhappy, in that, although we have followed a certain practice in this country, we felt that we ought not to be ashamed of our practice in this matter. So long as the Conventions are not ratified, there may have been some dangers arising to our own men who have been taken prisoner.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I, too, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, express my gratitude to the noble Viscount for the reply he has given, which will, I think, satisfy a great many people who are very worried about this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government has met with such universal satisfaction.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they will make a statement on the shipbuilding and engineering disputes and also on the Annual Review of farm prices?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, I should like to inform him that my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be making a statement on the first matter and that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will be replying to the second part some time after 3.45 p.m. this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I thank the noble Earl.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

COTTON INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT NO. 3) ORDER, 1957
3.18 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, as I think your Lordships may know, the Cotton Board is the statutory Development Council of the Cotton Industry. It is empowered to impose a levy on the industry, with the consent of the Board of Trade, in order to raise funds for carrying on the various tasks which it discharges. The levy maximum at the present time is £450,000. The purpose of this new Order is to increase this figure to £525,000. This increase is required in order that the Cotton Board may be able to meet the additional costs arising from undertaking a sales promotion campaign in this country for home-manufactured cotton goods. The Board of Trade have consulted the appropriate organisations in the industry as they are required to do under legislation. The proposal to increase the levy is supported by roughly 95 per cent. of the industry. The textiles trade unions are not required to make levy payments to the Cotton Board. They have, however, agreed to make a voluntary contribution of £10,000 from their own funds towards the cost of the campaign. This is a measure of the importance which they attach to the campaign. It is also a tribute to the good relations between management and labour in this industry. I am sure your Lordships will welcome this initiative taken by the cotton industry to promote a campaign for advertising the merits of home-produced goods. Accordingly, I commend the Order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1957, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th of March, 1957, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is an Order in the usual form and the statutory requirements have been observed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Bridlington, be approved.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the same applies here. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Lutterworth, be approved.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the same also applies here. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Thorne, be approved.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Plea of guilty in absence of accused.
(2) Where the clerk of the court receives a notification an writing purporting to be given by the accused or by a solicitor acting on his behalf that the accused desires to plead guilty without appearing before the court, the clerk of the court shall inform the prosecutor of the receipt of the notification and if at the time and place appointed for the trial or adjourned trial of the information the accused does not appear and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in the prescribed manner, that the notice and statement

697
of facts referred to in the foregoing subsection have been served upon the accused together with the summons, then—

(a) if the court thinks fit after considering the notification and statement of facts aforesaid, including any submission received with the notification which the accused wishes to be brought to the attention of the court with a view to mitigation of sentence, the court may proceed to hear and dispose of the case in the absence of the accused, whether or not the prosecutor is also absent, in like manner as if both parties had appeared and the accused had pleaded guilty; or

(b)if the court decides not to proceed as aforesaid, the court shall adjourn or further adjourn the trial for the purpose of dealing with the information as if the notification aforesaid had not been given:

Provided that—
(ii) if, and only if, the court accepts the plea of guilty and convicts the accused in his absence under this subsection, the court shall cause the aforesaid statement of facts and any such submission as aforesaid to be read out before the court and, except on a resumption of the trial after an adjournment under subsection (3) of section fourteen of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which confers power to adjourn after convicting the accused but before sentencing him), shall not permit any statement to be made by or on behalf of the prosecutor with respect to any facts relating to the offence charged other than the statement of facts aforesaid;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name. Your Lordships will appreciate that it deals with a very refined (in the proper sense of the word) point, which my noble friend Lord Merthyr brought up on the Committee stage—namely, the difference in the meaning of "together with" and "simultaneously". I have given great consideration to this serious point, and I see that someone might think that "together with" means "as well as", although I myself do not take that view. On the other hand, there might be difficulties about "simultaneously" because one document might be taken up before the other. Having considered the noble Lord's doubts, I have come to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with this would be by the two Amendments which appear on the Marshalled List in my name. Accordingly, I beg to move the first of those Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from first (" the ") to end of line 14 and insert (" following documents have been served upon the accused with the summons, that is to say—").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should just like to say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Viscount for moving this Amendment and dealing with the point which I ventured to raise on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Viscount says that "simultaneously" means the same as "together with", and I would be the last to dispute that assertion—I respectfully agree. But it is true that some other people are inclined to put upon the word a looser interpretation. Perhaps I might support that contention by mentioning the fact that from three different sources in different parts of the country I have already received doubts about the meaning of this word. As the Lord Chancellor has just said, some people, incorrectly but nevertheless sincerely, think that "together with" means "as well as" and for the purpose of removing all possible doubt I greatly welcome the passing of this Amendment. May I again say how grateful I am?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out (" together ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (2), in proviso (ii), to leave out "and any such submission as aforesaid to be read out" and to insert:
" to be read out, and the substance of any such submission as aforesaid to be stated,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of whether the submission which is made by the absent defendant has to be read out in full, word for word, or whether the substance of it would be sufficient. The Bill as drafted compels the reading out of the submission in full, however lengthy it may be; and I am informed by those that know that in some cases defendants are rather apt to be voluble in putting their case before the court in writing.

699
They are, of course, absent so that they will not waste time, but the court has got to deal with the question.
I should like to point out that at this point in the proceedings the submission has already been considered by the court, and this is the second occasion upon which the submission is brought to the notice of the court. It is a fact that some clerks to justices and magistrates in large towns, especially in London, are a little alarmed about the possible result of making it compulsory, under the Bill as it stands, for the whole submission to be read out every time, however long it may be. So I have put down this Amendment which I mentioned on the Committee stage. I should again like to say that I am most grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his assistance in this matter. I said that some courts are a little alarmed about the Bill as it stands; and some of them, indeed, have expressed the view that this Bill, which is designed to save time in courts, may result in having the exactly opposite effect. I do not myself think that, but the mere fact that some people have seriously thought that is, I think, an indication that if we can shorten the proceedings without doing any injustice—a purpose which I think this Amendment will achieve—we ought to do so.
I should just like to point out one other thing. If this Amendment is passed it will enable the court to dispense with the reading out of the whole submission. It will make it legal for the court to be content with the substance. If this Amendment is not passed, it will be compulsory to read out the whole submission. The point I should like to make is that the passing of the Amendment will give the court a greater discretion. In exercising that discretion the court could still, if it were so minded, insist on the reading out of the whole submission, so that any magistrate who is a little worried that the defendant will not be given a fair trial or anything of that sort, can say, "Well, we ask our clerk, in spite of the Bill, to read out the whole submission." That will not be illegal if the Amendment is passed. If the Amendment is not passed, however, the reverse procedure would be illegal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out line 34 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merthyr.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment would be the last person in this House who would wish to do anything which might prove to be a difficulty for a defendant. It seems to me, however, that if a defence is going to be summarised, that introduces what I should have thought would be a most dangerous practice. Who is going to produce the summary? Who is going to say that this, that and the other is an important point? Surely we ought to be careful to preserve the complete right of the defendant and not prejudice him one little bit in his defence. It seems to me that if a summary of the defence is made, it may have exactly that result.
It has been represented by the noble Lord that it is essential to save time. I am quite sure that it is essential to save time; but to leave the matter to the court or to the magistrate who is trying the case, whoever he may be, or to a bench of magistrates, is surely a rather haphazard way of doing it. I do not like the idea. Quite frankly, I think it is likely to lead, or could lead, to abuse. There might be a magistrate who was completely prejudiced against a defendant or his case, and he might decide that to save time he would summarise the matter. We all know what people will do sometimes in the interests of saving time. I suggest that this Amendment is going rather too far. I do not know whether there are any precedents for such a procedure in our legislation—I am afraid I do not know enough about it to know. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that this is the second occasion upon which this document will have been encountered. No doubt it is true that some defendants are a nuisance, and are sometimes verbose, but surely it is a little dangerous to give anybody the right to summarise their defence for them, because it might mean that the really important point was omitted from the defendant's case. I am sorry that, although I should like to agree with the noble Lord, I cannot agree with this Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. As he has said, and as I understand it, the object of this Bill is to save the time both of the magistrates and of the police. I have had a fair amount of

701
experience of hearing read out in court letters written by defendants in minor speeding offences, and they are frequently long rambling statements dealing with a great many matters that have nothing whatever to do with the case in issue. For instance, a great many of them frequently write several lines, about how nice was the policeman who stopped them; how charming he was; what nice manners he had and how pleasantly he dealt with them; and that they very much hope that the magistrates will notice what a nice young man he is. All kinds of matters of that kind are read out in these letters when the only relevant part of the letter is the admission or the plea of guilt.
This is not a matter of summarising even a plea in mitigation. The Amendment seeks only to provide that the substance of the letter dealing with the offence shall be read out. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howe will not mind my saying this, but very frequently, in matters concerning motoring offences, he seems to have the idea that magistrates are bitterly prejudiced against motorists who commit these offences. I apologise if I have stated it too highly, but I thought it was noticeable.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him. I am sure he would not wish to misrepresent me, but I have never in my life spoken in this House or in another place on this subject.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, of course I accept what the noble Earl says, but in the remarks which he has just made, he rather raised the point that a magistrate might be prejudiced against a motorist and might seek to summarise what the motorist had to say to the prejudice of the motorist. That is very clear in my mind.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, that is possible.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Earl that, in my experience, magistrates are not actuated in any way by such prejudice. Magistrates and magistrates' clerks seek to see that justice is done in the case before them, and I believe that it is most unlikely—indeed, practically impossible—to think that magistrates or magistrates'
702
clerks would agree to anything in this procedure which in any way prejudiced the defendant. On the contrary, they would be more likely to strain every point they could in his favour. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord simply seeks to save time, not by suppressing anything which might be to the advantage of a defendant but by providing that only the relevant points of a defendant's letter need be read to the court. I therefore beg to support the Amendment.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we have had the benefit of hearing two magistrates on this question, and we have heard the views of one layman. I should like to speak as a layman. I think that too much can be made of the desire to save the time of the magistrates. It is equally important that the position of the defendant should be taken into account; and if a defendant has taken the trouble to state his case in writing, he is surely entitled to have the whole of his statement read out before the court. I know that some defendants are illiterate and that some, certainly in the minds of magistrates, are troublesome. I also know that if a defendant quietly pleads guilty it may save a lot of time.
Some people have a way of expressing themselves at length—I was going to say that even some noble Lords in this House find it a little difficult to say what they want to say in the briefest possible terms; but they are heard and listened to with great respect, and I feel that a defendant is entitled to have his whole statement read out to the court. It is suggested that someone—I imagine that it will be the clerk—should read out the substance of the letter. But who is to decide what is the substance? The more incoherent the statement is, the more difficult it will be for the clerk to discover what is the substance of a defendant's letter or of his case. A defendant may have a good deal of substance in his case, but if he feels that his case has not been properly presented to the court, that only the substance of it has been given, he may well have a grievance and, very often, a legitimate grievance. I feel it is much more important that a defendant should feel satisfied that his case has been presented

703
fully than that a little of the magistrates' time should be saved, so I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.
3.36 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in moving this Amendment, produced some very powerful reasons for it. He mentioned the saving of the time of the court, but it was his second point that impressed me—that this would be the second time that the whole matter had been submitted to the court. One thing which did not impress me was his statement that the magistrate who has to decide might feel unhappy. But surely the person we have to look after is the accused. He will feel unhappy if he feels that he has not had a proper chance. I can visualise, for example, a case involving a "Halt" sign, where a defendant has written saying that because of certain tree branches sticking out he did not see the sign. The magistrates' clerk might quite easily say: "Oh, it is the same old story; he says that he did not see the ' Halt ' sign," and might not put the defendant's statement in full. I feel that it would be a mistake to accept this Amendment, and I hope that if it goes to a Division your Lordships will resist it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment raises a very fine and difficult point, and I was personally anxious to get the views of your Lordships before making up my mind. One has to start with the point that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will have the effect that while the statement of facts, which is really the case of the prosecution, must be read out, it will be necessary for the substance only of the defendant's submission to be stated. I said that the arguments were well balanced and, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to put them as they appear to me.
In favour of the argument, there is the point which my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, has made, that the court will already have considered the defendant's submission before making up their mind whether to allow a trial in his absence. Your Lordships will see that that is the effect of Clause 1 (2) (a). That must have been done before the court decide to accept the plea of guilty. There is therefore no question that the bench will not
704
have seen the submission. On the question that has really been common ground in the consideration of this matter—namely, that defendants are inclined to send long, rambling letters, especially when dealing with their personal circumstances—there again there is a difficulty. While, on the one hand, the defendant may think that all he has said is extremely precious to him on the other hand he may feel that, although he desires to have it put before the court—and the court do not know what he had thought—it would not necessarily be desirable for his full expressions to be read out and then to appear in the local paper. I am not trying to invent arguments, but to get into the mind of a defendant who has to consider this position.
My noble friend Lord Howe asked me about a precedent. It is not quite on all fours, but take the sort of letter that often comes to a court to-day, a letter in which a defendant says that he is guilty and recites some mitigating circumstances. The only legal effect of that letter is that it is an admission that the summons has been served upon him, and this document is given statutory authority by the provision in the Bill which we are now considering. That is one side. On the other side, I think one must bear in mind that, if this procedure is followed, the effect may be that, unless magistrates exercise their discretion differently, the prosecution's statement is read out in full and the defendant's statement is only summarised. Therefore, the public will not know the full facts on which the penalty is imposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, gave notice of his intention to move this Amendment, and the Home Office were glad to help in finding a proper form of words. I think it was made clear to my noble friend (I hope he has not been misled in any way) that the Government were very anxious on this point—which is a very personal point concerning the confidence of the defendant, who may be poor and illiterate, in the administration of justice. Having considered the matter and having heard the views of the House, I think it would be safer to come down on the side of the defendant. It is most important that confidence in the administration of justice should be maintained. Therefore, having

705
given my best consideration to the matter, and having very much in mind desire to help magistrates for whom I am responsible, I still think that on balance it would be better to let the scales of justice, when they hang anything like even, come down, in the words of a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, "on the side of mercy"—that is, on the side of the defendant. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. If the result of the rejection of the Amendment is that further information comes in with regard to the difficulties of magistrates, I am sure your Lordships would not mind if I communicated with my right honourable friend the Attorney-General and be reconsidered it when the Bill came up elsewhere. On the information before us at present, I should be grateful if my noble friend would not press the Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I shall certainly concur with the suggestion that has just been made by the noble and learned Viscount. I venture to think that this little debate has been worth while, because it has ventilated this point which has worried several people outside the House already and may worry others later on. The fact that we have debated this point will, I think, help others to give proper consideration to this part of the Bill. I think the real difficulty arises from the fact that conditions in a busy London court are very different from those in a rural court in the depths of the country. Over and over again in my experience I am struck with the difficulty of laying down a procedure which shall be common to both these kinds of courts. I sit myself in a court in a very rural part of the country in a town of less than 1,000 people, and anything more different from the whole atmosphere and procedure in that court and the atmosphere and procedure in a busy court in the West End of London is difficult to imagine by anyone who has not been to both. That, I think, is the kernel of the difficulty with which we are dealing, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am not a little impressed by the arguments which have been put forward on the other side. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Proof of previous convictions
3. Where a person is convicted of a summary offence by a magistrates' court, other than a juvenile court, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in the prescribed manner, that not less than seven clays previously a notice was served on the accused in the prescribed form and manner specifying any alleged previous conviction of the accused of a summary offence proposed to be brought to the notice of the court in the event of his conviction of the offence charged, and the accused is not present in person before the court, the court may take account of any such previous conviction so specified as if the accused had appeared and admitted it.
3.46 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to leave out "a summary" where those words occur a second time, and insert "an". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for the fact that I did not raise this matter on the Committee stage. I am afraid that I overlooked this particular point at that time. The Bill, as drafted, enables the prosecution to put before the court, in the absence of the defendant, a list of his previous convictions. But it limits those convictions which may be mentioned to summary convictions, and the question at once arises: why not all convictions?
In passing I would say this. Whatever may be said here to-day, whatever legal decisions or opinions are given, there will, I think, remain a difficulty in interpreting the word "summary". I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what exactly is contemplated by the word "summary", used in this sense and in these circumstances. Does it include indictable offences tried summarily? Does it include summary convictions after trials with juries at quarter sessions? I expect the answers to both those questions are really quite easy to give. The point is: will the answers to those questions be apparent to clerks to justices and magistrates up and down the country? At least I shall have done something to-day, I hope, by raising this point and obtaining answers to those questions, if I can.
I would ask the House to contemplate just what will happen under this Bill. There will be cases in which a man is convicted, and he will have against his name convictions of indictable offences. Let us suppose that he is convicted of

707
the crime of failing to sign his driving licence. Let us further suppose that he is a confirmed housebreaker, with half a dozen convictions for breaking and entering. The question is: ought those convictions for housebreaking to be read out to the court, if the prosecution want them to be, or not? And if they are read out, the question arises, what harm will be done by their being read out? To this last question your Lordships may at once retort: what good will be done by their being read out? So there are several questions to be considered. On the question, what harm will be done if all the convictions that the prosecution chooses for reading out are allowed to be read out, I submit that really no harm will be done. If there are, in fact, convictions which ought to be taken into account by the justices, I submit with confidence that there is no harm in reading them out.
If, on the other hand, there are convictions which ought not to be taken into account, I say with equal confidence that justices can be trusted and relied upon to ignore them. Time and time again in every justices' court the magistrate convicts a man who is present and then asks, as a matter of routine, "Are there any previous convictions?" The magistrate does not say, "Are there any summary convictions?" but simply, "Are there any convictions?"; and the prosecutor gets up, if he chooses to—not otherwise—and reads out a list of previous convictions. Normally, though not always, he reads out all convictions, but often he says to the court, "These are the summary convictions, though in addition there are a number of others of an entirely different nature and I do not propose to trouble the court with them." That is done every day. Why should it not continue to be done?
The Bill as drafted imposes a rigid rule which prohibits its being done and makes it illegal for the prosecution to tell the court, when a man is charged with a summary offence, that he has been convicted of an indictable offence. What is the necessity for that rigid restriction? My Amendment seeks to make it more pliable. As I said before, magistrates can be trusted to disregard what they choose to disregard, and in my submission it is not necessary to restrict this
708
to summary offences. If this Amendment is passed, it will empower the prosecution to read out all convictions but will not compel them to do so. It will still be entirely voluntary and it will leave to them the discretion which, in my submission, they ought to have. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out "a summary" and insert "an".—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am not sure that any great purpose would be served by this Amendment. As I understand the Bill, at present it relates only to convictions for summary offences, and this Amendment seeks to relate to all offences, such as larceny, housebreaking, assault and so on. If two motorists were before the Bench charged with exactly similar offences, the magistrates are not going to fine one of them because he has a conviction for house-breaking against him, more heavily than the other motorist who has no such conviction against him. Although I cannot say that this is universally the case, it is usually the practice for convictions for motoring offences and for crimes such as those I have mentioned to be kept on separate files and in the case of a motoring offence only the file relating to motoring offences would be examined. For those reasons, I do not feel that the Amendment, if carried, would yield any very practical result and I feel unable to support it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I deal first with the point my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, asked on what are some of the offences under the Bill? If my noble friend will look at Clause 5 (2), he will see that the Bill attracts the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, and therefore the definition of summary offences in Section 125 of that Act, which includes cases where the accused is convicted before a magistrates' court of the hybrid type of offence which is triable either summarily or on indictment. My noble friend's Amendment does not affect the scope of the operation of the clause in this respect. Convictions that may be cited by means of this procedure are previous convictions for summary offences in that sense, because, by virtue of the definition of "summary offence", they include offences triable by indictment as

709
well as summarily whether they are in fact tried at quarter sessions or in a magistrates' court.
The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be that convictions for purely indictable offences and indictable offences triable summarily with the consent of the accused under Section 11 of the Act could also be cited. That is the problem before your Lordships. It is interesting to note that the Departmental Committee made no recommendation about the scope of the procedure for proving previous convictions, but the Bill excludes purely indictable offences and Section 19 offences because it is thought that a procedure which involved sending particulars of alleged previous convictions by post, even by registered post, ought to be limited to what is strictly necessary for the purpose in view. The Departmental Committee frankly recognised that these convictions might occasionally become disclosed to a wife or to an employer, because the envelope might be opened in error or out of curiosity. My noble friend will see that point dealt with in paragraph 55 of the Report. Whatever system was devised, there was a possibility that previous convictions might be wrongfully attributed (paragraph 58). In view of these risks, it was considered undesirable that alleged previous convictions for such crimes as murder or manslaughter or rape should be sent through the post.
It is true that there may be some cases dealt with in the defendant's absence in which it might be relevant to the choice of sentence to know that the defendant had previously been convicted of purely indictable offences. My noble friend had in mind the case of motoring manslaughter, where it might well be relevant. That is the difficulty, and, if I may say so, one of the strengths of my noble friend's position. But we have considered the matter and I am advised by the Home Office that such cases would be a small minority of the large number dealt with in the defendant's absence, and we have come to the conclusion that it is better that the more serious offences should not be cited in that small minority of cases than that they should be cited, or should be capable of being cited, in the much larger number of cases in which it is not essential for them to be known. I have in mind the case of someone who was
710
convicted of murder many years ago but who is living a perfectly good, useful and quiet life, and it really does shock the imagination that that may come out per incuriam in this way. That is the basis of our decision.
There is one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend, because I know how carefully he has considered the matter. Clause 3 procedure is not restricted in terms to the same field as Clause 1 procedure, since it will apply wherever there is a conviction for a summary offence, including an offence that is also triable on indictment, and irrespective of whether the defendant has pleaded guilty under the Clause 1 procedure where it is applicable, or has appeared by solicitor or counsel. But where the defendant appears in court in person there will be no need for the Clause 3 procedure, since the difficulty about the proof of previous convictions arises only where the defendant is absent, and the offences with which the court would be prepared to deal in the accused's absence would be largely, though not entirely, road traffic offences. On that, as I said, the offences that we have really got in mind are, in the majority of cases irrelevant for the reasons that I have given.
I have tried to consider the point that my noble friend had in mind about the motor manslaughters. I have not discussed this matter, but I should have thought, on first impression, that if a motor manslaughter were relevant to the charge then before the court it would be relevant, because the court would then have to consider the driver's previous record and would also have to consider imposing a heavy penalty. As I ventured to indicate in answer to an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Committee stage, I think that that would be a proper case to adjourn for the defendant's attendance. So, again, I think it narrows the field, and in the circumstances I would ask my noble friend to agree that we have considered this matter carefully and again, on balance, we think it would be better to follow the line which is indicated in the comments of the Committee, although they did not pronounce upon it. I would ask him not to press the Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was speaking I made a note of the very point which was later raised by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. It is, of course, quite true to say that in most cases previous convictions for indictable offences would be irrelevant and need not be taken into account. But when the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned his two motorists, it crossed my mind, as it apparently also occurred to the Lord Chancellor, that if two motorists are charged at the same time with exceeding the speed limit of 30 m.p.h., and one of the two had previously been convicted under Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, of causing death by dangerous driving, and the other had not, it might indeed decide the magistrates to impose a different penalty. But I must concede that that is rather an extreme case and not likely to happen very often.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, made another point which I think is not without some importance, though I do not draw the same conclusions from it as he does. He said, and he may be right, that the records are kept in two separate files, one summary convictions and the other indictable. I do not dispute that, although my experience is to the contrary: that the previous convictions of a defendant are all kept on one blue card—at least we can agree that it is blue, because we all know it very well. If I should be right about that, one of the small points I want to make is this: that this Bill will make for more, and not less, work in the office, because when the clerk in the police office is preparing a list of convictions to produce to the court he will have to sort out the summary ones from the others. If the noble Lord, Lord Winster, is right, of course it will not apply. It may be a small point, but again, the main purpose of this Bill is to save time.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will recollect that I was careful to say that I did not know if the practice was universal, but I had good reason to believe it was one which was commonly followed.
LORD MERTHYR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Again, I expect the real answer is that the practice varies in
712
different parts of the country; so many of these things vary in that way. I am certainly going to accede to the request of the Lord Chancellor and not press this Amendment. I should like to say once again how grateful I am to him for giving obviously careful attention to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SHIPBUILDING DISPUTE
4.5 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the shipbuilding strike situation in similar terms to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
Since my statement to the House yesterday, my right honourable friend has seen representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation. They informed him that they are willing to go to arbitration and accept the award if the unions will do the same. The unions have, however, made it clear that their attitude towards arbitration is unchanged. My right honourable friend has just come from a meeting with the representatives of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, and he is meeting the union representatives later this afternoon. Your Lordships will appreciate that as my right honourable friend is in the middle of these discussions it would not be appropriate for me to make any further statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for making that statement, and I appreciate the point to which he draws attention in the last few lines. However, I must say that I am disturbed about the way this matter is dragging on, and at the terms of the statement to-day as to the attitude of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, in which I see a sign of concerted action to revert to something like the pre-war practice in these matters, when determinations were made alone by the employers, which often led to long lockouts as well as strikes.
As I say, I am very disturbed about the matter. We are all anxious, in all parts of the country, and I am sure on

713
all sides of this House, to get peace in this difficult matter at the earliest possible moment, and I thought we were fairly well agreed in the House yesterday that the quickest way to do that is to get both sides together for negotiation. Instead of that, we merely have the repeat on the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation side that they will go to arbitration, which, as has already been indicated, the unions will not accept without negotiation. That has come to be, if not the established right, at any rate the established practice of the unions. It is a great pity that this matter should take this kind of aspect. I hope that when the next report is made to your Lordships' House we may hear of some change and of more concentration on getting both sides together, instead of finding things held up by the fact that the Minister has in advance not only offered arbitration but appointed a single arbitrator before there is any opportunity to get the two sides together to negotiate.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that there is nothing my right honourable friend the Minister wants more than to get the two sides together with all possible speed.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, could the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, add to the statement he has made something about the attempt to delay the "Queen Mary," which I hear on all sides is creating a bad impression throughout the country, as many people think it is quite unjustified.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I understand that the Cunard Company would have taken the "Queen Mary" to sea at twelve noon on Saturday last if she had been scheduled to leave. All repairs were complete and only clearing up and boxing-in remained to be done. These were jobs which could quite properly be done by ship's engineers, and the union concerned, the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers' Association, raised no objection. The refusal of shore gangs and tug crews to handle the "Queen Mary" was therefore unjustified, and the ship was clear of the strike. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, in the national interest, made Admiralty Dockyard tugs available to the master of the "Queen Mary" to get her away.

THE AGRICULTURAL PRICE REVIEW
4.10 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the statutory Annual Review of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry which has now been concluded. The Government have made their determinations on the guarantees to the industry in the light of the Review and of the long-term assurances announced last November. The details are set out it a White Paper which is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
The general production policy of the Government continues to be to foster economic production, by encouraging the maintenance of a large arable acreage with the main emphasis on feed crops, the maintenance of a large livestock population with greater reliance on home-produced feedingstuffs, the production of more good quality beef, and lamb, but no more milk, eggs, pigmeat or wheat.
The net output of the industry in 1956–57 is forecast at 59 per cent. above prewar, as compared with the revised figure of 56 per cent. for last year, largely as a result of a rise in output of livestock products. This is the highest level of net output so far recorded. I am sure the House will agree that this reflects credit on everyone concerned, particularly when one recalls the difficulties of the last harvest. The actual net income of the industry, which is forecast for 1956–57 at £317 million, out of a gross income of nearly £1,500 million, is slightly below the revised figure of £325 million for 1955–56. The forecast of net income adjusted for normal weather conditions, on the other hand, at £334 million, is about equal to the highest previously recorded, in 1952–53.
There has been a substantial farther increase in costs, of about £38 million in a full year for Review commodities. Although there will be a considerable offset in continuing improvements in the efficiency of the industry, on balance the industry requires an increase in the value of the guarantees if it is to continue to make its proper contribution to the economy. On the other hand, the Exchequer cost of agricultural support is rising, and the national economic situation demands a strict view of the needs

715
or the industry. The new long-term assurances to which the Government have undertaken to give effect require this year an increase in the total value of the guarantees. The Government have considered all relevant factors, including these assurances, the cost to the taxpayer and the place of the industry in the national economy. They have decided that the essential needs of the industry can be met by an increase in the total value of the guarantees of some £14 million. This is some £6 million above the minimum required by the long-term assurances.
The determinations now made are for livestock products for the year April, 1957, to March, 1958, and for crops of the 1957 harvest. The most important aims of the determinations for individual commodities and production grants have had to be to reduce the profitability of egg and milk production, to maintain that of fat cattle and fat sheep production, to encourage continued stability in output of pigmeat, and to encourage production of home-grown feeding-stuffs. The determinations for livestock and livestock products accordingly comprise a substantial reduction in the price guarantees for eggs; an increase of no more than ¼d. a gallon in the guarantee for milk—which, in view of the increased costs, will mean a net reduction in profitability per gallon; no change in the price guarantees for pigs and wool; but increases in the price guarantees for fat cattle and fat sheep, including a higher rate of guarantee for the better quality cattle. The determinations for crops include and supersede those previously made after the 1956 Annual Review under previous procedure. They comprise reductions in the price guarantees for wheat and rye and increases in those for barley, oats, potatoes and sugar beet. It has also been decided to increase the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers, and to make minor extensions in the scope of the ploughing grants and the lime subsidy.
The Government are satisfied that the determinations now made will enable the industry to maintain its progress in improving efficiency and to secure a reasonable level of remuneration for economic production, and at the same time accord with the present stringent requirements of the national economy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving us this Statement. The White Paper is now available in the Printed Paper Office, and we will study it with great care. I do not propose to say much this afternoon by way of question, because the Opposition have this morning put a Motion on the Order Paper for April 17, which is about the first available clear date, in order to debate the position of agriculture. We shall now make the Motion read to include the Annual Review as well.
At first sight it is difficult to under-' stand the whole of this statement made to-day, and we must give further study to the White Paper before we come to the debate. What does stand out is the statement that
" The most important aims of the determinations for individual commodities and production grants have had to be to reduce the profitability of egg and milk production, "
and to maintain that of certain other things. In other parts of the statement the intention is clear that the reduction of profitability has been well to the fore in the minds of the Ministry by the determination, as the statement put it, which has been come to. I should like to ask whether, in formulating the new procedure—I can call it that since the publication of the long-term reviews—there were negotiations, as was promised, with the representatives of the industry. Have the industry agreed with the Government in the determinations, or is this a repetition of last year, when the Government imposed their particular determination of prices? I think it would be useful to have that information before we come to an interim study of the matter, and before we come to actual debate.
I feel certain, however, that the first impression of the farmers in the country, on hearing the statement and reading the White Paper, will be one of dissatisfaction. They face enormously rising costs, in labour, in fertilisers (although it may turn out, when I come to the statement, that there may be some further help there) and in seeds—especially this season, when there has been a very heavy increase. Then there has been the almost disastrous fall to the milk farmer in his prices already, not only in respect of milk, but also, because of the fall in the price of milk, in the price of cows and heifers in calf or in milk immediately after calving.

717
The result of all this, as I say, is that there will be little but dissatisfaction with the statement so far as we have been able to study it. However, we shall return to that matter at some greater length on April 17. In the meanwhile, I should be glad to know whether there has been agreement with the farmers' national representatives, or whether this is an imposed determination of price.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The answer to the noble Earl's question is, Yes. In the light of national considerations at the present time, the farmers' unions have agreed that the Government's determinations under the Agriculture Act give due weight to all the relevant factors of this Review, and are in full accord with the Government's long-term assurances.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it seems to me quite extraordinary that that should be so. If the Government are really concerned about the general economic position of the country, and if the policy is to so increase production that the Government can begin to save their general economic policy overseas by saving dollars and sterling expenditure on imports, then I do not understand the argument. But we will come to that subject again in more detail later.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL
4.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The uninformed may dispute as to the compensations to be derived these days from membership of your Lordships' House, but undoubtedly one of them is that we are not subject to the office of profit disqualification, which for precisely two and a half centuries has hung like the sword of Damocles over the heads of Members of the other place. We can all sympathise, therefore, with those who have from time to time fallen foul of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707. No doubt, your Lordships will agree that the time is now ripe for sweeping away the archaisms and uncertainties of the present law and putting an end to the absurd cases of inadvertent disqualification
718
which have recently taken up so much legislative time and caused so much worry and anxiety to those personally concerned.
Your Lordships will probably not wish to concern yourselves too much with the details of a measure regulating the affairs of another place, but some explanation is due of the origins of the Bill and of its principal features. This Bill is based on the recommendations of two Select Committees of the other place, which for convenience I shall refer to as the Herbert Committee and the Spens Committee respectively. The latter recommended that, instead of attempting to modernise the general provisions of the existing law, as embodied in the Act of Anne, the Bill should set out comprehensive lists of specified disqualified offices.
Accordingly Clause 1 provides for the disqualification of five main groups of office holders, namely (a) the judiciary (as listed in Part I of the First Schedule). (b) the Civil Service, (c) the Regular Armed Forces, (d) the police and (e) the members of Legislatures of countries outside the Commonwealth. All other offices whose holders are to be disqualified are listed in Parts II to IV of the First Schedule. Part IV of that Schedule provides for certain limited local disqualifications, including those recommended by the Herbert Committee.
Clause 2, with which is associated the Second Schedule, imposes upper limits, first on the number of Ministers generally, and, secondly on the number of senior Ministers in particular, who may sit and vote in the other place at any one time. The first limit is based on a recommendation of the Herbert Committee, and in taking account of the changes and developments in the structure of Government since the Committee reported in 1941, the Bill fixes a total of 70, as compared with the figure of 60 originally recommended. The second limit replaces the existing provision in Section 9 of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, and has the incidental effect of securing in practice a minimum representation in your Lordships' House of senior members of Her Majesty's Government.
Clause 5 is an essential corollary to the replacement of the office of profit disqualification by lists of specific disqualifying offices. These lists must clearly be

719
kept up to date and it will not always be possible to do so by means of other legislation. For example, new offices may be created, or existing ones abolished, otherwise than by Statute. Clause 5 accordingly enables the First Schedule to be amended by Order in Council and requires any such Order to be initiated by an Affirmative Resolution of the other place. Effect is given by Clause 6 (2) to the recommendation of the Herbert Committee that there should be a procedure for excusal of Members becoming inadvertently disqualified.
Clause 7 provides for new arrangements whereby any person claiming that a Member is disqualified may seek a declaration to that effect from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. These arrangements will replace almost entirely the common informer procedure. As recommended by the Spens Committee, the existing disqualifications of certain Government contractors and Crown pensioners are repealed without replacement by Clause 9. These are the most important items in the impressive list of 118 complete or partial repeals which appears in Part I of the Fourth Schedule.
The Bill makes provision for disqualification from membership of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in Clause 10 and the Third Schedule, and these provisions bring in an important new principle which is likely to have the most beneficial results. Northern Ireland is a small country in population, and it is particularly desirable to keep the number of disqualifications to a minimum so as to allow the widest possible choice to the Parliamentary electors. Under the existing law any office holder who is disqualified at Westminster is ipso facto disqualified from membership of either House of the Northern Ireland Parliament. In future, however, the only offices which will disqualify at Stormont will be those which are actually incompatible with membership there. These include, of course, the groups that I have mentioned set out in subsection (1) of Clause 1; but your Lordships will observe that the Third Schedule (which contains a Northern Ireland version of the First Schedule to the Bill) omits a good many of the offices which are to disqualify at Westminster.
720
My Lords, two hundred and fifty years is a long time. It would be surprising if by the year 2207 this present Bill were not found to be in some respect defective or unsatisfactory. If we venture the hope that it will stand the test of time better than its predecessor has done, it is because the Schedule method now to be adopted, with its associated machinery for keeping the lists of disqualifying offices up to date, should prove a more flexible constitutional instrument than that which has for so long governed the qualification for membership of the other place.
This is a very complicated Bill, but it effects a most necessary reform. It represents the fruits of many years of labour by members of all the three main political Parties, and (I should like to pause, because I see a number of his old friends here, among whom I include myself) it is a gratifying memory to many of us that so many of the suggestions of Sir Dennis Herbert (as we knew him in another place) or Lord Hemingford (as we knew him here) have now been brought into legislative effect. I commend the Bill to the House with every confidence that your Lordships will speed it on its way to the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.30 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure every noble Lord who has taken the trouble to study this Bill will agree that it is a most desirable and important measure. We have had experience after almost every General Election of finding that a number of persons who have been elected to the House of Commons have found themselves disqualified from serving because they have taken what has been called "an office of profit under the Crown." Many of them were not aware that the job they were doing did constitute an office of profit under the Crown. They had gone to election quite innocently, and then it was necessary to submit an Indemnity Bill. Well, it is a good thing that that should be stopped, and that people should really know, if they take the trouble to look at these various Schedules, whether the position that they hold is one which disqualifies them or not.

721
There are still, I imagine, a number of offices which, in the generally accepted sense, are not offices of profit, in the sense that they confer no remuneration, but are nevertheless regarded as disqualifications. I do not propose, nor do any of my noble friends, to go through this list and seek those out, but I should like to be informed whether there has been any attempt to sort out the various disqualifications; whether, in fact, the Schedules constitute any reduction in the number of disqualifications that existed before the Bill was introduced, and whether any additional disqualifications have been introduced. Whether that be so or not, I should welcome the measure, because, by the method of the Schedule, it will be possible to eliminate some of these anomalies at any time, I imagine, without the need of the introduction of an Act of Parliament, and therefore this method is a most welcome one.
There is one point which I should like to refer to and which the noble and learned Viscount, I think, did not touch on at all—that is, Clause 11 of the Bill, which requires that:
" a candidate's consent given under this rule shall contain a statement that he is aware of the provisions of "—
this Disqualification Act—
" and that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, he is not disqualified for membership of the House of Commons. "
If I read that correctly, it means that the candidate has to make that statement not when he is returned but before he submits himself for election, and therefore he has to give up the particular office which he is holding, even though he may not be returned to Parliament. That seems to me to be a hardship.
Many people—I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount himself has, in his time, but certainly I have—have deliberately fought hopeless seats. We knew that we were not going to get in, but we were young and we were seeking experience and it did us good. But if we had been holding certain offices at the time, which we would have had to give up before we could even become candidates, I think that many of us would not have done it. It seems to me an unnecessary restriction on the liberty of the subject. Surely it would be quite sufficient if a person had to give up his office before he took his
722
seat in the House, if returned. It seems wholly unnecessary to go as far as Clause 11, as I read it, actually goes. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would say whether I am right in my interpretation of this clause, and whether he agrees with me that it goes far further than is necessary in the circumstances.
That is all I want to say in regard to the Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it is much more a House of Commons matter than a House of Lords matter; nevertheless, I feel that the point I have made is a matter of interest to the general public. I think it is quite wrong that we should discourage people from standing for Parliament. It is a worthy ambition, as many of us have experienced, and I think that the provision I have mentioned is a wholly unnecessary one.
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said about the general position in the Bill. The difficulty in giving him numbers in reply to his first question is that under the Succession to the Crown Act and the law that has been built up one is constantly discovering, as he himself said, offices which were caught by the disqualifying provision but which one had not seen before. Therefore it is difficult to compare the potential under that way of approaching the matter with the actual under the present method. But I should like to assure him of this. The matter started before the change of Government in 1951; it then came up again when the 1951 Government was formed—as the noble Lord may remember I was Home Secretary at the time, so it naturally came my way. It was worked on for a long time before it went to the Select Committee, and I should like to assure the noble Lord that first the Select Committee and then the appropriate figures in Her Majesty's Government considered all these matters, bearing specially in mind the point which the noble Lord raised: that one does not want to make trivial disqualifications, because of the need for the widest field of recruitment to another place. Indeed, the noble Lord will remember that that was the burden of my I song with regard to Northern Ireland, where of course the position is more acute in view of the size of the population.

723
The noble Lord has raised an interesting point with regard to the effect of Clause 11. That arises out of a recommendation of the 1946 Select Committee on Elections, in paragraph 12 of their First Report, dated 11th February, 1946. They proposed that the law should include:
" a provision requiring a Parliamentary candidate to sign on nomination a general declaration relinquishing and resigning from any office of profit under the Crown which he may then hold."
They put it in that way. The Bill, as it has ultimately come up, departs from that in this respect. First of all, it covers all disqualifications and not merely those arising from the holding of offices of profit; and secondly, it does not provide for the actual relinquishment of disqualifying offices. That is because of the difficulty of notifying those concerned that the position is relinquished. Indeed, someone may forget that he held such an office when he was making the declaration.
But it is more difficult to consider the point which the noble Lord made—it is one which I am sure will attract a good deal of sympathy—that a person should be able to make his attempt without having to relinquish an office. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that I have been in the position which he described—at least, I think his description would fit fighting Wigan in the Conservative interest. Therefore, I have sympathy with his point. But I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will feel that the position has improved, because we have definitely limited disqualification to offices which are incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. I think there is some difficulty in the approach which the noble Lord has adumbrated. I feel that this is par excellence one of the subjects in which there is always the possibility of improvement. I can only say to the noble Lord that in my experience of nearly a quarter of a century of dealing with Bills, I have never seen one which has had so much consideration as this one has. Therefore I ask the noble Lord, even if he thinks there are some imperfections, to forget them in view of the many improvements made.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not mind
724
if I put down an Amendment when this matter comes up on Committee stage, so that we may discuss it at greater length. I feel that it is an important point.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL
4.42 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): MY LORDS, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, before we take final leave of this Bill, may I say how grateful I was to the noble Lord in charge of this Bill for the full description he gave of what it seeks to do? Having been in contact with those who are particularly affected by the Bill and its provisions, may I inform him how very gladly it was received, and how loud was their praise for the way in which it was introduced and also for the way in which it was generally received by this House. I was sorry not to be here to take part in discussions in which I was particularly interested, from the point of view of this House and the Church itself, and I am very grateful for what has been done. I hope for this measure a speedy and easy journey to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS (DEPUTIES) BILL
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to dispense with the requirement that the Minister of Health should approve individual appointments by local authorities (which includes metropolitan boroughs) of standing and temporary deputies to act for the medical health officer or public health inspector. The public health inspector used to be known as the sanitary inspector before his elevation to his present more imposing title. As the result of the recommendations made by the Local Government Manpower Committee in 1951, the necessity for the Minister's consent to be obtained to the appointment of medical officers of health and public health inspectors was abolished by the introduction of new regulations. In the case of their deputies, however, this was not possible, as they had been originally appointed under a different Act, and in their case the change could be made only by Statute. That is what this little Bill seeks to do. Unless your Lordships so desire, I will not weary you with the legal history of this strange anomaly. In another place the Bill was introduced by a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, it was supported by Her Majesty's Opposition, and blessed by the Minister. The Bill seeks to give more freedom to local authorities, which I suggest is alone a reason why we should approve of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jessel.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, will it be the case that all persons appointed to act as public health officers' deputies, as laid down in the Bill, will, in fact, be qualified medical practitioners? I take it that that is the case. Up to the present time, doctors have not always been available, as they are in short supply. Is it the fact that, under this Bill, when it becomes law, every man or woman officer appointed as deputy to a public health officer must have medical qualification?
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, so far as I understand it, there is no alteration in the
726
qualifications of the deputy. The only alteration is that, instead of the appointment requiring the approval of the Minister it can be approved by the local authority.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, does that mean that it is laid down in this Bill that a person shall not be appointed a deputy medical officer of health unless he is a duly qualified medical practitioner?
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, if the Bill says so, I take it that it will be so.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to say that we welcome this Bill, which is small but nevertheless valuable, and we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for introducing it to this House. As the noble Lord has already said, the Bill has been designed to get rid of this anomaly that permanent officials can be appointed by local authorities without any reference to the Ministry, while the appointment of a deputy, who might be needed for only a couple of days while someone was ill, has to be approved by the Minister. Therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

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

Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

Homicide,

Public Trustee (Fees),

Patents,

Northern Ireland (Compensation for Compulsory Purchase),

Nurses,

Nurses Agencies,

Rating and Valuation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
5.9 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that there will be a Formal Sitting of the House tomorrow, at half-past eleven to receive the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill from another place, and also that this Bill will be debated on Second Reading on Thursday next.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.