Lords Sitting of 12 May 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDEPENDENT AIR LINES AND COLONIAL SERVICES
2.35 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware that parents living in Commonwealth countries with children at school in England are forced, by infrequent leave and high air fares, to endure long periods of absence from their children, and that this hardship would be considerably alleviated by the introduction of very low air fares as now proposed by certain independent air lines.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation, is advised by the Air Transport Advisory Council on applications by independent air lines to operate scheduled services. He is now shortly expecting the Council's recommendations on certain low fare proposals for services between the United Kingdom and British Colonial territories. I have no doubt that such points as those made by the noble Lord were laid before the Council when these applications were heard. I can assure your Lordships that in considering the Council's recommendations my right honourable friend will give
274
due weight to all the arguments put forward in favour of these proposals, including those advanced by the noble Lord.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for what I hope will prove to be a satisfactory answer.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would the Government also bear in mind that it is no good taking off the cream from this type of business and leaving the air Corporations with the skimmed milk?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in considering these matters, would Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that air travellers fall into two classes, the first of whose fares are deductible against tax and the second who have to pay for their fares out of taxed income, and that the low fares envisaged here would be most valuable to the second class?
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that B.O.A.C. and other air lines would wish to reduce the fares on some of the International services but are prevented from doing so by decisions of I.A.T.A.? B.O.A.C. is actually anxious to reduce some of the fares.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I understand that that is in fact so.

REBUILDING OF LONDON BARRACKS
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the long time which the rebuilding in succession of the London barracks is likely to take, they will consider borrowing the necessary money, so as to make it possible for more than one of these barracks to be rebuilt at the same time.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, there seems to be some hiatus on the Front Bench; it has taken us by surprise. I think my noble friend, Lord Onslow, meant to answer this Question. Perhaps with the noble Lord's permission we could

275
find some other time later to-day, when I can get hold of my noble friend to answer the Question.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, as was courteously done by the Front Bench not long ago, the noble Lord could ask his Question at the end of the Questions on the Paper? That was done for me not long ago.
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, if that is agreeable to the noble Lord. I am sorry the spokesman for the Government is not in his place at this moment.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I will take another opportunity, if I may, of asking this Question. Meanwhile, I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that these barracks are among the worst in the whole Kingdom, and that Wellington Barracks in particular has been condemned for at least forty years.

WATER SUPPLIES IN THE SOUTH-EAST
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now institute hydrological surveys in the three South-Eastern statistical areas where Figure 7, Appendix II, shows that the surplus of water over demand is lowest. (Reference is to the First Report from the Central Advisory Water Committee's Sub-Committee on The Growing Demand for Water.)]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I find myself in the same position that I was in a moment ago. I shall have to try to find my noble friend in the shortest possible time and ask him to answer the noble Earl's Question then.

BY-PASS FOR KING'S LYNN
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, if there is somebody to answer it, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider provision of a short-length by-pass road for King's Lynn, to accommodate the yearly increasing North South traffic, including that from across the Ouse.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, it is a new experience to me to be welcomed as I am about to answer a Question. The Norfolk County Development Plan includes a proposal for a bypass of King's Lynn. The length of the proposed by-pass is about five miles. The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation is at present in touch with the Norfolk County Council about the inclusion of this by-pass in the road programme. However, I would warn the noble Earl that even with the current high level of expenditure on roads, so much needs to be done that my right honourable friend sees little prospect of being able to authorise an early start on the construction of this by-pass at present.
In the interim period in order to assist traffic in the town, my right honourable friend has authorised an improvement at the junction of A.47 and A.149 at South Gates, and is discussing with the County Council their proposals to improve Gaywood Road level crossing and East-gate Bridge on A.149.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, that is a fairly favourable answer, and I thank the noble Earl for it. The part of the Question which talks about aiding North-South traffic is the part which I want to make the subject of a supplementary question, if the noble Earl will allow me. I understand that the voices of Norfolk are not so clamant as those in some other parts of the country to which the Ministry has to attend. But do not Her Majesty's Government think that a sort of quid pro quo or douceur might be handed out to the community which is suffering as the result of the metals having been taken up from the Midland and Great Northern Railway track, which railway jigs all along the upper levels of Norfolk and does not cover a straight line of country? The bus company who have taken the place of the railway would also be greatly helped if the Government could give special additional grants to encourage

277
them. They are, after all, a private enterprise and not, like the railway, a nationalised concern. I would ask the Government whether they do not think that the community might be given special aid by way of grants.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I would first of all say that I am grateful that the noble Earl was not disappointed after the acclamation he gave me when I started to answer his original Question. I am sure that my right honourable friend is taking and will take into account the special considerations which have resulted not from the actual removal of the metals but from the removal of certain passenger trains from that area. I would remind him that the proposal to close the line was put in the usual way to the Area Transport Users Consultative Committee and that their recommendation in favour of closure went to and was supported by the Central Transport Consultative Committee. When considering applications to close lines and withdraw services the consultative committees do go into the question of alternative bus services. However, I will naturally bring my right honourable friend's attention to what the noble Earl has said about the special position.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Earl very much.
LORD WISE: My Lords, might I, from this side, add a further voice from Norfolk, and remind the noble Earl that in his reply he referred to two level crossings in King's Lynn but not to the level crossing which has been the bone of contention for the last 50 years. the level crossing at Tennyson Avenue? That level crossing holds up all the traffic, North and South, which comes through Lynn, and it should be greatly improved or altered. The by-pass will help the traffic which goes North and South, but might I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that unless the Tennyson Avenue crossing is improved there is no remedy at all for the terrible troubles which the interior traffic in King's Lynn xperiences?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am not personally aware of that particular situation, because, unfortunately, it is some years since I have been to King's Lynn. However, I will certainly
278
look into the matter and will write to the noble Earl as soon as I find out what the situation is.

DEATHS IN KENYA DETENTION CAMP
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question by Private Notice concerning the Hola case. The Question is: Whether the Government will make available to this House the text of the Cowan plan and of the coroner's report on the Hola case; whether the dead men were detainees or convicts; and what compensation will be paid to their dependants, if any.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the one available copy of the coroner's report has already been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. As soon as further copies become available—I hope that that will be very soon—one will be placed in the Printed Paper Office. The text of the Cowan plan is contained in the coroner's report as Exhibit "P". All of the dead men were detainees. Four had been convicted of Mau Mau offences but subsequently their sentences had been commuted under prerogative powers to enable them to he transferred to detention camps for rehabilitation. The Kenya Government are considering the question of payments to the dependants of the dead.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is a pity that we cannot have a copy of the report. I should have thought that it could have been printed; it has been printed in Kenya. Does the noble Earl accept this statement or is this in the report: Mr Goudie said that the Cowan plan, which apparently had Government backing and approval gave intentional or unintentional carte blanche in forcing detainees to carry out a task? There was beating to compel detainees to work or punishment for not working. The latter was entirely unjustified and illegal. And does the noble Earl accept this comment from The Times:
"They were beaten to death in the course of an attempt by the warders to compel them to work. The Cowan plan led straight to the fatal result."?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I have already said that I hope that copies of the report will be available very soon. This is a bulky report and copies have not come in. We have already sent a cable asking for further copies which will be available soon. In regard to the second point, I do not accept the comment as published in the papers which the noble Viscount has read out. I think that when he sees the report he will see the reasons for that. The Cowan plan was not illegal in its instruction. It was fully understood, and I think that the inference that was drawn was not correct.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, the House knows, of course, that in all parts of the country there is a good deal of anxiety about the situation. The right honourable gentleman the Minister said last week that Her Majesty's Government were awaiting the report to the Governor—I take it that he was referring to the report of the Attorney-General for Kenya. Might we know if that report has been received or when it will be received, for upon that report will depend any questions that we should wish to put as to action to be taken.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I believe that the Attorney-General has informed the Governor that the available evidence does not permit the framing of a charge against identified individuals in respect of identified illegal force used in the course of the operation. He has thus reached the same conclusion as the magistrate who undertook the judicial investigation, who said:
"It is impossible to determine beyond reasonable doubt which injuries on the deceased were caused by justifiable and which by unjustifiable blows, and which injuries or which combination of injuries resulted in the shock or hemorrhage causing death."
Disciplinary proceedings are, however, to be initiated against the Camp Commandant, Mr. Sullivan, and against Mr. Coutts. Meanwhile they are being interdicted from duty. No disciplinary charges are contemplated against the ordinary staff.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl will observe that the Question I put had nothing whatever to do with alleged private offenders. It is a direct attack on the policy of the Kenya Government.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the extremely rapid and accurate methods of duplication which are available to-day, there is any real reason for treating the two Houses differently in respect of the production of a report like this?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, frankly, we considered that matter. This report came in yesterday. It consisted of some 150 to 200 pages, and we were hoping that by to-day another copy would have been received, which would have been exactly the same as that already available. But if it is your Lordships' wish, knowing that a further copy will in any case be coming very shortly, I will consider the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl—and I may say at once that we are glad that some disciplinary action is being taken in this matter—whether or not other members of the staff concerned in this matter have been given notice of suspension until further disciplinary action is considered, or have been suspended? Does the suspension apply only to the two persons named?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the suspension applies only to the two persons named, for the reasons I have already given.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl when we shall have an opportunity of examining the merits of the Cowan plan?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, if, when he has seen the report, the noble Viscount wishes to put down a Question or to move through the usual channels we shall be very happy.

REBUILDING OF LONDON BARRACKS
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I say that my two noble friends are now in a position, if your Lordships will allow them, to answer the Questions on the Order Paper. I would apologise to my two noble friends who had put down the Questions for the fact that something went wrong in the posting arrangements. I will make sure that that does not happen again.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, may I again ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper may now be answered?
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the long time which the rebuilding in succession of the London barracks is likely to take, they will consider borrowing the necessary money, so as to make it possible for more than one of these barracks to be rebuilt at the same time.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I, a very junior officer, apologise to the noble Lord, a very senior officer in the Brigade, for delaying him in this way. As my noble Leader has said, there was a slight hitch in the post. The decision to rebuild Chelsea, Hyde Park and Wellington Barracks in succession was taken not for any financial reason but because Her Majesty's Household troops cannot effectively discharge their duties in London if more than one of these barracks is out of use at the same time.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that these barracks are very bad indeed—among the worst in the world—and that the worst of all of them is Wellington Barracks, close by Buckingham Palace? May I also ask whether Her Majesty's Government cannot bring the men up for duty by train, either from Caterham or possibly Pirbright, and whether that would not hasten the rebuilding of these barracks, which is so urgently required?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the state of these barracks, and there
282
is no doubt that the noble Lord has put some very interesting suggestions which I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Minister for War.

WATER SUPPLIES IN THE SOUTH-EAST
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I now put the Question Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now institute hydrological surveys in the three South-Eastern statistical areas where Fig. 7, Appendix II, shows that the surplus of supply over demand is lowest. (Reference is to the first report from the Central Advisory Water Committee's Sub-Committee on The Growing Demand for Water.)]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl for not having earlier the Answer to his Question. Again, I regret that owing to a factor of post I have no further details beyond those which, with your Lordships' leave, I shall read to the noble Lord in answer. Should he have any further question, shall, of course, be only too pleased to take it up with my right honourable friend the Minister.
The problems of supply and demand in the three South-Eastern statistical areas are already being examined by other means. Hydrological surveys are now in hand, however, for the Severn and Great Ouse to assess the capacity of these rivers to meet the large additional and urgent demands. The experience gained from these surveys will enable my right honourable friend to decide whether such surveys should be undertaken in other areas.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, which does not at all go to the root of the matter as expressed in the Report referred to on the Paper. I should like to ask whether the expressed policy of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government is that before we can do any good in assessing the needs for future demands for water we must have 400 river gauges. We now have only about 120 or 130, and I understand that that is

283
the expressed policy of the Ministry. The recommendations of the Report show perfectly clearly that by 1965 three areas in the South-East of England will be on a very narrow margin of supply over demand—a matter which the Report begs should be attended to before the much larger task of undertaking hydrological surveys all over England, or on the Severn or anywhere else, is considered.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords. I assure the noble Earl that I will look into what he says, and will write to him after I have consulted with my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware. as I pointed out in this House not long ago, that an adequate supply of water is one of the pressing national needs, and whether there is any reason why these other inquiries should not go on independently of the Severn inquiry to which the noble Earl has drawn attention?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will consider what the noble Viscount has said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to put this point to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. We know that accidents will sometimes happen, such as happened about Questions to-day, but we are a little concerned about the fact that it should come back to a question of posts. That, I understood, was the explanation. We are very anxious and we hope that such economies are not going on as to prevent a proper private secretary service to Ministers who have to answer for other Departments in this House, whose private secretaries would have the duty of seeing that the Minister is duly notified of the time, place and substance of an Answer for his consideration before he has to submit it.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like to look into the question of this particular breakdown in our machinery. I am not sure whether it is a matter of the post. I was told that it was "communications" which caused the delay in the Answers. I will look into this matter, and I hope I can guarantee to the House that it will not happen again.
284
I certainly take the point made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition.

SPACE RESEARCH
3.0 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council will be making a statement at about 3.45 p.m. on space research.

FATAL ACCIDENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LEGITIMACY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order) on Report from the Unopposed Bill Committee: Bill reported without amendment.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES) ORDER, 1959
3.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)rose to move, That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1959, be approved. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of the Order is to make the same relative increases in the salaries of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the county court judges and the Metropolitan Police magistrates as the increases in the salaries of the higher civil servants recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service, the acceptance of whose recommendations was announced by my honourable and learned friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on April 24 of this year.
The salaries of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the county court

285
judges and the Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates were fixed at their present figures by Section 1 (1) of the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Act, 1957, and were related to the increases in the salaries of higher civil servants which were made in 1956 as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. The need for legislation in the case of the judicial salaries led to the increases made by the Act of 1957 being delayed for more than a year after the increases received by the Civil Service. In order to avoid the need for legislation in future, Section 1 (4) of the Act enabled any further increase in salary to be made by means of an Order made by myself, with the consent of the Treasury and subject to Affirmative Resolution. The salaries which will now be paid are set out the Order. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any further detail about the Order, but if any noble Lord has any questions I shall, of course, do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1959, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise first of all to welcome this measure which I think is long overdue. I hope that, in spite of the formidable-looking agenda before the House this afternoon, I may be permitted to say a few general words on this subject. It may comfort the House to know that in saying these words I am also saying what I might otherwise have said on the next Order on the Paper—namely, the Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Bill.
I feel that this question of remuneration of our judicial servants is of the greatest importance. We pride ourselves that we have the finest Judiciary in the world, and I think certainly it has been true of the last fifty years. But we can expect to get the very best judicial body only by providing for them conditions which, are satisfactory. There is no doubt at all in my mind, from information I have, that a good many of our judges, particularly county court judges, and magistrates have been living in relative penury during the last few years, certainly since the war. The increase in their remuneration has not kept pace with the rising cost of living, and even before the war their remuneration was not
286
exactly generous. Judges have a position to maintain. They have to maintain a contain amount of aloofness from the general public. For instance, I think it is highly undignified for a magistrate or a judge to have to queue up for a bus on his way to court, and possibly run the risk of being accosted by people who are to come before him later—I have known that to happen in my experience. Generally speaking, I feel that we ought to be generous to members of our judicial body. If we are not, we run the risk of not attracting the best type of barrister and of lowering the general character of our Judiciary.
My Lords, I feel that this Order goes a long way towards meeting the situation. But it is not only a question of remuneration; there is also the question of pensions. A good many retired judges and magistrates have a legitimate grievance in so far as their pensions have not kept pace with the cost of living. A pension which was a reasonable pension, say, in 1940, or even 1950, is to-day an unreasonable pension. While it is not strictly material to this Order, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether he would give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of increasing the pensions of those judges and magistrates who retired some years ago and whose pensions have not been increased adequately to meet the cost of living
There are two other matters that I want to mention very briefly, though I recognise that, strictly, this is not the proper occasion. If we are to attract the best type of member of the Bar to either county court judgeships or magistracies, then there ought to be adequate opportunities of promotion to the High Court. In the last fifty years only one or two county court judges, I think—there may have been more; some may have escaped my notice—have been promoted to be High Court Judges. There must be more than that number who are suitable for such promotion, and if the feeling got around that, by accepting the position of a county court judge or a magistrate, that was the end of the road and there was no opportunity for advancement, then. I think it would be a very bad day for our Judiciary.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who is to

287
a large extent responsible for the appointment of High Court Judges, and the Prime Minister, too, whether they will not seriously consider appointing far more county court judges, or even magistrates, to the High Court as and when they are found to be suitable. It cannot be that nobody suitable has been available for promotion in the last, say, twenty-five years. Not only do I regard that as unthinkable, but, if it were true, it would be a very serious reflection on the quality of our county court judges and our magistrates.
Finally (and I have informed the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor at various times that I have this matter very much in mind), there is the question of the salaries of deputy county court judges. We use a great many of them, and it saves the appointment of county court judges. If we did not make use of retired judges as deputies, we should have to appoint more judges. Now, speaking very roughly, the remuneration of a county court judge today, with the increased remuneration, would be of the order of about £30 a sitting. The remuneration of the deputy is ten guineas. That is out of all proportion to the relative value of their work. After all, the retired county court judge who is acting as a deputy is a man of very great experience and long service, and should be worth as much as the acting county court judge: certainly far more than one-third of the remuneration. I hope that something can be done in this respect, also. May I conclude first by apologising to the House for raising matters which are perhaps a little extraneous to this Order; and then by asking the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether these increases date from to-day, or are retrospective; or, if not, when they begin?
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the various points which the noble Lord has raised. The first was with regard to the scale of salaries. I am in sympathy with his general view, but I think it is right that your Lordships should be aware of the alterations that have taken place. Before the war, in 1937, county court judges were paid £2,000 a year. That was raised in 1952 to £2,800. The noble Lord will remember that the change,
288
which was started under our predecessors in Government, who had gone a certain length in making the arrangements, was taken over by the present Administration: it was an agreed measure. Then, in 1957, as the House will remember, the figure was raised, by the Act to which I referred, to £3,750; and it is now being raised, by the Order now before your Lordships, to £4,400. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, if I may save your Lordships detailed figures, gets practically the same amount; and the salary of the metropolitan magistrates has risen in the same four stages: from £2,000 a year to £2,500; then to £3,400 in 1957, and to £3,800 to-day. So that I feel that a good step has been taken in the direction which the noble Lord desires—a direction with which, as I say, I have sympathy.
With regard to pensions, on the completion of service for the full period the judge in question is entitled to a pension of half the figures I have given; so that to-day it will be £2,200 for a county court judge, £1,900 for a Metropolitan magistrate, and £2,200 for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. My Lords, these pensions, of course, must be considered in relation to the value of money and the increased taxation. On the other hand, one has always to bear in mind, on the other side of that picture, the great difficulty to-day of the professional man saving enough from his earnings to provide an income for his old age. It is a very difficult task, and therefore the pensionable job has an increased value. Coming to the other point on pensions which the noble Lord raised, I am always very doubtful as to where the proprieties lie in these matters, but I think that it is perfectly proper for me to say that a Pensions Increase Bill has been announced; and I think it is again proper to ask the noble Lord to see that Bill before he says anything further on this point.
Now with regard to promotions, there again the noble Lord has raised an interesting point. Again I hope that he will forgive me for answering "off the cuff", without having verified my details, but the position is somewhat more favourable than he mentioned. There was a long gap from, I think, the time when Mr. Justice Acton was promoted from the County Court Bench; but during the time of my noble predecessor, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, there were

289
three promotions at once that I can remember—Mr. Justice Austin Jones, Mr. Justice Finnemore, and Mr. Justice Collingwood. There was also Mr. Justice Ormerod. In my own time, Mr. Justice Ormerod, who started on the County Court Bench, then served in the Divorce Division and later in the Queen's Bench Division, has been promoted to the Court of Appeal. I may add that I think that is the first time in our history that someone who started on the County Court Bench has been promoted to the Court of Appeal. Also, Mr. Justice Wrangham was promoted from the County Court Bench a short time ago. He was a county court judge in the North, and is now a Judge of the Divorce Division. So the noble Lord will see that this is a matter which, certainly since the war, has been well in the minds of Lord Chancellors; and I assure him that it will remain in my mind.
On the noble Lord's final point—the salaries paid to deputy county court judges—I should like to tell him that this again is a matter with which I have great sympathy. I shall let him know as soon as I have anything to report, but I hope that he will accept that it is a matter on which I am working at the present time.
My Lords, thanks to the fact that your Lordships have allowed me to deal with salaries by Affirmative Resolution, instead of by Act of Parliament, the increases in the salaries will follow very closely the dates of the increases of salaries in the Civil Service; and therefore there will not on this occasion be a period of retrospection. I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, and I thank him for raising them. Once again, I should like to express my general sympathy with the views that he has expressed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As your Lordships will see from the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill seeks to do four things. First of all,
290
we want to increase the number of permanent Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. We are asking for a maximum of an extra eight magistrates, although desiring immediately to appoint two only. Secondly, the Bill provides for the appointment by me of acting Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in order to avoid delays in the administration of justice. Thirdly, it seeks to enable the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District to hold land and buildings for the purpose of the probation service in the Metropolitan stipendiary courts area, and fourthly, to confer additional borrowing powers on the Receiver. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says, it may be that I can address your Lordships somewhat more shortly than I should otherwise have done, because obviously he has considered the Bill. May I put the various points as briefly as I can?
The first point, the need for more Metropolitan magistrates, springs from the regrettable increase in criminal offences in recent years, of which your Lordships have heard a great deal in the past few months. Unfortunately, there is no sign of any change in this trend. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in anoiter place last months that in the first three quarters of 1958 there had been a rise in indictable offences reported throughout the country of 14.7 per cent. compared with the number in the corresponding period in 1957, and the courts with which we are dealing, which cover the area of Central London, have borne their full share of the work arising from this increase. By reason of the area which they serve, these courts have always had more than an average share of difficult cases, those which raise complicated questions of law or sometimes require the attendance of many witnesses and occupy many days for the hearing in the magistrates' court. With all the reservations attached to total figures, I would inform your Lordships that the total figures for charges and summonses for the twelve months ended March 31 in every year over the last four years are as follows: 178,000, 193,000, 209,000 and 223,000. It is clear that an increasingly heavy burden has been falling upon the courts.
The other point on which your Lordships would like to be assured is that everything possible is being done by all concerned to deal with the increased work

291
as speedily as possible to avoid delay. I am assured by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the magistrates themselves and the staffs of the courts have worked hard and consistently and have done what they can by improving organisation within the limits possible with the existing court buildings. I am also assured that valuable help has been given by the lay justices for the County of London. They deal with various classes of cases which are prescribed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and, in addition, lay justices have been sitting at a separate court at Bow Street for some years and others have recently begun to sit at Old Street and Tower Bridge Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts.
We feel that that is not enough to deal with the situation. It is most important that the administration of justice should be as swift as is compatible with fairness and thoroughness. I am sorry to say that, despite all that everyone could do, recently in dealing with cases in the Metropolitan magistrates' courts there have been delays which, in the best interests of the administration of justice, cannot be allowed to continue. Even if the offence be a minor one, it is undesirable that a case should not be tried for many weeks after it was alleged to have been committed; and if there is delay when a person is in custody on a more serious charge, the consequences are more serious still. Therefore we are convinced that it is essential to have more stipendiary magistrates as soon as possible.
The maximum number allowed by the law is twenty-seven, a number that was fixed by the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839. The maximum number of twenty-seven was reached in 1954 and, as your Lordships will gather from the figures I have given, since then there has been a great increase in crime. Therefore we are asking Parliament to let us increase the permissible number to thirty-five. As I say, I want to appoint two more at once, one on general work and the other to make it possible for an experienced magistrate to concentrate on long and difficult cases arising anywhere in the Metropolitan stipendiary courts area. We have taken the number of thirty-five in order to allow a margin for future possibilities and to prevent a need
292
for further legislation, if the work continues to increase. Your Lordships will remember that when I was dealing with a similar Bill with regard to the county courts, your Lordships asked me to take a good margin in these matters. Therefore, I have taken that line here.
The second part of the Bill allows me to appoint a temporary magistrate in order to deal with periods of pressure of work. I have already the right to appoint a magistrate to take the place of a magistrate who is sick or retired, but I want to have the power to prevent these delays, which have been really disturbing during the last few months. I do not think that I need say anything more about that.
The remaining clauses of the Bill are also concerned with the Metropolitan area. The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police is an officer appointed by the Crown who is responsible for providing and administering the land, buildings and equipment required not only by the Metropolitan Police Force but also by the Metropolitan magistrates' courts. It is his responsibility to arrange for the building or acquisition of police stations, police houses and other police buildings and magistrates' courts. Clause 3 deals with the power of the Receiver to provide premises for probation purposes. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is the probation authority for the Metropolitan stipendiary courts area, and the probationary expenses in that area are met, on his direction, out of the Metropolitan Police Fund. So that clearly the Receiver, who is the responsible officer for this fund, is the proper person to provide the offices necessary to enable the probation officers to perform their important work.
But existing legislation gives him no specific power to hold land and buildings for this purpose. This clause gives him the same power to provide land and buildings for probation purposes as he has for police purposes and the purposes of the Metropolitan magistrates' courts. Since the Receiver has already, at the request of my right honourable friend, entered into certain leases of property for probation offices—this is a vital work, and I hope your Lordships will not think the action was improper—it is necessary to validate his position.
Clause 4 deals with the power of the Receiver to borrow money for appropriate purposes connected with his

293
various functions. In the past, that permission has been given for specific reasons, but we are now in a stage where the capital investment policy is so carefully considered, first of all, by the Departmental Minister—in this case my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—and then by the Treasury, that I do not think your Lordships will feel it is necessary to place any limits, as any specific action that the Receiver might take would have to be approved by these two authorities.
I have tried to shorten the matter, but I am afraid I have still been rather long. I hope your Lordships will think that this Bill is a useful step towards the improvement of the administration of justice in Central London and will prove of benefit to the courts, the legal profession, the police and all those who are affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said in his admirable speech, we should not forget the importance of the administration of justice and of making proper provision for it. I submit to your Lordships that all these points I have put before you will help in that direction. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has certainly made the case for this Bill right up to the hilt, and we on this side of the House will do nothing to impede its progress. The main case, of course, is the increase in crime. But is there not a subsidiary reason for requiring more magistrates—namely, the increase in the number of offences, as distinct from crime? I must not make rash statements, but I suppose that most of us are at some time or another offenders, inasmuch as we have all left our cars in unauthorised places; and that also is taking up the time of an increasing number of magistrates. The noble and learned Viscount has said that there is considerable delay. I happen to know that there is a delay of nearly six months from the time of the commission of an offence, such as a parking offence, to the time when the matter comes before a magistrate. As the Lord Chancellor said, that is most undesirable. Happily, that is not the position in regard to crime, which is dealt with more
294
speedily, although not speedily enough. There is no doubt that there is a case for more magistrates, but I hope that the increase in the number will not be frittered away in dealing with parking offenders, thus leaving us in the same position as regards the real purpose behind the Bill.
I should like to ask two questions of the noble and learned Viscount, the first dealing with accommodation. Even in the days when I had some acquaintance with the courts, which I am afraid is a long time ago, the courts were congested. With the increase in the number of offences, I wonder how the actual physical work of conducting hearings can be carried out and where the increased number of magistrates will carry on their work. I speak subject to correction, but I should have thought that we needed substantially more courts to-day than we did twenty-five or thirty years ago. Secondly, is the noble and learned Viscount satisfied with the geographical distribution of these courts, in London? London was a much different place at the time when these courts were built and the location was decided, and the burden of population has greatly altered to-day. There has been a great shift in population and in the incidence of crime: in some neighbourhoods there is more crime, and in others there is less. I wonder whether the location of the different courts to-day is suitable for the requirements of the present time. I do not know whether that point has been examined at all, but I should be glad to hear what the Lord Chancellor has to say about it.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, if I am not out of order, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack two questions. First of all, can he tell me whether there is any age limit to a person appointed under the Bill? Secondly, are there any restrictions on the appointment of former—that is to say, retired—stipendiary magistrates?
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Meston, first. The only age limit to appointment is the age limit on retirement; they cannot be appointed older than the age at which they would retire. Otherwise it is a matter for my discretion. As to the other point, I do

295
not think there is anything to prevent the utilisation of the services of someone who has served as a stipendiary. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised two points, the first as to the need for new courts generally. I think there is such a need, and there is a special reason for it which the noble Lord will appreciate. It is essential, if you are going to combine the services of a stipendiary magistrate and lay magistrates, that they should be in the same court, because, as the Maxwell Committee pointed out—I have not gone into it, but it is well known to those who study the matter—it would be intolerable for the prosecutor or complainant to choose the forum in which he prosecutes or makes a complaint in quasi-criminal proceedings. Therefore what we really want are courts which will house not only a stipendiary magistrate but lay magistrates such as one finds in provincial courts with which I happen to be familiar, such as Liverpool.
We have the other point very much in mind at the moment. I am sorry to say, having been connected with the matter now for eight years, that new courts have been far down in the building queue. I do not say that they have been roughly in the same sort of place in the queue as prisons, and I have managed to secure a few new courts in the country as a whole, although not nearly as many as I should have liked. It is very much in the minds of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and myself that when they are built they should be spaced to meet the new conditions. I will certainly convey all that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said specifically to the Receiver, who has to consider it at the official level. Apart from that. I thank your Lordships for the reception of the Bill and I am sure that it will benefit the administration of justice in Central London.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

SPACE RESEARCH
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords your Lordships may be interested to know of the following Answer which the Prime Minister has given this afternoon to Questions in another place about space research.
"There are two problems to be considered in relation to a British contribution to space research; the nature and design of the instruments to be carried into space; and the means by which the containers for these instruments are launched.
"With regard to the first, with the assistance of Fellows of the Royal Society and with the endorsement of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, a programme for the design and construction of instruments to be carried in earth satellites has been approved. Work will begin at once.
"With regard to the second, there may well be scope for joint action with the United States, with the Commonwealth or with other countries. We therefore plan to send to Washington a team of experts, including Professor H. S. W. Massey, to discuss possible Anglo-American co-operation; and we are also opening consultations with other Commonwealth countries.
"Meanwhile, however, design studies are also being put in hand for the adaptation of the British military rockets which are now under development. This will put us in a position, should we decide to do so, to make an all-British effort.
"I",—
that, of course, is the Prime Minister in the context—
"have asked my noble friend, the Lord President of the Council, in consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply and other Ministers concerned, to exercise general supervision of these new developments."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, we are greatly obliged to the Lord President of the Council for giving us this information. I can see nothing very special to comment

297
upon at the moment. We are glad that the matter has been done with the full advice of the Advisory Council, and that apparently there is to be all possible effort to co-operate with other countries. I thought at first sight that it was the United States and the Commonwealth. In this particularly important and yet, in some respects, dangerous development of space research, the more it can be kept on an international basis, especially with those who think of the freedom and liberty of the individual, the better it will be for the world: the more international it is in its co-operation the better.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the plea that this matter should be kept on an international basis, not only for the good of the world and because of the danger that may be involved, but for the financial involvement concerned. I hope that Her Majesty's Government—and I have no doubt they will—will keep a careful eye on the production when we are going from a world of three dimensions and five senses to another world in which we may find an infinite and unknown number of both. As we may be landed in a large commitment, I apologise that instead of, as usual, urging the Government to do something, I urge them not to undertake too much.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Viscount tell us whether the opinion of the Astronomer Royal has been sought on matters of space research, and if so what his opinion is?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, perhaps the Lord President would he good enough to answer this question. It may be that there are military aspects in this matter, perhaps even to the extent of sending up these vehicles to ascertain what other people are doing about fallout, explosions, and the rest of it. If that is so, maybe there is a case for confining these experiments to the Commonwealth. Secondly, I would ask whether the Government will do everything in their power to secure adequate contributions from the Commonwealth countries who will share in the pride of achievement, if there is any, and in the safeguarding of results, if there are any.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, may I ask him to consult not the present Astronomer Royal, as my noble friend
298
Lord Taylor asked, but the former Astronomer Royal, who is taking a leading part and showing great initiative in developing international co-operation in this field? Whilst I am impressed at the aplomb with which your Lordships have accepted this really striking statement, might I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's initiative and say that I hope it is only a beginning of a much greater effort which will provide British scientists with the opportunities they desire?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have asked these supplementary questions, and I would seek to answer them as best I can. As my right honourable friend said in his statement, we have the international aspect very much in mind. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will also be aware that it is a very long story. As the noble Viscount probably knows, there is a non-Governmental scientific body known as the Committee for Space Research or, less elegantly, as "COSPAR"; and Professor Massey, who is a member of our team and who, as I have said, is going to the United States, is ion the executive board of that body. On that body the United States and the Russians, as well as ourselves, are co-operating.
On the other hand, I ought also to say that the United Nations Assembly last autumn set up an ad hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to report to the next Assembly on the area of international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space which could appropriately be undertaken under U.N. auspices and the future organisation of arrangements to facilitate such co-operation. That Committee is again one with which Her Majesty's Government, and, I think, the American Government, are co-operating, though, unhappily, the Russians are not.
As regards the question of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, it is, of course, true that in many countries the launching vehicles were not unconnected with defence matters. We are certainly already inquiring of the Commonwealth what their contribution can be to this project. Undoubtedly the Commonwealth, and in particular Australia, has done a great deal in our valuable work in connection with the Skylark rocket, which is a vertical sounding rocket. I

299
think I am right in saying that the Commonwealth as a whole is co-operating with both the international bodies that I have mentioned, so I think at this stage we are doing what we can, and I hoped that we should carry the House with us. As regards the two Astronomers Royal, I think I ought to be a little cautious, because I gather from the two noble Lords opposite that there is perhaps a difference of opinion between those great men.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, in considering the peaceful use of space research I hope that the Ministry will not forget such matters as the peaceful use of cancerresearch and so forth.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have that matter very much in mind. I am, of course, the Minister responsible for the Medical Research Council, and I can assure him that I have had very much in mind from the outset the correct deployment of our financial resources in different scientific spheres. If I thought that what was now being done was in any way a rival to cancer research, or even that cancer research was being held up for purely financial reseasons, I might take a different view. But I do not regard these two projects as rivals, and I feel that one must examine the merits of research projects in the light of hopeful leads and available personnel, rather than in mere terms of cash.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
3.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Postponement of new valuation lists, and restriction on proposals for altering current lists
(3) Notwithstanding anything in section forty of the said Act of 1948 (which enables proposals to be made for the alteration of valuation lists) a proposal for altering a valuation list in force at the passing of this Act (not
300
being a proposal made by the valuation officer)—

(a) shall not have effect if served on the valuation officer after the passing of this Act, and

(b) shall be deemed never to have had effect if served on the valuation officer before the passing of this Act but on or after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine,

unless (in either case) it is or was a proposal made by the owner or occupier of the hereditament to which it relates, or a proposal made by virtue of subsection (2A) of the said section forty (which enables a rating authority to make proposals with respect to hereditaments not included in the valuation list).
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in Clause 1 to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: Having returned from the rarefied atmosphere of the mysteries of space, we may now perhaps deal with a matter which is certainly very earthy. Whether there will come a time when assessments and valuations will be necessary in outer space is a matter which is not, at all events, dealt with in the present Bill. Rating and valuation is not an attractive subject and its very complexity rather militates against brevity. It is, however, a very important element in the local government of this country, for rates produce some 38 per cent. of the total local government expenditure; that is to say, rates produce some £555 million, which is based upon a rateable value of some £601 million after deduction of de-rating for agriculture, industry and commerce.
The Amendment in terms is a simple one, but it is important. It asks that the situation which presently exists should be left and that the proposal to remove the right of local authorities and ratepayers to lodge what is known as third party proposals should be left unimpaired. The purpose of this Bill was not to deal with the fundamental provisions of rating. It is a Bill the purpose of which is to postpone the next valuation from 1961 to 1963. There are no grounds arising from that postponement, if in fact it is justified, which justify a fundamental change in the procedure of rating. This right of lodging third party proposals is long established; it goes back at least as far as 1925. It was and is an essential element of the procedure of quinquennial valuations that if it happens that during the period of the quinquennium there is an unfairness or an incorrection in regard to any particular assessment, then the

301
local authority as the rating authority and any ratepayer is entitled to raise the question on the grounds that comparison may show that unfairness exists. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 of this Bill takes away that right until March 31, 1963. The purpose of the Amendment is to retain that right. It will be seen, therefore, that there is a fundamental difference between the Bill and the Amendment.
By Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1948, any person who is aggrieved by the value ascribed to any, hereditament in the current valuation list may at any time make a proposal for the alteration of the list so far as it relates to that hereditament. The person making the proposal need not necessarily have any interest in the hereditament to which the proposal relates, although he must specifically be aggrieved in some way by its assessment in the list. As I have said, such proposals are known as third party proposals, and they extend to include the right possessed by local rating authorities. It is a basic and indefeasible principle of rating that as between different classes of property and as between properties in the same class the valuation lists shall be fair and equal. The only remedy open to a ratepayer who is assessed unfairly by comparison with other properties but who cannot show that his own assessment is incorrect of itself is to make a third party proposal. As regards local authorities, under-assessment of one class of hereditament throws an unfair rate burden on the occupiers of others. Over-assessment is also, of course, unfair to the individual ratepayer.
The Minister, opening the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill on 23rd February of this year, sought to justify this proposal in Clause 1 (3) on the grounds that if there is to be a general postponement of new valuation lists a door ought not to be left open to secure partial revaluations by means of proposals for alterations of lists, and he went on to state that there is a precedent in Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. It is important to note that this provision was operative only from the passing of the Act in July, 1955, until the new lists came into force in April, 1956. That suspension of power endured for only eight months, whereas the proposal in the new Bill is to operate from the date the
302
Bill was introduced—namely, February last—until March, 1963, which is a period of four years. I submit that the analogy is quite invalid, for the present circumstances are quite different. In 1955 the pre-war valuation lists were still in force, and even then the general level of values was below 1939 rents. Accordingly, continuing delay in making new valuation lists caused some local authorities to carry out partial revaluations of their areas, in particular of non-residential property. This had the effect of considerably upsetting the incidence of the rate burden between one class of hereditament and another, particularly in view of the high rate poundages which were then being levied.
But the dangers of 1955 do not now exist, since dwelling-house assessments are frozen at their 1939 values and all other hereditaments were recently revalued for the first new lists under the 1948 Act. Therefore, I submit that the 1955 precedent is not a valid one. It is a pretty tenuous excuse for taking away a right which is of the very essence of the rating and valuation system of this country. On the Committee stage there was general opposition to this clause from the members of all Parties in another place, supported by the opposition of the local authority organisations. Amendments were moved on the Committee stage in another place and the Government survived with a fugitive majority of no bigger than 22 or 23.
In the course of the debate in another place the Minister abandoned the 1955 precedent argument and fell hack on what I feel I must describe as another excuse—it certainly was not a justification. It is novel, it is engaging and of course it was intended to be diverting; but it is no more real than the precedent of 1955. It is that the valuation officers, who of course have now taken the place of the old assessment committees, have discovered—it seems to me rather late than early—that there is ambiguity as to whether fresh assessments can be made between the periods of general revaluation. It would be interesting to know when this was discovered and by whom. Of course the power has existed ever since 1925 to make third party proposals under an Act passed by a Tory Government. By and large, it was a useful and sensible Act. But

303
if it be the case that there is this ambiguity, why has nothing been dope to remove it?
As I have already said, this power of correcting valuations during the quinquennium was an essential part of the reorganisation of the bases of assessment and valuation given effect to by the Act of 1925. I remember being a member of one of the early assessment committees appointed by the Middlesex County Council after the passing of the 1925 Act. If that be not the case, it means that valuations once made are frozen unalterable for a period of five years. I repeat, why has nothing been done to remove this doubt? Since 1951, five Acts of Parliament and one Order have been made relating to valuation assessment and rating, all by the present Government or its predecessor. That does not include the present Bill. If, in fact, there is a defect in law, it should be remedied at once, and the Government should not, as it were, skate around it, as it does in this Bill, by suspending the power until March, 1963, for this power goes to the very roots of the valuation system and the local authorities are most concerned about the results of its withdrawal.
The Minister said in another place on the Second Reading that this ambiguity was of limited importance until after the war. Apparently, then, it was known to exist before the war. It was of limited importance, so the Minister said, because rents did not move very substantially before the war. But rents, especially of commercial and industrial hereditaments, have increased markedly since the war, as we all know. This gathering increase in rent started as far back as 1946, and by 1955 it was in full flow, if not in full flood. Why was nothing done to correct this alleged doubt or ambiguity? The only thing which was done was to suspend the power for eight months between July, 1955, and March, 1956. Moreover, since the valuation of 1956, which of course was actually made in 1955, three years have clapsed, and valuation officers, local authorities and ratepayers generally have been acting upon this power to make third party proposals, unaware that there was any doubt about the legality of so doing; and suddenly, without any notice whatsoever, ratepayers and local authori
304
ties are informed that from February 12 of this year this power, which they have enjoyed since 1925, is to be withdrawn.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in his reply, he will be good enough to state whether this subsection is to be construed as an admission by the right honourable gentleman the Minister that he accepts the proposition that this power to raise fresh assessments is really doubtful. I know that in the course of his speech on the Committee stage in another place he said that the matter was difficult. No doubt it is. Most elements of rating and valuation are difficult. But that is no reason why Her Majesty's Government, if they are aware of a legal defect, should not take steps to clarify the situation and legalise what is being done; because valuation officers, presumably, are acting on the assumption that what they do is lawful. If this reading of the law is correct, I suggest that it strikes at the very roots of the valuation system. It transcends, although it includes, the withdrawal of the third party proposal to which I have referred.
In this important connection I should like to read what was said by the right honourable gentleman the Minister on April 16, on the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. He said first [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 603 (No. 94), col. 1165]:
"There is a concealed ambiguity in the present power to make fresh assessments during the period between general revaluations."
Then he went on:
"The ambiguity is in deciding the level of values at which new or revised assessments should be made. I will give an example, not unlike an example quoted earlier. It is that of a shop correctly valued in the present list, drawn up in 1955 and put into operation in 1956, at £100, by reference to the rental values then current. Let us suppose an identical shop now being built and coming into rating later in 1959 or 1960 and that shop rents in the area rise by, say, 20 per cent. from the date of the last valuation. Should the new shop be assessed at £100 because it is identical with the one correctly assessed at £100 or should it be assessed at £120 on the ground that rental values have risen by 20 per cent. since the last revaluation?"
The Minister went on to say:
"Frankly, the law gives us no clear guidance on that issue. In all likelihood an assessment of £120 could be sustained under the law but it would create anomalies and indefensible inequity between the two shopkeepers concerned. What is the valuation officer to

305
do? Is he to increase the first assessment to £120 as well? If so, he will remove the inequity between those two shopkeepers but create inequity among many other people. There would be unfairness between those two shopkeepers and all the other shopkeepers in the area. Is he to re-value all the shops in the area? If so, all the shops in that area will be valued on one basis, whereas all the rest of the property will be valued on another basis."
The Minister poses the question: "What is the valuation officer to do?" The valuation officer, of course, is expected reasonably to assess the new hereditament by reference to rental levels which are current. If the rent has gone up because the value of similar premises in the district has gone up since the level of 1955, then, the rent having gone up, the assessment for rates should go up. Why should there be one value for rating and another for rent, especially as rent is the prime element in the basis of assessment of all rateable property? If this is unfairness then it is equally unfair for a landlord to charge a higher rent for similar premises in the same district performing the same function; and there have, of course, been thousands of cases of this kind, especially where leases have fallen in and the landlord has been able to put up the rent. But where the lease of a similar property has not yet expired the landlord has not been able to put up the rent.
We thus have the situation that two similar properties are rented at two different rents. The valuation officer should take account of that—or are we to assume and accept the proposition that disparity of rent is all right but disparity of valuation for rates is all wrong? After all, the one is based on the other. And when the right honourable gentleman the Minister poses the question: "What is the valuation officer to do?" one is entitled to answer, "He should do what the local assessment committee did before 1948—deal with the situation." That is, lodge third-party proposals and relate the rating and assessment of the properties by reference to the rents which they are commanding. After all, that is what the local assessment committees have done. One is also entitled to inquire, in relation to this question, what the valuation officer has been doing: what has he been doing since the last valuation? This situation has existed for three years, and we know—indeed the Minister expressed some concern about it—that for quite
306
proper reasons a number of third-party proposals have been lodged in certain places by local authorities and by ratepayers in connection with the assessment valuation operative from 1956. If the valuation officer feels aggrieved or if the local authority or a private ratepayer feel aggrieved, they have a right to go to the local valuation court. If they are not satisfied with the decision there, they have the right to go to the Lands Tribunal. Under the proposals of this Bill, those two rights, with the right of lodging a third-party proposal, will go. This is no new problem which was propounded by the Minister in another place on April 16. It has existed ever since 1925, and up to 1951 it was dealt with by the assessment committees.
Then we inevitably and inescapably reach this position. If, in fact, the Minister is right with regard to the legal doubt as to new assessments between two general revaluations, what is the position of the ratepayer whose assessment has been altered as the result of a fresh assessment made between general revaluations? Is it the case that those new assessments are null and void? In any case, it seems to me to be very inequitable that a local authority or a private ratepayer who was fortunate enough to lodge a third-party proposal prior to February 12 of this year should be able to have a new revaluation of a property, whereas a ratepayer or a local authority after that date is precluded until March 31, 1963, from so doing. It seems to me to be quite unfair that the arbitrary line should be drawn at February 12 without any prior notice to ratepayers that this old-established power was to be taken away.
I should like the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to say what is the situation of a ratepayer whose property has been re-assessed since it was valued in 1956. If the reassessment is void, illegal, has he not the right pro tanto to a return of the extra rates he has paid as a result of that new, fresh assessment? I notice that the Minister, answering the question. "What is the valuation officer to do?" said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 603 (No. 94), col. 1166]:
"What is the right way of handling this? The commonsense solution is to disregard changes in rental levels since 1956 …".
That implies an acceptance of this doctrine that there is no power when

307
assessing new or altered properties for the purpose of the existing list to take into account current rent levels. He went on to say:
"To be logical, if one does that, one has to hold back from any revision of values before the next revaluation …".
There again it seems to me to be in plain terms an acceptance of this proposition to the intent that the revision should not take up any part of any increase in rental values since the last valuation. He continued:
"In general terms, that is the practice of valuation officers."
So the valuation officers have accepted the proposition that it is not legal to have fresh assessments during the period between general revaluations. The Minister went on to say:
"When making a valuation, they ignore an increase in rental values since the last valuation."
If that is so, it seems to me that the valuation officers have acted quite contrary to all accepted practice and procedure and tradition and understanding of the situation, and to the rights of the local authorities and ratepayers to lodge third party proposals.
It seems to me not unreasonable to suggest that, faced with this problem, the Minister, rather than face up to a solution of the difficulty, taking legal steps to remove doubt and to validify action which had been taken under this ambiguous legal power, has preferred to tinker with it by suspending the power until March, 1963.
I want to ask the noble Earl to address his attention very seriously to this situation, which is of much greater importance than the suspension of this power for the next four years. As I have said, it is of the essence of the valuation system; and there arises in one's mind a haunting doubt as to whether the Government will not seek to resolve this problem by permanently withdrawing the right to lodge third party proposals. In the Bill, of course, the withdrawal is up to March 3l, 1963. But if this power to make fresh assessment does not exist, then the whole procedure of third party proposals is nugatory and it is unimportant whether the power is, as it were, reconferred after March 31, 1963, or not—that is, if it is illegal to make, as the Minister has suggested, fresh assessments within the
308
period of general valuations. It is for those reasons that we on this side of the Committee regard this proposal in the Bill as being of very great importance. It is one which strikes at the very essence of the rating and valuation system of this country, which has been in operation for a great many years. We hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, but if they find themselves unable so to do we shall feel bound to test the feeling of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Latham.)
4.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): On the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was good enough to give notice that he would raise this question on Committee stage in the form of the Amendment which has now been tabled and which is now before the Committee. I think that the natural concern which is felt by local authorities about this subsection in the Bill arises, perhaps inevitably, out of the main purpose of the Bill, which we all agree is a regrettable purpose, to postpone the next quinquennial valuation from April, 1961, to April, 1963, so that the interval of time between the last valuation period and the next one will be seven years instead of five.
The decision to legislate to this effect has been taken very reluctantly by the Government on the advice, which they felt bound to accept, of the Valuation Office—namely, that for 1961 there would not be enough genuine examples of free market rents of dwelling-houses to enable a new valuation to be made which would inspire public confidence, whereas two years later, they estimate, there will be a sufficient number of such cases to have a proper valuation which will carry the confidence of the people with it. That means that it is essential to extend the period during which rateable subjects are rated on the values prevailing at the last quinquennial date—that is, 1956. Now we certainly do not want to remove the powers which were given to third parties in 1925 to make proposals for remedying individual anomalies or cases of injustice as between one rateable subject and another—which can be done, of course, at the instance either of another property owner or of the local authority itself as

309
an owner of rateable property. The trouble is that this power can be used not only to correct anomalies and to correct mistakes in the valuation list but also to alter the whole rateable valuation under the control of the authority.
May say one word about ambiguity, to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred? He quoted what my right honourable friend the Minister had said in another place, during which passage my right honourable friend several times, I think, used the word "ambiguity". But I think that possibly the word "ambiguity" in this connection may itself be ambiguous. What my right honourable friend meant, was that this power given in 1925 to make proposals for the revision of individual assessments was intended by Parliament to correct individual anomalies; it was not intended to be used to raise the entire rateable value of the whole borough or the whole county, or whatever it might be. I am afraid that there is no ambiguity at all about the law, so far as that goes.
There is no doubt whatever that, under the powers given in 1925, a third party can make a proposal that the rateable value of a subject should be raised to the figure which it would fetch at that time in a free market; and the ratepayer has no legal redress on the ground that there is some legal doubt about the power to do that. There is no ambiguity in that sense at all; and I think that perhaps "ambiguity" is not the right word. It is simply that when this power was given in 1925 it was never contemplated that it would be used in order to bring about a general increase in the assessments within a rateable area. It was contemplated only that it would be used to correct individual anomalies, and nobody thought that it would ever he used for anything else. Unfortunately, it has been, and there is no legal redress. Very shortly before the last quinquennial valuation one local authority used this power to raise as many of the assessments in its area as could be raised. There were no fewer than 11,500 proposals put forward, and they all had to be accepted because they were perfectly valid under the law: there was no ambiguity about them. Another authority brought forward about 1.400 proposals; and there were others. It was only a very small minority, of course, of the local authorities in the country, but it was still enough to make
310
it desirable to prevent it from being done during the present interval between the two quinquennial valuations.
The object of this temporary suspension—and it is meant to be only a temporary suspension—of the third party right to move for alteration of the valuation list is quite simple: it is to prevent anyone from undertaking a local revaluation for rating purposes before the next new lists come into force: there is no other motive behind it. Your Lordships will agree that the reasons which make it impossible to undertake a general revaluation having effect before 1963 would also make it impossible for any local revaluation to be more than partial; and Her Majesty's Government, and also, I think, probably most local authorities, would consider it unfair if particular ratepayers or groups of ratepayers were reassessed at full current rental values—whether they be the rental values current in 1959 or, say, 1962 or 1963—while all other ratepayers escaped reassessment and continued to be rated at either 1939 or 1955 rental values. The noble Lord quoted an example of two different shopkeepers, both having shops which were worth exactly the same, and said that one could be reassessed at £120 while the other had to be assessed at £100. Supposing that the shop which had been assessed at £100 was brought up to £120, so as to correct the anomaly between those two shops, there would still be an anomaly between those two shops and other shops. Then, if all the shops were brought up to the higher level, there would still be an anomaly between shops and houses, and so on; and we think it unfair that local authorities should be allowed to do this before general reassessment becomes possible in 1963.
We do not want permanently to remove this power: and I think I explained to your Lordships on the Second Reading debate that, although there has already been a period of three years during which the new lists have been in the hands of local authorities (which will probably have been enough time for most of them to correct any mistakes), we have nevertheless taken steps to strengthen the existing co-operation between rating authorities and valuation officers. We have instructed valuation officers to give full weight to any representations made by local authorities, even to the extent of making proposals which would enable local authori

311
ties to have the issue determined on appeal. The valuation officer would, of course, have to be satisfied that there was a reasonable case for the local authority's views before going to that length but; in any case, when a local authority considered that a valuation officer had unreasonably refused to take action at their instance, they would, as always, be able to pursue the matter within the Valuation Office and, if they thought fit, through their association and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, the criterion of the valuation officer and of the Treasury in this matter would be that any changes which were proposed should be at what is called the 1956 "tone"—that is, in accordance wtih the general level of values prevailing in 1956—and this procedure should not he used in order to assess certain individual properties, or certain types or classes of property, at a higher valuation than that at which they would have been valued in the year 1956.
Finally, the problem of solving—I do not like the word "ambiguity", because I do not think it is quite right, but the discrepancy between the existence of the powers and the actual use of them which has been made by one or two authorities, is a very difficult one. It is now to be considered by a Working Party, which will be asked to undertake a general review of the whole field of rating and valuation. It will be a Working Party of local government and departmental representatives, who can take outside advice as necessary, and who will be asked to recommend a proper basis for changes of assessment between general revaluations, which normally take place every five years. The reason why the problem is particularly difficult at the moment is that under this Bill we are changing the normal period from five to seven years; and that makes it even more necessary that we should be careful that the powers given in 1925 should not be used for what we believe to be a wrong purpose. I am sorry, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment. As I have tried to explain, however, we will do everything possible, first to meet the legitimate views of local authorities with regard to any changes that may be necessary, and, next, to take steps through this Working Party as soon as possible
312
to work out a permanent solution of this difficult problem which has arisen.
4.42 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I follow the arguments which the noble Earl has put before the Committee. Essentially, I think it is quite simple. It is that the ratepayers ought to be all in the same relative position. Some should not be valued according to the level of values prevailing, let us say, in 1959, and others valued on the level of valuation prevailing in 1955. But what is contained in the Bill does not achieve that. What it does is to prevent local authorities from making proposals for alteration of valuations. It does not (and this is expressly stated) prevent a valuation officer from making such a proposal, nor does it prevent the owner or occupier of the property from making such a proposal.
If this is going to be applied, why should it not be applied all round? If the solution of the problem is extremely simple, why should it not have been included in the Bill, instead of there being the appointment of a committee to discuss something which is not really very difficult? The whole object would be secured if it were provided that alterations in valuations made between the quinquennial valuations should be based upon the level of values prevailing at the time when the last quinquennial valuation was made. If that were written into a Statute dealing with local rating, the problem would be solved for ever. There would be no need for this temporary suspension of the power of local rating authorities coupled, as I have said just low, with power for the valuation officer to do exactly the thing which is objected to.
LORD SILKIN: Are not the Government using a sledge hammer to crack a nut? Let us admit that there is an evil which they want to prevent. What is the evil? One or two local authorities, is the noble Earl himself said, have gone beyond the policy of the Government and have sought to effect wholesale changes in valuation, and they might do this again. In order to prevent this, the government are preventing all local authorities from coming forward and asking to remedy individual anomalies. That is going much too far. As my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has just said, would it not have been possible to

313
prevent that evil, even if it was a major evil, which it is not, without going to the other extreme of preventing all applications for revaluation? It may be that the suggestion of my noble friend would not be absolutely effective, but there should be no difficulty in finding a form of words which would enable a local authority to apply for the removal of an individual anomaly and not enable them to make wholesale applications. I think that this is a matter which the Government ought to reconsider.
The argument is not based upon Party views. I think that I am right in saying, without the book, that originally in another place an Amendment to secure what we have in mind was moved by a supporter of the Government and that in the actual voting it had the support of a good many members on the other side. So that there is nothing political about this. It seems to me to be plain common sense, and I hope that it may be possible for this point to be reconsidered and see whether something acceptable to all sides cannot be provided in the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: Perhaps it is fair that I should make one or two comments on the statements made by the noble Earl that this power has been—I will not say "abused", but excessively used by certain local authorities. That was stated in another place during the Committee stage. Liverpool was cited. In a judgment in connection with the appointment by Liverpool Corporation of a valuer to carry out revaluation within the period of general revaluations, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said that the Liverpool Corporation had a duty to make proposals to correct any equality or under-assessment of which they knew. The facts are that before valuation was passed over to the valuation officers through the Valuation Office, the local assessment committee had completed a revaluation of a fairly large section of the centre of the city of Liverpool, and they took the view—and I think that they were right—that they could not have half the centre of the city valued on one basis and the other half valued on an entirely different basis. Therefore they lodged a large number of proposals in order to correct these anomalies.
The other case mentioned was that of Hertfordshire, which has been the recipient of a large number of people from
314
other parts of Greater London. It has been the recipient of "overspill" running into some tens of thousands of persons, in new towns, in expanded towns, and in housing estates. Because of the increased demand flowing from that increase of population—and, after all, it is the needs of the population which determine and in the end make rateable value—the value of shops, the rents of shops and of commercial buildings, have increased considerably. The Hertfordshire County Council took the view that it was proper to relate the valuation of a large number of properties to the increased rent level flowing from the influx of this additional population. And that was perfectly just. Anyone who has been concerned with local government knows that when a new population comes into an area it does not pay for itself for a long time. For instance, schools have to be provided.
I remember that when the London County Council built the Watling Estate at Hendon—I was not on the Council then, but I was living in Hendon and taking a fairly active part in municipal affairs—the Hendon Borough Council had to build five new schools, and the Education rate of the Hendon Borough Council was doubled on that account alone. The rateable value of small property of that kind does not pay for itself. It is only the ancillary activities, such as new hops and all the other and similar activities which the increased population calls into being and into function. which lead to new buildings and, therefore, new assessments, or lead to rises in the rental value and therefore the rateable value of the premises. After some ten, fifteen or, maybe, twenty years a new estate may, in terms of rate, be paying for itself. And if that is the case, you can count yourself lucky.
So the Hentfordshire County Council have had to build schools and roads, and provide for lighting of roads, cleansing, sewers, libraries and all the other municipal facilities. Is it unfair that, since rateable properties benefit from this influx of population, they should be asked to pay something towards it by way of appropriate valuation levels which take account of those circumstances and those facts? I do not believe (that the average local authority have abused this power which they have, or that they will abuse it in the next four years. I do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to take the

315
power away from them. Perhaps I may quote from a letter written by the Town Clerk of Norwich—and I do it with some satisfaction, because Norwich is my native city. The Town Clerk, writing to the Tory Member for one of the Divisions of Norwich, said:
"Whilst my committee appreciate that the Minister has introduced this clause in order to prevent a rating authority securing a partial revaluation of properties within its area, they feel that the clause should be redrafted in such a way that where on merit there is justification for the rateable value of an individual hereditament being altered the rating authority should be entitled to submit a proposal."
That is the spirit in which the local authorities and their associations approach this matter, and it is a spirit which I do not think has been reciprocated.
Finally, I would make one comment on the suggestion that because the valuation officers will be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his Department that they are, if you please, to be reasonable to local authorities in this matter, the local authorities ought to be satisfied. First of all, the valuation officer must carry out his duties according to law, and I should have thought that it was not a desirable method of administration or of government that a Minister or a ministerial Department should interfere with a local authority, whether to help it or not, in connection with a particular third party proposal in respect of a particular hereditament. You really cannot expect local authorities to be satisfied with this kind of grace and favour proposal. And then, if the valuation officer is not amenable—and he is not required to be amenable—the local authority through their own association can make a complaint to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is hoped that the difficulty will be overcome. Really, that is not self-respecting administration or self-respecting government. It is undignified.
Moreover, I submit it is not legal. Pressure ought not to be brought upon the valuation officer. The local authority should have the right, as they now have, if they disagree with the valuation officer, of going frankly, openly and without any back-stairs method through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or otherwise, to the valuation court; and then, if they are not satisfied with the decision, on to the Lands Tribunal. Happily, that is the proper and accepted way of administration in this country. For those reasons,
316
I think the local authorities are quite right not to be satisfied with the proposal. I am sorry the noble Earl finds himself and the Government unable to accept the Amendment, which I think we must press to a Division.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has correctly described the circumstances which surrounded the Liverpool revaluation which he mentioned. I do not think those circumstances applied to Sheffield, Banbury, Solihull or other local authorities which used this 1925 power in a similar manner. But the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that it was really a simple problem. He asked why we were using a sledgehammer to crush such a small nut. I suggest to your Lordships that it is a pretty hard nut, and a good deal harder than the noble Lord suggested.
As I think I explained to your Lordships on Second Reading, the Government have held long discussions with representatives of the local authority associations in an attempt to find a simple amendment which would save these error-correcting powers. Unhappily, no solution has presented itself. We found that the problem needs long and careful review, and probably much re-writing of present statutory provisions. I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Latham, indicated one or two of the difficulties in what he said about the results of new schools being built, and new industries or overspill populations moving into an area which may produce rapid changes within the quinquennial period.
I do not, I am afraid, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in the suggestion that this power of local authorities to make proposals should be on quite the same footing as the power of the occupiers themselves or of the valuation officer. After all, an occupier has always had the right to represent that he is being over-assessed. He is the man who pays the rates, and he must have that right; and it is the duty of the valuation officer to try to see that he is correctly assessed. But this power given to the local authorities in 1925 was not given to them as local authorities, but as third parties. The idea was that any owner of property who thought that his neighbour was assessed too low in comparison with himself should have a right of remedy by asking that his neighbour should be assessed more highly. Since

317
the local authorities are, of course, owners of property, they have that right as owners of property and not as local authorities. I do not think there is anything particularly sacrosanct about it, but we want to preserve it.
LORD LATHAM: It is the case that the local authorities have it as third party. They need not necessarily be owners of the property.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, they have it as owners of property. They are always owners of property in the district. It is not part of their governmental powers, but part of their rights as an owner of property. It is not quite on the same footing as the right of the owner himself.
As I have tried to explain, we have not found this matter as simple as the noble Lord has suggested; and that is
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Postponement of termination or reduction of relief for charitable and other organisations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall be agreed to?
the reason why, we having failed to get the simple Amendment we tried to get in agreement with the local authority associations, a Working Party has now been asked to work out a solution which will deal, we hope, with all the very difficult problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred in the course of his remarks.
I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for having enabled us to have such an exhaustive and comprehensive review of this difficult problem. I think it is a good thing that it should be done. It has been exhaustively discussed, and I hope your Lordships will now be willing to come to a decision.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Stansgate, V.

Faringdon, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stonham, L.

Granville-West, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor, L.

Greenhill, L.

Pakenham, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Meston, L.

Albemarle, E.

Gisborough, L.

Milne, L.

Allerton, L.

Goschen, V.

Milverton, L.

Amulree, L.

Gosford, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Grantchester, L.

Perth, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rea, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hampton, L.

Rockley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Home, E.

Saltoun, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sinha, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Strang, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Dundee, E.

Lambert, V.

Swansea, L.

Dynevor, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Waldegrave, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Waleran, L.

Erskine, L.

Mansfield, E.

Wolverton, L.

Ferrier, L.

LORD SILKIN: I should like to say a word about Clause 2, which deals with the position of charitable organisations. The noble Earl will know that under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, certain advantages were conferred upon charitable organisations. Particularly they were given the benefit of not having

319
their rates increased beyond what they were before the passing of the Act, and in subsequent years they were also given the advantage of having a reduction in their rates, corresponding to the reduction in the first year. I do not want to elaborate on that matter, but it is the case that the 1955 Act did confer advantages such as I have outlined on charitable organisations. This Bill seeks to continue that, but it makes no provision—indeed, the 1955 Act made no provision—for new charities; and the result of that is that charities which are created after 1955 do not get the same advantages.
I am sure that it would be unfair to ask the noble Earl to give me a reply "off the cuff", but I should be grateful if he would consider the possibility of ensuring that new charities are treated in a similar way to those charities that were existing at the time of the passing of the 1955 Act. It would mean that a charity which was created, say, to-day, would, as from the date of its creation, get the advantage by relation to the value of the property in 1955 as if it had been in existence at the time of the passing of the Act, but with the advantage deferred until the creation of the charitable trust. This point has been put to me by a number of charities. It is unfortunate that it was never put forward in another place, and, indeed, was raised too late to put down some sort of Amendment to this Bill. It is for that reason that I am taking the opportunity of raising it to-day on Clause 2. If the noble Earl does not feel disposed to give me an immediate reply—and I doubt whether he will—I should be grateful if he would have the matter looked into before the next stage.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. Of course, the object of Section 8 of the 1955 Act with regard to existing charities was to meet the fear which had been expressed by many of those institutions that they would suddenly suffer all at once a tremendous increase of rates over and above what they had been accustomed to pay. Obviously that would not apply to new charities, but I will gladly consider the point.
LORD SILKIN: I would say that the noble Earl is quite right, and I am glad that he has got my point. But it is only part of my case, because, in addition, if
320
he would look again at Section 8 he will find that it also confers specific benefits in subsequent years. Charities have a two-sided benefit; on the one hand, they have a guarantee that their rates will not be exceeded, and secondly they have a guarantee that in successive years their rates will be actually reduced by a certain proportion. It is the second benefit that I am asking should be examined.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord may be aware that a departmental committee is considering the question now, but I do not know whether it has considered the position of new charities in particular. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter and let the noble Lord know what the position is.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING ACT, 1956 (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 7) Bill read 3a and passed.

RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS BILL [H.L.]
5.20 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be reported without amendment?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Before this Bill is reported, there is one point which I should like to raise which I mentioned on Second Reading and about which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, will be able to give me an assurance—namely, that adequate, but not too severe, penalties can be inflicted upon those who bring into this country weapons known as flick knives and so on. While the penalties in Clause 1 (2) would

321
appear to be entirely adequate for those who manufacture, sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire, lend or give, in the terms of subsection (2) the importation of any such knife is described as prohibited. It does not say that the penalties in the first subsection will apply in this particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, was good enough to show me an extract from the Customs and Excise Act which includes the penalties that would apply to this clause. It seemed to me that there was rather a gap between an over-lenient penalty—
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: May I just correct the noble Earl? What I showed him was, in fact, a copy of Hansard dealing with the Committee stage in another place—not a copy of the Customs and Excise Act.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It would appear that the alternatives to anybody who imported a prohibited article into this country were either that the article should he confiscated and a fine of not more than three times its value imposed, or that a sentence of up to three months imprisonment could he imposed. If any one brought in a number of such flick knives or similar weapons, obviously for the purpose of sale or distribution, then I think that he or she should suffer imprisonment, without more ado. But should someone be found to have just one or two in his possession, it would appear that either he must be imprisoned, which would seem to be an inordinately severe penalty, or else he must pay only three times the value of a weapon which, mass produced on the Continent, might not be more than a few shillings, and the penalty therefore might be only a pound or two. I should like to have the reassurance of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that there is, in fact, some penalty more adequate to the offence of bringing in one or two knives. At the moment, it does not seem to me that it is covered. It has been suggested that it would he, because the person could be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. If it were found in his suit case, if I know the legal profession, they would, when presenting their defence, soon get round that being called the carrying of a weapon. It is a small point but one which I think is sufficiently important to be raised in order to ensure that there is
322
a penalty which is at once adequate, with not too low a fine, and at the same time, not as severe as imprisonment
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for having given prior notice of this point. As I informed the noble Earl, the offender is liable under the Customs and Excise Act if be imports a weapon. I should like, if I may, to correct what I believe is a mistake in Hansard on the Committee stage of the Bill in another place and Ito quote the present law as set out in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, on this point. Section 45 (1) says:
"If any person unships or lands in any port ….
(b) any goods imported, landed or unloaded contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of any enactment with respect to those goods,"—
he shall be liable to a penalty.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I regret to have to interrupt the noble Lord in his reply, but I am afraid that Standing Orders do not allow quotation from Hansard of another place in this Session. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain the situation without quoting.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: The answer to the question is that under this Act an offender is liable to a fine of three times the value of the article, or a fine of £100, whichever is the greater, and not whichever is the less. At the same time, he is liable to imprisonment, or to both imprisonment and a fine. As the noble Earl has pointed out, he is liable under the terms of this Bill to prosecution under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1953, if he is found in possession of such an article. He is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50, or both. I think that that is the answer to the noble Earl's point.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reassurance, which I find entirely satisfactory.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 7), Bill read 3a, and passed.

POLICE FEDERATION BILL
5.27 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 7), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING (UNDERGROUND ROOMS) BILL
5.28 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

MOCK AUCTIONS BILL [H.L.]
5.29 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 Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of certain practices at sales purporting to be sales by auction]:
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved to leave out Clause 1, and to insert the following new clause:
Penalties for promoting or conducting mock auctions
".—(1) It shall be an offence to promote or conduct, or to assist in the conduct of, a mock auction at which one or more lots to which this Act applies are offered for sale.
(2) Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.
(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, for the purposes of this Act a sale of goods by way of competitive bidding shall be taken to be a mock auction if, but only if, during the course of the sale—

(a) any lot to which this Act applies is sold to a person bidding for it, and either it is sold to him at a price lower than the amount of his highest hid for that lot, or part of the price at which it is sold to him is repaid or credited to him or is stated to be so repaid or credited, or

(b) the right to bid for any lot to which this Act applies is restricted, or is stated to
324
be restricted, to persons who have bought or agreed to buy one or more articles, or

(c) any articles are given away or offered as gifts.

(4) A sale of goods shall not be taken to be a mock auction by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, if it is proved that the reduction in price, or the repayment or credit, as the case may be,—

(a) was on account of a defect discovered after the highest bid in question had been made, being a defect of which the person conducting the sale was unaware when that bid was made, or

(b) was on account of damage sustained after that bid was made."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a complete re-drafting of the original Clause 1 of the Bill. Under the existing clause it was an offence to do a number of things which, on the face of them, are harmless. To the uninitiated, to return part of the price paid for a lot or make gifts to members of the audience appear to be harmless faults, or even commendable in an auctioneer. The charge, on prosecution, under the Bill as it stands would read, for example,
"that while conducting a sale at which an assembly of persons were invited to acquire prescribed articles by competitive bidding he accepted from the highest bidder less than the amount of his highest bid."
It might seem to the court that that was a mere technicality and they might not feel able to impose more than a nominal penalty for it. The new clause directly defines the offence as being to promote or conduct a mock auction, and then goes on to explain what a mock auction is. The charge under this Amendment would read that the person charged:
"promoted or conducted or assisted in the conduct of a mock auction."
Subsection (1) of the new clause defines the offence. It now includes promoting a mock auction, as well as conducting or assisting in its conduct, so as to ensure that the proprietor commits an offence even though he does not personally take part in the sale. Subsection (2) lays down the penalties under this Bill. The penalties are the same as in the original clause. Subsection (3) defines a mock auction. Subsection (3) (a) is the equivalent to the existing subsection (1) (a) in the present clause. It has been extended to include the return of money already paid by the bidder to the auctioneer, as well as the auctioneer's accepting less money in the first place, Subsection (3) (b) has the same effect as subsection (1) (c) in

325
the original clause, forbidding the auctioneer to restrict the right to bid for any lot to persons who have bought or agreed to buy one or more articles. Subsection (3) (c) is exactly the same as subsection (1) (c) in the original Bill.
Going back for a moment to Clause 1 of the original Bill, your Lordships will notice that subsection (1) (b), which prohibits a person who conducts or assists in conducting a sale at which an assembly of persons, or any of them, are invited to acquire prescribed articles by competitive bidding, from selling any prescribed article otherwise than by competitive bidding, has been left out of the new clause. The reason for this is that in an Amendment which I shall move later competitive bidding has been defined to cover slightly more than is covered at the moment. In other words, it is defined to cover sales other than by raising prices as at a normal auction. It will also cover Dutch auctions and any other form of public sale where there is an element of competition. Because of this, it is no longer practicable to have in this subsection a distinction between selling by competitive bid and selling otherwise than by competitive bidding. Subsection (4) is the equivalent to the first part of subsection (2). It is a saving clause for the advantage of bona fide auctioneers and gives them the right—or, rather, does not take away from them the right—to return any money on account of a defect discovered after the highest bid, or on account of damage sustained after that hid was made.
I should like to say how grateful I am to Her Majesty's Government, to the Home Office and the Government draftsmen for the considerable help that I have been given in drafting this and other Amendments in my name. But I must add that, whilst any credit for the drafting is due to the Government draftsmen, the responsibility is entirely mine and cannot be attached to Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1, and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD CROOK: I rise for a moment only, because I spoke originally in favour of this Bill on Second Reading, to say that I support the Amendment which the noble Lord has been good enough to move on this occasion. I then ventured
326
to suggest that Her Majesty's Government should offer some help to the noble Lord, and I am glad to learn from him that he has had that help, and that, with or without it, he has followed up his twelve months' work in preparing this Bill by making certain that those who took steps to evade what might have been the provisions of an Act of Parliament are dealt with before that Bill becomes an Act, by the astute way that it has now been redrafted; because the sting seems to come in the Amendment yet to be moved, where the words:
"sale of goods by way of competitive bidding"
are properly defined. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord and to commend this Amendment to those noble Lords who sit on this side of the House with me.
EARL BATHURST: As the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has mentioned the Government draftsmen, I should like, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chesham, who is indisposed this afternoon, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham. There is no doubt that, as a result of the drafting of this Amendment by the Government draftsmen, it will be very much more difficult for the top men (who otherwise undoubtedly would have done so) to get round the results of his hard work. On the other hand, I must say that it is, of course, entirely up to your Lordships whether you consider this Amendment favourably or otherwise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
LORD DENHAM: The first part of this Amendment defines the words "competitive bidding". Up to now, mock auctions have always been based on the procedure at a genuine auction; that is to say, prospective purchasers have competed for the purchase of articles by way of increasing bids. After your Lordships gave a Second Reading to this Bill I chanced to go to Petticoat Lane one Sunday morning where I watched one of these mock auctioneers at work. This particular man had adopted a method which might have got round the original Bill. He held up an article and said, "Now, ladies and gentlemen, I am not going to auction this. I am going to sell it for £3 to the first lady or gentleman who puts up their

327
hand." Sure enough, a fairly large number of people put up their hands, and he sold the article to whoever he considered was the first to do so.
A complete mock auction could be based on that procedure. That way of doing things could not be described as an auction, and there is some doubt whether, under the Bill as it stands, it could be defined as competitive bidding. But the words "competitive bidding" have now been defined so as to bring this method of selling under the cover of the Bill, and also to bring a Dutch auction, as well as a normal auction, or, I hope, any form of public sale which includes an element of competition, under the provisions of this Bill. The second part of this Amendment defines the words "lot to which this Act applies", which appear several times in the new Clause 1 as amended.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, after ("Act") insert ("sale of goods by way of competitive bidding' means any sale of goods at which the persons present, or some of them, are invited to buy articles by way of competitive bidding, and 'competitive bidding" includes any mode of sale whereby prospective purchasers may be enabled to compete for the purchase of articles, whether by way of increasing bids or by the offer of articles to be bid for at successively decreasing prices or otherwise.
() In this Act 'lot to which this Act applies' means a lot consisting of or including one or more prescribed articles; and").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: This Amendment leaves out the definition of the word "premises", because this word is no longer used in Clause 1, the word "place" being used in its stead.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out line 28.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved to add to Clause 3:
"() In this Act 'stated', in relation to a sale of goods by way of competitive bidding, means stated by or on behalf of the person conducting the sale, by an announcement made to the persons for the time being present at the sale.
() For the purposes of this Act any bid stated to have been made at a sale of goods by way of competitive bidding shall be conclusively presumed to have been made, and to have been a bid of the amount stated; and any reference in this Act to the sale of a lot to a person who has made a bid for it includes
328
a reference to a purported sale thereof to a person stated to have bid for it, whether that person exists or not.
() For the purposes of this Act anything done in or about the place where a sale of goods by way of competitive bidding is held, if done in connection with the sale, shall be taken to be done during the course of the sale, whether it is done at the time when any articles are being sold or offered for sale by way of competitive bidding or before or after any such time.
() Subject to the provisions of section thirty-three of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (which relates to offences under two or more laws), nothing in this Act shall derogate from any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal) in proceedings instituted otherwise than under this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in four parts. The first part defines the word "stated", which appears several times in the amended Clause 1 and in the second subsection of this Amendment. The reason for this second subsection is that some of the bids stated to have been made at a mock auction are in fact non-existent bids from imaginary persons at the back of the crowd. Where a person present actually makes a bid, it is sometimes difficult to identify him after the sale so that he can be brought to give evidence. Under this paragraph it will be enough for the purposes of the prosecution for a policeman to give evidence that the top man or auctioneer stated that a bid was made.
The purpose of the third subsection is to bring in things done in connection with the sale by competitive bidding, whether done before or after the sale. For instance, distribution of gifts before the first lot is put up for sale by competitive bidding would not otherwise be covered. The fourth subsection is designed to remove any fear there may be that creation of a special offence relating to mock auctions might remove other civil or criminal proceedings connected with them.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title and commencement.]
LORD DENHAM: This Amendment excludes Northern Ireland from the provisions of the Bill. The reason for this

329
is that the Government of Northern Ireland themselves have power to promote legislation such as this, and in fact have already passed one Act dealing with mock auctions, the Auctions (Local Control) Act, although this particular Act is not in the same form as the Bill we have here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
("() This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 7), Bill read 3a and passed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINIS TRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, at the outset I want to make it clear that the Bill applies to the whole country and not only to the City of Birmingham. I say that advisedly because the constitutional position is that a Public Bill must apply to the whole country and not merely to one place. However, there is no good in skirmishing around the point. We all know of the rather unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists in Birmingham at the present time, and this Bill does in fact remedy that confusing state of affairs. How that has arisen requires a little explanation, and I hope that your Lordships will not be tired with this reiteration of sections and subsections of various Acts of Parliament.
Section 168 (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, provided that the Recorder of Birmingham might in his discretion order a second court of Quarter Sessions to be formed. Any such order required a resolution of the council,
330
which resolution might continue in force for twelve months. I ask your Lordships to keep in mind that the resolution of the council was originally required. Some seventy-two years later there was passed a Private Act—namely, the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1954. Section 61 of that Private Act amended Section 168 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, in its application to the city of Birmingham so as to make the resolution of the council unnecessary, thus enabling the Recorder of his own motion to form a second court of Quarter Sessions whenever it appeared to him necessary to do so.
The next stage in the proceedings was when Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, amended Section 168 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, so as to enable local authorities to authorise the formation of further courts of Quarter Sessions, being the second court permitted by the Act of 1882. Unfortunately, when Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, was passed, the special provisions contained in Section 61 of the Binning-ham Corporation Act, 1954, were overlooked. The result is that the provisions of Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, are of no avail to the city of Birmingham, which puts it beyond its powers to pass the necessary resolution.
Now this is the point: as a result of the confusing situation which arose because of all this legislation, not more than two courts of Quarter Sessions can sit simultaneously at Birmingham. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the present Bill proposes the addition of a new subsection —subsection (6)—to Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, the effect of which is to preserve the right of the Recorder of Birmingham, and of any other borough which may obtain or have obtained legislation corresponding to the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1954, to form a second court of Quarter Sessions without the authority of a resolution of the council; and—and this is the important point—to enable a third court, and any further court that may be required, to be formed if the council pass a resolution to that effect.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the remuneration of the I Assistant Recorder. Here again, as a result of failing to repeal the relevant

331
provisions of the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1954, the position in Birmingham is different from that elsewhere: and so the present Bill brings the whole matter into line by providing that in Birmingham, as elsewhere, the approval of the Lord Chancellor will be needed for fixing the remuneration of the Assistant Recorder.
As to the necessity for this Bill, as your Lordships know, Birmingham is a large city, with a population of over one million. I am not suggesting that it has a worse criminal record than any other city, but there is inevitably a certain amount of crime in Birmingham; and at the present moment the Recorder of Birmingham can appoint only one assistant court to help him during sessions. He cannot appoint more than one court. He may, in fact, want two or three courts to assist him, but he cannot do more than appoint one assistant. Now I understand that the result is that a number of prisoners who ought to be tried at a certain session are sometimes not tried at that session owing to lack of judicial time. If a prisoner is on bail, then of course he continues to be on bail; but if a person is in custody, he continues to remain in custody for a longer period than is either necessary or desirable. My Lords, that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and what this Bill does is simply to enable the Recorder of Birmingham to appoint one, two, three, or as many courts as he likes, to assist him in his work. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Meston.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for producing this Bill and putting it before your Lordships. I have a certain responsibility, in that I introduced the Act of 1956 into this House, and I must admit that I did not remember that provision in the Birmingham Corporation Private Act. However, if I were to remember and carry in my mind the provisions of every Private Act of every corporation, I should be even more insufferable to your Lordships than I am at present. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Lord for promoting this Bill. It will be of the greatest value to the administration of
332
justice that the city should be able to have the further courts it requires. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE AND OTHER CHARITIES (NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE) CHARITY BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.56 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this is a Bill which deals with these two hospitals or almshouses and three other small charities named in the Bill, in the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, which are at present administered by the City Corporation as trustees. The Hospital of St. Mary Magdalene was founded In the 12th century, and was richly endowed. It is now administered by a Private Act of Parliament which was passed in 1867, when the Corporation, as I have said, were made trustees. It accommodates sixteen freemen with their wives. The intention is that the building should be modernised and that the surplus money should go to the Hospital of the Holy Jesus, which was founded by the Corporation in the 17th century and, in 1934, was rebuilt on land belonging to the St. Mary Magdalene Hospital. This hospital has accommodation for the master, thirty-nine brethren and sisters, being freemen of the city, their wives and unmarried daughters. It is at present administered by a Private Act of Parliament of the year 1847. The other charities did own almshouses once upon a time, but they were abolished when the railway was laid down in Newcastle in 1848.
The object of the Bill at present before your Lordships is to make a new outlet for the increasing revenues of the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalene, to build new buildings, and to provide increased accommodation for the necessitous people in Newcastle-on-Tyne who are not necessarily freemen. Because two Private Acts of Parliament have to be upset, Parliamentary consent is required for the Bill. The Bill has been widely advertised and, so far as I know, no objection has been

333
raised. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

HOSPITAL OF ST. NICHOLAS (SALISBURY) CHARITY BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this charity was founded in the 13th century, and was then refounded by charter of King James I. The hospital provides accommodation for the master, chaplain, six needy, poor, old men, and six needy, poor, old women. At present it is administered by the Bishop of Salisbury, with the Archbishop of Canterbury himself giving assistance and advice. The object of the present Bill is to dissolve that particular corporation and to appoint five trustees—one of whom, the master, shall be appointed by the Bishop of Salisbury under Letters Patent—and at the same time to improve and modernise the buildings. Both the Bishop of Salisbury and the Archbishop of Canterbury approve of the changes made; and the reason that Parliament has to approve it is that it is making an alteration in the Letters Patent of King James I. The Bill has been widely advertised, and I understand there has been no objection. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

JESUS HOSPITAL (ROTHWELL) CHARITY BILL
6.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this Bill deals with an almshouse built at Rothwell in the sixteenth century for poor, unmarried men, and the original five feofees were incorporated as governors, with ten associates who in turn became governors. The charity was administered under a charter given by Queen Elizabeth I. There
334
has been considerable difficulty in finding people who can act as associates to take care of the charity, and it has also been difficult to find poor, unmarried men who can become suitable candidates. The object of the Bill is to replace the large body of fifteen by five governers, to allow married men to come in, with their wives if necessary, and to modernise the buildings. Parliamentary consent must be obtained because the charity is administered under charter. The project has been widely advertised and no objections have been received. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

POOR'S COAL CHARITY (WAVENDON) CHARITY BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, in 1787, under the Wandon Enclosure Act (at that time the parish of Wavendon was called Wandon), certain lands were awarded to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish to provide inhabitants of property in the parish which was of a rateable value not exceeding £5 a year with fuel. In 1809 an agreement was made with the Duke of Bedford, under the 50th Parliament of George III, by which he undertook to supply 100 tons of coal a year, if the cost of coal exceeded £1 10s. a ton. Now, following the revision of the rating of property, the method of measuring property according to yearly value ceases to operate. On that value only 26 persons are entitled to receive benefits under the trust, and many of these could not be called poor; whereas there are many people who can be considered poor yet who, because they live in property having a rateable value of more than £5, cannot be beneficiaries under this charity.
The object of the Bill is to remove the rating qualification and to provide that beneficiaries under the charity shall be needy persons who have lived in Wavendon for not less than one year. Parliamentary sanction has to be obtained because it involves the alteration of an Act

335
of Parliament. There is one point that I should like to mention to your Lordships. One of the new trustees mentioned in the Bill has, unfortunately, died, but I think that we can continue with the procedure because the remaining trustees will appoint a new trustee as soon as the Bill becomes law. The Bill has been widely advertised, and so far as I know no objection has been received. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
NORTH DEVON WATER BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock