Lords Sitting of 14 March 1960

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

STOCK RUSTLING
2.34 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 their attention has been drawn to outbreaks of stock rustling from isolated farms, and, if so, whether appropriate steps have been taken to safeguard farmers against heavy financial losses which may be incurred through these despicable acts of stealing.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the Government have no reason to think that the penalties at present provided by law are inadequate or that the police do not give all the assistance that lies within their power.
LORD WISE: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I say that I am not so much concerned with the question of the police and of fines, as with stopping this particular practice which I understand has now opened up again. I am aware of two serious cases of stock rustling, and I hope that possibly the Department of the Minister might advise auctioneers and certification centres that no stock should be received from a suspicious quarter. I think it is important that we should deal with this problem, and, with that in mind, I would ask the noble Earl whether he will make representations to his Department in this matter.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am not quite certain that what the noble Lord says is completely relevant to his
1072
Question. I am quite certain that the police and auctioneers will work closely together, should such cases come to their notice, but I think I should make it clear to the noble Lord that, although in his part of the world there is an increase in the number of cases (there were only 3 in 1958, but 13 in 1959) it is not true to say that for the rest of the country there is a big increase in cattle-rustling cases.
LORD WISE: My Lords, a very serious case occurred the other day which involved a particular farmer in a heavy loss. I think we should try to "nip this in the bud" if we possibly can.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government say whether the increase in these cases is in any way due to the increased showing of Westerns on television?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should very much doubt it.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the three cases he mentioned include the stealing of sheep?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, no. The stealing of sheep is especially troublesome in Scotland. These three cases are not concerned with sheep.
LORD REA: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that not only in Scotland but in the North Western add rather rugged parts of England sheep-stealing is prevalent, as well as cattle stealing, and that it is usually countered by carefully marking by farmers, on the ear or on some part of the anatomy of the sheep? Could the noble Earl say whether it is possible for this practice to be more widespread so that farmers who are buying stock can see whether it is stolen or not?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Could the noble Earl say how many cases of sheep and cattle stealing have been brought to his attention?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not think that we have any figures with regard to cases in Scotland, but if the noble Viscount will put down a Question I am sure that my noble friend will be happy to answer it.

FINES BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I would mention to your Lordships that this concerns a matter which has been exercising the minds of many magistrates and others for a long time. This Bill affects only the maximum fines which are below £10 and are enforced by Acts which were passed before the end of the year 1939. It is recognised that many old Acts passed long ago should no longer be on the Statute Book, and this Bill, of course, does not really concern itself with them. Those old Acts are never enforced nowadays. One of them is the Profane Oaths Act of 1745. There it is interesting to note that the penalty is calculated according to the number of oaths, and the maximum fine for a day labourer, common soldier, sailor or a seaman, is 1s.; for other persons under the degree of a gentleman it is 2s., and for every person of or above the degree of a gentleman it is 5s. Second offences entail a double penalty, and third offences a treble penalty. This Act makes no mention of women, but perhaps it was unthinkable for a woman to offend that Act in those days.
As I have said, that Act and others like it are not really affected by the Bill before the House, as cases under them are no longer brought before magistrates' courts. But there are, of course, many old Acts still on the Statute Book which are effective at the present time. I will mention some of these to your Lordships, but there are many others. There is the 1831 Game Act, under which, for trespassing in pursuit of game, the maximum fine was £2. There is the 1835 Highway Act when, for firing a gun within 50 feet of the highway, for obstructing free passage, for playing football in the street and many other kindred offences the maximum fine was £2. Then the 1845 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, for omitting to fasten gates by the side of the railway, carried a fine of £2. Under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act, for throwing stones, using obscene language and other street offences the maximum fine was £2; and under the same Act, for allowing a chimney accidentally to be on fire, it was 10s.
1074
Under the 1861 Offences Against The Person Act, for common assault the fine was £5. Under the 1872 Licensing Act, for being found drunk there was a 10s. fine for the first time, £1 for the second time in a year, and £2 for the third time in a year. That Act also provided a fine of £2 for being drunk and disorderly. Under the 1875 Explosives Act, for selling fireworks to a child the fine was £5, and for throwing fireworks in the street the maximum tine was also £5. Then, in 1889 the Indecent Advertisements Act imposed a £2 fine for exhibiting an indecent advertisement. Under the 1902 Licensing Act, for being drunk in charge of a child under seven the maximum penalty was £2. Then under the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act, for giving intoxicants to a child under five the penalty was £3. There are, of course, many others.
When some of these Acts were passed, the maximum fines which I have mentioned were obviously correct for the value of money in those days. But now the value of money has changed. It has been thought that in those cases where it was correct to deprive a defendant who had been found guilty of an offence committed before the war of so many packets of cigarettes, it would be correct now to deprive him of the same number of packets of cigarettes—in other words, to adjust the fines in accordance with the value of money.
It is hardly necessary for me to point out to your Lordships that the sum of £10, as mentioned in the Bill, is a maximum, and it may safely be left to the judicial discretion of the magistrates as to what fine is imposed up to that amount. After over 30 years' experience on the Bench I well know what care magistrates take to fix fines to meet the exigencies of any particular case. The seriousness of the offence, the character and antecedents of the guilty party and his means and background, also whether the offender is married, with or without children, or single, are all very much in the minds of the magistrates with every relevant fact when they assess what fine is to be paid. The greatest care is taken by them, and I feel confident that your Lordships will agree that it may well be left to the magistrates to decide in each case before them the proportion of £10 which must be paid as a penalty.

1075
I understand that Her Majesty's Government have had this problem before them for some considerable time and I am told that a Committee has been sitting for some four or five years. I may well be told that the matter should be left until the Committee have reported, when a decision can be made on the revision of each Act individually. I would suggest to your Lordships that this Bill, which is simple and easy to understand and, I feel confident, is easily workable, should be passed into law, if not as a permanent measure then as an interim measure until individual Acts are reviewed by Her Majesty's Government and can be amended in due course. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Swaythling.)
2.43 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, for the speech he has just made. This is, of course, a matter which is of some interest to magistrates and others who are concerned with the proceedings in magistrates' courts. The point which the noble Lord has made, and rightly emphasized, is the fact that there has been a change in the value of money since the offences and the penalties were legislated for many years ago. The noble Lord has stated that he recognises that many of the penalties relate to offences which are now out of date. The noble Lord mentioned the Profane Oaths Act. Although it is quite true that the penalty prescribed by that Act was 1s. for a labourer or common soldier, sailor or seaman, nevertheless if the noble Lord's Bill is passed and comes into operation the penalty for uttering such an oath will no longer be 1s. but will become £10.
The objections that one feels about the Bill do not arise from the feeling that there are no cases which require review. Indeed, I understand that there are some 600 offences, spread over 150 Acts of Parliament, which are being investigated by the Committee. It is, of course, the duty of Parliament, when dealing with offences, and particularly when dealing with penalties, to decide upon the gravity of the offence and the
1076
punishment which should be prescribed; and within the indications which Parliament gives it is for the courts then to decide whether the penalties which Parliament has prescribed should in any way be mitigated. It is not for the courts to decide, under a general universal maximum, what the punishment should be in a particular case.
If this Bill were passed in its present form, we should find that an anomalous position would be created. From 1939 up to the present time many Acts of Parliament have been passed under which many new offences have been created and many new penalties laid down. If the noble Lord's Bill is passed we shall find that for all offences which were legislated for prior to 1939 there will be, in every case where the original penalty was below £10, a maximum penalty of £10, whereas under the Education Act, 1944 there have been prescribed, in the wisdom of Parliament, penalties in various cases of £1, 40s., and £5 Although the maximum penalty for offences which came under the Acts of 1930 and 1933 would be £10, under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which has been passed by your Lordships and Parliament generally, there are offences which attract a maximum penalty of £1, 40s., £5 or, in some cases, £10.
I believe the position would be that if a person failed to produce his driving licence to a police constable when required under the earlier Road Traffic Act he would become liable, under this Bill, to a penalty of £10. But if a person fails to produce his driving licence to a police constable who believes, and has good reason for believing, that that licence was obtained by a false statement, the maximum penalty, under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, will be £5. So that there are many cases where the position would become anomalous if this Bill were passed; and in my respectful submission the result would be to bring the law into contempt.
There are numerous other Acts. There is the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, under which the maximum penalties are less than £10—the amount prescribed by this Bill. In my view, another anomalous situation would arise under that Act if this Bill were passed. Under the Goods Vehicle (Licensing and Prohibitions) Regulations, 1952, the penalty is one which falls under the

1077
Road Traffic Act, 1933, where the penalty prescribed is £5. Under this Bill the penalty for the offence, which, as I say, was designated under the Regulations of 1952, instead of being £5 would be £10—although Parliament, when it passed the regulations, had in mind that the penalty should be £5.
Then, under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, numerous offences were created and many penalties prescribed from 20s. to £2, £5, £10 and more. Again, under the Companies Act, 1948, provision was made for penalties, where directors fail to send in returns, and to deal with matters of that kind, amounting to £1, 40s. and £5. Therefore, with regard to all these Statutes which have been passed since 1939, where Parliament has prescribed penalties which are less than £10, they would not be affected by the noble Lord's Bill and would remain as prescribed under those Acts. Therefore, if this Bill is passed, we shall have this strange situation that those cases, offences of which the noble Lord admits many are now out of date and outmoded and no longer have any application to the needs of our present society, shall, nevertheless, because those offences still remain upon the Statute Book, be subject to a penalty of £10. In my respectful submission to the House, it is quite absurd that we should have that situation at this time.
It is true that there has been a change in the value of money. But it is also true there has been a change in the mode and customs and manner of living, and in the conditions of life and the general behaviour of the people of this country and offences which were prevalent 100 years or so ago, in the most primitive conditions which might then have existed, no longer have any relevance to the conditions of our modern society. All those offences which still remain upon the Statute Book, and which in the light of the conditions of those days were punished by a fine of 10s. or 20s. and so on, are now to become punishable by fines of £10 under this Bill. Having regard to all those circumstances, I would submit to your Lordships that, although it is true that certain offences should be considered—and I believe they are being reconsidered—it is for Parliament to look at each case on its merits and each case that has to be made out for every particular offence which comes
1078
before Parliament. But it cannot be done, in my respectful view—cannot and ought not to be done—by a general Bill such as the noble Lord provides.
2.52 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I do not pretend to be a lawyer in any sense, but I must say that the interpretation of this Bill in this general sense is very different in the mind of the noble Lord who has just spoken from that in my own. I should not presume to correct him, but I think he gave the impression that these minor offences which in olden days were fined by such fines as 1s. and 2s. automatically become punishable by a fine of £10 under this new Bill. Surely the intention of my noble friend is that the fine for swearing an oath, which used to be 1s., will still remain 1s. because the discretion of magistrates will make it of that value and not worth a £10 fine. I admit, as has been pointed out, that there are anomalies in this. Even the year 1939 might be changed; but, in principle, I think the Bill raises something which the public can support and, of course, it could be altered in Committee.
In these days when there is sheer lawlessness, and an enjoying of lawlessness, I am much disturbed that for knocking down a policeman and kicking him in the ribs and probably drawing blood, and particularly causing great indignity, which is undesirable, many young men get off with what is almost a nominal fine. One might suggest a "bobby club", whereby one pays 2s. a week and once a month one can beat up a policeman and get away with it. On those general principles I should like the Bill to be seriously considered. Perhaps the noble Earl will say, if he cannot take this Bill, that something on these lines may be coming before your Lordships soon.
If I may raise one other matter, I was disturbed to see in The Times newspaper on Saturday a paragraph headed "Ministers will not support Fines Bill." That, of course, was before Ministers had heard this Bill argued on Second Reading and had any knowledge of what those who support it think might happen or how it could be adapted. It seems a little surprising that a responsible newspaper, presumably inspired in some way, actually tells us that this Government

1079
will not take this Bill, whatever is said. I do not press that point. I think it is perhaps an unfortunately inspired paragraph; but I ask the Government to consider the general principle of the Bill. The general scale of fines now is quite out of date and the general public would like to see an improvement: and if they put forward some improvement we on this side of the House should like to be helpful.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, who introduced this Bill. There are only a few speakers on this Bill, but what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality. The first point I wish to make quite clearly is that the Bill creates no new offence whatever. All it does is to bring economy into line with criminality, and vice versa. Let me come to the point. The maximum fine for being drunk and disorderly in Hyde Park is £2. It does not matter how drunk you were, it does not matter how disorderly you were; the maximum fine is £2. Surely there is nothing unjust in raising that maximum to £10. It does not mean that one is fined £10 in any event; it merely means to say that if one is really a great public nuisance and suffering to a great extent from the effect of alcohol one may be fined up to £10, and that will deter one from doing it again for some time. There is a very interesting article in The Times this morning about a number of foolish offences under ancient Acts of Parliament. The way to deal with that, of course, is to repeal all those foolish and ancient Acts of Parliament in one Bill, and to let this Bill stand as it is.
2.57 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Bill has been most agreeably moved and supported, but I do not think, when we consider it seriously, that it can possibly do. I rise generally to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West. It seems to me that there are two fatal defects in this Bill: first of all, the illogical contrast to which the noble Lord. Lord Granville-West, drew attention between the treatment of Acts of Parliament passed before 1939 and Acts passed subsequently. That seems in itself to be fatal. The noble Lord, Lord Rea,
1080
said that we might alter the date to something else. But whatever we altered it to we should get a similar illogicality. I think it has also another fatal defect and that is what it does to the Acts passed before 1939. Those Acts were not all of the same worth. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, seemed to think there was no difficulty in putting up the maximum to £10 because the courts would take no notice of the alteration in the law unless they chose to. That is not, in fact, the way the courts behave or are encouraged to behave.
LORD REA: My Lords, surely it is only a permissive maximum under which the courts are allowed to impose a fine under the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord, rusty lawyer though I am, that, if an Act of Parliament says a maximum penalty that has hitherto been 1s. shall in future be £10, the court applying itself to the intentions of the Statute as laid down by Parliament would imagine that it should not impose a penalty on the old scale. It would naturally suppose that Parliament intended to bring about some alteration. For that reason it is quite impossible to suggest that this will not in fact increase penalties in many cases where we might not wish to increase them.
The noble Lord who has just sat down, Lord Meston, made a suggestion that has often attracted me a great deal. He said that, where we are not willing to increase the penalty, surely the right thing is to get rid of the foolish Act. That idea has always attracted me very much. Before I entered politics I remember suggesting publicly that it would be a very useful Bill that proposed the repeal and removal from the Statute Book of all Acts passed before a certain date, with the exceptions set out in a Schedule; and then in the Schedule there could be set out those Acts of Parliament that really were useful, and the rest could be left to the operation of the Common Law. But that is not what this Bill does. This Bill alters the penalty; creates an indefensible distinction between the Acts before 1939 and the Acts after; and also introduces serious anomalies even in the old Acts. To sum up my objections in a sentence, while the passing of this measure would make the good old Acts better, it would make the bad old Acts worse.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask a question? The noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party referred in his speech to The Times. He called it The Times newspaper, though I do not know why.
LORD REA: I thought it was a newspaper.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is a newspaper, and it is one of the most popular of the London dailies, I am perfectly certain, but he referred to it as "inspired". I have read every copy of The Times for forty years, and I do not subscribe to that view.
LORD REA: The noble Viscount would not describe it as expired.
3.1 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to say one word on this Bill. I am greatly in sympathy with the object which the noble Lord has, although I must say that I am a little doubtful about the method that he wishes to employ to secure that object. I am not quite sure that it is the right way to achieve it. Your Lordships may remember that some months ago—on November 25 last year, to be exact—we had what The Times newspaper and others called "a dog day" in the House of Lords. In the course of that debate I asked for certain increases in the penalties for people who kept dogs without licences, and so on, and the reply I got from the Government, through the mouth of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 219, col. 968]:
"With regard to the possibility of raising … the penalty for keeping a dog without a licence, as suggested by my noble friend,"—
that is me—
"this is being reviewed by the Criminal Division of the Home Office as part of a general review of penalties fixed before 1914. A great many of these have remained the same for a long time, although the value of money has completely altered, having been divided by three or four. The Home Office are reviewing all these penalties in order to see whether they should not be increased so that the real value of the fine which can be imposed now will be the same, in terms of purchasing power, as it was before 1914; and they are certainly considering the penalty for keeping a dog without a licence."
My Lords, that statement was very satisfactory, and I was quite prepared to sit back and to wait for my dog
1082
improvements upon the deliberations of this Committee. But then, to my astonishment, I find that we are to have a Bill coming before us shortly for Second Reading—it was read the first time the other day—the Game Laws (Amendment) Bill, in which I am delighted but somewhat surprised to see an enormous increase in the fines and penalties for people who trespass on land—poaching, and so on. I am sure that all of us are extremely pleased to see that, but it does not seem to me to work in with the assurance that I had: that all these things were being reviewed by the Home Office, and would not be incorporated in any Bill until the Home Office had made their final review. I should like some confirmation from the noble Earl who is to reply that I may still happily sit back and wait for what I am wanting, and that this review is being carried out by the Criminal Division of the Home Office. That is all I wish to say.
LORD BOOTHBY: Before the noble Earl replies, I hope he will give the House some account of this Criminal Division of the Home Office. I have always taken a very dim view of that Office—a dimmer view than of arty other—but I did not know that they had actually gone the length of designating one of their Divisions as "criminal". I think the House as a whole would very much like to hear precisely what the activities of this particular Division are.
3.5 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am quite certain that your Lordships will agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford, that Lord Swaythling certainly moved his Bill in a most agreeable manner. I want to assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are indeed most interested in his Bill, and in the objects which it seeks to achieve. But our views are very much the same as—in fact, almost entirely identical with—those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, and I am most grateful for the clear, concise and precise legal terms which he used in his speech, which have been a very great help to me. I should like to make it clear to the noble Viscount opposite that I am so glad that "top people" continue to take The Times: and I count the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West—

1083
and I am sure the noble Viscount will, too—as one of those people. For my own part, I saw the article in the newspaper to-day; and, there again, I know that its line is almost entirely the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, and my own.
With regard to the Criminal Division of the Home Office, my noble friend Lord Ailwyn has reminded us of the statement by my noble friend Lord Dundee in the course of his remarks on his Dog Licensing Bill. My Lords, it is not only the Criminal Division that is investigating this question of fines. The position is that members in my right honourable friend's Department—in all divisions thereof—are, in fact, getting together and considering these fines, fine by fine; and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that they are most agreeable and pleasant people, and that they will take advice from many bodies and individuals and, of course, from other Government Departments while they are collecting together information to report.
My Lords, quite obviously—and I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling will agree with me—the review of all fines below £10, whether prescribed before 1939 or afterwards, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, is a most complicated and difficult matter. For that reason, my right honourable friend believes that it is best to investigate each fine individually, and to judge upon the merits of each fine before coming to a final conclusion. The noble Lord offers us a simple Bill, as he has told us—and that is quite true; but his is an arbitrary Bill which at one fell swoop will make all fines which stood below £10 in 1939 up to £10 forthwith, on its passing. As indeed my noble friend Lord Conesford made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whatever the objects that the noble Lord would like to see in his noble friend's Bill, the fact is that that will be the effect; all fines will then be £10.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythlingéand we all agree with him—said that habits and customs change, and certainly the habits and customs of petty criminals and of potential petty criminals change, too; but we cannot see any point in raising all the out-of-date fines (of which we have heard a great many examples in your Lordships' House to-day) merely be
1084
cause of this. Many of them are very seldom imposed, and we do not believe that the mere fact of raising all the penalties to £10 will make for a just and equitable arrangement in the light of modern circumstances. Again, from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, a fine of five shillings may be right or it may be wrong. It is equally so with a fine of £5: and I think that even on to-day's terms there is a considerable difference between those two fines. But I do not believe that to say that all those fines should turn into £10 as from such-and-such a date will make those out-of-date fines any more correct.
In The Times newspaper to-day there was mentioned the crime of kite-flying; and I think that any Post Office engineer would tell one that a £10 fine is a very small amount for the amount of trouble and damage that the flying of kites may do to the Post Office wires. The article also mentioned that the penalty for feeding cab horses was a very small fine. Already, under modern conditions, if you feed a New Forest pony in the New Forest you are subjected to a fine (almost on the spot, I should imagine) of £5. So your Lordships can see that there are a great many anomalies. Another complicated class of fines which the noble Lord's Bill leaves untouched is that of the continuing fines—those where a certain amount of money is levied day by day until the offence is stopped. The noble Lord may appreciate this if he were to imagine that, should any of his cattle be found grazing illegally on a common, then under his Bill, should it become law, he could find himself liable by way of fine to a sum of £70 in one week. It is a very large class of penalties, and this Bill does not in any way appropriately deal with it.
There is also the question (and I think this is the most serious part as the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West said) of fines that exceed £10 by a small amount. Those fines the noble Lord leaves completely out of his Bill, yet it is particularly those fines that Her Majesty's Government wish to review. Many of them are much in need of review, even more so than some of the petty ones which we have heard mentioned. Because we raise those to £10, as the noble Lord proposes, that does not make these other more serious fines

1085
any more or less just. Her Majesty's Government wish to revise all these, especially because they are fines applicable to penalties prescribed for the most tiresome and aggravating crimes. That is the reason why I think there are substantial defects in the noble Lord's Bill.
Another large class of fines which would be untouched—again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West—are the fines embodied in Acts of Parliament which have been consolidated since 1940. The noble Lord told us about fines embodied in the Road Traffic Acts—and the Consolidation Bill is at the moment before your Lordships' House for your Lordships' consideration. All those minor offences will be untouched by the noble Lord's Bill, should your Lordships give it your assent. We do not believe that that is right.
My noble friend Lord Conesford also showed the anomalies which would accrue under this Bill. We are reviewing at present—not the Criminal Division, but my right honourable friend's Department and the other branches of the Government—all these fines according to modern circumstances, and it is a considerable task. I ask the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Ailwyn to show just a little patience, and I think they will find that the review takes into consideration all the difficulties and anomalies of which the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, told us. I think your Lordships will find that the result of this will lead to a new scale of fines which will be fair, considering the crimes for which they are imposed, yet will, at the same time, stand as deterrents in the very changed circumstances of modern society. I think that answers the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who believed that the objects were different from the effect of his noble friend's Bill. For those reasons, I cannot recommend that your Lordships approve the noble Lord's Bill.
3.13 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for the way in which he has given us Her Majesty's Government's views on the Bill, I am a little disappointed that he should not give us some indication of when these things may be put right. We have been waiting a long time for the work of this Committee to bear fruit, and I feel it would have been helpful if he
1086
could have given us some indication of when some of these things would be put right.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with great respect I want to make it quite clear that a Committee is not sitting. These matters are being considered by the Department of my right honourable friend, and they have not been very long at it. I can give no exact date; your Lordships will appreciate the large amount of legislation in the pipeline. But it is receiving urgent attention from my right honourable friend's Department. With your Lordships' permission I should like to give an answer to my noble friend Lord Ailwyn with regard to the Game Laws (Amendment) Bill which I omitted in my original answer. That Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and, of course, its purpose is entirely different from the purpose towards which the noble Lord's Bill is aimed. The Game Laws (Amendment) Bill, is a Bill to make better provision for the prevention of poaching. That is the reason why the fines are so high. This Bill is a review of all fines under £10.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Granville-West had some criticism of the Bill, and said that it provided a universal maximum line of £10. Instead of putting a maximum of £10, I had thought of multiplying the maximum fine in any Act passed before 1914 by three, and those passed between 1914 and 1938 by two, or some such formula as that. But in order to make the Bill more workable and more simple, I adopted the method which is in the Bill to-day. It must be borne in mind that it is a maximum fine of £10. The idea that because fines of 1s., 10s. or £2 have been increased to £10, every fine will necessarily be £10 is, as your Lordships will agree, absurd. We can still rely on magistrates to impose a tine that is necessary for each case.
Similarly, it has been thought that if this Bill were passed the Acts I have mentioned would come once more into force. But in my opinion if Acts such as those have fallen out of use, and no summonses are issued at the present time, then there will be no summonses after this Bill is passed into law. Therefore, those Acts that are already out of use would not in any way be affected.

1087
With regard to the date line which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, the more modern Acts have a maximum fine of £5. Those more modern Acts were passed when the value of money was more in keeping with the times than it is to-day, and £5 was considered to be the right maximum, and I feel that that maximum should remain in force. It applies only to the older Acts. For simplicity's sake, we have said £10 in the Bill, in order to give magistrates discretion—and, after all, magistrates have a discretion in a number of Acts of Parliament with fines up to £100. If you can give them that in certain other Acts, I think a discretion of up to £10 in these simpler Acts could be safely left to them. I still feel that, as an interim measure, until the more individual Acts are dealt with by Her Majesty's Government, it would be a good thing to pass this Bill.
On Question, resolved in the negative.

REQUISITIONED HOUSES BILL
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, this Bill is a small and, so far as a Housing Bill ever can be, a simple Bill: a simple measure designed to deal with a specific and limited problem. It will have the effect of disposing, once and for all, of the remnants of requisitioning for housing purposes, and so bring finally to an end an emergency service which has lasted for just over 20 years. Under the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, the whole job of derequisitioning houses ought to be finished by March 31 this year, and something like 98 per cent. of it will, in fact, be finished. This Bill, therefore, is concerned with the remaining 2 per cent. It provides a little more time for those few local authorities who will not quite have managed to finish the job by the end of this month.
Although this Bill deals with the shortfall, it would be in the highest degree ungenerous if we did not recognise the magnitude of the task which has been accomplished. At the beginning of 1955
1088
there were still some 62,000 properties held under requisition in England and Wales. Between the passing of the Act and the end of 1959 no fewer than 50,000 of those properties have been released and some 76,000 families have been resettled. Of the 76,000 dwellings which have ceased to be requisitioned over 80 per cent. have been handed back to their owners, in 34,000 cases with full vacant possession. In another 28,000 cases the licensees have been accepted as statutory tenants by the owners. In the remaining 14,000 cases the local authorities have either leased or purchased the property from the owners.
If your Lordships have followed this arithmetic you will see that it means that at the end of 1959 some 7,600 properties still remained under requisition, and 156 local authorities were involved. At first sight, this would appear to be a large number with only three months remaining before the right to possession comes to an end. But when we analyse these figures we see that 61 of these authorities had only one or two properties each to deal with; and 43 had fewer than 20 each. In our view, none of those 104 authorities—that is, the 61 and the 43—are likely to have any difficulty in completing the de-requisitioning by the end of this month.
The hard core of the problem, therefore, at the end of 1959 affected 52 local authorities, of whom all but seven are in greater London. But since the end of 1959 de-requisitioning has been going on all the time, and it is now quite impossible to give a precise forecast of what the position will be at the end of March. But on the authorities' own estimate it is expected that by the end of this month not more than about 1,500 properties, comprising some 2,000 dwellings, will still be held under requisition, and these properties will be spread over a small number of local authorities, nearly all of them in London. It will be seen, therefore, that the residual problem with which this Bill deals is very small. The vast majority of authorities up and down the country, in the face of many difficulties, will have completed de-requisitioning by the end of this month. This is a great achievement, for which they deserve to be given full credit, and I wish to give them that full credit on behalf of my right honourable friend. It will be only a few that will need and must be given a little

1089
more time. I say "must be given", because legislation is necessary for the protection of those licensee families who may still be occupying requisitioned properties after March 31. For unless the retention of these properties by the few local authorities concerned is legalised, the licensee families will, after March 31 of this year, become trespassers and liable to eviction. That is the background for this legislation and I will now turn to the Bill itself.
The Bill contains three main provisions. Clause 1 gives the Minister power to make limited extension of the period during which a local authority may continue to retain possession of requisitioned houses. This power will be exercised by orders made by statutory instrument. The period of extension may not exceed twelve months after March 31. An order made under the Bill may apply to all or some requisitioned properties at present held by a local authority and the properties may be varied by a subsequent order. A local authority will have to show that an order is really necessary, but it will not have to justify the retention of individual properties. An order will authorise that all houses under requisition on March 31, 1960—except for a few which will be excluded—may be retained until the date specified in the order. Under this clause there is also a provision that each local authority granted an order will be required to give notice in writing to every owner whose property is retained stating the period for which the property is authorised to be retained.
Clause 2 is concerned with financial arrangements consequent on the making of an order, and does two things. It provides for a 50 per cent. increase in the rental compensation payable to owners of properties which are retained after March 31. These owners will be faced with some deferment, however short, of their right to the return of their property as provided for under the 1955 Act. It is obviously fair that they should be given some consolation for the temporary loss of this right.
Clause 2 also deals with Exchequer contributions towards the costs of local authorities in dealing with requisitioned properties which they are authorised to retain after March 31. Under the 1955 Act Exchequer assistance was at the rate of 75 per cent. of the net cost of the
1090
management of the requisitioned houses. And there was also Exchequer assistance at the same rate of 75 per cent. towards the net cost of leasing or buying houses for the purpose of settling the licensee families. This Bill in Clause 2 provides that there shall still be Exchequer assistance for both these purposes, but at a reduced rate of 25 per cent. in place of 75 per cent.
My Lords, local authorities have had no reason to expect any Exchequer help after March 31, 1960. My right honourable friend caused two circulars to be sent out in the spring and autumn of 1957, and answered a Question in another place as late as last November, reminding local authorities that financial assistance would cease with the cessation of the 1955 Act in March, 1960.
But though it might be thought harsh and unreasonable to provide no assistance at all in this Bill, to 'maintain it at the same rate would be most unfair to the great majority of authorities who, though faced with equally great difficulties, will have succeeded in completing derequisitioning in the time set by the 1955 Act. In the Government's view, assistance at the rate of 25 per cent. for the few authorities needing more time is a fair compromise.
Clause 3 applies to properties retained by orders under the Bill the provisions of the 1955 Act, subject to modifications which are contained in the Schedule. There are four main changes. The first is that Section 3 of the 1955 Act is modified to secure the automatic release of requisitioned dwellings fourteen days, instead of four weeks, after they fall vacant, subject to two exceptions. The first enables the local authority to issue a new licence to the statutory successor of a licensee who dies, and the second ensures that an owner is not obliged to take back part of a property which was not a separate dwelling when first requisitioned while the local authority still hold the remainder.
The second change set out in this clause and the Schedule concerns the Minister's power to authorise the continued retention of vacant accommodation. This power to authorise the continued retention of vacant accommodation is abolished. The third change is that the powers of Section 4 which enabled owners to accept licensee families as statutory tenants in return

1091
for payment of special compensation are discontinued. It is surely reasonable to assume that owners prepared to accept invitations under the 1955 Act will already have done so. The fourth change is that the power enabling the owner to apply to the county court for possession is discontinued. This power was hardly ever used and now, with only a few months on average to run, it is even less likely that this power would be invoked. But provision is continued in Section 6 of the 1955 Act for the Minister, if he is satisfied that retention would cause severe hardship, to direct the local authority to release a requisitioned house without giving the option of offering to buy, which was in the 1955 Act.
My Lords, I hope I have made these provisions clear. I think there is little more that I need say in explanation of the Bill. The Bill, one might say, provides for a short mapping up operation. It is necessary to protect the small number of licensees who will otherwise be in jeopardy after March 31, and it is necessary to assist the small number of local authorities whose derequisitioning operations for one reason or another have not quite kept up to schedule. I commend this Bill to your Lordships and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl has quite correctly and clearly explained the purposes and contents of the Bill. With much of it I have no particular quarrel. I have no quarrel, for instance, with the four conditions which are being made by way of variation in the Schedule. Nor do I quarrel with the increase of 50 per cent. in the rent payable to the owner, which I gather is not necessarily going to be reflected in the rent charged to the licensee; that is entirely in the hands of the local authority.
I agree that this Bill is a necessary Bill because a number of local authorities have not been able to derequisition their properties within the period contemplated in the 1955 Act. The noble Earl paid a tribute to the vast majority of local authorities who had been able to do so, and I do not think
1092
that he cast any aspersions on the limited number who had not. The fact is that this is a problem which most local authorities have had in varying degrees. Most local authorities had been compelled to requisition properties immediately after the war and even during the war, and they have been able to release them as time went on, but there have been a limited number who, with the best will in the world, have not been able to do so. Most of those are in Greater London. No blame should be attached to them.
They have two problems. One is that by reason of the congestion and the conditions in Greater London they have had more cases of requisition than elsewhere, but in addition they found it more difficult to deal with the problem because in the main the problem of derequisition is one of acquisition of alternative accommodation, either by way of lease or by way of purchase of freehold on some other property. In many of the areas in question there would be very few suitable properties which the local authorities could acquire. In a borough which I know very well indeed, having represented it for many years, the borough of Southwark, there are practically no dwellings which could be acquired for this purpose. I have no brief for Southwark; I do not know whether they are in default; but I can well imagine that if they had a large number of families living in requisitioned properties they must have been at their wits' end to find alternative accommodation for those families. So I want to stress the fact that those local authorities who are in default are in default through no blameworthy reason; they are the victims of the conditions in their area.
But if that is accepted, then I really must protest against the vindictive way in which they are being dealt with by way of penalising them, both in the grant that they are to get in the future in the way of rent deficiency and also in the way of acquisition of any properties that they may be called upon to buy. If the Government want to be petty with this limited number of local authorities—and they are limited; we are dealing only with something like 2,000 dwellings altogether, and the number of authorities must be very small—they might say, "We will penalise the

1093
authorities who have been tardy" (on the assumption that they have been tardy and not on the assumption that they have done their best and not been able to carry out their obligations under the terms of the 1955 Act), "by making them pay a somewhat larger grant towards the deficiency; that is, the difference between what they have to pay to the owner by way of compensation and what they are getting back in rent. But to penalise them to the extent of 50 per cent.—and it is worse than that because they now have to pay a higher rent which they will probably not be able to recover—seems to me to be petty-minded. The whole thing will come to an end at the most in twelve months. There are very few authorities: those that are affected are the poorer authorities. I think the Government might well have left things alone and carried on and paid them the grant as heretofore.
What I find even worse is the reduction of the grant towards acquiring property. You could argue that the Government have been paying this deficiency grant for so many years and it is time they stopped. You could argue, I think rather weakly, that it is not fair to the other authorities—I do not know why it is unfair to them; they are not paying it; but you could argue it. I cannot see how it affects the Government or anybody else if the same grant is made towards acquisition. If the acquisition had taken place a year ago the Government would have paid 75 per cent. of the cost. Simply because the acquisition takes place a year later I see no reason why the Government should now pay only 25 per cent. The Government have not suffered in any way, nor has anybody else. I do not know whether this point was taken up strongly in another place or not; I have not been able to study the Committee report. But I feel that this is a matter which we ought to discuss further in Committee. I am sure the Government would not wish to be vindictive against these unfortunate authorities who have not been able to derequisition all their properties within the time limit.
There is one other point I should like to make on this Bill. Is not the Government making rather heavy weather of the limited number of dwellings that
1094
will remain requisitioned? They are asking that a local authority should make an application in respect of all the properties that it wants to retain, that the Minister may make an order in respect of all the properties or in respect of some of them or in respect of a class of them. But there are only 2,000 altogether, spread all over the country. Why cannot the Minister make a straight order extending the time for twelve months, and after that there should be no further extensions? I know that that was said in 1955; but five years may have been a long time to look ahead. To-day, we are looking ahead one year, and it is really much simpler and would reduce a good deal of the administration and other work, and suspend the operation of Parkinson's Law, if you could automatically increase the period for twelve months for these relatively few houses.
But I come back to the question of grant. I am sure the Minister has no desire to penalise local authorities who have been unfortunate; but that is what he is doing, particularly in relation to acquisitions of property which they will be compelled to make, although to a limited extent, in order to enable them to carry out the remaining derequisitions. I would urge the noble Earl to put this point strongly before his right honourable friend and suggest to him that local authorities should receive the same grant, at least in respect of acquisitioned property, as they have been getting hitherto.
3.42 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, may I intervene just for one moment? I wish to put only one small point to the House. Like all your Lordships, I am sorry that this Bill has had to be introduced—it would have been much better if we could have done without it—but I understand the circumstances of which the noble Earl has told us. But it is only right that somebody in this House should express a word of sympathy with those owners of requisitioned houses who had every expectation of getting back their houses at the end of March and were intending to live in them. It is a severe hardship because those people have had their properties requisitioned for fifteen years since the end of the war. It should not have been

1095
so long, but it has happened that way. Little is said of the hardship that they have suffered, but a great deal about the hardships which some of the tenants have undoubtedly also suffered. I only want to make that point because I do not think it should be overlooked.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that does not justify the imposition on the unfortunate local authorities, and therefore the ratepayers of the particular areas, of what amounts to a penal provision.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I was not addressing myself to the noble Lord's question.
3.45 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am glad that your Lordships have, on the whole, seemed to give this Bill a welcome, though I realised and fully anticipated that the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition would not like certain provisions in the Bill. I should like to answer one point that he made at the outset of his remarks. The rent increases will not, of course, necessarily be passed on to the occupiers, and I think it should be mentioned that the rent increase will be part of the cost of managing the property and will be subject to the Exchequer assistance, although it is reduced assistance to that given under the 1955 Act.
I think it is extravagant language and not really justifiable to say that this is vindictive, that we are being petty, and that we are trying to penalise local authorities who, to use the noble Lord's words, with the best will in the world, with these insuperable problems, have been unable to complete their task. Surely the question is quite the other way round. The final date for holding these properties under requisition was quite clearly given as March 31, and one might almost say that the fact that you get anything at all in the way of financial assistance after March 31 is almost, if not legally, an ex gratia payment. You have no right to expect anything at all after March 31; you were reminded of that, and, if it shows anything at all, it is that the Government, far from being petty minded about this, and vindictive and trying to operate the 1955 Act with its full rigour
1096
—because some means could have been found of protecting the licensees without giving any assistance to the local authorities, who had placed them in jeopardy—this is the act of a generous and sensible Government.
As this point has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I must say, on behalf of the Government, that I cannot accept that it is only the authorities with the most intractable problems who will to this minor extent be found to be defaulters at the end of the period. We all know the old pastime of comparing one's bomb damage with that of one's neighbours. I cannot—nor do I think it would be wise—discuss individual authorities here. But I do not think it will be found that authorities who have suffered the worst bomb damage and have had the most intractable problems will necessarily be the ones who will, in this small measure, be in default at the end of the period.
I think that it is only right, proper and fair to say, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that there are probably three main reasons why this shortfall takes place. The first is that a local authority may have started rather too late on the derequisitioning programme. The second is that a local authority may not have put the matter of derequisitioning to the fullest measure of priority—they may have miscalculated the amount of energy and priority that would be needed and now find themselves in the position of a shortfall. The third reason, which I think we should not burke, and which in a small measure is certainly true, is that certain of the local authorities took a calculated political risk. If you take a calculated political risk or gamble and win, all well and good; if you lose, you must grin and bear it. It is idle to say, as the noble Lord said, that we can now give a straight order for twelve months and say that after that there will be no more. That was done in 1955. The date was clearly given, and after that there was to be no more. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, answered that out of his own mouth. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, mentioned the fact of hardship to owners who have been waiting to get their properties back. As the noble Lord will be aware, and will find in the Bill, there are provisions whereby owners

1097
who can prove hardship can make representations to the Minister before he makes an order continuing the requisition. With those answers, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
1098
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nine minutes before four o'clock.