Lords Sitting of 1 July 1958

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

HOUSE OF LORDS COMMITTEES
2.35 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Motions moved—

That the Earl St. Aldwyn be added to the Committee for Privileges.

That the Earl St. Aldwyn be added to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.

That the Earl St. Aldwyn be added to the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House.

That the Earl St. Aldwyn be added to the Select Committee on Leave of Absence.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT, 1839 (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships for more than three or four minutes in commending to you this useful little measure, which has passed all its stages in another place with unanimous assent. It amends paragraph 13 of Section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and thereby increases from the present figure of 40s. the maximum penalty for the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in a public place within the Metropolitan Police District. This maximum penalty has remained unchanged since 1839, and 40s. then was just about the equivalent of £10 to-day. The Bill therefore prescribes a maximum of £10 for a first offence and £20 for a second or subsequent offence. The present fine
388
is absolutely trivial, and offences under this section are on the increase.
In 1955, the charges brought numbered 3,260; in the following year, 1956, they went up to 3,400; and in 1957, last year, to 4,300; and nearly 90 per cent. of the persons charged are, in fact, convicted. There are several different classes of offender. There are the drunk and disorderly; there are the young hooligans and "Teddy Boys" who are indulging in a little exhibitionism; there are a few prostitutes, though not many, since they are usually charged under a different paragraph; and there is a new type of "road hog" with whom some of your Lordships may have become familiar, who hurls insulting words at anybody else whom he thinks is in any way impeding his progress.
The Bill deals with only one small aspect of this much wider problem. It will, I think, surprise many of your Lordships that this petty crime is met by local and not by public general legislation, and accordingly the penalties for it vary all over the country. It is much cheaper to indulge in insulting words and behaviour in the Metropolis than in any other part of England or Wales. I cannot speak for Scotland. In England and Wales, £5 is a commonly adopted maximum. Curiously enough, in Cheltenham there has been since 1882 a maximum penalty of £10—the penalty which I am suggesting London should adopt to-morrow. And it is fascinating, I think, to speculate why Cheltenham adopted in 1882 what was then a heavy penalty. Was it that the people of Cheltenham attached exceptional importance to the observance of good manners in public? Or could it be that previous long years of military service had given some of its citizens a predisposition to the use of strong language in public places? Be that as it may, the fact remains that Cheltenham did seventy-six years ago what I suggest London should do at the present time.
The Bill deals, as I say, with a very limited question and with only one offence. However, I was glad to see it announced in another place that the Home Secretary was embarking on a review of all statutory fines to see which of them should be brought up to date. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the task of the police, which is to prevent

389
crime and to maintain law and order, is made infinitely more difficult by inadequate penalties such as are provided for this petty offence at the present time. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Ingleby.)
2.44 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to be able to join with my noble friend Lord Ingleby in commending this Bill to your Lordships. It is a small measure but one which will nevertheless, be useful in giving the courts in the Metropolis more effective means of dealing with disorderly behaviour. My noble friend has already told your Lordships how the figures for these offences are on the increase, and while I understand that the figure for 1957 was inflated by an unusually large number of convictions occurring shortly after November 5, the figures undoubtedly suggest that the offences in question are sufficiently prevalent to make it desirable to ensure that magistrates have adequate means of dealing with them.
My noble friend also drew your Lordships' attention to the review of small statutory fines which is going on. Many of these were fixed in the last century, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary feels it necessary to ascertain which are obsolete and which are still of sufficient importance to be brought up to date. It may well be that in due course this will result in the raising of the maximum fines for a number of other minor offences, but in the meantime Her Majesty's Government see no reason why the maximum fine for this particular group of offences, which obviously is not obsolete, should not be brought up to a realistic level.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I suppose your Lordships would not differ from the view that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, ought to be congratulated on producing this Bill. On the other hand, as an old-fashioned Parliamentarian I am bound to say that I should very much prefer that measures of this kind, involving an increase of fines against individual members of the community for petty offences, came from Her Majesty's Government. This
390
should be a Government measure. I know that the ground covered in the Bill is very wide, as this series of offences mentioned in the Act of 1839 covers nowadays a multitude of offences, for included in it will be the act of soliciting, insulting behaviour and the like. If we are to deal with such matters we really should have a Government measure which has been properly thought out and, I should have considered, debated in another place. It may be that if the Bill passes through your Lordships' House and goes downstairs it may be debated, but I feel that a measure of this type, especially one dealing, as it does with the London Metropolis, should come from Her Majesty's Government, and should not be done through a Private Member's Bill.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is no reply to be made to the observations of my noble Leader? His point seems a very good one, although I am told that this Bill has passed through another place.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was expressing his opinion, as he is perfectly entitled to do. I do not see why a Private Member of either House who has a good idea should not bring it forward in the form of a Bill of this type; and if it appears to your Lordships to be appropriate, this House will adopt and recommend it. That would not prevent Her Majesty's Government from bringing in a more comprehensive Bill if the Home Secretary responsible so wished. But I should not like to see the Socialist Party responsible for damping down the activities of Private Members in either House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is usual in a House of Parliament when the Leader of the Opposition makes some remarks calling for comment, for the Leader of Her Majesty's Government to reply.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount knows that I should never intentionally be guilty of discourtesty in that respect.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General grants to local authorities]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE) moved in subsection (1) to leave out "otherwise than under section thirty of" and insert:
" for those years under any enactment passed before this Act other than ".
The noble Lord said: In rising to move the first Amendment appearing on the Marshalled List may I say that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain that, with the exception of those which are purely of a drafting nature, all the Amendments which stand in my name are designed to implement the undertakings set out in the White Paper on Local Government and Central Departments in Scotland, which was published last month and to which I referred in the course of my remarks on Second Reading.
Paragraph 3 of the White Paper explained that most of its proposals related to the relaxation of statutory controls; that most of them could be given effect to in the current Bill, and that suitable Amendments would be tabled for this purpose. This afternoon Her Majesty's Government are fulfilling that promise. The White Paper, which embodies the outcome of the review of the administrative arrangements carried out by a Working Party, in which were included local authority officials, was not published until after the Bill had been passed by another place. We are now taking the first opportunity to implement the undertakings of the White Paper. As your Lordships will be aware, the purpose of the proposals set out in the White Paper was to give local authorities the maximum amount of freedom to manage their own affairs. Amendment No. 1 on
392
the Marshalled List is purely to make clear the scope of the general grant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out (" otherwise than under section thirty of ") and insert (" for those years under any enactment passed before this Act other than ")—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Rights of Salmon fishing
" . For the purposes of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and of the Act of 1956, rights of salmon fishing (being rights of salmon fishing which are exercised by net or cruive and are thereby regularly exercised throughout that part of the year during which that method of fishing is for the time being permitted by law and in respect of which no revenue is derived by the owner or occupier thereof from any other method of fishing in the said part of the year) shall be deemed to be agricultural lands and heritages:
Provided that for the purpose of making up any valuation roll for the year 1961–62 or any subsequent year the gross annual value, the net annual value and the rateable value of any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, or other buildings or drying greens occupied in connection with the exercise of any such rights of salmon fishing or used or suitable for use in connection therewith shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section six of the Act of 1956."
The noble Viscount said: The new clause which I have put down on the Marshalled List appears complicated but I will attempt to explain it to your Lordships as simply as I can. First of all, I must say that salmon fisheries in Scotland are at the moment divided into two parts; that which consists of the right to fish in the river and that which consists of a certain number of small huts, or even a dwelling-house and a drying green on dry land. With that distinction in mind I am suggesting to your Lordships that the following system ought to apply to the salmon fisheries after 1961: that there shall be no rates levied at all on the right to fish in the river. At the moment rates for this right are paid at 25 per cent., and this 25 per cent. is assessed on the actual amount paid by the occupier of the fishery to the landlord for the right to fish in the river. At the same time, if I am correct in my Amendment, so far as the

393
dry land part of the fishery is concerned it will mean that the dwelling-house on that dry land, or any other building, or the drying green if there is no other building than that, will pay 100 per cent. rates. At the present moment some of them pay 100 per cent. and some pay 25 per cent., because the interpretation of Section 46 (2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, is not very clear and some rating officers say that it should be 100 per cent. and some say it should be 25.
I should like to compare this suggestion with the position of agriculture as I understand it will be after 1961. The salmon fishery right in the river will be similar to the agricultural fields, on which no rates will be paid, but the dwelling-house and the other buildings on the dry land part of the salmon fishery will be the equivalent of a dwelling-house on a farm on which, after 1961, 100 per cent. rates will be charged, assessed at the rent which the farm is worth in view of the fact that it is being occupied in connection with the rest of the farm. I am now suggesting that the dwelling-house or other buildings of the salmon fishery should be assessed at l00 per cent. rates in view of their occupation in connection with the salmon fishery. I propose in that way that the salmon fishery and agriculture should be brought very broadly into line, except that where there is no dwelling-house in the salmon fishery they will still be charged 100 per cent. rates on their premises on dry land.
When I raised the matter on the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, invited the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, to produce any new information about this matter which has not already been before Parliament, and I have worked out some interesting comparisons between salmon fisheries, industry and farming. I should like to tell your Lordships of the comparison between them so far as rates are concerned. A salmon fishery at present rateable at £1,200 a year—that is, the old rateable value—will probably employ eight men whose wages for the year will be £3,500. A farm assessed at £1,200 a year will probably employ about twelve men and the wages will be £6,000 a year. An industry rated at £1,200 will probably employ about 350 men and their wage bill will be £3,500 a week instead of £3.500 a year as in
394
the case of the salmon fishery. To put it the other way round, if you have a salmon fishery which employs eight men, the rates are £1,200 a year. If you have an industry which employs eight men, the rates are about £50 a year. In between comes a farm which employs eight men, and the rates will probably be about £600 a year—half that of the salmon fishery.
There is no doubt that salmon fishery and agriculture are very similar forms of occupation. Both produce food, both work in the country and, as I said on the Second Reading, in Scotland, at any rate, both employ the same people because they fit in—peak employment in the salmon fisheries coinciding with the period of lowest employment in agriculture and vice-versa. But in comparison with agriculture salmon fisheries have a very poor deal. They have no subsidy for their crop; they have no capital grants for their buildings, and they have no drainage grants or any sort of subsidy from the Government at all. On the other hand it is a highly precarious occupation. As much as £15,000 worth of nets may be lost in a single storm and there is no method of replacing them except by drawing on profits which have been made; and even they are very doubtful indeed. That comparison between wages and rates is an interesting one because it shows the percentage of the industry's money that must be employed in paying rates in comparison with what is available for the rest of the industry's day-to-day concerns.
If this Bill should not be amended either as I suggest here or in any other way, salmon fisheries are going to be in a peculiarly prejudicial position. They will not only be paying double the rates under the 25 per cent. increase, but treble, and I should like to explain why this is so. Take a salmon fishery which was rateable at £100 per year. Before 1956 it paid 25 per cent.—that is, £25—and this was split up between the owner and the occupier equally; the owner paid £12 10s. and the occupier paid £12 10s. Between 1956 and 1961 the owner's rate is being removed, so that the occupier pays £25 in full. But in return for this he pays £12 10s. less rent to his owner, so in effect he is still paying £12 10s.; but in 1961 his rateable value will be raised to 50 per cent. and he will be liable for the whole of it. Therefore he

395
will pay £50, but he will still get only £12 10s. off the rent he pays to the owner; therefore he is paying £37 10s. That is treble what he was paying before, both now and in 1956.
I hope that some of my noble friends will expand on the importance of these fisheries, both from the point of view of depopulation of rural Scotland and also from the point of view of the unemployment in some of the areas which are at present threatened by the closure of these stations. Both on its merits and on this very important unemployment and depopulation issue, I suggest that this Amendment should be accepted by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD FORBES: My Lords, in giving full support to this Amendment, I must at the outset declare an interest in salmon net fishing. Those who are employed in salmon net fishing, which is incidentally one of the oldest occupations in Scotland, come mainly from the Highlands and from the more remote parts of the country, and it is these remote parts which are slowly but surely becoming depopulated. This depopulation goes on almost unrecognised except by those who live there and see families and individuals packing their belongings, never to return again to the land or to the parts of the country which their ancestors once inhabited. Too often to-day it is the big things that catch the public eye. To many people figures can be most misleading. For instance, if we hear that 600 people have become unemployed in an area having a population of 10,000, there would, I think, be an outcry at once; but if we hear that six men in a little fishing village of one hundred inhabitants have lost their employment, this goes by almost unrecognised. It is just a question of raising it to attract more notice. In this way the Highlands and more remote areas of Scotland have suffered and are now continuing to suffer.
If this rating is increased in any way, there is little doubt that more salmon net stations will have to close down and that the men from these stations will be turned out of their employment. And they will not return to the Highlands; they will go to seek employment in the industrial parts of the country. Surely
396
the issue before us is this. We have heard so often from Government circles that the depopulation of the Highlands and the remote parts of the country is to be deplored. Is this really meant? Or are those responsible prepared to see one day—and that day may not be very far distant—the Highlands and the remote parts of Scotland inhabited by only a few nomadic clansmen? If not, the line that has to be drawn somewhere, and I suggest to your Lordships that the line should be drawn now by accepting this Amendment.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who has more than summed up the situation. He has given facts and figures which hardly need further clarification, but, speaking as a Highlander, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to know (perhaps he already knows because he was in Inverness last week) that in the Moray Firth area alone there are nearly 250 men who work the salmon nets as a seasonal occupation. They represent the backbone of the crofting counties, and they are, in fact, crofters. It would be a terrible thing to see their livelihood destroyed for a principle with such a small stake, for a sum of money which, in its total amount, runs between £1½ and £2 million of net-caught salmon per annum.
A similar Amendment to that now before your Lordships was defeated by only four votes in another place, where the very word "salmon" causes considerable feeling between the two sides of the House. But I think that in the calmer light of your Lordships' House noble Lords both on this side and on the Benches opposite are quite ready to eat salmon caught in a net—even if they do not agree about how they are caught, and who catches them by rod—hot or cold, smoked or fresh. I assure your Lordships that in all equity, in a precarious living such as that gained from salmon netting there is no resemblance to an industry under industrial rating. I should like to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, out on the Culbin Sands in waders on a cold spring morning, watching the salmon running up the middle of the Firth for two or three weeks on end and seeing his tackle swept away or filled with seaweed and shellfish. A company in which

397
I have an interest paid out £25,000 in wages to eighty men last year, and lost money on the venture; and many smaller organisations of this kind are working a precarious living up and down the coast. I cannot see, I am sure that your Lordships cannot see, how an industrial rate can be applied to salmon netting, and I hope that my noble friend will have a Division on this issue.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I should like to support my compatriots who have spoken most ably on this matter. The point that I want to stress, and which I have stressed before, is unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his reply to the Second Reading debate (he will correct me if I misquote him), said that he hoped for the best but he did not think that the re-rating of salmon net fishings would cause any unemployment. I can tell him that there is a netting station on the coast of Kincardineshire which, according to the owners and operators, will definitely be closed down if re-rating comes into effect. I should say that while I own some stretches of nets on the coast, I do nothing towards running them; but those who do, no matter how small the return, find the job more difficult than it used to be. Legislation of this kind, which is surely in the interest of tidiness, has the flavour of twisting the tail of a dog that cannot bark. I shall support the Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend takes it to a Division.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The effect of accepting this Amendment would be that until revaluation in 1961 salmon net fishings would be rated on one-eighth of their gross annual value. From 1961 agricultural subjects will not be rateable at all, but farmhouses will be valued in full, like any other houses, except that valuation will be on the assumption that they cannot be occupied otherwise than in connection with agriculture. The Amendment seeks to apply this arrangement to salmon net fishings by providing that any dwellinghouses, bothies, net stores or other building or drying greens occupied in connection with the exercise of the salmon fishing should be fully rated.
The history of the Scottish system is not straightforward. The conclusions as regards salmon net fishings appear to be,
398
first, that the salmon net fishings and land used for agricultural purposes were assessed on the same basis only for the purpose of the burgh general assessment (which was, of course, only part of the rates payable in burghs) and only from the year 1892 until 1926. Apart from this, relief from the burgh general assessment and any concessions from individual parishes by way of "classification", which began to fall into desuetude as long ago as 1896, salmon fishings were fully rated until 1929, though there had been an attempt to give them the deductions provided for industry in the First Schedule to the 1926 Act. From 1929 up to date the fishings have been de-rated with the rest of industry to 25 per cent. of their net annual value.
The reasons against the acceptance of this Amendment appear to me to be that in practice the ancillary subjects are already separately, as the noble Viscount said, and fully rated, and the effect of the Amendment therefore would be to de-rate the actual salmon net fishings entirely. Then there is the argument that the fishings are analogous to agriculture.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Well, that is open to dispute. After all, the definition of agricultural lands and heritages has remained practically unaltered since 1896, and it has not been held so far that salmon net fishings could reasonably come within this definition. Further, to make an exception for one industry, it seems to me, would impair the general principle that industry as a whole should be re-rated to 50 per cent. If the noble Lord will allow me to continue, since 1929 the salmon fishing industry has been satisfied to be classed as industry and Her Majesty's Government do not see any good reason to change over to agriculture at this moment.
LORD LOVAT: I interject only to ask how does the noble Lord reconcile the fact that the Minister in charge of agriculture is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: By "the Minister in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries" no doubt the noble Lord is referring to my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
LORD LOVAT: They come under the same heading.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Maybe they do; but I do not see that that is an argument why they should be treated in the same way. As I say, the fishing people have been quite satisfied since 1929 to be rated as industry. And now the change! I cannot see that any good reason for it has been given.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, spoke about the owners' and occupiers' rates. I would say to him that it was made clear during the passage of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, that the abolition of owners' rates under that Act would not, by itself, lead to any increase in the tenants' total outgoings for rent and rates. The noble Viscount will remember that the rent was reduced to compensate for the increase in occupiers' rates. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, all spoke feelingly of depopulation and unemployment. They ought to know, and I am sure they do, that Her Majesty's Government are very much concerned about depopulation in the Highlands and Islands and are doing everything possible to maintain the population which is still there and, indeed, to attract people to go back to those parts of our country. But no one has produced a single figure or any relevant fact vouched for in any way to prove that depopulation will result; nor, with all due deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, has anything been produced to prove that any fishery will close down. The noble Viscount made a statement to the effect that he knows a certain fishery will close down in the event of this Bill going through. All I can say is that it must be a poor fishery, because, after all, the amount of money which will go out in re-rating is not all that serious so far as any efficient and profitable business is concerned.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has produced a number of figures; I have not had an opportunity of studying them, and they seem to me to be somewhat difficult to understand. I would say to him that salmon net fishings and industry are and will be rated on the same basis; and, with all respect, I do not quite follow how the wage bill
400
comes into the argument. Nevertheless, in view of the figures the noble Viscount has produced, which, as I say, I have not yet studied, I am quite willing to look at them; and while I do not hold out much hope, in the event of their containing anything fresh that has not been taken into consideration in another place I will see what can be done on the Report stage. In the meantime, I would ask the Committee not to pass this Amendment, and in view of the assurance I have given I hope my noble friend will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I intervene to say that I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, say he will look at this matter again between now and the Report stage. I say that, not that I myself could declare that I am wholly against his point of view at the moment, but because we on this side, leaving aside the question of legislative history and the principle of the thing, have been impressed by the manner in which the Amendment has been presented. I think the noble Lords who presented the case were most persuasive. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, reminded me of the debate we had the other day when he gave striking figures of the depopulation of the northern part of Scotland, where, over a matter of years, the population, I think he said, had nearly halved. That is a serious state of affairs, and if there is in actual fact a danger that depopulation of that part of Scotland will be intensified by the effect of this proposed legislation, then I think it is a matter to be taken into consideration between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
I am a little alarmed, as one interested in the farming industry, at the rejoinder of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: "What difference does that make?", when it is pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in charge of both those sections of industry. I was talking to somebody the other day who said: "The salmon fishing industry at any rate makes large profits; or if it does not, it charges high enough prices to the public to be able to get them." But I am bound to say, in honesty to myself, that the agricultural industry is not carried on specifically with the idea of making a loss. I should not like to think by any means that this was going

401
to be regarded as the thin end of the wedge, or to make any attack at all upon the proved benefit of the present position of de-rating of agriculture. Therefore I look at this matter pretty well with an open mind. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to read the speeches made, which moved me to my innermost. I thought those speeches were excellently presorted, and I could do with recruits of that calibre on this side of the Committee.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is unusual, I suppose for somebody from this side of the Committee to come to the rescue of the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill, but I am not entirely convinced by the arguments which have been put forward. This is an economic problem. It is said that if the rateable value of salmon fishings is increased, it will prevent salmon fishing from going on; that men will become unemployed and the industry will diminish. I am under the impression that salmon fishings pay rents to the owners, and if that were to begin to happen, the obvious result would be that the owners, rather than sacrifice their rents completely, would have to reduce the rents; and in the end they would have to reduce them, if this argument is true in its initial stage at all, to a point at which the salmon fishing will be able to continue as an economic proposition. That seems to be the economic outlet of the problem, and, if that is so, then there is no case for the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I hope that the blandishments of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will not induce Members to cross the Floor of the House. I want to make abundantly clear what I am holding out. It is that if, on reading the speeches which have been made to-day (and I, too, would join in tendering my compliments to noble Lords and particularly to the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment), I find anything in them which has not been taken into consideration in another place, where, as has been said, this present situation was carried in Committee by four votes, then I will certainly see what can be done on the Report stage. But further than that I cannot go. I know how often this matter has been discussed, and I do not hold out great hopes that there is anything in what
402
the noble Lord has said which has not been taken into consideration already.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, for bringing up the question about owners reducing their rents. At the moment, it is true that salmon fishery is assessed on the actual rent paid. After 1961 it will not be so assessed, but will be assessed on the hypothetical value of that salmon fishery, and, therefore, may have no connection with the actual rent paid at all. Nor would it necessarily be reduced if the owner reduced his rent.
While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his answer, I should like to take him up on certain points. It is true that, since 1929, it has suited salmon fisheries to be classed as industry; but that is only because if they had not been classed as industry they would have been paying 100 per cent. rates. It is true also that the definition in 1896 of "agricultural land and heritages", upon which the whole trouble is based, did not include salmon fisheries. But if that were so in 1896, does it necessarily have to be so to-day? The situation is entirely different. Further, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that it would be a loophole for other industries. Can the noble Lord tell me what other industries would be likely to take advantage of this particular arrangement? What other industries could in fact be classed as agricultural in the same way as this industry? If the noble Lord would tell me I should be very interested to consider the matter, but I cannot think of any.
As far as unemployment and depopulation are concerned, I am certain that the noble Lord is as anxious as anybody to prevent them. But the fact remains that, at present, along the coast of Kincardine and North Angus, which is one of the main salmon fishery areas, there is a very high level of unemployment (higher than anywhere else in Scotland, so far as I know), and stations have already closed down there because of the present rating situation. If rates are put up, it will be impossible for thorn to carry on. I cannot, of course, give the noble Lord any specific examples of stations that will close down, but if the people who run them say they will close down, I cannot but accept the

403
fact. Also, if the noble Lord says that it is a very small amount and, therefore, the industry or the occupation should be able to carry it, he is not taking into account the fact that this is a very small occupation, and it is exactly that
The numbers being equal, it was (pursuant to Standing Order No. 49) resolved in the negative: Amendment not agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Extension of maximum period for repayment of sums borrowed for certain purposes]:
3.30 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved to leave out "as defined in the Act of 1947". The noble Lord said: I think it will be convenient for the House if I take Amendments Nos. 3 to 10 together, as they all relate to the same subject. These Amendments give effect to an undertaking which appears in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. Their effect is, first, to widen the provisions already contained in Clause 12 of the Bill, so as to extend the borrowing period for all buildings provided under Section 74 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 instead of buildings provided solely for public meetings and assemblies; and, secondly, to extend to such period, not exceeding sixty years, as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State the present borrowing periods for crematoria, homes for old people and land which is not already covered by another statutory provision. I
small amount that will break the camel's back. I would beg your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Lothian, M.

Archibald, L.

Moyne, L.

Burden, L.

Rea, L.

Addison, V.

Darwen, L.

Silkin, L.

Clifden, V.

Forbes, L.

Sinha, L.

Colville of Culross [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stansgate, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Stonehaven, V. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Waleran, L.

Lovat, L.

Wise, L.

Amulree, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Winterton, E.

Douglas of Barloch, Z.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Soulbury, V.

Hawke, L.

Mancroft, L.

Albemarle, E.

Barnby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bathurst, E. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Merthyr, L.

Craven, E.

Cawley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Home, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Rathcavan, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

should make it clear to your Lordships that the Amendments do not mean that in future repayment of loans for these purposes will always be spread over sixty years, but they will enable a period of up to sixty years to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State where that is justified by the probable life of the asset. This is a useful relaxation of a point on which the Scottish statutes are too rigid; the flexibility provided by these Amendments is already available in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out "as defined in the Act of 1947".—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, at end insert ("(b) the Cremation Act, 1902.").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, leave out from (" 1947 ") to end of line 39 and insert ("(which relates to the provision of halls, offices and other buildings)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 42, leave out (" or") and insert ("(f) section twenty-one of the National Assistance Act, 1948, or").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, after second (" years" ") insert ("and in the entry relating to the Cremation Act, 1902, for the words 'Twenty years ' there shall be substituted the words 'Such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State '").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("so far as relating to the provision of buildings for public meetings and assemblies ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, at end insert—

" Section twenty-one of the National Assistance Act, 1948.

Such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State.").

—(Lord Strathclyde
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
("(2) Where a local authority is authorised to borrow money for the purpose of any enactment, any provision (whether in that or another enactment) that any sum so borrowed shall be repaid within a period of fewer than sixty years, or within such period not exceeding fifty-nine or fewer years as the local authority or a Minister may determine, shall be construed as applying only to sums so borrowed for expenditure otherwise than on the acquisition of land; and any sum so borrowed by the local authority for expenditure on the acquisition of land (being a sum to which any such provision as aforesaid would, apart from this subsection, apply) shall be repaid within such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, or, where the consent of another Minister is required for the borrowing, by that other Minister.
406
(3) In this section 'local authority' and ' Minister ' have the same meanings as in the Act of 1947, and references to the acquisition of land do not include references to the acquisition, with any land, of buildings or other works thereon, being buildings or other works required to make the land fit for the purpose for which it is acquired.").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following new clause:
" Abolition of certain requirements relating to local government administration
13.—(1) For the purpose of abolishing cerain requirements relating to local government administration and for making provision consequential thereon the enactments specified in the Schedule (Local Government Administration) shall have effect subject to the modifications so specified in relation to them respectively.
(2) This section shall come into operation on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to pave the way for the relaxations which are set out in the new Schedule which appears on page 4 of the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD SILKIN: I have to apologise for intervening in this debate, but I am doing so at the request of my noble friend Lord Greenhill, who wished to say something on this new clause but is unavoidably unable to be present.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? We have not yet reached the new Schedule; that is Amendment No. 20. This is merely an Amendment to pave the way for the new Schedule.
LORD SILKIN: I do not mind speaking on this one or on the other. I thought it might be convenient now, but I will reserve my remarks till later. I think the noble Lord knows roughly what I am going to say. I will do whatever he pleases.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I think it would be more convenient to leave it to the later Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.39 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
" Amendment of Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, s. 7
14. Subsection (1) of section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946 (which subsection requires certain functions of education authorities to be exercised in accordance with schemes approved by the Secretary of State) shall have effect as if, in paragraph (a) thereof, after the word ' Act ', there were inserted the words ' other than such voluntary part-time or full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age as the Secretary of State may direct '."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to amend subsection (1) (a) of Section 7 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, so as to require an education authority to exercise some, but not all, of the functions described in Section 1 (5) (b) of the 1946 Act in accordance with schemes approved by the Secretary of State. This new clause will give effect to the recommendation of the working party of departmental and local authority representatives that the establishment of certain technical education courses should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Submission of schemes and approval of them is considered desirable to ensure regional and national co-ordination in the provision of technical educational facilities, to avoid overlapping or unnecessary provision and to secure that account is taken of the views of all interested parties before new courses or facilities are provided. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
" Inspection of minutes of certain authorities
15.—(1) The minutes of—

(a) the proceedings of a local authority, and

(b) the proceedings of any committee appointed by a local authority so far as such proceedings relate to any of the authority's functions under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948,

shall be open to the inspection of any local government elector for the area of the authority on payment of a fee not exceeding
408
one shilling, and any such local government elector may make a copy thereof or an extract therefrom.
(2) In this section ' local authority' and ' local government elector ' have the same meanings as in the Act of 1947."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment implements the proposals in paragraph 14 of the White Paper. Its effect is to give local government electors a right of access to all minutes of the full council, and to those of any committee so far as dealing with health, planning or welfare. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First to Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Consequential modifications of enactments]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment is to correct a printing error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 7, after (" provided") insect (" for ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The purpose of this Amendment is to repeal words in subsection (7) of Section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which are no longer necessary in view of the Amendments to that section already provided for in the Bill, in the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 6 (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 9, at end insert.—
("(d) in paragraph (7) the words ' in addition to any sums voted by Parliament for the training of teachers' shall be omitted").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The purpose of this Amendment is to re-define the meaning of the expression "code" used in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 31, at end insert—
(" (7) In section one hundred and forty-three, in subsection (1), for the definition of ' code' there shall be substituted the following definition, that is to say—
' "code" means regulations made under subsection (8) of section one of this Act '").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment is designed to repeal a provision in the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, which, with the abolition of the Education (Scotland) Fund, is no longer necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, at end insert (" and subsection (8) shall cease to have effect.")—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It might be convenient to the Committee if we took Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together. They are both consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 25, leave out (" (d)") and insert ("(e)").—(Lord Strathclyde.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 26, leave out (" (7) and (8)")and insert (" (8) and (9)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after tire Fourth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922
1. Section nine of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922 (which requires the councils of certain burghs to establish allotment committees) shall cease to have effect.
The Education (Scotland) Act, 1946
2. In section three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946 (which relates to the provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training), in subsection (1), the words ' with the aproval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.
3. In section twenty-five of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to contributions by education authorities to the maintenance of certain schools and institutions), in subsection (6), the words ' with the sanction of the Secretary of State ' shall cease to have effect, and for the words ' the Secretary of State,' where those words secondly occur, there shall be substituted the word; ' the education authority'.
4. In section twenty-seven of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to educational research) the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.
5. In section thirty-four of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to exemption from school attendance) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.
6. In section forty-five of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to the provision of transport and other facilities), in subsection (1), the words ' or as the Secretary of State may direct' shall cease to have effect.
7. In section seventy-four of the said Act of 1946 (which relates, among other things, to the examination of accounts of education authorities) subsections (2) and (3) shall cease to have effect:
Provided that this paragraph shall not have effect as respects accounts for any period before the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
The National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947
8. In section twenty-two of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the care of mothers and young children), in subsection (3), the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State ' shall cease to have effect.
9. In section twenty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental deficiency and the after care of such persons), in subsection (3), the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.
10. In section fifty-one of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the duties of local health authorities under the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts), in subsection (3), the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.
11. The Fifth Schedule to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which requires local health committees to make the minutes of their proceedings available for inspection by electors) shall cease to have effect.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947
12. In section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947, subsection (2) (which requires county councils and town councils of large burghs to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions as local health authorities), subsection (3) (which requires county councils to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions relating to roads) and subsection (4) (which precludes county councils and the town councils of large burghs from revoking administrative schemes approved under section fourteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, otherwise than by making another administrative scheme) shall cease to have effect and any reference in subsection (5) or subsection (6) of the said section one hundred and five to an administrative scheme shall be construed as a reference only to an administrative scheme relating to education.
13. Section one hundred and seven of the Act of 1947 (which prescribes the contents of certain administrative schemes required to be made by county councils and town councils of large burghs) shall cease to have effect.
14. Section one hundred and ten of the Act of 1947 (which requires county councils to appoint committees for the purposes of their functions relating to roads) shall cease to have effect.
15. Section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1947 (which relates to health committees required to be appointed by county councils and town councils of large burghs) shall cease to have effect.
16. Section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1947 (which requires county councils and town councils which are police authorities to appoint committees for the purposes of their functions relating to police) shall cease to have effect.
17. In section one hundred and fourteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of sub-committees of committees for administrative scheme functions) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection, that is to say—
'(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act a sub-committee of the education committee of a county council may consist to an extent not exceeding one half of persons who are not members of the council:
Provided that a person who is not a member of the council or of the committee shall not be appointed to a sub-committee except with the consent of the council.'
18. Section one hundred and fifteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of committees and sub-committees of county councils, town councils of burghs and district councils) shall have effect with the addition of the following subsection, that is to say—
'(3) Any committee appointed by a local authority under subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of the authority's functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948, may to an extent not exceeding one third of its membership consist of persons, not being members of the local authority, who have special knowledge or experience in regard to the functions for the purposes of which the committee is appointed.'
19. In section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the acquisition of land in advance of requirements) the words 'with the consent of the Minister concerned ' shall cease to have effect.
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947
20. Part IV of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which requires local planning authorities to establish planning committees for the discharge of their functions under that Act) shall cease to have effect.
21. In Part V of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to sub-committees), in paragraph 1, for the words 'The planning committee of a local planning authority' there
412
shall be substituted the words ' Any committee established by a local planning authority for the discharge of their functions under this Act '; after the words ' the committee' there shall be inserted the words '(hereinafter referred to as "the planning committee")' and for the words ' not less than three-fourths of the members of any such sub-committee which consists of more than three persons ' there shall be substituted the words ' not less than two-thirds of the members of any such committee'; and in paragraph 3, for the words 'a planning committee established under Part IV of this Schedule', there shall be substituted the words ' a committee to which paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule relates '.
The Local Government Act, 1948
22. In section one hundred and thirty-five of the Local Government Act, 1948 (which relates to instruction, lectures, etc.. on questions relating to local government) in subsection (1), the words Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe' shall cease to have effect.
The National Assistance Act, 1948
23. Part I of the Third Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which requires county councils and town councils of large burghs to establish committees for the discharge of their functions under Part III of that Act) shall cease to have effect.
The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956
24. Section two of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (which requires valuation authorities to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions relating to valuation) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This is the new Schedule. The Amendments contained in this Schedule and in the repeal provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule give effect to the substance of the White Paper. They are designed to give local authorities the maximum amount of freedom to manage their own affairs. Briefly, the effect of the Amendments is as follows. Paragraphs 1, 12 to 18, 20, 21, 23 and 24 abolish the requirements that local authorities must have separate committees and administrative schemes for particular purposes, and provide that the membership of the committees at present statutory and now to be permissive may include up to one-third of non-councillors. Paragraphs 2 to 7 provide for relaxations of controls by repealing or amending the provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, relating to the giving of approvals by the Secretary of State.
Paragraphs 8 to 10 repeal the requirements that the Secretary of State's consent be obtained to contributions by local health authorities to voluntary organisations including among their objects the

413
care of mothers or young children, voluntary organisations including among their objects the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental deficiency, or the after care of such persons, and voluntary organisations performing, by arrangement with the local health authority, any services in connection with the duties of that authority under the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Acts or under Part V (Mental Services) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act. Paragraph 11 repeals the existing provision regarding inspection of the minutes of proceedings of local health authorities. The effect of paragraph 19 is that it will no longer be necessary for local authorities to apply for the Secretary of State's consent before acquiring land by agreement in advance of requirements. Paragraph 22 removes the Secretary of State's power to make regulations regarding the arrangements which local authorities may make for publicising questions relating to local government. That shows the greater freedom which these Amendments give the local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Fourth Schedule insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD SILKIN: The purpose of this Amendment, the incorporation of the new clause, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has explained, to give to local authorities greater freedom to manage their own affairs having regard to the new basis of grant and to the general policy of this Bill. I should like to put to the noble Lord a further case where I think this principle can be extended. I was apologising for intervening at all in the debate, but I do apologise for not having put down in writing the Amendment that I think is necessary to incorporate what I wish to say. As I was asked to take part only early this morning, obviously I have not been able to put down any Amendment. But it relates to Section 21 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.
As the noble Lord is aware, this section requires local health authorities to go through a long and cumbersome procedure in connection with their health functions. They have to prepare a scheme; they have to give notice to the voluntary organisations, to the executive
414
council and to the regional hospital board; they have to wait two months for any observations that these organisations may make, and, eventually, and no doubt after lengthy discussions, the Secretary of State may approve the proposals with or without qualifications. Those qualifications may include additions or exceptions, or the Secretary of State may recommend that the local health authority shall submit new proposals. If this section remains, I would submit that the freedom which the Bill contemplates giving to local authorities is very restricted. The section applies to a number of health services—six in all: care of mothers and young children, midwifery, health visiting, home nursing, vaccination and immunisation, the prevention of illness, and care and after-care. These are very wide functions.
If the section remains, then in the case of every one of these functions the local authorities would be required to go through this very lengthy and cumbersome procedure and eventually to submit to the Scottish Office proposals they have put forward, and to accept any amendment. I would suggest that the maintenance of this clause is quite out of keeping with the general doctrine which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has twice enunciated this afternoon in connection with these Amendments—namely, that they are put down with the desire of giving the maximum amount of freedom to local authorities to manage their own affairs.
Had I had the opportunity I should have put down an Amendment to this present Amendment to delete the whole of Section 21 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. I am bound to admit, though, that there is one subsection of that section which Her Majesty's Government might wish to retain: subsection (5), the default provision. I had hoped that I might be able to do a deal with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the maintenance of that particular power; I hoped he would agree that the rest of the section is quite unnecessary in the new circumstances and having regard to the fact that no specific grant is now being paid in respect of these services. I am asking the noble Lord only to examine this point. I believe he has had some notice of it, which is more than I have had, and I hope that at least he will examine it and perhaps see his way to doing something on the Report stage.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I believe that your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for stepping into the breach at such short notice and putting the case so clearly before the Committee, but I hope that when I have said what I have to say he will perhaps agree that there is a way of looking at the matter other than that which he has suggested. Under Section 21 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, local health authorities are required to submit to the Secretary of State their proposals for carrying out their duties under the Act. During the discussions on the relaxation of administrative controls, some of the local authority representatives asked for the repeal of this section requiring local health authorities to submit proposals. I would remind your Lordships here that these proposals are to be distinguished from the administrative schemes referred to in paragraph 12 of the new Fifth Schedule which we are discussing; the requirement to submit these schemes is to be repealed (except for education).
It was explained at the Working Party that the Department of Health would be glad to examine any suggestion put forward for the simplification of the procedure for dealing with amendments or modifications of approved proposals; for instance, where local health authorities are given additional functions like poliomyelitis vaccination, a circular might be used as the medium for amending the proposals of all local health authorities, in this way avoiding separate formal submissions.
The arguments justifying the retention of the requirement to submit proposals are these: first, the Secretary of State is required under Section 1 of the National Health Service Act to provide or secure the effective provision of a comprehensive health service, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That duty extends not only to services provided by direct delegation (for example, to regional hospital boards), but also to services whose effective provision he secures in other ways (for example, through the local health authorities). Secondly, the proposals submitted by the local health authorities enable the Secretary of State to carry out his duty by setting out the scope of the services to be provided, and the method by which they are to be carried out. Thirdly, the proposals also
416
fulfil a useful function in co-ordinating the provisions of the Health Service as a whole, as the Act requires that copies shall, before approval, be sent to the executive councils, the regional hospital boards and all voluntary organisations likely to be concerned.
Suggestions for an amendment were put forward by Glasgow Corporation yesterday to the Secretary of State. These include the repeal of the provision that the Secretary of State shall approve the proposals put forward by local health authorities. Instead, the Secretary of State would make recommendations to the local health authority for modifying draft proposals. In addition, the requirement that it shall be a duty of the local health authority to carry out their duties in accordance with the proposals would also be repealed. The Committee will appreciate that both these points are matters of principle, and with regret I say to the noble Lord that I can hold out no hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to bring forward an Amendment on the lines that have been suggested. I would say quite frankly to the noble Lord that, on reading over the proposals of the Corporation of Glasgow, which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, wished to put forward to-day, it seemed to me that they were even more extensive than what is required at the present time.
LORD SILKIN: I do not wish to press this matter too far, because it is none of my affair, but in reading Section 1 it occurs to me that, in the light of the new circumstances, it is in need of modification. Therefore, I hope that the mind of the noble Lord and of Her Majesty's Government is not entirely closed upon this matter. I am not myself the sponsor of the recommendations of the Corporation of Glasgow, but I am sure that it is not necessary to go through all this elaborate and cumbersome procedure to-day when no question of grant is involved. I could understand that if there were a 50 per cent. grant Her Majesty's Government would want to know exactly what proposals were coming along; I can understand that to-day they want to be satisfied that local authorities are really carrying out their duties in connection with health; but I cannot understand why all this elaborate procedure should be necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will give

417
some thought to the matter to ascertain whether some simplification can be resolved, in agreement with Scottish local authorities.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It would be merely courteous for me to say to the noble Lord that we asked the Working Party to be good enough to tell us of any simplification that was possible. I told the Committee earlier the result, and it seems to me that the suggestions which have been made are not an improvement or simplification at all, but rather the reverse.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Repeals]:
4.0 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 41, at end insert—

(" 11 & 12 Geo. 5 c. 58.

The Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921.

In section ten, in subsection (1), in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (8).")

—(Lord Strathclyde)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This also is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 10, column 3, after (" (4)") insert (" in paragraph (7) the words ' in addition to any sums voted by Parliament for the training of teachers'").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment provides for the repeal of a provision concerning the Education (Scotland) Fund which is no longer required.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 31, column 3, at end insert ("and subsection (8)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to take Amendment No. 24 and Amendments Nos. 26 to 35 together. These Amendments to Part III of the Fifth Schedule are consequential on the changes made by the new Schedule which implement the White Paper proposals which we have discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, fine 46, at end insert—

(" 12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 52

The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922

Section nine,")

—(Lord Strathclyde)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 6 column 3 after first (" In ") insert (" section three, in subsection (1), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State '; in section, twenty-five, in subsection (6), the words ' with the sanction of the Secretary of State'; in section twenty-seven, the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State '; in section thirty-four, subsection (5); in section forty-five, in subsection (1), the words ' or as the Secretary of State may direct '; in ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 9, column 3, at end insert (" in section seventy-four, subsections (2) and (3)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 10, column 3, after (" In ") insert ("section twenty-two, in subsection (3), the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State'; in section twenty-seven, in subsection (3), the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State'; in section fifty-one, in subsection (3), the words ' with the approval of the Secretary of State '; in ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move:
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 11, column 3, at end insert (" the Fifth Schedule.")—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 16, column 3, at end insert (" In section one hundred and five, subsections (2), (3) and (4); section one hundred and seven; section one hundred and ten; section one hundred and eleven; section one hundred and twelve; in section one hundred and fifty-seven, the words ' with the consent of the Minister

419
concerned'; in section two hundred and three, subsection (3); in section two hundred and eight, subsection (1)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, column 3, after first (" In ") insert ("section two, in subsection (5), the words ' and Part IV' and the words 'and of planning committees respectively'; in ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In the next Amendment there is a misprint. Would your Lordships be good enough to insert the word "and" before the words "in the First Schedule, Part IV"?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move the Amendment, with the alteration indicated by the Lord Chairman.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 20, column 3, at end insert (" and in the First Schedule, Part IV ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 21, column 3, at end insert (" in section one hundred and thirty-five, in subsection (1), the words 'Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe', and subsection (2)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 23, column 3, at end insert (" in section thirty-three, in subsection (2), the words ' committees and'; in the Third Schedule, Part I; in Part II, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (3), and in paragraph 11, subparagraph (f); and in Part III, in paragraph 12, in sub-paragraph (a) the words from ' and for any reference' to the end of the sub-paragraph; sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 45, column 3, leave out first (" In ") and insert ("Section two; in section
420
three, in subsection (4), paragraph (c); in ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is a drafting Amendment designed to ensure that the Long Title of the Bill refers appropriately to the matters dealt with in the Amendments already approved by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 4, after (" finance ") insert (" and administration ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL
4.7 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.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT) moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Amendments as to nature of liability limited by Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s, 503
"2.—(1) In subsection (1) of section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs (c) and (d)—

"(c) where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to any person not carried in the ship through the act or omission of any person (whether on board the ship or not) in the navigation or management of the ship or in the loading, carriage or discharge of its cargo or in the embarkation, carnage or disembarkation of its passengers, or through any other act or omission of any person on board the ship;

(d) where any loss or damage is caused to any property (other than any property mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection) or any rights are infringed through the act or omission of any person (whether on board the ship or not) in the navigation

421

or management of the ship, or in the loading, carriage or discharge of its cargo or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of its passengers, or through any other act or omission of any person on board the ship;"

and for the words "loss of or damage to vessels, goods, merchandise or other things", both where they occur in paragraph (i) and where they occur in paragraph (ii), there shall be substituted the words "such loss, damage or infringement as is mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this subsection."
(2) For the purposes of the said subsection (1), where any obligation or liability arises—

(a) in connection with the raising, removal or destruction of any ship which is sunk, stranded or abandoned or of anything on board such a ship, or

(b) in respect of any damage (however caused) to harbour works, basins or navigable waterways,

the occurrence giving rise to the obligation or liability shall be treated as one of the occurrences mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (d) of that subsection, and the obligation or liability as a liability to damages.
(3) The application of the said section five hundred and three to any liability shall not be excluded by reason only that the occurrence giving rise to the liability was not due to the negligence of any person.
(4) Nothing in the said section five hundred and three shall apply to any liability in respect of loss of life or personal injury caused to, or loss of or damage to any property or infringement of any right of, a person who is on board or employed in connection with the ship under a contract of service with all or any of the persons whose liabilities are limited by that section, if that contract is governed by the law of any country outside the United Kingdom and that law either does not set any limit to that liability or sets a limit exceeding, that set to it by that section.
(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall not come into force until such day as the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(6) The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation may by order make provision for the setting up and management of a fund, to be used for the making to harbour or conservancy authorities of payments needed to compensate them for the reduction, in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section, of amounts recoverable by them in respect of the obligations and liabilities mentioned in that paragraph, and to be maintained by contributions from such authorities raised and collected by them in like manner as other sums raised by them in respect of vessels; arid any such order may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient.
(7) The power to make an order under sub-section (6) of this section shall include power to vary or revoke any such order by a subsequent order and any such power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be
422
subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: There is a formidable list of Amendments on the Order Paper standing in my name but I can assure your Lordships that there is no real cause for alarm. As I explained on the Second Reading of Lord Stonehaven's Bill, the Government were taking this opportunity to amend his Bill to include certain Amendments which would give effect to all the provisions of the Brussels Convention not covered by it. This would not only bring up to date our own law, now seriously out of date, but would also enable the Government to ratify the Convention with the minimum of delay. By doing so we hope to encourage other Governments to ratify this important Convention.
I outlined briefly on Second Reading the Amendments I suggested you might like to consider for incorporation into the Bill. Your Lordships were good enough to indicate that they met with your approval—indeed, I think they are all non-controversial and have been very largely agreed by the interests concerned. I must emphasise that we have been at pains to consult all the interests concerned. There are one or two points where some differences exist, and I will indicate those when we come to them. I will go through them in the usual form but will only briefly touch on the main points concerned because they are highly complicated and highly technical Amendments. I will try to help your Lordships on any point of clarification but hope you will take it from me that they are not likely to give rise to any difference of opinion.
The Lord Chairman has called Amendment No. 1, which is a new Clause 2 dealing with the nature of liability limited by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. What we are seeking to do is as follows. The principal change is to allow limitation of liability for death and personal injury caused to persons on shore. Hitherto, limitation of liability has been allowed in respect of damage caused to property on shore but not in respect of death and personal injury caused to persons on shore. Subsection (2), contains the only other point in the first part of the clause to which I need refer. It adds to the claims for which liability may be limited by including liability in respect of wreck removal and of damage

423
to harbour works, basins or navigable waterways. I think that I also ought to draw your Lordships' attention to subsections (5) and (6). These are intended to suspend the operation of subsection (2) (a) until the Government have been able to work out, in conjunction with the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, the British Transport Commission, the Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, a scheme acceptable on all sides whereby harbour authorities may be compensated for sums rendered irrecoverable by reason of shipowners being entitled under the Act to limit their liability for the costs of wreck removal. It is intended that a dry shall not be appointed under subsection (5) until an order has been made under subsection (6). In turn, such an order will be made only when a scheme has been worked out which is satisfactory to all the parties concerned. Those are the provisions of the first Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
4.12 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: May I first declare an interest in this Bill, as I am a director of a shipping company. Through the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, I have been advised upon and will express the views of the shipping industry. There is little that I can add to the explanation of the Amendments to the Bill already given by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and I would ask your Lordships to accept my remarks as applicable, not only to this but equally to the subsequent Amendments which are to be moved by him. I have at least one point in common with the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House, in that I am no lawyer and have no legal qualifications at all. If this Bill was complex in the form in which it was received from another place, it can scarcely be said that it will be simplified by the Amendments now proposed. On the contrary, it is being expanded in several important respects in order to give effect to the main provisions of the Brussels Convention; and it is for this reason that my
424
remarks may seem in pattern to be more appropriate to the Second Reading than to the Committee stage.
The principle that a shipowner is entitled to limit his liability was probably first established in the Nertherlands in the sixteenth century and was adopted in British law in 1734, when shipowners became entitled to limit liability for loss of cargo by theft by the master or members of the crew. The circumstances in which limitation could be claimed were extended in scope in various subsequent Acts, and in 1854 the right to limit was applied to claims for loss of life or personal injury. As has already been emphasised, the existing monetary limits—that is to say, £8 per ton of a ship's tonnage for property damage, and up to £15 per ton for loss of life—were fixed as long ago as 1862.
Although the principle of limitation has been generally accepted throughout the maritime countries, the manner in which it has been applied has varied. In particular, the basis upon which limitation is calculated has differed. In the United Kingdom since 1862, the criterion has been the tonnage of the ship, but in many Continental countries it has been the value of the ship which has been adopted for this purpose. As my noble friend Lord Simon emphasised during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, limitation by reference to value can operate unjustly in favour of the owner of an ill-found and possibly ill-equipped ship. The conflict of laws about limitation of liability has created difficulty and confusion in the courts of the various maritime countries, and it was not surprising that this was among the topics discussed by the Comité de Maritime International at its first conference in 1897. After more than twenty-five years of discussion, sufficient agreement was reached internationally on the terms of the Convention, which was signed by the United Kingdom, among other countries, in 1924. This Convention was an attempt at a compromise between the British and Continental systems. It received limited support but was never ratified in this country.
In post-war discussions among British shipowners, agreement was reached that the existing monetary limits under the Merchant Shipping Acts were too low and that a further attempt should be

425
made to reach international agreement on the subject of limitation as a whole. It is to be noted that the shipping industry came to this conclusion purely upon consideration of policy and without any external pressure, Parliamentary or otherwise. The British Maritime Law Association, representative of shipowners, underwriters and the National Constituent Association of the Comité Maritime International, prepared a draft convention which was considered at conferences held in Brighton in 1954 and in Madrid in the following year. It is upon this draft that the provisions of the Brussels Convention of 1957 are based.
Its most important provisions are, first, the adoption of the British basis of limitation—that is to say, the tonnage of the vessel; secondly, the increase in the monetary limits, which will go a long way to avoid the inequitable position of claimants, such as was described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, in the debate on the Second Reading; thirdly, the extension of the classes of persons who may limit their liability; and fourthly, the widening of the circumstances in which limitation may be claimed. If the Government Amendments are accepted, the Bill will give effect to the main provisions of the Limitation Convention. In view of the part taken by British shipowners in drafting the Convention, the incorporation of all of its provisions into British law has the full support of the shipping industry. I beg to support the adoption of the Amendments to the Bill.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: When faced with this formidable list of Amendments, being no lawyer, I consulted an expert on shipping law who, fortunately, in his retirement from a firm, is now Sheriff of Aberdeen, and I spent Sunday morning endeavouring to find out what they are all about. I do not know how successful I was, but I can assure your Lordships that a completely independent opinion was all in favour of my noble friend's Amendments to the Bill. They make it a better Bill on this aspect of limitation than its original promoters could ever have hoped for when they originally produced their small and more modest Bill. If it meets with your Lordships' convenience, I shall not speak again unless points are raised by other noble Lords who are experts in these matters
426
and who wish me to do so. I shall merely accept the Amendments when my noble friend Lord Mancroft moves them.
LORD CHORLEY: I speak with diffidence on this matter, but with such knowledge as I have (which is not an expert knowledge, though I have been a student of shipping law for a number of years), I should like to support what was said by the noble Lord who introduced the proposed Amendments. The Amendments much improve the Bill, which, so to speak, took one bite at the cherry. If it had been passed as drafted, it would have left the law in an unsatisfactory state in that it would have improved it in part yet left it where it was in other parts. It seems to me that this series of Amendments are valuable, not only because they will bring this country and other maritime countries much more into uniformity with each other in respect of this aspect of maritime law, but also because the proposals contained in them are of great value. I have no doubt that your Lordships will accept them, and I think we should be wise to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Extension to other persons of provisions applying to shipowners
"3.—(1) The persons whose liability in connection with a ship is excluded or limited by Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall include any charterer and any person interested in or in possession of the ship, and, in particular, any manager or operator of the ship.
(2) In relation to a claim arising from the act or omission of any person in his capacity as master or member of the crew or (otherwise than in that capacity) in the course of his employment as a servant of the owners or of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section,

(a) the persons who liability is excluded or limited as aforesaid shall also include the master, member of the crew or servant, and, in a case where the master or member of the crew is the servant of a person whose liability would not be excluded or limited apart from this paragraph, the person whose servant he is; and

(b) the liability of the master, member of the crew or servant himself shall be excluded or limited as aforesaid notwithstanding his actual fault or privity in that capacity, except in the cases mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section five hundred and two of the said Act of 1894."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the extension to other persons of the provisions applying to shipowners. Perhaps I ought to draw attention to subsection (1). This subsection gives partial effect to Article 6 (2) of the Convention. It extends the right to limit to charterers otherwise than by demise and to any person interested in or in possession of the ship. This will include shipbuilders who are in possession of the ship, for example while she is on trials. Subsection (2) is new. This subsection also gives partial effect to Article 6 (2) of the Convention. It entitles the master and members of the crew to limit their liability incurred in the course of their employment, thereby preventing plaintiffs from avoiding the shipowner's right to limit by suing his servant instead. These are, I think, the principal provisions of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Unregistered ships and ships in course of completion or construction
"4.—(1) Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall apply to any structure, whether completed or in coarse of completion, launched and intended for use in navigation as a ship or curt of a ship, and the expression 'ship' in the said Part VIII and in this Act shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The said Part VIII shall apply to any British ship notwithstanding that it has not yet been registered.
(3) The tonnage of any ship or structure to which the said Part VIII applies by virtue of this section shall, for the purposes of that Part, be ascertained as provided by subsection (2) of section five hundred and three of the said Act of 1894 with regard to foreign ships."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment applies to unregistered ships and ships in the course of completion or construction. Under the existing law, if I understand it aright, limitation of liability applies only in relation to ships. This subsection extends limitation to any structure, whether or not completed, which is intended for use in navigation as a ship, or part of a ship, provided that it has been launched, thereby eliminating the possibility of dispute about the stage of construction at which the structure becomes a ship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I hope that before the Committee approves this new clause, as I have no doubt it will, I may he allowed to ask the noble Lord who introduced it whether he could explain the reference to "a part of a ship". I have tried hard to understand this. As I see it, the object of the clause—and it is linked to the previous one—is largely concerned with the liabilities of shipbuilders when a ship is not yet complete and with giving them the benefit of limitation of liability. It appears that this construction, whatever it is, has to be launched and has to be intended for use in navigation. I cannot understand how part of a ship can be launched and intended for use in navigation. To me it seems a curious reference.
Apart from that, what are the claims in respect of which this liability is limited? We have to go back to Section 503 of the old 1894 Act, as amended by the first Amendment to-day, and we find that they are claims which arise from actual omissions in navigation or management of the ship. You cannot navigate or manage part of a ship; and I do not think the shipbuilders manage the ship at all. I have a suspicion that this clause is brought in to deal with the sort of case which happened some time ago and may be in some of your Lordships' minds—the case when there is a serious accident on trials before the ship is delivered to her new owners, and difficult questions of limitation arise. But I do not see how they can arise in respect of a part of a ship, and I should have thought that it was only confusing to include those words.
Finally, may I say that if it is conceivable that there is a part of a ship that can be concerned, I do not understand how the tonnage of any part of a ship to which this applies could be ascertained as provided by subsection (2) of Section 503 of the Act of 1894, because that relates solely to the ascertainment of the tonnage of a ship. I hope that before the Amendment is passed the noble Lord may be able to give us an explanation. I gave him notice of this point, but I am afraid it was short notice, and he may well say that he would rather give an explanation later.
LORD CROOK: Is it not a fact that one of the triumphs of the shipbuilding industry in this country to-day is that it is able to build ships in halves, move them away and then bring them together again? Would not that be a "part" in the meaning of this clause?
LORD MANCROFT: I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has the right answer. My noble friend, Lord Simon, has said that he does not understand how a claim can arise in respect of a part of a ship. I am informed that it does not infrequently happen that a large ship is launched in two parts which will be subsequently joined together. Alternatively, new parts of damaged ships may be launched on their own. One has seen pictures of such new parts being sailed out to meet the old parts. As for the difficulty my noble friend feels of ascertaining the tonnage of a part of a ship, I am given to understand that this can quite readily be done by a certificate issued by the Surveyor-General of Ships which is provided for in Section 503 (2) (6) of the Act of 1894 which will be applied by Clause 4 (3) of the Bill. My noble friend knows more about this than I do, but I understand that that is the answer to the problem that is worrying him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Release of ship, etc.
"5.—(1) Where a ship or other property is arrested in connection with a claim which appears to the court to be founded on a liability to which a limit is set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or security is given to prevent or obtain release from such an arrest, the court may, and in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of this section shall, order the release of the ship, property or security, if the conditions specified in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied; but where the release is ordered the person on whose application it is ordered shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the claim (or, in Scotland, to have prorogated that jurisdiction).
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that security which in the opinion of the court is satisfactory (in this section referred to as "guarantee") has previously been given, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, in respect of the said liability or any other liability incurred on the same occasion and the court is satisfied that, if the claim is established, the amount for
430
which the guarantee was given or such part thereof as corresponds to the claim will be actually available to the claimant; and

(b) that either the guarantee is for an amount not less than the said limit or further security is given which, together with the guarantee, is for an amount not less than that limit.

(3) The circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

(a) that the guarantee was given in a Convention country;

(b) that the relevant port or, as the case may be, one of the relevant ports, is in the country in which the guarantee was given.

(4) For the purposes of this section,—

(a) a guarantee given by the giving of security in more than one country shall be deemed to have been given in the country in which security was last given;

(b) any question whether the amount of any security is (either by itself or together with any other amount) not less than any limit set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be decided as at the time at which the security is given.

(5) In this section—
" Convention country" means any country in respect of which the Convention is in force (including any country to which the Convention extends by virtue of Article 14 thereof);
" relevant port"—

(a) in relation to any claim, means the port where the event giving rise to the claim occurred or, if that event did not occur in a port, the first port of call after the event occurred; and

(b) in relation to a claim for loss of life or personal injury or for damage to cargo, includes the port of disembarkation or discharge.

" the Convention" means the International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships signed in Brussels on the tenth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven.
(6) If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that any country specified in the Order is a Convention country within the meaning of this section, the Order shall, while in force, be conclusive evidence that the country is a Convention country; but any Order in Council under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
(7) In the application of this section to Scotland the references to arrest shall be construed as referring to arrestment on the dependence of an action or in rem and for the references to release from arrest or to the ordering of such a release there shall be substituted references to the recall of an arrestment."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment applies to the release of ships. The new clause gives effect to Article 5 of the Convention, which provides for the release of ships which have been arrested or of security which has been given if

431
security up to the Convention limits has been given in another contracting State. The purpose is to prevent the arrest of ships or the giving of security on more than one occasion in respect of the same incident. The clause will apply only in those cases in which it appears to the court that the shipowner or other person is entitled to limit his liability; that is to say, the applicant for release will have to satisfy the court, at any rate with prima facie evidence, that the claim is one to which limitation applies and, in particular, that he himself has not been guilty of actual fault or privity. The weight of evidence which the court will require will be a matter for the court itself to decide, subject to any Rules of Court which may be made on the subject.
Some doubt has arisen, I understand, on the precise meaning of the words "relevant port" in subsection (5) of this clause; and, in particular, whether they mean actual port or intended port. There is the rather macabre point that if the victim of an accident is buried at sea there will be no "actual" port of disembarkation at all. I should like to get this as an agreed measure, and I would ask your Lordships to pass this Amendment, including subsection (5), and to allow me to consult with the interests concerned in order to see whether we cannot get a slightly clearer drafting of subsection (5) to meet the points which have been made, with which I have not yet had time to deal, but with which I should wish to deal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD MERRIMAN: I should like to say a few words on this clause generally, and, in particular, in relation to the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned a moment ago, of the determination of fault or privity. I have not put down an Amendment, and I am not suggesting that any is necessary, because I think the clause deals with the point about which I know those who advised the shipping community are worried. It arises in this way. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, the right to limit applies only if fault or privity is negatived. It is well settled that it is for the shipowner to disprove that he has been in any way guilty of fault or privity which has been
432
the cause of the casualty. If I may be technical for a moment, the words "fault or privity" apply not only to negligence by his servants and that sort of thing, which may be the immediate cause of the casualty, but also to such things as sending to sea a vessel which is unseaworthy when her unseaworthiness has in fact been the cause of the casualty. That is only one example, but it is the best example of fault or privity, and that has to be disproved by the owner. I believe that point has been covered by the opening words of the clause. If I may, I will read them:
"Where a ship or other property is arrested in connection with a claim which appears to the court to be founded on a liability to which a limit is set by section five hundred and three …"—
I have just given your Lordships an outline of that section. In other words, the question of fault or privity is to be decided by the court.
The point I wish to make is that it must be decided before any question of release arises at all. I think that is the effect of the new clause, but I should be glad to have it confirmed that that is the view of the Government on the subject. I mention this point only because, in the nature of things, the issue of fault or privity is likely to be a lengthy one. In certain cases it may be the key to the whole controversy, and there is no doubt that when questions of fault or privity arise they are apt to be fought hard and bitterly. Therefore, it must not be taken for granted that release under this Convention, which is embodied in this clause, is necessarily swift or automatic. That is the main point on this clause.
There is, however, another point which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, indicated, without dealing with it—it is with regard to the giving of the security under subsection (3). The Convention (if I may call your Lordships' attention to it) makes it obligatory, in Article V, for the court to release a ship which has been arrested if the prescribed guarantee is given in a port. I call it, for short, as it is called in the Bill, "the relevant port". It does not matter for my purposes whether the port is the port in which the accident happened, or whether it is the next port of call, to instance two of the things which are covered in the Bill by the definition, "the relevant port". For some reason which I do not understand,

433
the Bill, instead of saying that the guarantee must be given in the relevant port in order to cause the release to be mandatory, says that it may be given anywhere "in a Convention country". I, and others, see a danger to British shipping in this change from the Convention to the wording of the Bill.
It might arise in some such way as this. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a British ship comes into collision in the Channel and makes for Southampton Water, and is then arrested by the foreign shipowner for his damages in the collision. Bail is usually given in this country in London. Then suppose that, instead of bail being given in Southampton, which is the next port of call in those circumstances, it is given in London; and the ship is released and goes off, we will say, to Le Havre, where some other claimant in connection with the same usually arrests her again. Our shipowner demands instant release on the ground that he has given sufficient guarantee. The French might well say, "That is all very well. You have given guarantee in accordance with the English Act of Parliament, but you have not given guarantee in accordance with the Convention. Therefore we are not obliged to release." I think that that is a serious danger which ought to be removed. It can be got rid of perfectly simply by making "the relevant port"—which at present, as the Bill is drafted, has no relevance at all, if I may be permitted to say so—the port at which the guarantee is to be given. Then the situation fits the Convention. I call attention to those points for clarification only, and I hope that I have made them sufficiently clear.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I add one word to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, has said on the subject of "the relevant port," because it seems to me that the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, has undertaken to look into it. I want to put into your Lordships' minds one thought. If an accident occurs in which a ship is in collision and is sunk, and the owners of the cargo in the ship wish thereupon to sue, they will find that there is no "relevant port" at all. The ship has been sunk, so she makes no next port of call. The cargo is not discharged anywhere and, therefore, so far as I can see, there is no
434
"relevant port" of call. It was with that rather in mind that, in advance of the Sitting, I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that possibly it might make more sense if the port of discharge were the port of intended discharge; that is, the port to which the bill of lading is made out, otherwise there may be many cases arising where there is no "relevant port."
LORD MANCROFT: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, has raised two important points here. I accept, of course, his first point. The release under Clause 5 will not be automatic. The court must be satisfied that there is no actual fault or privity. But with regard to the noble and learned Lord's second point, and also the point that my noble friend Lord Simon has addressed to your Lordships, may I ask them to let me have another look at these to see whether I can draft an Amendment to cover them? I think they are valid points and we must obviously look at them again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.38 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on enforcement after giving of security
"6.—(1) No judgment or decree for a claim founded on a liability to which a limit is set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be enforced, except so far as it is for costs or (in Scotland) expenses, if security for an amount not less than the said limit has been given, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, in respect of the liability and the court is of opinion that the security is satisfactory and is satisfied that the amount for which it was given or such part thereof as corresponds to the claim will be actually available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made.
(2) For the purpose of this section any question whether the amount of any security is not less than any limit set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be decided as at the time at which the security is given."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the restriction on enforcement after the giving of security. It restricts the enforcement of judgments except for costs, or in Scotland expenses, if security up to the limits of liability has been given in the United Kingdom or elsewhere and the court is of the opinion

435
that the security is satisfactory and is satisfied that the security, or such part as corresponds to the claim, will be actually available to the person in whose favour the judgment is given. The purpose of this new Amendment No. 5 is to give effect to Article 2 (4) of the Convention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Distribution of limitation fund
"7.—(1) In making any distribution in accordance with section five hundred and four of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the distribution of such part of the amount to be distributed as it deems appropriate having regard to any claims that may later be established before a court of any country outside the United Kingdom.
(2) No lien or other right in respect of any ship or property shall affect the proportions in which under the said section five hundred and four any amount is distributed amongst several claimants."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment introduces a new Clause 7, dealing with the distribution of the limitation fund. I think there are only two brief points to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. Subsection (1) empowers the court to postpone the distribution of the limitation fund under Section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or of such part thereof as it deems appropriate, having regard to any claims that may later be established before a court of any country outside the United Kingdom. It thereby removes the doubt which has hitherto existed whether a court has power to take account of contingent claims abroad. Subsection (2) gives effect to Article 3 (2) of the Convention by providing that the limitation fund shall be distributed among the claimants in proportion to the amounts of their established claims without regard to liens or other rights in respect of any ship or property. Those are the two points that arise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: These are only minor and consequential Amendments and repeals. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Minor and consequential amendments and repeals
"8.—(1) In section five hundred and two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the word "sea-going" shall be omitted.
(2) For subsection (3) of section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, there shall be substituted the following subsection—
" (3) The limits set by this section to the liabilities mentioned therein shall apply to the aggregate of such liabilities which are incurred on any distinct occasion, and shall so apply in respect of each distinct occasion without regard to any liability incurred on another occasion."
(3) In section five hundred and four of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for the words "in respect of loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to vessels or goods" there shall be substituted the words "in respect of any occurrence in respect of which his liability is limited under section five hundred and three of this Act".
(4) In Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the expression "owner" shall be construed as including, where it occurs in section five hundred and two, every person whose liability is excluded by section three of this Act, and elsewhere, except in the second place where it occurs in section five hundred and five, every person whose liability is limited by that section.
(5) In section five of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, the following shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (6)—
"(a) any structure to which Part VIII of that Act is applied by section four of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958; and"
and in subsection (8) for the reference to the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898, there shall be substituted a reference to sections three and four of this Act.
(6) The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule."—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Saving for occurrences taking place before commencement
"9. Nothing in this Act applies in relation to any liability arising from an occurrence which took place before the commencement of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This clause provides that nothing in the Act shall apply in relation to any liability arising from an occurrence which takes place before the commencement of the Act. There is no provision in the Bill for its coming into force; and it will accordingly come into force when it receives the Royal Assent, apart from the provision relating to the costs of wreck removal, to which I referred in dealing with Clause 2 (5). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This clause extends the Bill to Northern Ireland, with consequential adaptations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to Northern Ireland
("10.—(1) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.
(2) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland the reference in section eight to the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, is a reference to that Act as it applies in Northern Ireland.
(3) For the purposes of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (which relates to the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws), this Act shall be deemed to have been passed before the day appointed for the purposes of that section.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

"SCHEDULE ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Session and Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

57 & 58 Vict. c.60

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894…

In section five hundred and two, the word "sea-going".

Section five hundred and eight.

61 & 62 Vict. c.14

The Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898.

The whole Act.

63 & 64 Vict. c.32

The Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900.

Section one.

6 Edw. 7. c. 48

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906—

Sections seventy and seventy-one.

11 & 12 Geo. 5. c.28

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1921…

Subsection (2) of section one."

—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This clause is the usual clause for application to British possessions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Application to British possessions, etc.
"11.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act, and (so far as they do not so extend apart from the Order) the existing limitation enactments, shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the Order, to—

(a) the Isle of Man;

(b) any of the Channel Islands;

(c) any colony, or any country or place outside Her Majesty's dominions in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction, or any territory consisting partly of one or more colonies and partly of one or more such countries or places.

(2) In this section "the existing limitation enactments" means Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, section two of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900, and any incidental or supplementary provisions of any enactment applying the said Part or section."—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is merely the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the following Schedule:
The Title:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is necessary so as to enlarge the Title of the Bill to embrace the rather comprehensive series of Amendments we have been discussing, for your Lordships' kind approval of which I am very grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 1, leave out from "to" to the second "and" in line 2 and insert (" amend Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and section two of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others Act, 1900.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

TRADING REPRESENTATIONS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the Bill for which I am asking a Second Reading this afternoon is a short one. I venture to hope, and indeed I think, that it will receive your Lordships' approval, because it was introduced to meet what I believe has become a very real grievance which has sprung up over recent years. I refer to the door-to-door canvassing, and also the canvassing by post, for the purpose of selling articles by firms and traders under such names as "Blind Employment", "Blind Homework", "Disabled Ex-Servicemen", and other such trading names. Those names are obviously intended to give to the people called upon by these canvassers the impression that the articles in question have been made by blind people or by war-disabled people, thus very naturally evoking their sympathy and obtaining their custom for the articles in question. Quite a number of the firms and traders behaving in this sort of way are really not selling articles made by the blind or by disabled people at all: the whole thing has become very much a "racket".
Another aspect of the question was the selling of articles alleged to be for the purpose of providing money for the blind or for war-disabled people, though in some, at any rate, of those cases there was reason to believe that the blind or
440
disabled saw none, or very little, of the money which was obtained in that way. The articles were often sold at high prices, prices a good deal higher than those for which similar articles could be purchased in the ordinary shops; and the whole matter is, I think, very much of a grievance. There were very seldom any profits for the blind; the profits, or certainly the substantial portion of them, went into the pockets of the unscrupulous people who were behaving in this way. A number of these cases were, I believe, brought to the attention of the police and of the Ministry of Labour, but it was usually found that under the existing law it was not possible to bring a prosecution, or, at least, to bring a prosecution with hopes of a conviction. Therefore, various Members of Parliament felt that it was necessary to bring in a Bill, and we have this Private Member's Bill which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon.
In effect, the Bill establishes a licensing system for this type of selling by requiring, subject to some exceptions to which I shall draw your Lordships' attention, that where selling or soliciting of orders for goods is carried through by house-to-house canvassing or by post, under the pretext that the people engaged in the making or preparation, packing or production of these goods are blind or disabled people, or alternatively, that the benefit from the sales is to go to such people, the persons carrying on the business must be registered. If they are not registered—if they do not come within one of the exceptions—they will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. The penalties are based on the similar provisions of the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944, which was passed with the object of meeting a not dissimilar sort of situation.
The exceptions, which your Lordships will find in subsection (2) of Clause 1, are intended to cover all the existing nonprofit-making organisations which have been very properly engaged in work of this kind. Many of them have been so engaged for quite a number of years, and I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree that it is very right and proper that this sort of work should go on, because in this way inestimable and valuable results have been achieved by a number of these organisations in the interests of

441
blind and disabled men and women. It was far from the object of the promoters of this Bill to wish to bring that to an end. Clause 2 deals with licensing, under which people wishing to carry on this type of work may apply to the Minister of Labour for a licence to be permitted to do so. Your Lordships will see that it is a lengthy clause, and I do not think that there is any need for me to go in detail into its provisions. It is lengthy because it is obviously, I think, necessary to prevent a colourable satisfaction of the requirements of the Act on the part of the unscrupulous people who have been engaged on this sort of work, as they might do by putting one or two blind people into a workshop or perhaps having one or two blind people on their staff who might be used in connection with canvassing and so on, thus providing a colourable case, but one which was not really genuine in any real sense of the term. Therefore, the clause goes into the requirements which will have to be satisfied before the appropriate Minister will grant the necessary licence.
My Lords, that is almost all that I need to say on this particular point, but before sitting down I should like to pay a tribute to the work which has been put into this Bill by the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and also by the Member for Mitcham, who at one time was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and whose collaboration enabled Mr. Victor Collins, the first Member of Parliament in question, to produce this Bill and to get it through another place. I am sure that it meets the very real grievance which, as I have said, has been becoming apparent over the last months,
442
and in those circumstances I am sure that your Lordships will feel that it should have a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chorley.)
4.54 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I beg to commend this Bill to your Lordships' House. In doing so, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord opposite and the honourable gentleman, Mr. Victor Collins, who was responsible for promoting this Bill in another place. I am sure that your Lordships will wish this Bill Godspeed through its remaining stages, and will join with me in trusting that this measure will stamp out the wicked evil that has been the reason behind the introduction of the Bill which, as I say, I commend to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSING OF BULLS AND BOARS BILL [H.L.]
4.55 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at three minutes before five o'clock.