Lords Sitting of 26 November 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich
The Viscount Selby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN
2.35 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."
My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address informing me of the shock and deep sorrow with which you have learned of the death of President Kennedy. I fully share the sentiments to which your Address gives expression and shall convey to the President of the United States the sense of loss which this country and the Commonwealth have sustained and our profound sympathy with Mrs. Kennedy and the family of the late President and with the Government and people of the United States."

AMERICAN MILITARY SUPPLIES TO INDONESIA
2.38 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave 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 what reply has been received from the United States authorities regarding the reported supplying of spare parts for American built troop transports belonging to the Indonesian Government.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, we have ascertained that the spares in question have no connection with United States aid to Indonesia, but are being supplied by a commercial firm under long-standing contract. An export licence applied for by the firm in connection with this contract was approved in September. No application has been made since then, and we are asking the United States Government not to grant one.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, in view of the terrible tragedy which has stricken the United States and the world since I first raised this issue, I do not propose to put any supplementary questions this afternoon or to press the matter any further to-day.

REPORT ON NORTHERN RHODESIA RAILWAY
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave 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 what information they have received regarding the report prepared for Mr. Kaunda, Minister of Local Government and Social Welfare in the Northern Rhodesian Government, on the feasibility of building a railway from Northern Rhodesia to Tanganyika and by whom the cost of this survey, said to have been about £150,000, was defrayed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no information regarding this report, which was commissioned not by the Northern Rhodesia Government but, I understand, by Mr. Kaunda's political Party,

579
the United National Independence Party. It is not known who is meeting the cost of the survey involved, but it is not a charge on the Northern Rhodesia Government. The International Bank have accepted an invitation by the latter Government to send a preliminary mission to discuss with the authorities, including Rhodesia Railways, the need for further additions to the transport system and the general implications of a railway link between Northern Rhodesia and Tanganyika.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that a previous survey was made at the request of the Colonial Office in 1951–52, which suggested that the projected railway would prove to be quite uneconomic? Is it not in fact a purely political project and is it not one which, as I would think, would certainly affect the interests of the Rhodesia Railways, which are one of the two important links between the Northern and Southern Rhodesian Territories? Finally, can we be assured that in fact no Colonial Development and Welfare funds will be applied to the construction of what I fear must be a very doubtful enterprise?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, would not the noble Duke agree—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, may I answer one question at a time—or, rather, three questions at a time? First of all, I would say that, in so far as this survey puts no charge on the Northern Rhodesian Government, we are not financially implicated in any way and therefore there is no cause for us to interfere in this matter. As regards the Rhodesia Railways, as I am sure my noble friend knows, discussions are going on to try to work out ways by which the existing system of Rhodesia Railways shall be continued after the dissolution of the Federation, to the benefit of both Territories. As regards Colonial Development and Welfare funds, I can give my noble friend the assurance he requires.

TRANSCRIPTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
2.42 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 why transcripts of criminal proceedings on indictment are only available to members of the public with the leave of the court and what criterion the court uses in reaching a decision in these cases.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, it would be wrong to allow members of the public an unfettered right to obtain transcripts of criminal proceedings, because that would, for example, allow the publication of proceedings which had been held in camera, or the purchase of transcripts of sexual cases for the pleasure or profit of the recipient. The noble Lord may therefore agree that the Rules which Parliament has approved rightly require the leave of a Judge before a transcript can be obtained. The noble Lord goes on to ask what criterion a Judge uses in reaching a decision. Most of the applications for the purchase of transcripts are made to assist in legal proceedings, or for use in the preparation of professional textbooks, and cause little difficulty. A few arise, like the recent application made on behalf of the noble Lord, for the purpose of writing books for profit.
I cannot say what criteria exercise the minds of the learned Judges who act under the duties imposed upon them by the Rule. No doubt, however, it is borne in mind that the court shorthand writers are provided to facilitate appeals and not to assist authors. The shorthand writers are at present very much occupied in the production of transcripts for the Court of Criminal Appeal, and I am most anxious that appeals should not be unduly delayed by the time taken in transcribing the shorthand note.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his courteous reply. Are the Government aware that comment on matters of public interest, when printed,

581
is commonly the subject of financial reward? He used the phrase "for profit".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is nothing to stop the noble Lord, if he wishes, making arrangements for his own shorthand note to be taken.

FLAG DISCRIMINATION BY URUGUAY
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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, while the Uruguay Meat Delegation is in this country for the purpose of negotiating Uruguay's participation in Britain's imports of beef, they will protest most strongly against the flag discrimination practised by that country which takes the form of a 50 per cent. reduction of Customs House duties on all cargo imported by Uruguayan flag ships, and further make it quite plain that no beef or wheat will be purchased as long as Uruguay discriminates against British shipping.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the talks which were held last week with the Uruguayan meat delegation were not negotiations but preliminary discussions to explain various aspects of home and import policy and to inform the Uruguayan Government of the nature of the multilateral negotiations on meat imports which it is proposed to hold later. It was thought inappropriate to bring this subject into these discussions.
Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are gravely concerned about the Uruguayan measures, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Montevideo has made representations to the Uruguayan authorities. A reply to these has recently been received and, in the light of this, Her Majesty's Government are instructing Her Majesty's Ambassador to take the matter up again urgently.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept my thanks for the helpful nature of his reply, which I think will be received
582
with great satisfaction by British shipping? May I ask the noble Lord, on the general question, whether some determined effort can be made by Her Majesty's Government, as this flag discrimination is gaining such a hold in Latin America as to be seriously detrimental to the interests of British shipping? In this particular matter, would the noble Lord take note—and there have been cases to support this—that British goods have been shipped to Uruguay, and owing to the height of the tariff they have been shipped back again to this country and reshipped in a ship flying the Uruguayan flag, at less cost than would be incurred by paying this exhorbitant surcharge which I have called a duty.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore the practice of flag discrimination, and it is for that reason that we propose to ask Her Majesty's Ambassador to make further representations to the Uruguayan Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could I put down another question at a suitable time for another reply?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, indeed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Wellington,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Alexander of Hillsborough,

E. Attlee,

E. Crawford,

E. De La Warr,

E. Dundee,

583

E. Limerick,

E. Longford,

E. Lucan,

E. Munster,

E. St.Aldwyn,

E. Scarbrough,

E. Swinton,

V. Blakenham,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Goschen,

V. Hall,

V. Simonds,

V. Soulbury,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Airedale,

L. Amulree,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Bridges,

L. Burden,

L. Carrington,

L. Chorley,

L. Conesford,

L. Hawke,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Jessel,

L. Killearn,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Macpherson of Drumochter,

L. Mancroft,

L. Morrison of Lambeth,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Newton,

L. Ogmore,

L. Rea,

L. Reid,

L. Saltoun,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Sherwood,

L. Silkin,

B. Swanborough,

L. Wise,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and that the Lords following, with the
584
Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Amulree.

—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (APPEAL COMMITTEES)
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that, in pursuance of the power conferred by subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, the decisions of the Appeal Committees in Petitions and Applications under that Act shall be taken on behalf of the House. This Motion is not one which your Lordships have been asked to consider before, and I hope, therefore, that the House will bear with me if I say a few words of explanation.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Appeal Committee is the body which entertains applications for leave to appeal to your Lordships' House. As in the case of other Committees, the Appeal Committee invariably reports its decisions to the House, which in this case is constituted as a Judicial Sitting for the purpose. By constitutional convention, the House always accepts the Committee's Report without debate. The necessity for a sitting of the House may, however, mean (for example if a week-end should intervene) that a delay of several days may occur between the date when the Appeal Committee announces to the parties its decision on the application and the date when legal effect is given to this decision by a formal Resolution of the House.
In civil cases it is most unlikely that so short a delay would cause any hardship. In the case of convictions in criminal cases, however, I do not think it satisfactory that there should be such a delay. For example, a man convicted in a capital case may apply to the Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House for leave to appeal against his conviction. If his application is refused it is clearly undesirable that there should be any unnecessary delay in giving legal validity to the Committee's decision. Such a

585
delay might well be likely to occur if the appeal, for example, were to be heard as a matter of urgency during the Summer when the House itself was not sitting. In my view it is right that use should now be made of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, which reads as follows:
"Section five of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (which regulates the composition of the House of Lords for the hearing and determination of appeals) shall apply to the hearing and determination of an appeal or application for leave to appeal under this section as it applies to the hearing and determination of an appeal under that Act …".
My Lords, may I stop there for a moment to draw your attention to the second part of the subsection, which is the part that is particularly relevant to what I have just been saying? This reads:
"and any order of that House which provides for the hearing of such applications by a committee constituted in accordance with the said section five may direct that the decision of that committee shall be taken on behalf of the House".
It was contemplated at the time when the Administration of Justice Bill was before Parliament that your Lordships would be asked in due course to make this order, and in my view the time has now come when the order should be made.
It may be—I do not know—that the time may come when I shall have to ask your Lordships to agree to make a similar order to deal with the decisions of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. That time has not yet come; indeed, I am at present precluded by Statute from inviting your Lordships to make such an order. I only mention this to draw your Lordships' attention to the possibility that the work of the Appellate Committee may at some future date make it necessary for me to come to your Lordships and to ask for such an order. At present, however, I am only asking your Lordships to agree that we now should take advantage of the statutory powers conferred on this House in 1960 and make the order which I have outlined to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That in pursuance of the power conferred by subsection (3) of section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, the decisions of the Appeal
586
Committees in Petitions and Applications under that Act shall be taken on behalf of the House.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I doubt whether many Members of your Lordships' House will fully have grasped the significance of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just been saying. I am not sure whether I do myself. I think I do but I should much prefer to read what the noble and learned Lord has said. Certainly I would say that nobody reading this Motion would have gathered exactly what was being proposed. In order that we, as an intelligent Chamber, may be fully in possession of what we are doing, would it not be a good idea if we could now adjourn this matter to let us think about it and see whether, in fact, we approve of what is proposed?
After all, what the noble and learned Lord is asking the House to do is to forgo one of its rights: that of having the decision of the Committee brought to the House. I think I can understand that there may be urgent reasons in some cases why it would not be convenient, or is not convenient, for the matters to be brought to the House. But one should, I think, only reluctantly deprive the House of any of its rights, even though it has not exercised them perhaps for a long time or at all. I do not think I have any particular objection, but I should feel much happier if we could read what the noble and learned Lord has said and then, if he would come back with this order I have no doubt that the House would be prepared to approve it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make the point of this order clear to the noble Lord. The House will appreciate that the power to make this order was conferred by the Act passed in 1960, and no doubt the whole matter was considered then. The issue involved (and if I may put it quite shortly, perhaps I shall be more successful in making it clear) is really a very narrow one. It applies only in relation to the Appeal Committee which hears applications for leave to appeal. What one is seeking to avoid, and what this Act gives power to avoid, is the delay (which on occasions can occur, and can be embarrassing) between the announcement of

587
the decision of the Appeal Committee to the parties in the case and giving that decision legal validity. That may mean, on occasions, a delay of several days. I endeavoured to point out that this proposal does not in any way affect the constitutional procedure which is followed when an appeal is allowed or dismissed by your Lordships. This applies only in the limited field of dealing with applications for leave to appeal.
Power having been granted in 1960 by Parliament to make an order such as that for which I am asking, after due consideration I thought, for the reasons that I have given, that the time had now come when that power should be exercised. But if, in the light of what I have added to what I originally said, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, still desires further time to consider this matter, I will certainly withdraw the Motion now and move it again later. But as it is such a narrow Motion, perhaps if I have now succeeded in making the point clear he would agree to its being dealt with to-day.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I said earlier that I thought I understood what the noble and learned Lord had said, but then I am in a rather better position to understand these legal matters than are most Members of the House. I feel that in the interests of the House—the House being asked to approve something which looks as if it is a relaxation from its rights—it ought to have an opportunity of considering it. That is all. If no harm would be done by deferring this for a few days, I think it would be more seemly to do so. I promise the noble and learned Lord that on that occasion, unless I can see something in his explanation which I do not see at the moment it will go through sub silentio.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may add a further word, in the light of what has been said, this is not an urgent order, and I will certainly give more time for the consideration of it. I thought it necessary to give some explanation of what is proposed because it is the first time one is seeking to exercise this power. In the hope that, after what I have said has been considered, the Motion may secure
588
the approval of your Lordships' House quite speedily, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
"The Committee considered the question whether Peers and Peeresses of the peerage of Scotland should be introduced, on taking their seats in the House pursuant to Section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963.
"The Committee are of opinion, That, the holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland, who by virtue of section four of the Peerage Act 1963 receives a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, shall upon laying his or her writ upon the Table of the House be entitled without further formality to take the Oath, subscribe the Roll, and sit and vote and enjoy the same rights and privileges as other members of the House."
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES) ORDER, 1963
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1963, be approved. The object of the Order is to increase the salaries of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the County Court Judges and the Metropolitan Magistrates following on the recent increases in the salaries of the Higher Civil Service resulting from the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service under the chairmanship of Lord Franks. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced on September 19 the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of Lord Franks and his colleagues.

589
Your Lordships will remember that the power to increase these judicial salaries by order was introduced by the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Act, 1957. Prior to that Act, these salaries could be changed only by legislation which led to considerable delays before increases in salary could be made after increases had been made in equivalent salaries in the Civil Service. The salaries of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the County Court Judges, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were fixed at their present figures by the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1959, and those of the other Metropolitan Magistrates by the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1960. The Government have decided that the considerations which led to the Standing Advisory Committee's recent recommendations for the Civil Service justify similar increases in salary for the lower Judiciary on this occasion.
My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will need me to go into any further detail about the Order, but if any of your Lordships has any questions, I shall, of course, do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1963, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I must say this does not seem to be much of an exposition of an Order which proposes to grant substantial increases of salaries, but before we go any further I want to raise a question of Order. This is wholly concerned with public expenditure. I will admit straight away that the Lord Chancellor makes the appointments and is very much concerned with what salaries should be paid. But before we come to any discussion of substance I want to submit that this is wholly expenditure of Exchequer money, and that therefore this Order ought not to start in your Lordships' House, but ought to start in the House of Commons, which is the principal guardian, in fact the guardian, of public expenditure. I therefore think that we ought to adjourn this debate in order that the Lord Chancellor may think about it and submit this Order in the first instance to the House of Commons, which is the body which deals with public expenditure.
590
This is the second time the Lord Chancellor has taken this course. We had earlier (I think it was in the last Session of Parliament) to challenge him on a Bill which was concerned with public expenditure, and in the end we persuaded him, or persuaded the House—the House would have persuaded him by itself, I think, if he had not given way—to withdraw the Bill and let it start in another place. It is true that this is an Order, but it is a statutory Order which has the force of law once it is carried by both Houses. Therefore, I submit that it is in the same category as a Parliamentary Bill would be and must be judged by the same standards. I think it is quite wrong on the part of the Lord Chancellor—who is, it is true, fairly new to this House, but is not new to another place. I submit it is wrong and he should know better than to bring it here in the first instance. I do not like this House to deal with public expenditure before it has been dealt with by another place, and, in the circumstances, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the Debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can reply quite shortly to the noble Lord. He seems to be under the impression that procedure in relation to an Order such as this is similar to the procedure upon a Bill. There is no question of our approving this Order and then of its going with our approval to the other place. The position is, as I think the noble Lord must know, that when an Order like this is laid, it is laid before Parliament and then has to be approved independently by each House of Parliament. I think it is an entirely new constitutional doctrine to say that the Order, having been laid before Parliament, has first to be approved before the Commons House. That, I think, is something entirely novel. The practice, once an Order has been laid before Parliament, has been for each House to give it consideration at a time which is convenient to each House. The noble Lord seems to be under the impression that the procedure in relation to an Order such as this which is laid before Parliament is analogous to the procedure for a Bill. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I think

591
that he is in error. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, further to the point, may I submit to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the House that there is no difference in principle between this Order and a Bill? A Bill has to go to another House as well as to this place, and it is because we were anxious to protect the rights of the House of Commons over money that we obtained the withdrawal of the Bill referred to previously. This Order has to be taken in another place as well. Our argument is that it should start in another place, and then come to your Lordships' House for the House to decide in the light of what the House of Commons has done. I still think, with great respect, that we are right and that this debate should be adjourned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just add a further word to the noble Lord? He again, I suggest, exposed the fallacy of his argument. He talks about this Order starting in another place and then coming here. The fact is that the Order is laid before Parliament; the Motion for its approval has to be passed by each House independently; and it is, I understand, to be considered by another place on Thursday of this week. It is a matter of convenience for each House, I should have thought, according to the order of their own Business.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I protest against that. I think that in matters which are affected by a basic Statute there is a question of behaviour between the two Houses; and the practice in regard to a basic Statute is that you recognise the actual approval of money expenditure only when it has been given by the House of Commons. I should have thought it was reasonable, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, that the two usual channels in the two Houses of Parliament could quite easily arrange that a Statutory Order involving large expenditure on behalf of the State, although laid before both Houses at the same time, was always
592
taken, out of courtesy to the other House, and in view of established practice, in the other place a day or two before being taken here. I strongly support my noble friend in his Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, as a Member of the Special Orders Committee which considered this Order last Wednesday, I am surprised that the Opposition suddenly thought this one up. No word of this kind was raised at the Special Orders Committee, where several distinguished members of the Opposition were present, so it really comes as a great surprise to me and other members of the Committee that this matter has been raised as it has been today.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord opposite, and as a member of this particular Committee, I am sure that he will recognise that this Special Orders Committee is not responsible for when legislation or Orders come before the House. We are called upon merely to decide the formula which is in the Report. The question of when an Order is placed before this House for approval lies with the Government. There is no responsibility on the members of the Committee. In fact, they never discussed it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I might say something in reply to what the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has said. I think that we on this side of the House should always try to be reasonable in everything he asks us to do, but I wonder whether he would reconsider his position. It seems to me that my noble friend, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, has made the position fairly plain. There must be many precedents for doing what we are doing to-day. In fact, I think that if we did what the noble Earl suggests it might well be that we should be creating a precedent the other way; and I think that would be very undesirable. Indeed, in view of what my noble friend has said—and I think he has made it very plain—I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Amendment and allowing us to proceed.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think I can accept that; but I am much

593
obliged for the way in which the noble Lord the Leader of the House put it. But this has become what is now a growingly conscious matter, that we must protect the other place with regard to expenditure; that we ought not to approve expenditure until it is approved in the other place. I am perfectly well aware of the basic statutory position put by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, about laying such Statutory Orders; but I think it is quite easy for this House, which knows how a Statute limits our control over expenditure, to arrange that in a matter of this kind the matter is passed through the other place first. So we shall stick to our Amendment to adjourn the debate.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, might I suggest to the Opposition that this is in quite a different position from a Bill? If my memory is correct, and I withdraw this point if my memory is at fault, in the case of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred, there was some question of the privilege of the House of Commons, and the Bill, if it had been passed by this House, would have gone down with a clause to which Mr. Speaker would have drawn the attention of another place as raising a question of privilege. I may not be right in that, but that is my recollection; that there was some possibility of a question of privilege. In this case, there is no possibility of any question of that sort. The matter arises under subordinate legislation under a Statute which has been passed by both Houses; an Order is required of each House quite independently and, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has pointed out, if, as a result of the speech on the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, we were to accept his argument, we should be creating a precedent, and I cannot believe that that is desirable.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, suppose we are going on with this kind of thing with expenditure concerned; and suppose
that the other place rejects the Order and we pass it. I think it is a matter of smooth working between the two Houses. It is quite easy to arrange this matter, and that is why we want the debate adjourned so that the Government side can consider it.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Earl who leads the Opposition has missed my point. There would be no conflict between the Houses of any kind. For this Order to become effective, an Affirmative Resolution is required in both Houses. If the House of Commons—which would be completely unfettered by anything we did—were not to pass the Order, the whole matter would be at an end. Nothing would have been done effectively to alter the law.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is it not the position that, with an Affirmative Resolution in respect of an Order such as we are now considering, we here are giving approval to expenditure of public money under that Order before such expenditure has been considered by the other place? The difference between an Order and, say, a Second Reading of a Bill is that if we took a Bill in the Lords first before it was taken in another place, when it went to another place there would be a separate Money Resolution moved in the Commons which would, of course, never be moved here over such a Bill. Therefore my noble friend is quite right: that we here, by approving this Order to-day, should be giving approval to the expenditure of public money. It is not setting a precedent, but merely giving an indication. In regard to Statutory Orders of this kind when the expenditure of public money is involved we feel that they should be given prior consideration in the Commons.
3.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the debate shall be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenhill, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Amwell, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Summerskill, B.

Taylor, L.

Walston, L.

Wise, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Mabane, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

MacAndrew, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

McNair, L.

Alport, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Amulree, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L.

Astor, V.

Falmouth, V.

Molson, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morton of Henryton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Blakenham, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newall, L.

Bossom, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Brentford, V.

Grantchester, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cawley, L.

Haddington, E.

Salisbury, M.

Cholmondeley, M.

Horsbrugh, B.

Soulbury, V.

Clwyd, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Spens, L.

Colyton, L,

Jellicoe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Willingdon, M.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Craven, E.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

3.22 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, coming to the merits of this Order, I must say that I strongly support the increases which are put forward in the Order. I have myself urged from time to time that the pay of judicial officers was inadequate and there have been substantial increases from time to time; but I have never felt that the salaries corresponded to what the judicial officers ought to be getting, or what they could earn outside in their own profession. I feel that this is a matter of belated justice. I therefore feel, apart from the two points which my noble friends have taken, that the increases should be made. The Order itself says nothing about when these increases are to come into operation. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say something about that.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to support this Order, particularly that part of it which deals with the county court judges. I have always been a great admirer of the county court system and of the learned judges who sit in the county courts. Indeed, I have felt that much more use should be made of them, and I think there should be greater opportunity for judges of county courts to go on to become Judges in the High
596
Court. Anyone who has seen the work of the county court will know how near to the people is the system of justice that the county court represents. It is quick; it is efficient; and I believe that it gives just as good justice as anywhere else in the world, if not better. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will continuously bear in mind the need to give county court judges every opportunity to ascend to the higher levels of the Judiciary.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am not a bit surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, having just returned from the Lobby where he has been voting against the great fight for principle of David Lloyd George years ago—but I will not pursue that point—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say that David Lloyd George never voted for any principle which would hold up and clog the machinery of Parliament, which I think this objection to this Order would mean.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Well, a delay of three days or a week in the passing of this Order will not hold up the British Constitution or Parliament; all it will do is to delay certain rises. My noble friend Lord Silkin has quite legitimately said that he strongly supports the Order. This is not a Party

597
matter. I do not pretend to be speaking for the Labour Party in the matter, any more than my noble friend would do—everybody is entitled to his opinion. I am just putting a kind of interrogation on the merits of it. These are substantial increases in salary.
LORD SHEPHERD: Three per cent.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My noble friend Lord Shepherd says 3 per cent., by which, I have no doubt, he means much more than 3 per cent. This was not the line which was taken about the nurses. I believe that there was a great crisis in their case about 6d. a week. These are substantial increases. If it be the case that suitably qualified men cannot be obtained from legal circles for the purpose of filling these posts unless these new salaries are paid, I admit that that is a case. But it is a matter for argument, and I am putting no more than a query. Certainly we do not propose to divide against the Order because we try not to vote against statutory rules and instruments.
As I have indicated, I am a little doubtful. When I was Home Secretary I used to appoint recorders and stipendiary magistrates. The Home Office held that responsibility until Lord Jowitt, who was a Labour Lord Chancellor, persuaded the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, to pass these appointments over to the Lord Chancellor, so that probably for a long time the Lord Chancellor's Office has been doing "empire-building" in order to get a complete monopoly in judicial appointments. I do not think it was bad that there were two Departments concerned with judicial appointments. At the time I was at the Home Office the appointments that were made were, I think, good appointments. I cannot answer for those that were made previously. At that time, certain practices obtained, such as consulting the Party Whips about who would be suitable. I gave a written instruction that that must stop, and it did. Then the salaries were materially lower. So, of course, was the cost of living, which has steadily gone up under the present Administration. But I must say that I did not find it difficult to get suitable people for the position of stipendiary magistrate. There were quite a number of applicants. I took the
598
best advice I could get from the Law Officers of the Crown and from the Lord Chancellor, and made decisions by which I think we secured pretty good people for the position.
Stipendiary magistrates are doing the work which, in the main, lay magistrates do in the provinces outside London. This is not a task calling for a great degree of legal profundity, although substantial legal problems do arise and I agree that good men are required. But I do not think it is particularly difficult to get men who are suitable for these positions. Nor do I think it necessary to have leading—what one might call "star"—Queen's Counsel who have made high fees at the Bar for the purpose of doing the job of the metropolitan magistrates. The job is concerned partly with law, but it is just as much concerned with average fair-mindedness, good sense and a capacity for giving advice, often in domestic disputes which can be peaceably settled by the kindly invitation of the magistrate. All I say is not that I oppose the Order, but that I am a little doubtful about it.
There is another reason why it would have been better for this initiation of expenditure to start in another place. Compare these salaries to those of Members of Parliament. This aspect is almost bound to be commented upon in another place. These judicial salaries are to go up by £900 or £1,000, as the case may be, while M.P.s in another place, who are having a thin time on their £1,750, are left out in the cold—not to mention your Lordships, because three guineas a day does not go too far; but perhaps we can come to that on another and more orderly occasion. At a time when the Government are impressing upon industry the desirability of restricting wage and salary increases, it is going a little far that these substantial increases should go ahead. I have yet to be convinced that we could not get suitable people for these positions—or, at any rate, stipendiary magistrates. I cannot speak so confidently about county court judges, because I have no personal experience about them, but I think that it is open to question as to whether this is the right time to come along with very substantial increases when the Government are warning all of us, not entirely without justification, to be a little careful about how much

599
of the national income we claim for ourselves. Now that I have expressed my doubts, it is, of course, for the Lord Chancellor to make his observations and for the House to decide.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder if my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack could tell me whether Her Majesty's Government have in mind to introduce a similar Order in relation to the Sheriffs Principal and the Sheriffs-Substitute in Scotland? If not, would he draw the attention of his right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, and the Lord Advocate to the present Order?
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, dealing with the last question first, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully aware of the Sheriffs-Substitutes and the other members of the lower Judiciary in Scotland and has them under active consideration. I should like next to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. He was, it is true, as Home Secretary at one time responsible for the appointment of recorders and stipendiary magistrates. I do not think that responsibility lasted much longer than his time. I think in fact Parliament decided to transfer the power to make those appointments to the Lord Chancellor.
I am not going to debate to-day whether that decision of Parliament was right or wrong. All I would say to the noble Lord is that my memory goes back to the time when he was Home Secretary and was making those appointments and to the complaints and criticisms about the inadequate salaries that were payable, for instance, to recorders. Nor am I going to debate with the noble Lord the precise position in the legal hierarchy of stipendiary magistrates and their relationship to lay justices. Lay justices have a very useful part to play in the administration of justice in Greater London, and so indeed, in my view, have stipendiary magistrates. If one is going to have stipendiary magistrates, it is right in my belies that they should get adequate remuneration for what they are doing.
The noble Lord put the point—I do not know on what grounds he bases his judg-
600
ment—that he could get people competent to perform the duties of a stipendiary magistrate without making the increases in their salaries which are proposed under this Order. I very much doubt whether, if he had the responsibility, he would find it as easy to get the right man as he sought to represent in his speech to your Lordships. There is no question of "empire building" about this. No complaint was made when the salaries of the higher civil servants were raised pursuant to the recommendations of the Franks Committee. I think we all recognise that those increases were justified, having regard to present circumstances and conditions. On two previous occasions when the salaries of the higher civil servants have been increased, corresponding increases have been made to the remuneration of the lower Judiciary.
On this occasion, as I said in my speech to your Lordships, we think that it is right to make corresponding increases to the salaries of the lower Judiciary, the recorders of Manchester and Liverpool, the county court judges and the magistrates. It is quite easy to bring some sort of electioneering into these things by reference to the nurses and the salaries of M.P.s. These orders cannot be made retrospective. That was one reason why I was seeking to get your Lordships' approval to this Order to-day. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for what he said. I think he will see when he reads the Administration of Justice Bill—
LORD OGMORE: I have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —that it makes provision for making more use of county court judges.
To the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would say how very much I agree with his observations about this measure. He asked when it would come into force. If your Lordships will look at the draft Order, you will see that it comes into force when I and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury sign it; it can be effective only after the draft Order (and that is all this is) has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. I have dealt, I hope sufficiently fully, with the points raised by your Lordships in relation to this proposal.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it was a very great pity that the Amendment we proposed for adjourning this debate was not carried. My noble friend, with a considerable amount of experience in this matter, has raised points of substance and it is quite possible that similar points will be raised in the other place. This House ought to have known what the other House thinks about this financial matter before agreeing to it. In the circumstances we are comparatively hamstrung in coming to what I call a considered view on this matter in both Houses of Parliament—that is to say, if this House is going to claim to be able to pass very large public expenditure without our first having heard what is going to be done in the House which is responsible to the electorate of the country for the complete control of the national expenditure. However, in view of the attitude taken by the Government, there is no reason at all why we should hold up this matter any longer. The House has taken a decision that the debate should not be adjourned. So, in spite of our protest on this, and without our having had adequate consultation with the other place, we shall have to let this go and the blame must be upon the Government themselves.

SUMMER TIME (1964) ORDER 1963
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provide that simmer time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October, save where Easter Day falls on that Sunday in April, when summer time starts a week earlier. In 1947 an Act was passed which provided for summer time to be varied in any one year by Order in Council. It is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of that Act that the draft Order now before the House has been laid.
Four years ago the Government conducted an inquiry in which a large number of bodies representative of all sections of the community were invited to express
602
their views about the period of summer time. The replies showed that the weight of opinion was in favour of an extension of the statutory period fixed by the Acts of 1922 and 1925, and Parliament has approved each year since 1961 the making of Orders under the 1947 Act extending summer time by six weeks, three weeks in the spring and three weeks in the autumn. There seems to be general satisfaction with these arrangements for an extended period of summer time. But there have been some signs that support for a longer period, or perhaps even summer time throughout the year, is increasing. The Government have an open mind on this question, although they recognise that there are important interests that are likely to be opposed to any further extension, and their views will have to be taken into account. However, opinion on the question does not appear to be fully developed, and the Government think that in these circumstances it would be better to defer for the present the consideration of any permanent change in the summer time legislation.
For the coming year we propose in the draft Order now before the House to continue the modest extension which has proved popular in recent years. The only change in the arrangements is necessitated by the desire to avoid commencing summer time on Easter day (as does the formula prescribed by the 1922 and 1925 Acts) which would happen if the spring extension were of three weeks as has been usual. We propose instead to have a four weeks' extension in the spring which, when aggregated with the usual three weeks' autumn extension, will mean a total extension of seven weeks of the statutory period. Should these proposals commend themselves to Parliament, summer time in 1964 will run from March 22 until October 25. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1963, be made in the form of a draft laid before this House on November 12 last.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Order. We have seen

603
this Order every year for many years; in the case of some of us it stretches back to our very earliest time in Parliament. I would, first of all, issue a word of protest. I understand that the Home Secretary announced in May of this year the particular dates for summer time. Now seven months later we have an Order in front of this House. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said that this House was hamstrung in relation to the Order that has just been approved. In many ways Parliament is hamstrung in considering this particular Order.
The noble Lord must be aware that diaries have to be printed very early in the year in order to meet export requirements, and the manufacturers have to place this particular information in their diaries. There are other industries which are also affected, such as the civil airlines industry. They have to produce their timetables many months in advance. In the case of the airlines, they have been able to proceed with their productions and arrangements on the word of the Minister given in May. The House is therefore hamstrung in that, if for some reason the House objected to this Order, we should then find that chaos would flow for all those people who are dependent upon the Minister's word. Obviously the House would be very reluctant, no matter what its view on the Order might be, not to let the Order proceed.
My Lords, I think the Minister will agree that last year the Special Orders Committee asked the Home Office to see that this Order was presented early, but so far as one can see, the only response of the Ministry is to produce it later. I would ask the House to take note of the Report, which will be in their possession, in which the Special Orders Committee invite the House to consider the desirability of more permanent legislation. I am sure the Minister and the whole House will agree that practice has shown that the summer time arrangements, particularly the earlier dates, are very acceptable in the country. I am not yet sure whether the country would wish to go to what would be continental time. But so far as summer times are concerned, particularly in the spring and summer months, which permit us to play sport in the
604
evening, they are very satisfactory. But in view of the doubt which must be in the minds of many industries and businesses, two of which I have mentioned, it seems to me that it would be very much to their benefit if we had legislation of a more permanent nature laying down in advance summer times and winter times.
At the present moment the 1947 Act lays it down that there must be an Order each year. I believe it would be possible very simply to amend that particular provision, if we inserted the words "or years" after the word "year." Then the Government could produce one Order, perhaps with a validity of five years which would give consistency to many of the industries which are affected by the change from winter time to summer time. I hope that the Minister can give us some response in this matter. I am not asking him to go further than that. If he would agree to consider or accept, if he is in a position to do so, the basis that, instead of having an annual Order we could have an Order for five years, then it would be relatively simple, perhaps, to produce a Private Member's Bill to cover it. That would mean that the Government could very shortly produce a further Order extending the summer time limits for the next five years. I believe this would be of tremendous benefit to many industries and to many businessmen both in this country and on the Continent. I do not believe there would be anything to be lost by that gesture; I think there would be much to be gained.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I first of all deal with the question about delays? Of course, as the noble Lord says, in practice these industries do accept the Government's announcement, which this year was made on May 31. Or course they are taking a risk about whether Parliament is going to pass the Order, and of course the time might arrive when it does not. But that is entirely understood. It is not possible to avoid all delays. One of the difficulties is that under the Act you can make separate Orders for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and they have to be consulted after the date is announced. In the case of Guernsey, in particular, they insist, before they give approval to that

605
date, on discussing the matter in their own Parliament after the date has been announced. I would only say without going into details that that delay is unavoidable. I admit that departmentally there was a very slight delay of two or three weeks this year, which should not have happened, inside my Department. It did not really affect matters very much, because we had got so near to the Summer Recess that this Order could not have been brought in before the Recess. But I have taken the point that it should not be as late as this in normal years.
My Lords, about this question of having an Order which would cover several years at a stretch, apart from the more permanent alteration which I have already talked about I do not think an amendment of any Act is necessary. I am advised that legally there is absolutely no reason why an Order should not be made in the form which the noble Lord suggests. This has been under discussion between several Ministries—because there are a good many Ministries involved in this, and of course they are looking after the interests of certain sections of the community which they represent—and these discussions have been going on for some time as to whether a longer period would not be better, and for how long it should be. I can give to the noble Lord the assurance that this matter is being urgently considered, and I think it is a reasonable assumption—I can almost, but not quite, give him an undertaking on this—that when this Order or something like it appears at this time next year, or perhaps a little earlier next year, this point will have been settled. We hope that it may have been settled satisfactorily for the noble Lord, although I cannot go so far as to say that it will be. But the decision on this matter will be taken shortly. I repeat that I do not think any amending legislation will be necessary.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is unlikely that either the noble Lord or his colleagues will be in a position to make this announcement themselves in November of next year. Perhaps I could put down a Question in February or March, which would give the Ministries ample time to consider whether we could make some move towards helping businessmen, particularly, in this matter.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I would prefer, rather than put a date to it, to say that when we are ready to make an announcement I will inform the noble Lord. That is preferable, perhaps, to his putting down a Question. But I cannot at this stage give a date. If the noble Lord likes to put down a series of Questions without waiting for me, he will get the answer, "Yes" or "No"; but I shall keep in touch with him about this.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS BILL [H.L.]
3.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD: (LORD Sr. OSWALD): My Lords, your Lordships laughed when I read out the long Title of this Bill, thereby wounding me very deeply; and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, went further on the following day and referred to it as "a ridiculous Bill". I cannot help feeling that he spoke with a hastiness unusual to himself, because it is in fact a measure which has long been asked for by the agricultural unions and the industry in general.
First of all, I should like to say that this Bill is really two Bills in one. As those of your Lordships who have read it will have noticed, Part I deals with plant breeders' rights, while Part II regulates transactions in seeds and seed potatoes. There is a third Part which has some common provisions, interpretation and so on. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, the Bill as a whole has its origin in two Reports made by the Committee on Transactions in Seeds, which studied the subject matter for some years and made Reports to the Government, one in 1957 and one in 1960. It is, however, not entirely for historical reasons that these two subjects come before your Lordships to-day in a single measure. They have a common theme—improvement of the quality of the crops grown in this country—and

607
so they can comfortably share a common title and, I hope, reach the Statute Book together.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I first briefly describe what Part I, on plant breeders' rights, is about, and what the Government hope to accomplish by it. It is, in essence, a scheme for encouraging plant breeding so that farmers and growers, and gardeners, may be supplied with improved varieties. I might remind your Lordships that as long as six and a half years ago no less doughty a champion of important causes than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, put down a Question on this matter to my noble predecessor in this office, now the Chief Whip; and, later than that, in May of last year, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, also asked when this legislation would be forthcoming.
For agriculture and horticulture, the aim is to improve the efficiency of production. We hope to do this by encouraging the plant breeder to devote effort and money to the arduous and time-consuming task of developing new varieties to perhaps a greater extent than he is prepared, or even able, to do at the present time from his own resources. By giving the plant breeder a form of ownership of the variety he produces, the job of plant breeding will be made more rewarding than it is at present. That is looking at the matter from the point of view of the national and the agricultural interest.
From the breeder's point of view, the present system, under which a new variety produced after years of effort by the breeder becomes public property as soon as seeds or plants are put on the market, is inequitable and, we think, should not be allowed to continue. We are so accustomed in this country to protecting the inventor, the author and the designer by patent, by copyright and by similar arrangements, that it may even come as something of a surprise to many to find that the plant breeder in this country is quite without protection of this kind. Abroad, the position is different, and it is a general rule, at least in most of the Western European countries, to give the plant breeder some sort of protection against the uncontrolled exploitation of his new variety.
608
In the last few years, this practice has gained strength and coherence, and I am glad to say that Her Majesty's Government have taken an active part in helping to work out common principles and procedures for the grant of protection. A Convention known as the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants was drawn up nearly two years ago, and we became one of the signatory countries, subject to ratification when Parliament had had an opportunity to consider and debate the issues involved. There are, therefore, three distinct threads to this matter. There is the need to maintain and improve the supply of new varieties of plants, on which so much of the progress of agriculture depends; there is the desire to give fair recognition and reward to the plant breeder; and, lastly, there is the desire to act in concert with European and other countries in the same way as we have done for so many years in the matter of patents and copyright.
Perhaps I may turn now to the provisions of the Bill. These follow very closely the arrangements proposed by the Committee on Transactions in Seeds and published in Cmnd. 1092 of 1960. Your Lordships will recall that this was a Committee representing all sides of the industry, including the breeders, growers, sellers and users of seeds and plants, and that their Report and recommendations were unanimous. In consequent discussions with those representing these interests, a broad acceptance of the proposals in Part I of this Bill has emerged. The other main contributor to the detailed proposals of the Bill is the International Convention, of which I have already spoken.
The system this Bill puts forward for protecting the plant breeder is to grant him a form of proprietary rights in his new variety such that, when he has succeeded in registering the variety and has given it a distinguishing name, he alone during the period of protection has the right to grow it for producing seed or other reproductive material for sale, and the right to sell such material. If anyone other than the breeder wants to carry on these activities with the new variety, he will require a licence from the breeder. Now, as your Lordships will have realised, this has at least the appearance of a monopoly right. But

609
it is a fundamental aspect of the Government's policy, and worth strong emphasis, that these rights should not be used in a monopolistic fashion. While we think that, for practical reasons, and to accord with the terms of the International Convention, these rights to grow and to sell should be expressed in the Bill as exclusive to the breeder, we are sure that, in practice, it will be in the breeders' own interest to license growers and sellers to the maximum possible extent and to allow the widest possible use of new varieties. It is in this way that breeders can hope to obtain the maximum income from royalties obtained under licence.
If, however, some plant breeders with protected varieties should choose to use their rights restrictively to the detriment of the industry or of individual growers and traders, the Bill provides wide co-active powers by means of the issue of compulsory licences. The independent authority to be charged with the administration of the plant breeders' rights arrangements—I will refer to this body again shortly—has adequate powers to deal with complaints against breeders. In considering whether compulsory licences should be granted, it will endeavour to secure that the new variety is available to the public at reasonable prices, that it is widely distributed and maintained in quality, and that the breeder receives reasonable reward from it.
While the Bill proposes certain basic rights for the plant breeder applicable to all genera or species, for practical reasons it adopts a step-by-step approach to full protection for all breeders. The first step will be for Ministers to make individual schemes for particular species or crops, and this will open the door to applications by breeders in those crops for protection of their new varieties. All breeders will have the same basic rights as defined in Clause 4, but in some cases it may be found necessary to add to these in order to ensure that the breeder receives adequate remuneration. It may, for example, be found necessary in a scheme for roses to give the breeder an additional right to license the reproduction of his variety for the sale of cut blooms. This is dealt with in Schedule 3 and, as I have said, will be a matter for the scheme and the subject of con-
610
sultation with interests concerned. I should like your Lordships particularly to note that in no case will the breeder's consent be required to the use of his variety for further breeding or research, only for sale.
In order that rights may be obtained for any plant variety, application will have to be made to the Controller of the Plant Variety Rights Office established under Clause 11. This is a new body called into existence to exercise the new range of responsibilities created by this Bill. It will be a semi-autonomous body standing in much the same relationship to the three Agricultural Departments of the United Kingdom as does the Patent Office to the Board of Trade.
The persons who will be able to apply for rights are the breeder or discoverer of a new plant variety, or his assignee. Rights may also be assigned after they have been granted. Foreign breeders may apply for protection of their varieties provided they comply with the necessary conditions, which will, of course, be the same as for domestic breeders. While our purpose is to strengthen plant breeding in this country by giving the breeder the chance of earning a better reward for his work, it is no part of that purpose to discriminate against foreign breeders. By opening the new system of plant breeders' rights to the whole world, and not insisting on reciprocity although the International Convention would to some extent allow us to do so, the Government hope to obtain the best foreign varieties for our growers as well as give our breeders ready access to foreign markets assignatory or by act of signing the Convention.
The breeder will generally exercise his rights by issuing licences to other persons, and the Bill enables him to do this subject to terms and conditions which can include, of course, the charging of a royalty on reproduction or sale. The breeder will also be able to attach conditions designed to maintain the quality of his variety: for example, that it may be reproduced only under the control of a certification scheme.
As I have already explained, it is the Government's desire that licences should be willingly granted to competent persons on reasonable terms and, if they are not,

611
the compulsory licensing powers of the Controller may be invoked. In the matter of issuing licences, collecting royalties, and so forth, many breeders will no doubt prefer to work through one or other of the organisations which have recently come into existence to represent their interests. One can, I suppose, consider the analogy of the Performing Right Society to see how this will work. I understand anticipatory discussions on licensing arrangements have already taken place between these organisations and bodies representing growers and merchants, and I am sure noble Lords will share the Government's hope that these may lead to full agreement between the different interests. There is a wealth of goodwill for the plant breeder among those who make use of his work, and I am convinced we are right to place on the industry the responsibility for devising suitable licensing arrangements.
We have done our best throughout to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of the breeder and those of the users of seeds and plants. Compulsory licensing I have already mentioned. In addition, all the Controller's decisions on the granting or withholding of rights, the issue of compulsory licences and similar matters, will be subject to appeal to a Plant Variety Rights Tribunal and regulations will be made requiring the Controller to hear representations before making a decision in the first place. Both the appeal Tribunal and the Controller in the exercise of those of his functions which entail decisions that are appealable will be placed under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. Subject to this, the Controller will act under the general supervision of the Agricultural Ministers in the exercise of his ordinary executive functions. In all these respects the Bill generally follows the well-tried form of patent legislation.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to outline the principles on which Part I of the Bill rests and to explain some of its provisions. Turning now to Part II, we have a somewhat different picture. This Part of the Bill is, on the face of it, a complex measure, as modern consumer protection legislation tends to be, but it raises few important new issues and I shall not have to weary your Lordships with lengthy explanations. The first group of clauses replaces existing
612
legislation governing transactions in seeds and seed potatoes, principally the Seeds Act, 1920, and the last group of clauses provides for continued administration and enforcement of seed regulations. New powers are created under Clauses 20 to 24.
While this Part of the Bill expressly gives effect to the recommendations of the Committee on a number of points, including a revision of penalties to bring them up to date, it is largely an enabling measure and entrusts to regulations certain of the detail written into the Seeds Act, 1920. This was the first major piece of legislation in this country on seeds and seed potatoes and it has served the industry well for more than forty years. Now, however, all sides of the industry are fully accustomed to statutory control of the trade in seeds by means of seed regulations, and the opportunity has been taken instead of amending the Act in detail, to recast it in a somewhat more flexible form. This will enable Ministers, in making regulations under Part II, not only to take account of the technical advances and changed conditions of trade, but also to provide for future developments, without the need, on each occasion, for amending legislation.
From the consultations which we have had with interested bodies during the course of preparing the Bill, we understand that both the trade and production sides of the seed and seed potato industries accept that the Bill should be an enabling measure and place great reliance on their statutory right of consultation in preparing regulations under Clause 16. These are, of course, required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as statutory instruments.
In enlarging the scope of the Bill we have, however, retained the essential and well-tried principle that the seller of seeds should give an adequate and reliable description of his goods to the buyer. In fact this principle is strengthened in a number of respects, more particularly by the civil warranty provisions of Clause 17. This clause enables the Minister by regulations to require that all or any of the particulars contained in a statutory instrument given to a purchaser of seeds or seed potatoes shall have effect as a written warranty that the particulars are correct.

613
This is a reform that has long been demanded by the farmers' organisations, and the Committee went into the matter very thoroughly. These provisions of the Bill are based on the Committee's proposals, and we have thought it important to include such powers in the Bill, more particularly because of the existing practice of some seeds merchants of contracting out of the usual liabilities of a seller under the Sale of Goods Act. This has given rise to much criticism. It is recognised that there are particular problems in relation to seeds which may be subject to changes of germination while they are in store, and the drawing of these regulations will require close consultation with the trade and other interests concerned.
My Lords, I have already kept you for some time, and I propose now to complete my introduction of this Bill with a brief reference to the provisions of Part II which are new to seeds legislation. Clause 24 enables the Agricultural Ministers to make regulations controlling the importation of certain kinds of seeds. The purposes of this control over quality are clearly set out in the clause. They are to safeguard our indigenous strains against deterioration by admixture and cross-pollination, and to prevent the importation for sale to our farmers of seed which, having been produced under different climatic conditions, is not suitable for growing in this country. Similar controls have been exercised hitherto under general powers vested in the Board of Trade.
The making of regulations under Clause 24 does not, therefore, represent a change of policy but only of method. It was thought right, on the advice of the Committee, to define the Government's powers more closely and to vest them in the Agricultural Departments as a permanent feature of our seeds legislation. As in the past, they will be used with due regard to our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and so as not to conflict with that Agreement.
I come finally to the provisions in Clauses 20 to 23 which enable the Agricultural Ministers, acting jointly, to prepare an Index of names of plant varieties for use in connection with the sale of seeds and to require new varieties of plants to undergo performance trials
614
before they are put on the market. The Index will be prepared in sections, each possibly applying to a species or crop, and initially will comprise the distinct varieties already in commerce.
There will be full consultation with the industry in drawing up the various sections, and these will be published in an official gazette for all to see. When a section is ready, all varieties to which it applies must be sold under the correct name entered in the Index. Breeders and introducers who wish to market new varieties will be required to apply for an entry on the Index. This will be given automatically, if the variety is distinct. In this way we shall, as time goes on, ensure that all varieties of plants of which seed is in commerce possess distinctive characteristics and are always sold under a name which is known. Protected varieties, which are the subject of plant breeders' rights, will themselves be entered on the Index, thus ensuring that they can be sold only under their approved varietal names, whether or not this is done under licence from the breeder. In this way the breeder's power to enforce his rights under Part I of the Bill by civil proceedings in the ordinary courts will be reinforced by the requirements of Part II.
We shall not put restrictions on the farmer's choice of any variety on the Index, which we think is best left unfettered, but, under Clause 22, it is proposed to authorise Ministers to require new varieties to undergo performance trials before seed may be sold. These trials will be conducted independently and unbiased reports will be published for the information of farmers and growers. Together with the issue of recommended lists of varieties by the National institute of Agricultural Botany and similar bodies, which will continue on a voluntary basis, this system of performance trials under this Bill will provide the industry with invaluable advice on the merits of the different varieties before they are sold or advertised.
My Lords, we began in 1920 with a Seeds Act devoted largely to questions of the purity and germination of seed. These are still important, but the proposals I have outlined stress the importance of the genetic qualities of seed and the need to satisfy the grower's demand for reliable varieties with known

615
characteristics suited to his particular needs. This is the task of the plant breeder, the seed grower and the seed merchant. But legislation also has a part to play, and I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a sincere and effective attempt to create conditions for the industry to do its best work. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
4.14 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, in his opening remarks, the Minister made reference to something that I said, or left unsaid, on a previous occasion, but I think that on that occasion I was dealing only with the Long Title of the Bill and not the Bill itself. If I did make reference to the Bill—well, at this stage, a sinner has come back to repent. I believe that this is the first Bill presented here in this Session by the Government for Second Reading. I say at once that it will serve a very useful purpose and give encouragement to a section of the agricultural industry for whom little or no protection has been provided hitherto. It will not engender much opposition in your Lordships' House nor, I think, in the country. I hope it will be the forerunner of other non-contentious legislation. If so, it will be to the credit of a dying Government that in their last Session such legislation is presented to your Lordships, rather than that the Government should seek to pass through Parliament Bills containing provisions which it would be be impossible for any Government following immediately, of whatever colour, to honour or implement. This Bill seems to be the first example of good intentions. I trust I am not speaking too soon.
I appreciate the Minister's full explanation of the Bill, which is a difficult Bill to explain. If I may say so, he did very well in explaining clearly the many important points throughout the Bill. The Bill itself is extremely comprehensive and includes consideration of most of the problems which will arise in making the necessary alterations in seed production, in marketing and in certification. It seems to me to tie down seed production and the rest very thoroughly.
616
The Bill has been ten years in discussion and investigation and outside opinions seem to be in general agreement with it. I propose to make only a few queries at this stage and any necessary Amendments will be put forward later on. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill affords protection over several years to seed growers and producers, in line with the protection afforded other trades—authors, for example—in allowing royalties to be imposed. On the question of royalties, I wonder whether the Minister could give us some idea of what is likely to be the amount of royalties. That may not be possible at this stage of the Bill, but it would be interesting to know something of them.
At the present time, the ultimate purchasers of seeds cannot be sure of the quality of the seeds they buy, because they may pass through many hands from the time they leave the grower. I sometimes wonder where wild oats come from and why other weeds grow. If they are not inherent in the ground or left from the last crop, then they must come from the suppliers of seeds, and it is necessary that legislation of this kind should safeguard the purity of the seeds which the farmer has to buy. Purification will confer a very real benefit on agricultural producers. Whether crops are good or bad, farmers are frequently asked, "Where did you get the seed?" That question shows either caution or anticipation. If the crop is bad, the inquiring farmer will obviously not purchase from the seed merchant who supplied for that crop, and if the crop is good, obviously he will try to obtain seed of the same quality.
As the Minister has explained, new organisations are to be set up. It seems to me that the Controller who is in charge of the Plant Variety Rights Office will have tremendous powers. He will be, in a manner of speaking, more or less a dictator: he will accept or condemn. The appellant will then have to apply to the Plant Variety Rights Tribunal. This Tribunal will be a small body of only three, whereas the Controller will no doubt have a fairly large office staff, with possibly a sub-controller and other officers. We have been talking about money in the House this afternoon, and, returning to that subject, I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any idea of what the cost of

617
these two departments is likely to be. They will be new departments, and some estimate may already have been made.
The noble Lord referred to the Index. In my view, the Index will be extremely good and most useful. It is as well to know that nothing will go into the Index in regard to seeds unless the initial performance is up to the mark and the seed is suitable for reference in the particular section.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should not like to think that I have misled the noble Lord. I realised in preparing my speech that this was a difficult matter to explain. I have clearly, in spite of my efforts, given the noble Lord a slightly wrong impression. Existing varieties will go on to the Index so long as it can be shown that they are distinct varieties and are not synonymous with another variety. The existing strains will not have to go through the performance test to get into the Index.
LORD WISE: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I realise what he is trying to say. Clause 24, dealing with imports, was referred to. It has been said, and I think rightly, that possibly some enlargement of this clause should be made. At the moment, it seems to me that it is not strong enough to prohibit importation of bad seeds from certain areas. Some areas are mentioned in which seeds may be prohibited from importation into this country, but there are other areas over which there seems to be no control. It may be necessary in those areas.
The noble Lord also mentioned the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties. I know that has been agreed to, but it has not been ratified by the Government. If this Bill becomes an Act, will ratification take place? Reference was made also to reproductive material. This expression presents some confusion in the minds of producers. I would ask the noble Lord how long a compulsory licence lasts. Does it go on for a similar period as that of a licence obtained without compulsion? Who receives royalties in regard to a compulsory licence? It is also difficult to know how to deal with the question of bulbs. A bulb grower plants and he reproduces. Does he have to pay a royalty every time he
618
plants a new field of his own bulbs, or year by year? What is the position of bulbs which have changed hands perhaps half a dozen times before they are put into the ground? When does the payment of a royalty cease, if it does cease?
It has been said chat good agriculture and horticulture deserve good seed; and that is so. Reliability and assurance of purity will bring the confidence this Bill sets out, in the main, to accomplish. There may be a few faults, discrepancies or omissions, but these can be ironed out in Committee and the following stages of the Bill. On the whole, I think the good points of the Bill will outweigh the others.
4.24 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, there are two reasons why I now venture to address your Lordships for the first time. In the first place, I understand that such a speech should not be unduly contentious; and I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wise, say that he did not think the Bill would engender great opposition. As what I have to say applies particularly to Part I of the Bill, this, I think, will engender still less controversy. For this Part will enable justice to be done to a few diligent and inventive and also rather modest persons; and by so doing, it may well result in the encouragement of further scientific research of this nature.
Very few of those who have discovered new varieties of plants have in their own life received adequate reward. Your Lordships will recollect that Sir Walter Raleigh, who introduced the potato and tobacco, was rewarded by being dowsed with a bucket of water, and that he later encountered much worse tribulation from the Government of his day. It is true that towards the end of his life Dr. Saunders, the inventor of Marquis Wheat, was rewarded by the Canadian Government. And he deserved to be, for this variety, by ripening some ten to fourteen days more quickly than any other variety at that time, made it possible to extend the wheat belt some 60 miles further North; and 60 miles, multiplied by the breadth of the three Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, represents a mighty number of acres.

619
Two hundred and fifty years ago Dean Swift prognosticated that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass grow where only one grew before would deserve better of mankind and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together. My Lords, the target set by the Dean of St. Patrick's has been handsomely exceeded. Not only have the yields of corn and grass been quadrupled, and more, but varieties now grow abundantly where none grew before. Perhaps it is jealousy on the part of politicians that plant breeders have not been rewarded or protected in the same way as inventors of machines and medicines. Perhaps it was because the Irishman is now more important politically in America than in this country that the United States Congress as long ago as 1930 passed the Plant Patent Act—though this was limited to plants propagated asexually. In 1941, Holland made a Decree to protect and encourage the breeder of all types of plants. I understand that this has worked well and has led to the phenomenal yields which Holland must obtain from her very restricted acreage.
The excellent and hard-working Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Engholm, have carefully prepared the ground for this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said, measures of protection to breeders exist elsewhere in Europe, in Germany, France and Sweden, as well as, to a lesser extent, in Austria, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Russia and South Africa. Sweden, with its renowned station at Svalof, shows how much a small nation can contribute, not merely to its own prosperity but also to farmers all over the world. The Committee have drawn attention to the fact that during recent years in this country the private sector of the seeds industry concerned with the improvement of varieties has shrunk considerably. Development of many crops is now entirely in the hands of the State. But in the European countries I have mentioned, where the breeders have protection, much of the breeding is in private hands. Some of your Lordships will be aware that most of the winter wheat now grown in this country is of foreign origin and the most important one, Cappelle
620
Desprez, is the result of private enterprise in France.
Schedule 2 to the Bill defines in Part II the rules for grant of rights and the duty of the Controller to ascertain that the variety is clearly distinguishable and is sufficiently uniform in its reproduction or multiplication. The Engholm Committee made a further recommendation: that if, in the conduct of trials to prove the foregoing, some major defect should be discovered, then the Controller should have the right to refuse protection or withdraw it, subject, of course, to appeal. As major defects will be such things as susceptibility to disease, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, whether this recommendation is included somewhere in the Bill. I was particularly glad to note the special references made by the noble Lord to seed potatoes and the new provisions for them in the Bill. This matter is of the greatest interest to Scotland. Scotland has a major interest in disease-free potatoes. We are the principal source of supply of certified seed potatoes. If there is to be any amalgamation of official testing stations, I hope that the one for potatoes will continue to be located in Scotland. The prosperity of many Scottish farmers depends upon the excellence of the seed potatoes which they grow.
My Lords, I have a confession to make, and this is my other reason for speaking to-day. I must admit that I am a geneticist, and that for over 40 years I have been a student of the science of genetics which some people call a mystery. I have, therefore, a considerable interest in this Bill. Britain has done much to advance this science, and I would remind your Lordships of the great work of Sir Francis Galton, from which stems the statistical approach which now dominates this science, and which was so much advanced by the late Sir Ronald Fisher. Here Britain indubitably led the world. But the name which should be especially remembered to-day is that of William Bateson. At the close of last century Bateson put in hand certain experiments with plants the outcome of which would almost certainly have led to his being hailed as the discoverer of the principles of heredity. But just before Bateson concluded his experiments there was the simultaneous discovery by three independent scientists of the paper by the

621
Abbot Gregor Mendel, written 35 years previously, which had lain dormant in the proceedings of the Brunn Philosophical Society. In his modest way, Bateson came forward a few months later fully confirming the work of Mendel, and justifying the conclusions which the good Abbot had made before getting himself (the Abbot, I mean) immersed in the politics of Austria.
To-day we are doing justice to those early geneticists at Cambridge University. I should like to add that one of them, and one of the most brilliant, was a brother of Arthur James Balfour. To-day there are in Britain plant geneticists who have made, and are making, most notable advances. Perhaps the most important of all as regards farm crops are the creators of the new varieties of grasses at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth. Not only have these new varieties more blades of grass in each plant but they have been bred for different rates of flowering, a most remarkable and far-reaching achievement. At Cambridge and Edinburgh, new varieties of potatoes are being evolved which are immune or resistant to those many diseases to which that tuber is heir. By reason of this susceptibility, much anxiety and worry has been the lot of certain politicians, particularly in their dealings with Ireland. To-day, the shades of these inventors and discoverers must be looking down with approbation that those who follow where they led will at least in their lifetime receive due recognition. Besides the ghost of Raleigh there is the satirical smile of the Dean of St. Patrick's, pronouncing a benediction on this Bill, and I would ask your Lordships also to give it your benediction.
I have one final point, one that I certainly should not have ventured to make had it not been that, in his speech in this House last Thursday, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, referred to the subject of virginity. If there is one thing that is absolutely abhorrent to a geneticist it is that totally unproductive state known as virginity. My Lords, I refrain from elaborating, but I assure you that it is an immense relief to me, as I feel it must be to you also, that this maiden speech is now a thing of the past.
4.37 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I have two tasks before starting my speech. The first is to apologise for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who asked me to say that he had to catch a train to attend an important meeting at Oxford. In his absence there has fallen on me the task of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, on his maiden speech. Sometimes congratulations are perhaps a little of a formality, but I feel that in this case we have listened to a most remarkable speech, extremely interesting and extremely well-informed. I think I am expressing the wishes of all your Lordships when I say that I hope we shall hear from the noble Lord very frequently in the future. The noble Lord has also put me in considerable difficulty, because he hits made many of the points which I had hoped to make in my short speech, and made them so much better than I could ever hope to do.
The Title of this Bill is not a very exciting one, but it is, nevertheless, an important Bill, and it may well have far-reaching, long-term effects. When we come to Part I of the Bill, plant breeders' rights, one feels the case is so overwhelming that it is difficult to see why legislation on this subject was not brought in many years ago. As a farmer, I should like to pay tribute to the vital part played by the plant breeder, both in cereals and in sugar beet. What would have been considered a good yield ten years ago is nowadays almost a crop failure, and that applies to most of our crops. The plant breeder has not only played his part in agriculture and horticulture, but in the realms of flowers and shrubs has also done so much to increase the beauty of this country.
As farming and horticulture become more and more competitive so the rôle of the plant breeder becomes more vital. We are looking all the time for high yields, better and more even quality, resistance to various diseases and pests, early and late extension of the season of the various crops, and keeping qualities. At a time when the maximum effort is required from the plant breeder, although State breeding has increased very much, the work of the private breeder in this country has

623
decreased, not only relatively but absolutely. In spite of many successes we are still dependent far too much on the efforts of foreign breeders. As your Lordships will have noticed in the Report, where it deals with cereal varieties, 93 per cent. of our wheat and 19 per cent. of our barley varieties are foreign. Although 81 per cent. of our barley is home-bred, 78 per cent. is one variety, Proctor, for which we have to thank Cambridge. But, in all, 61 per cent. of our cereals are foreign, which is a very high percentage.
Perhaps it is surprising that even as much private plant breeding is carried on, because the British breeder has little pecuniary reward and no protection whatsoever. Plant breeding is a highly skilled and long-term job. Apparently, to produce a new variety of cereal takes something like fourteen years, yet the moment it comes on the market anyone can, at the moment, reproduce it. It is just as if one of your Lordships wrote a book, whereupon I could buy a copy, reprint it and take all the profit. So I think it is only fair that the plant breeders should be given these rights to license the reproduction of the plants they have bred.
There is another point I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply. In the case of the licences to be granted, I understand that the breeder can lay down such conditions as to quality that he likes, that he can insist on some certification scheme and that sort of thing. Will that also apply in the case of compulsory licences which may be given under this Bill? This is only an enabling Bill and we shall have to wait and see the various schemes which are produced, which I hope will not be long delayed. If the schemes are compulsory and give the hoped for encouragement to private breeders, I hope that traffic in seeds and plants with Europe and the rest of the world will be much more a two-way traffic than it is at the moment.
I also welcome Part II of the Bill, which gives much needed protection to the purchasers of seeds. This will be particularly appreciated by the horticulture industry, because it is difficult to tell from looking at seeds of a similar plant whether they are of a good or bad
624
strain; and the guarantees which will be insisted on under this Bill should help considerably in that. In particular, I welcome Clause 17, which gives statutory effect to the statement by the seller as a warranty, and stops the seller from contracting out of the guarantee.
As regards Clause 20, there seems to be a little bit of misunderstanding. As I understand it, any variety will be included in the Index provided it is a distinct variety, and that has nothing to do with quality other than in the case of some obvious major defect. It has nothing to do with whether it is better or worse than any existing varieties. I think there is strong feeling about this. The National Farmers' Union would like plants to be included in the Index only if they are superior to plants already in existence. I feel myself that that would be placing too invidious a burden upon the Plant Varieties Office. I feel that that is a later job for the various testing stations, and for the recommendations of the N.I.A.B. and other bodies like that. I feel that the fact that varieties are included in the Index will not, in fact, persuade any farmer to grow them. Surely farmers have got beyond that stage. They all read the reports of the research institutes and they are not going to grow a variety just because it appears in an index.
My Lords, the only other point which I should like to mention is one which was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Wise: that perhaps at the Committee stage we should look again at Clause 24. I am informed at the moment that it does not go far enough to prevent the importation from abroad of potentially deleterious seeds. However, perhaps this is a point we can look at more fully on Committee. In general, I welcome this Bill. Though the farmer, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said, may be able to make two seeds grow where one grew before, it is the job of the plant breeder, suitably encouraged, to make each of those two seeds more productive. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.
4.50 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I must declare an interest to start with: I am, in fact, a practitioner in the law of trade marks and patents, and as I have produced a few rhododendron hybrids,

625
though in a very amateurish fashion, I might be called a plant breeder. I am also, like the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, whose maiden speech we have listened to with very great interest and pleasure, a geneticist, since I was once a pupil of Doctor E. B. Ford of Oxford.
I must say that I am glad that Her Majesty's Government have rejected any idea of having a plant patent. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to the American plant patents. I have had a look at a few and it strikes me that they would be completely unenforceable in this country. One of the earliest ones in fact described a plant as being an "ever-blooming rose", and presumably an infringer could get out of the infringement if he could prove that his rose was not blooming everlastingly. I think Her Majesty's Government have decided that living things are not machines, and I am very glad that power to give this new form of protection has not been given to the Board of Trade, because it is almost impossible to fit plants into the patent system. It is like trying to force a right foot into a left shoe. I know this will disappoint certain patent agents who thought they were going to have a little man in the back room who was going to churn out patents much to their advantage but that cannot be helped.
I notice that Her Majesty's Government have made one significant difference between the protection afforded by the Patents Office and the new protection, and that is that the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks has a different spelling to his name from that of the new Controller. I think Her Majesty's Government might have gone further and removed one of the "1"s from the title of the new Controller, thereby putting us in line with the American spelling. I also note that he has two different titles, one in Clause 1 and one in Clause 11. I hope Her Majesty's Government at the Committee stage will rectify this.
Another interesting difference in this form of protection from the form of protection given by the Patents Office and in the case of copyrights is that all the schemes and Orders under this Bill are to be made by two Ministers acting in concert; that is, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the
626
Secretary of State for Scotland; whereas the unfortunate Minister for Northern Ireland is dealt with by Clause 38(3) and any Order the other two make shall be deemed, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, to be made by him. I fail to see why in this monopoly, unlike any other monopoly granted by the Crown, two Ministers should have their fingers in the pie. I think it is absurd that two Ministers should be conducting this, particularly when the schemes they produce may be very controversial. I would ask the noble Lord what happens if there is a disagreement between the two Ministers as to the content of a scheme. Is there any procedure by which the dispute can be resolved, any method of arbitration? As we all know, Ministers do not always agree, and we all want this Bill to come into force.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I think that is where the Minister for Northern Ireland might come in and give the casting vote.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships long at this late hour, but there are three clauses to which I wish to refer. The first is Clause 4, which is the equivalent of the infringement sections in the Patents Act. All I can say is that I believe that unless the plant breeder has direct evidence that his variety has been stolen, this clause is quite unenforceable, and for this reason—and I draw on my own experience. I developed a rhododendron of a certain parentage whose flower was absolutely identical with that of a well-known variety, Goldsworth Orange. Apart from the fact that the orange colour was obtained from a well-known Chinese rhododendron called rhododendron dichroarthum the parentage was quite different. It would be very easy for an infringer to say his parentage was quite different, and it might be very difficult to prove his assertion was untrue. Most of your Lordships also know that with soil differences the colouring of flowers may alter considerably. In fact, blueing powder is sold to make pink hydrangeas blue. It would be very difficult to decide that infringement took place. A similar situation occurs with forced flowers. Flowers forced in the early part of the year are usually a considerably different shade from those that

627
come out naturally. I am pointing out some of the difficulties that would occur under this clause.
Difficulty has already occurred in the field of patents. About ten years ago I was concerned in a patent proceeding between two big manufacturers of detergents. It concerned fluorescess, which is the substance which was said in those days to make white whiter than white. Now, according to the television advertisements, that forces white in and grey out. The experiments very largely consisted of comparisons to see whether this substance really did make things whiter than untreated goods. Both parties decided they would settle the action because doing the necessary experiments would have completely immobilised both their research departments for six months. In the case of plants, nobody is ever going to indulge in that sort of proceeding.
On the other hand, Clause 5 is very different, and here I think is the real sting for infringers. Clause 5 says that there shall be a monopoly created in the names of plant varieties on the Index. Plants sell by their names. There was a rhododendron bred in the reign of King Edward VII which was very much admired by Queen Alexandra. It has now been superseded, but it is still asked for by everyone who wants to buy a rhododendron, and its name is Pink Pearl. It is the only name people know and it sells on that name. It is my opinion this clause is by far the most important in this Part of the Bill. It also supplies a very different need, such as Mr. Harry Wheatcroft tried to secure for himself. He tried to register a number of names of his roses as trade marks. Of course he was defeated on that, because a trade mark is an indication of particular origin and not an indication of variety. But this clause will certainly take care of that, and in future persons like Mr. Wheatcroft will, in my view, be able to get the necessary protection for the names of the plants they register.
I welcome the compulsory licence procedure outlined in Clause 7, but I should like to know whether the noble Lord considers that under subsection (4) the plant breeder may be remunerated for the material which he apparently has to supply to compulsory licensees. There
628
is nothing in that clause which deals with remuneration. I do not know whether it is suggested that he is to give material; I think that would be rather unfair. This Bill is, of course, a mere framework, and until the schemes are published one will not know whether it is going to be a success or not. But I think Her Majesty's Government have done a good thing in creating a first step to the protection which plant breeders so very much require.
5.0 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am, of course, most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this, to me, fascinating and important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told me, to my disappointment, that he could not be here during the debate as he intended, which of course I regret. But I am most encouraged to sense the general weight of approval for what I have considered to he, every since I have been working on it, a useful and progressive measure.
Before answering the points which have been put to me, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Balerno on his exceptional contribution in the form of a maiden speech. There would, it seems to me, be a certain effrontery in any attempt of mine to commend his observations on a subject on which his specialised knowledge is of international repute. There is to-day more applied science in agriculture than would have seemed possible to anyone a few years ago, and some of the benefits of that science to the industry have been provided by Lord Balerno himself. The oftener he speaks upon agriculture in your Lordships' House the more I shall learn myself, and I think possibly other Members of your Lordships' House as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me points of detail on one or two matters. As regards the fixing of royalties, my answer is that it is a matter for the breeder rather than for the Government. It is up to him to assess the value which the industry will be prepared to put on a new variety; for, after all, it is he who has to sell it. But, of course, the Controller of Plant Varieties will have power to enforce compulsory licensing in cases where it can be shown that a breeder has misused his rights. We do not

629
expect that to happen, but the power is there to correct it if it does. As regards the purity of seed, the noble Lord will recollect that this is already safeguarded under the present seeds regulations. There is, in fact, a specially tight control on wild oats, which he mentioned. The presence of wild oats must be looked for and declared by the seller.
The noble Lord also asked about ratification of the International Convention. This matter will naturally have to be considered when this Bill has passed through Parliament and received Royal Assent, but there is no reason to suppose that there will be any delay after that. The ratification is necessarily waiting upon this piece of legislation. On compulsory licences, there will be no limit as to their duration. That is a matter for the Controller to decide, in the light of the request made by the applicant. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, also spoke on the matter of import control written into the Bill, and he suggested that the Government should consider taking wider powers of import control to enable Ministers to prevent the importation of bad or inferior seed from any source. I quite see how this control appears to be restricted. In fact, when I read the clause for the first time it appeared to me that this control was restricted to seed coming from countries of other climatic conditions. That is not exactly so; the powers are wider than that.
As I explained to your Lordships in my opening remarks, Clause 24, as drafted, applies to the imports of seeds which may adversely affect United Kingdom seeds in two possible ways: first, as a result of cross-pollination for instance; and secondly, because they are unsuitable for growing here, by reason of the fact that they were produced under different climatic conditions. The climatic factor does not apply necessarily to the first of these. While I am aware that there are arguments for keeping out seed which is inferior in other ways and not distinguishable in this way, it must not be forgotten that the seed trade already plays an important part in this. Full disclosure of seed qualities to the buyer is required under the present Seeds Act, and this will be continued and possibly augmented under this Bill.
I must also, I think, point out to your Lordships that although the Government
630
are satisfied that import controls under Clause 24 can be satisfactorily administered without infringing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the wider powers of import control which are now suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, would not be defensible under that Agreement unless powers were also available, and were used, to impose similar restrictions on home production and sales. That we are not doing. It is for this reason that I have said that the proposal raises a fundamental issue of principle. However, I have naturally taken note of what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps he, in turn, would like to reflect on the points which I have now made and, if he feels it necessary, he and I can discuss it privately with a view to its being raised at a later stage, should he think that desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, also asked who would receive the royalties payable when the compulsory licences are granted. The answer is that, ultimately, it will be the owner of the rights. The prices paid down the line of distribution would no doubt take account of the royalties paid at an earlier stage. But I think that all this is a matter which should be left to the breeder in discussion with the merchants, subject, of course, to the overriding powers of the Controller as an umpire in the matter. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wise, also who asked me a difficult question on the matter of how much we thought the two offices that is to say, the two new bodies, the Plant Varieties Office and the Plant Varieties Rights Tribunal—would cost. This is a most difficult question, and I should not care to be pinned down to this figure; but, as a sort of guide, we think they might cost £50,000 a year. I hope that the noble Lord will not bring this back to me if it proves to be an inaccurate guess. I am not attempting, or intending, or wishing to mislead him.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked whether the Controller would reject a variety if a major weakness was discovered during the tests for distinctiveness. He pointed out that this power was recommended in the Report. While appreciating the force of the arguments which were put forward by the Committee on Transactions in Seeds, the

631
fact is that the International Convention would not allow us to impose a "major weakness" condition. Such a weakness, on the other hand (I hope that the noble Lord will corroborate this, because his word and opinion count for many times more than mine in this matter) would, in fact, be revealed in performance trials and would become known to the farmers, who would take measures not to purchase it.
With regard to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, I was able to agree with his attitude to the idea that only the best new varieties should be entered on the Index of Varieties under Clause 20. This may seem an attractive proposition, but it raises a large and fundamental point of principle. The Bill, as drafted, sets up an Index to which all new distinct varieties will be able to claim admittance. Farmers and growers will know that when a variety is on the Index it is distinct from other varieties and is not, as sometimes happens at present, merely an older variety under a different name. The farmer may make his own choice, and of course a great deal is done to help and guide him to make the best choice. New varieties are tried out extensively by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, and before I sit down I should like to say a word about that.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, may I say, before the noble Lord sits down, that he said that I advocated that only the best should go on the Index. I think that I agreed with the Bill that any distinct variety should go on the Index.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sorry if I have got my words muddled. I started by saying that I agreed with the noble Lord and I am now putting forward the case with which I agree. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, is right in this, and that it is the best we can do. The farmer can make his own choice, and a great deal is done to help and guide him to make the best choice. New varieties are tried out extensively and there are recommended lists. These things will continue, and in Clause 22 we are proposing in special cases to hold back the marketing of new varieties until they have been tried out and reported on. It is all part of the
632
Government's broad approach that, in the long run, after all the advice has been given and the information has been published, the decision rests with the farmer. The guidance can be provided but the decision rests with the farmer. I would therefore suggest to noble Lords that the method adopted in the Bill of giving the farmer reliable information about new varieties and leaving him with his traditional freedom to make his own choice is to be preferred to the control over cropping and marketing by means of restricted entry to the Index of Varieties. I feel confident that, given adequate information, farmers will sort out the varieties into their proper categories.
My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney also raised the question of control of quality by the breeder. This can be done under the Bill within the licensing arrangements. The breeder can put a quality control clause in his licence. When granting a compulsory licence the Controller must, inter alia, take account of the need to maintain quality. My noble friend will find this in Clause 7.
My noble friend Lord Cawley asked me, with great rapidity, a number of questions which unfortunately I am not qualified to answer here and now, but I will do my best to answer them privately or publicly at a later stage of the Bill, if he wishes it. He said that he doubted whether the two Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, were always capable of sorting out things and reaching agreement. There are many cases in which it is necessary for them to do so, and so far I can give him the reassurance that in fact they always have been able to do so without any noticeable hostility breaking out.
LORD CAWLEY: I am glad to hear it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should like to end by way of underlining the importance of these measures. In order to gather a little more information on this subject I have twice visited the National institute of Agricultural Botany in the past few months, and I am immensely impressed by the work that they do. I am told that of the 50 or so varieties of wheat in use in this country before the war, none in fact has survived. They

633
have all been superseded by new and better varieties: varieties with stronger straw to stand up to the weather; varieties to suit the varying needs of farmers in different parts of the country; disease-resistant varieties; and, of course, the great essential, higher yielding varieties to which some of these other factors contribute.
In touching on this improvement of varieties the work of the National Institute is, of course, only part of the work being done, but I have had the fortune to see it at close quarters and to understand how they have set about their work through the systematic cataloguing of the existing varieties and the encouragement of those varieties which best meet the needs of the industry. They have provided the agricultural industry with the ability to produce more, and to do it more economically and more independently; and any help we can give to this service I think we should be glad to give. This Bill is one of the attempts we are making to back up that work, and I am grateful for the welcome the Bill has received.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
5.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Married Women's Property Bill of 1963. The purpose of this Bill is exactly the same as the Bill which I introduced at the end of the last Session, the Married Women's Savings Bill. Your Lordships will recall that, after an interesting and indeed stimulating debate, that Bill was given a Second Reading, but as Parliament was shortly to adjourn for the Summer Recess there was of course little time to send the Bill to another place. Therefore it has been necessary to reintroduce it. However, so far as I am concerned the delay has been very fortunate because it has enabled me to take advantage of the best legal advice in the country, stemming as it does from the Lord Chancellor
634
and his officials, for which I am extremely grateful. The result has been a re-drafting of the Bill, for it seems that the word "savings" might have been difficult to define in the context of the Bill and I have been advised that the word now used is preferable.
The new draft also incorporates the various suggestions made by noble Lords in the previous debate. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, drew my attention to the omission of that part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce which related to an agreement between husband and wife, and now the relevant addendum has been made. It will be noted also that this Bill specifically states that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. It will be generally appreciated that, while the new form is more explicit, the Bill has not been unduly lengthened—though when I say "explicit" I am concerned with one point which I will explain to your Lordships in a moment. I feel that perhaps it may still be necessary to make an Amendment, which I shall be happy to make on the Committee stage. Originally the Bill consisted of 25 words which received the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, for simple brevity, something that I think he was extremely pleased to see; and although there are a few more words in this Bill it is still limited to one paragraph.
I do not wish to inflict a long Second Reading speech on your Lordships, but I think that, for the sake of those Members who were not present in the House for the previous debate, I should quote the recommendation of the Royal Commission, in paragraph 701, in which they said:
"… savings made from money contributed by either the husband or the wife or by both for the purpose of meeting housekeeping expenses (and any investments or purchases made from such savings) should be deemed to belong to husband and wife in equal shares unless they have otherwise agreed."
This is where I feel that perhaps there should be a further Amendment to the Bill. My original approach to this was to help those wives—and I think they are in the great majority—who work at home, who cook, clean, wash and serve the family for unlimited hours, but who are not legally entitled to save one penny in their own name. A woman may

635
indeed be married to a man who perhaps drinks a little too much, or spends too much on gambling; she may be a thrifty wife, but she has no right, in law, to save for herself anything out of the housekeeping allowance.
The purpose of the Bill was to cover her needs, and that is why the new draft, which perhaps is not as clear as the old draft, says
"… money derived from any allowance made by the husband for the expenses of the matrimonial home or for similar purposes …".
I felt this presupposed that the woman was not working outside the home and that the husband was making the sole contribution to the home. But the Royal Commission Report, of course, refers in its recommendation to
"money contributed by either the husband or the wife or by both".
This naturally rather complicates the issue, and it was left out of this draft Bill because it was felt that this simple measure should simply cover the needs or the rights of the woman in the home who was dependent solely on the contribution made to her by her husband.
Before I came into the House the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and I discussed this point. I should like to have more advice about this, and we might raise it on the Committee stage. I am only a little afraid of complicating it and being told that in fact I might be producing a Bill whereby the husband could remain at home for all time, could be supported by his wife, and he could also be legally entitled to halt of her savings. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has given a lot of thought to this matter, for his help and advice.
I would say, also, that in the average household of which we are thinking the woman still makes a very big contribution in the way of services; and if we were to introduce this other Amendment, she would not receive any recognition of those services such as the Royal Commission mentioned. I would remind noble Lords that the Royal Commission also said this:
"We think that the weight of evidence suggests that some amendment of the law is desirable in order to give more effective recognition to the wife's contribution to the marriage."
636
This other point I am only too happy to raise on the Committee stage, and I should like to have advice beforehand. The Royal Commission sat for four years so this was not a question of a snap decision; and they took evidence from a very large number of organisations and individuals. They considered a number of recommendations but they were unanimous only on the proposition incorporated in this Bill.
My Lords, as I said in the debate in July, legislation of this character has been operating in other countries for many years. This is not a revolutionary suggestion. A community of property has been established in many Scandinavian and European countries, and in certain States of the United States of America, and recently West Germany introduced an equal financial partnership in marriage. But Britain is lagging behind, and I feel that there is this rather pathetic category of women who serve their families and the country yet are never entitled to save one penny in their own name. Acceptance of the principle of this Bill would be some recognition of the services of the wife who works solely in the home. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the principle embodied in this Bill will be accepted again and a Second Reading., given to this very small measure, because I do believe that it will be a most useful Act to add to our social legislation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
5.24 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, the speech that I had in mind to make was a short one, but in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has already said it will be shorter. The Bill must surely be greatly welcomed for the principle of equity which it represents. My own humble opinion, as a bachelor, is that savings from the housekeeping expenses—and I am thinking of the case of the home where the husband is the money-maker and the wife is working at home—should belong wholly to the wife, and I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, would support that general point of view.

637
For that reason, I am glad to see that Clause 1 of the Bill starts with the words
"If any question arises …"
I do not suppose that this Bill, if enacted, as I hope it will be, will have any great immediate effect upon the majority of homes in this country, but it may in the long run have two good effects, provided that one danger is avoided. That danger, of course, is that the husband or wife may selfishly stand upon the rights which are given in this Bill. I do not think that the Bill in itself will in any respect necessarily increase that danger: it exists in any event. The two good effects of passing the Bill will be, first, to improve the legal position of the wife when she has to rely upon the law for her status; and, secondly, that it may in the long run assist a more sensible attitude towards sharing what, from a material point of view, might be called the assets of the marriage. I hope, my Lords, that this Bill will receive the unanimous support of this House.
5.26 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lady will undoubtedly get an unopposed Second Reading. I, likewise, am not going to repeat anything I said on the earlier occasion. I think that the drafting of the present Bill is better than the previous one. The only point I would raise is that which has been described by the noble Lady. I agree with her entirely, of course, that she should not have to answer to-day, but should have an opportunity of taking advice. There is an obvious advantage, other things being equal, in following the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I think that, in order to follow that unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, it would be necessary to insert after the word "husband" in line 6, "or wife". I entirely agree with the noble Lady that that is a point which can be discussed when we come to the Committee stage. I only thought it right to warn her that that question would probably arise, in order that she should give it full consideration. I do not want to say any more about it at this stage, but it seems to me that some addition would be required if we are to follow the unanimous advice of the Royal Commission.
5.28 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lady on the way in which she has moved the Second Reading and for the clear explanation she has given of the Bill. She has told your Lordships that the Bill seeks to give effect to a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce to which the Government see no objection. There can be little doubt that the present state of the law, under which any savings which a wife may make out of any allowance given her by her husband for housekeeping or similar purposes belong to the husband absolutely, is capable of working injustice to the wife. Accordingly what this Bill does is to provide that where there is any dispute on a matter of this kind any money which may be left out of an allowance made by the husband, or any property which may have been bought with such money, is to belong to the husband and wife in equal shares unless they have agreed that the money or other property is to be dealt with in some other way.
I think the Bill which is before the House today is perhaps rather clearer, as the noble Baroness herself has said, than the Bill which the noble Lady introduced before. First of all, it avoids any reference to savings and so gets rid of the difficulty of what constitutes a saving and, in particular, the point of time at which the saving can be said to be made. That was a great complication in the original Bill. Under this Bill, if a husband gives his wife £2 a week for the groceries and she spends only 30s. of it, one does not have to consider whether she is entitled to keep 5s. for herself at the end of every week, because the present Bill operates only if there is a dispute between the husband and wife as to the way in which the money, or any property which may have been bought out of that money, is to be divided between the two of them. I think this may in itself help to avoid the petty squabbles which perhaps might have arisen under the previous Bill.
Secondly, the Bill applies only where the husband and wife are living together and the allowance is made for the expenses of the matrimonial home. It seems right to leave the question of any

639
allowance which a husband may make to a wife from whom he is separated to be dealt with under the ordinary law, under which I think I am right in saying that the position is that the wife keeps the whole of any savings she may make unless she and her husband have reached some other agreement. I am not going to comment—it would be rather unwise for me to do so—on the possible Amendment about which the noble Baroness has talked. She is going to get the best advice on that. I only hope that, if the Amendment is moved, it will not complicate this Bill and hold it up at all.
Finally, my Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned that the Bill will apply to Scotland, but I am glad to see that the noble Lady has provided that it should not apply to Northern Ireland, as did the previous Bill. Northern Ireland has a Parliament of its own, and ought to be left free to alter the law on this subject in any way it thinks fit. This is a modest Bill, but I think it may do some good in such cases as
640
where, in the past, wives have felt, probably with a good deal of justification, that they were the victims of injustice. For that reason, the Government are glad that the noble Lady has brought the Bill in again, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Although it is quite irregular, perhaps I might be allowed to say that I was so overcome by the fact that the Government accept this Bill that I failed to express my gratitude. I should just like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for what he has said; also to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who encouraged me; to the godfather of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who was very helpful; and, of course, to all those who helped me redraft it. Thank you very much.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock.