Lords Sitting of 2 February 1965

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
The Lord Glentanar—Took the Oath.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon—Took the Oath.

POST OFFICE CHARGES AND EFFICIENCY
2.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 the Post Office intends to meet rising costs by increasing its efficiency or by raising its charges.]
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General is not yet in a position to make a statement.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that Answer and ask him whether he has considered this: what would happen if Her Majesty's Government practised what they preached?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, in every respect up to the moment I think Her Majesty's Government are practising what they preach.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether they are doing so on the subjects of electricity in England and gas in Scotland?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord's attention has been drawn to British Rail, where fares were raised yesterday and, if anything, efficiency reduced?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, it is part of my present duty to answer for the Post Office, but not for British Rail.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords is the Minister not aware that much of the increases in price of electricity and gas are due to the late Conservative Government's financial provision for nationalised industries?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I agree.

ARRESTS OF BRITONS IN TANZANIA
2.37 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: 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 how many British subjects have been placed under some form of arrest in Tanzania during the past nine months; what steps have been taken in each case by the British High Commission to obtain their release, and what satisfaction has been obtained in each case.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, my right honourable friend and his predecessor have received reports of the arrests of fifteen British citizens in Tanzania during the past nine months. Five were brought before the courts and convicted. The rest were released without being charged. In all appropriate cases the British High Commissioner has immediately approached the Tan-zanian authorities to seek an explanation of the arrests and to press for the release of the persons detained. Of the ten persons arrested but not charged, six were released following the High Commissioner's intervention, though two of these were subsequently deported or asked to leave the country. One other, who was also expelled, was detained for only a few hours and had already been released when the High Commissioner instituted his inquiries. In the remaining cases, the persons concerned did not seek the High Commissioner's assistance and he came to hear of the arrests only much later from other sources.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord

1079
for his Answer. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that Tanzania is not the only African member of the British Commonwealth where such things are happening, they will make it clear that (in words which were used on an historic occasion many years ago) they are "not amused"?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I do not think this is a subject for amusement. I think Tanzania is learning the difficult job of self-government; and there is evidence that it is steadily improving.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Tanzania is learning under Chinese instructors?
LORD TAYLOR: No, my Lords, I was not so aware.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether these newly-independent East African countries are not naturally very sensitive to all forms of criticism from visiting journalists or from other sources; and, while we deplore any attack on the freedom of the Press, is it not most important for visiting journalists or other visitors or European residents to be most careful in all matters in regard to the feelings of these newly-independent countries? May I ask a second question? Would it not be possible to consider suggesting to the Governments of these countries that they might consider adopting conditions for deportation such as are laid down in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, in this country? Indeed, one might perhaps go further and consider suggesting to all Commonwealth countries that they might get together on a plan for adopting similar conditions for deportation between member States of the Commonwealth?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, for his helpful questions. With regard to the first, I think he is quite correct. There is no doubt that these countries are very sensitive to articles which appear in the Press, and that they do not realise that in Britain we do not take quite so much notice of the Press as they think we do. With regard to the second question, I will certainly investigate and see if that can be done.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if in fact it turns out to be true (which I understand it is, from what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said) that Tanzania is under the tutelage of the Chinese, may I ask the noble Lord what steps the Government propose to take to counteract the effect of this tutelage?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am not in a position to say whether the allegation of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is correct or not; but I think the best thing we can possibly do is to demonstrate the value of British democracy to these countries. I must say that when I was in Jamaica at a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association the Tanzanian representatives played a leading and good part.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION
2.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 when they propose to abolish preventive detention and what form of imprisonment or sentence they intend to put in its place.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, legislation is, of course, required to abolish preventive detention, but there is unlikely to be time for it in the present Session. As to what should take its place, my right honourable friend has as yet reached no conclusion. We want to take a wide and constructive view of the problem of persistent offenders. They are not all of one kind, and we do not believe that our only approach should be to lock them away for long periods. We are anxious to ensure, on the one hand, that the public is properly protected from those offenders from whom it really needs protection and, on the other hand, that offenders are not detained unnecessarily for excessively long periods.
The solution depends partly upon new legislation, which will not necessarily

1081
follow the lines proposed by the noble Lord in answer to a Question on July 23 last, and partly upon the development within the prison system of better means of assessing the character and needs of particular prisoners and relating them to a wider and more effective range of training facilities and prison industries. The further development of the hostel system and of after-care, to which much effort is being devoted, are also important factors.
My right honourable friend will make a statement about his proposals as soon as he is ready to do so, but I cannot at the moment say when this will be.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Lord really telling us, after all the things he said repeatedly in the last Parliament, and after all the things the noble Earl the Leader of the House repeatedly said in the last Parliament, and two years after the Advisory Council have published their recommendations, that Her Majesty's Government have still not made up their minds on this question?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords. What I am saying is that on May 1, 1961, after persistent pressure from the Opposition, the noble Lord's Government appointed a sub-committee to consider preventive detention and announced their decision to abolish preventive detention on July 23, 1964—that was some 1,200 days afterwards. I do not complain about the fact that after 100 days, the noble Lord complains that we have taken no action. In fact, I regard that as a friendly assessment by the noble Lord—perhaps over-generous—of the relative efficiency of the two Governments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, was this House not repeatedly told by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the Party opposite had made up their minds about this matter and that we had not done so? May I ask this further question? The noble Lord said that there would be no Parliamentary time this Session. What has Parliamentary time got to do with it, when the Government have not made up their minds about what to put into a Bill?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, the noble Lord is wrong on two counts. First
1082
of all, the Government have made up their minds to abolish preventive detention. There is no question whatsoever about that. The point on which we have not wholly made up our minds is what to put in its place. What my first Answer was intended to convey was that we have not necessarily accepted what the previous Government had said they would put in its place, as announced in the noble Lord's Answer of July 23. If we carried out the previous Government's intention, it would mean that a man of 25 who for a third time stole a bottle of milk could be sent to prison for ten years. That is the kind of thing we are reviewing. It seems wholly unlikely, therefore, that we shall accept such a provision. We will announce our final intention in this matter, together with other matters which are needing urgent consideration, as soon as we are ready to do so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My lords, while recognising that preventive detention was introduced by the last Labour Government and that the present Government are firm in their decision that it was wrong to introduce it and that it should go, are we to take it from what the noble Lord has said that we shall not have any statement as to what is to take its place, and as to legislation to put something in its place, until after this Session has ended, whenever that may be?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would say, in answer to the noble and learned Viscount, that there will be a statement as to what will take its place, but I think it unlikely that we shall be able to find time for a comprehensive measure, including the abolition of preventive detention, during this current Session.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, should I be wrong in thinking that the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, think, with me, that this further delay is really quite outrageous?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot answer for my noble friend the Leader of the House; but, for myself, I wish to see the abolition of preventive detention as much as any noble Lord in this House, but I also do not wish to

1083
see, as apparently the noble Lord would, something put in its place which would be even worse.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, are the Government being dynamic?

PERFORMING ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Somers.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

THE LATE SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL: MESSAGES OF CONDOLENCE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that I have received, on behalf of the House, Messages expressing respect for the late Sir Winston Churchill and sympathy in the loss which the nation has suffered. I should like to express our gratitude for these Messages, and I have arranged for suitable replies to be sent to them. In order that the terms of these Messages should be available to your Lordships, I am arranging for them to be printed in the Official Report.
The Messages were as follows:
"To the Lord Chancellor, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster.
The Netherlands people and States General mourn the death of the man to whose un-flinchable determination and indomitable courage we owe our survival as a free nation. Sir Winston Churchill was a great Parliamentarian, a great war leader and a great statesman. It is perhaps only in England that there exists the constitutional framework required for such a unique combination of greatness to fully reveal itself.
We rejoiced on the 9th of May, 1946, to have this illustrious Parliamentarian address both our Chambers sitting together in the Knights' Hall.
With deep sorrow we now join his countrymen standing at his bier, and pay our final tribute to him, the memory of whose greatness will be enshrined in our hearts for ever.
Jonkman, President of the First Chamber of the States General.
Van Thiel, President of the Second Chamber of the States General."
"KOREAN EMBASSY,
36 Cadogan Square,
London, S.W.1.
25 January, 1965
My Lord,
I have the honour to enclose the following cable message addressed to you and to the whole House of Lords from the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea:
'We are overwhelmed with astonishment and sorrow at the sad news of the passing away of the late Sir Winston S. Churchill, the great hero of the century whom we hold in our highest respect.
It is a great sorrow not only to the British Commonwealth but also to the whole world and to the Republic of Korea to lose the great Statesman of the century who has made an unprecedented contribution towards peace and freedom for the whole of mankind.
On behalf of the Korean people, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea wishes to express deepest condolences to the House of Lords. In this hour of sorrow, we pray for the late Sir Winston's eternal sweet repose.
Hyo Sang Lee, Speaker of the National Assembly, Republic of Korea.'
Please accept, my Lord, the assurances of my highest consideration.
(General) Honkon Lee,
Ambassador.
The Rt. Hon. Lord Gardiner,
House of Lords,
Westminster."
From the President of the Belgian Senate. [Translation.]
"The Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Lords, London.
The death of Sir Winston Churchill has profoundly moved the Belgian Senate, which remembers with undying gratitude the outstanding part played by that illustrious statesman, master of policy and poet of action, during the terrible years of war, in achieving the victory of the peoples who were threatened with servitude and in furthering the liberation of my own country.
I pay tribute also to the generosity of Sir Winston, and to the courageous initiatives which since the end of the war he has constantly undertaken for the sake of the union of the peoples of Europe. We shall all cherish the memory of the indomitable pilot who knew how to ride the storm, who ever enjoyed the honour and respect of the British Parliament and was the very image of devotion to democratic institutions.
I offer to the House of Lords my most sincere condolences, together with those of the whole Senate.
Paul Struye,
President of the Senate."

LONDON GOVERNMENT: THE CHILDREN'S SERVICE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Mitchison will be making a Statement on the Children's Service in Greater London.
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons on Tuesday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A. Bill read 1a.

DOGS BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have no doubt read the Bill and know what its purpose is. I have received a great number of letters approving of the Bill and, as might be expected, a few in the contrary sense. Let me make it clear, first of all, to remove any such illusion, that this Bill is not motivated by any dislike of dogs; quite the contrary. So far as I am concerned, I am very fond of dogs, and I hope that they like me. When I was a small child living in the Canadian prairie far away from any other habitation my constant companion and guardian was a dog, and I have not forgotten that. This Bill is directed to what I hope is a small minority of dog owners who do not control their dogs, but allow them to become nuisances to the general public.
I am sure all your Lordships are quite familiar with the fact that in cities such as this, one finds day after day the pavements defiled by excrement of dogs which are allowed by the owners to excrete on the pavement. This is not only offensive and incompatible with the dignity of civilised life, but also insanitary and dangerous. I have received complaints about this from many parts of England, Wales and Scotland. Only a short time ago, when I went out of my front door one evening at six o'clock, I found the matron of a day nursery which is situated just beside my house busy washing down the steps with a bucket and a mop. A
1086
dog had got in and had fouled the entrance to the day nursery, and she was busy cleaning it up to prepare for the children who were coming in the morning. This is a matter which particularly affects housewives, from many of whom I have received complaints of a similar nature. One unfortunate lady, for example, told me about how her small child fell on the pavement and had her clothing defiled, some of it so badly that it had to be destroyed. I do not think I need emphasise this, because I feel that it is within your Lordships' knowledge.
Many of your Lordships no doubt also know that by-laws are made by a number of local authorities which make it an offence to let a dog on a lead foul the footpath. These by-laws, in my experience, are not obeyed. In many cases they are not advertised—the citizens do not know of their existence; and, in any case, they are not enforced. If they were enforced, and if proceedings were taken, it would no doubt be reported in the local Press and might lead to some improvement. In addition, the penalty is very small. Therefore, the first purpose of the Bill is to make it part of the general law of this country, and not a matter of local by-laws, that it is an offence to permit a dog to foul the pavement; and the second purpose is to raise the penalties to a level which is more appropriate to the economic circumstances of this country as they now are, because the fines which the by-laws generally impose represent a quite negligible amount.
The next question which required consideration was to what area of the country any legislation of this kind should apply. I have proposed in this Bill that it should apply to what one may, legally speaking, describe as an urban area; and for that purpose I have borrowed, with some modification, a definition which is contained in the Road Traffic Acts, and have defined it as a place where there is street lighting. It is obvious that one cannot control it in terms of local authority areas, because many urban districts contain considerable areas to which it is not necessary to apply any provision of this kind.
The next point to which I want to direct attention is the question of enforcement. As I have said, at the present moment the by-laws in most places are not enforced. So far as I am aware,

1087
the police pay no attention to them whatsoever; and in many cases the local authorities who make them also do not seem to bother. I have therefore proposed that enforcement should be in the hands of either the police or the local authority, in the hope that at any rate one or other of them will see that something is done about this grievance. Secondly, the by-laws which are made refer to dogs which are on a lead. They are, therefore, very easily evaded by the owners letting their dogs run free without any lead; and day after day I see dogs let out in the morning for this purpose without any attempt to control them. Therefore, I have proposed that where dogs are found straying—by which I mean, out of control of their owners—the police or the local authority shall have the power to take and detain them; and if the owner then reclaims his dog, he should pay for the expenses which have been incurred in the detention.
Some of your Lordships will remember that we had a debate some time ago, which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Ailwyn, with regard to dogs, and, in particular, to accidents in the streets caused by dogs This is another reason why it is desirable that dogs which are found straying in the streets should be taken and detained. I noticed recently that in Birmingham last year 1,640 dogs were involved in accidents in the streets. A considerable number of the dogs themselves were killed in these accidents, and in a much smaller proportion of cases there were also people injured. As traffic in the streets becomes denser and denser, the danger of dogs, untrained and uncontrolled, being allowed to roam in the streets becomes all the greater.
My Lords, I should mention that I have had a letter from the Association of District Councils in Scotland approving of this measure, desiring (which the Bill does not do at the present moment) that the powers thereby conferred should be extended to district councils as well as to other local authorities. The National Dog Owners' Association, with the work of which I dare say some of your Lordships are familiar, have also intimated that they approve of this in principle but they would desire, if the Bill obtained a Second Reading, that some modification should be made: in particular, that, if
1088
it is possible, an owner should be notified that his dog is detained; that the period within which it should be claimed should be extended to three weeks instead of two weeks; that dogs should be destroyed only if a suitable home cannot be found for them, and that they should in any case, of course, not be destroyed with any cruelty. That, I think, would always be the case. But so far as I am concerned, if amendments of that kind commended themselves to your Lordships I should be very happy to accept them.
Let me repeat that this is not a Bill which is intended to discourage people from having dogs; it is merely a Bill which is designed to encourage them to handle and to train their dogs properly—a thing which is perfectly easy. After all, dogs are domestic animals, and have been so for many thousands of years. They are affectionate and amenable to discipline and, therefore, no hardship is imposed upon anybody who likes to take the trouble to control his dog. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
3.4 p.m
LORD SILKINmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out "now" and after "2a" to insert "this day six months". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read this day six months, which to put it in plain language, means that I am inviting the House to reject the Bill. I do not deny that there is a certain amount of fouling of pavements, but I think my noble friend has made far too much of it. I believe that he is grossly exaggerating both the nuisance and the ill-health (about which he did not elaborate) caused.
We are a nation of dog lovers—at least we pride ourselves on being so. There are over 2 million dogs licensed in this country although, of course, there are considerably more dogs if we count also those that are not yet of an age requiring them to be licensed. Of those dogs, something like, I should guess, 1½ million inhabit towns and places to which this Bill would apply. A large number of these dogs are great friends of their owners and are pets. In many cases they are companions. For many old people, dogs provide the only companionship they have, and anything we did that affected

1089
this relationship, and made it harder for old folk, blind people, and others who keep dogs for companionship and health, would be rendering a great disservice to a considerable section of the population. It is because I believe that this Bill would be rendering such a disservice that I am strongly opposed to it.
The vast majority of dogs, I think, are orderly, well-behaved and do not foul pavements. But dogs are uncontrollable, especially male dogs who have a predilection for lamp-posts; and I imagine that, under the terms of the Bill, any action as against a lamp-post would be regarded as an offence. However well-trained a dog may be, there are occasions when it really is uncontrollable; and to make such action an offence punishable by law is going much too far. And, frankly, I believe that we have far more important things to do at the present time.
I have referred to old people. There are also, of course, blind people who rely on dogs to take them about. There is no guarantee that in no circumstances will a blind man's dog foul a pavement, or even an open space. Sometimes dogs are exercised by children. If a child is in charge of a dog which happens to foul a pavement, is it the intention that either the child or the owner of the dog should be punished? Then there are police dogs. Even they sometimes nod; and one cannot guarantee that, however well trained a police dog may be, it will never offend against this Bill, if it is made law. I am told that there are sheep dogs which are taken to market. Sometimes they foul the market. What about them?
We really do not want to multiply offences of this kind, and to provide for a penalty of £20 for each offence after the first is monstrous. It indicates, if I may respectfully say so to my noble friend, the kind of approach that he has to this question. It is, after all, I would say—and my noble friend will understand it—de minimis. It is not a thing with which we should trouble the Legislature. The more effective thing would be to induce local authorities to clean their streets daily. That would solve the whole problem. I do not thing I need elaborate the hardships.
Now let us look at the question of enforcement. At the moment, there are a number of local authorities who have by-
1090
laws which, as my noble friend said, are not being enforced. They are supposed to be enforced by local inspectors. I imagine that they are not being enforced because the local inspectors have far more important things to do; and if you want the by-laws enforced you must appoint more local inspectors. No local authority is either willing or able to get more local inspectors. They are very short. Every local authority could do with more local inspectors to enforce these by-laws. How it came about that local authorities asked for these by-laws I do not know, but it may be a reflection (I say this with great respect to my noble friend Lord Merthyr) of the fact that Private Bills are not sufficiently scrutinised. At any rate, we know that many of these things go through in Private Bills which perhaps closer investigation reveals ought not to. I admit that there are a number of local by-laws, but, as my noble friend says, they are not being enforced.
My Lords, if this Bill became general law it would be for the police to enforce it. Can noble Lords imagine the police being diverted from their efforts to deal with crime, or with the increasing number of motor offences, to go chasing dogs to see if they are fouling pavements or open spaces? Do your Lordships think that that would be a legitimate use of the police? Admitting that there is some nuisance in a limited number of cases, do your Lordships think that the public would be prepared for our police, who, in any case, I am afraid, are able to detect something like only 50 per cent. of the crimes that are committed in this country, to be diverted away from detecting that crime to the pursuit of dogs which happen to be using lamp-posts or are otherwise fouling the pavements? It seems to me fantastic that anyone could consider such a thing.
I cannot think that your Lordships will want to pass this Bill. If it is given a Second Reading, I cannot imagine that it will go through Committee, and I hope that we shall reject this Bill this afternoon without any further question. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and, after ("2a"), insert ("this day six months")—(Lord Silkin.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speeches of the two noble Lords who preceded me,

1091
and I am ready to say at once, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has introduced this Bill very persuasively and made it perfectly clear that the Bill is not aimed against dogs so much as against their owners. On the other hand, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put the matter into fair perspective and demonstrated the relative importance, or perhaps I may say unimportance, of this Bill.
When I heard about this Bill I was very intrigued. This question of dogs in London and in towns in general is a very intriguing problem, and I was particularly intrigued to discover how the noble Lord proposed to set about preventing dogs from doing their private business exactly where and when they wanted to. Having read the Bill, and after listening to the speech of the noble Lord, I find that one of his main methods for doing this is to increase the penalty. In other words, he wishes to introduce a larger deterrent than already exists under local by-laws. I would say that anybody on being fined once for allowing his dog to foul a pavement or public place adjacent to a footway would be sufficiently annoyed by losing £5 in that way to take every reasonable step to prevent it from happening again. I do not believe that an increased fine up to £20 would really have any significant effect on whether or not this offence was committed a second time; and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the sum of £20 is really altogether too large for such a trivial offence, especially when we come to consider that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said that this Bill is aimed against only a small minority of dog owners. It does seem rather as though he is bringing a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.
I also approach this problem from the point of view of the dog. I am a dog owner and a dog lover. I have two small dogs in my house at this moment. Neither of them is actually mine; they belong to my family; but for a long period I had a most beloved and wonderful boxer of which I thought highly enough to bring it with me all the way from Southern Rhodesia when I returned to this country some years ago. That dog brought up my four small children in my household, guarding them in their prams, watching
1092
them in the nursery and playing with them, and she was really the most efficient nursery-maid I ever had.
I came to understand the dog mentality, I think, very well; so much so that, soon after my marriage, my two small stepchildren whom I inherited, noting that I was not very loquacious in the home—a fact which may surprise some of your Lordships who have heard me speak in this Chambe r—engaged in the following conversation: "Daddy," said one, "does not speak very much, does he?" "Oh," said the other, "but you should hear how often he talks to his dog." So I do think that I have an understanding of the dog mentality.
My Lords, I would turn to the real defect of this Bill, which is its effect upon the responsibility and discretion of the local authorities in this matter. The noble Lord would make this Bill a national obligation upon all local authorities. At the moment they have permissive powers, and I believe that nearly all (perhaps all those who have control over urban areas) do have a bylaw to prevent, in so far as possible, this nuisance. But it seems to me that if we were to pass this Bill that discretion, even in urban areas, would be very severely limited, because at the moment urban authorities do allow certain public open spaces to be used for dogs running free. This is so in my area, where a part of Holland Park is allowed for the free running of dogs, though on the greater part of it dogs must be kept on a lead. Is it really intended that local authorities should not be allowed to exercise that sort of discretion? Because, surely, if people are going to have dogs in London at all, they must have some free range; and it seems to me that the Bill would stop this.
Then, local authorities differ in their requirements and in their environments. In the county district areas, where there are small market towns and villages, which are paved and would come under this Bill (because in these days, of course, they also have modern street lighting), there is no nuisance at all because there is so much countryside and pavements are not very much affected. Even if they are it hardly constitutes a nuisance, and it seems rather unreasonable that the local authorities should have to have legislation of this nature imposed upon them, willy-nilly.

1093
My Lords, when it comes to the question of enforcement, which both noble Lords mentioned, the difficulty of enforcement, whether by the local authority, a public authority or the police, is evident. I can see the possibility of most unneighbourly rows going on. If people are going to be caught for this sort of thing, even if it is not on purpose—because it is not they who are doing it: it is their dog—and you get people who do not like dogs or their neighbours, there are going to be all sorts of tales going round and there will be complicated prosecutions. I do not think the Bill is very helpful from that point of view.
Then there is the-question of justice. I inquired from my local borough council, at Kensington, who have had a by-law of this nature on their books since 1939, and I am told that it has a very important proviso which I am quite sure should be in this Bill, if it is given a Second Reading. The by-law, with the proviso, is as follows:
"No person being in charge of a dog shall allow the dog to foul the footway of any street or public place by depositing its excrement thereon:
"Provided that a person shall not be liable to be convicted of an offence against this by-law if he satisfies the court that the fouling of the footway by the dog was not due to culpable neglect or default on his part."
I would ask noble Lords to consider whether some such proviso is not necessary, and how difficult it is to prove whether or not there: has been culpable neglect.
If a dog is off the lead it might be held to be culpable neglect. But, even when the dog is on the lead, does the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, really maintain that you can prevent a dog which is following you along the pavement from lifting its leg quickly against a lamp-post or a tree? And in my street we have both, very conveniently planted, growing out of the pavement with a nice little circle of earth around the base. And of course canine intelligence tells the dog that it has been put there for its own particular purpose. When the noble Lord talks about its habit being incompatible with the dignity of civilised life, surely all he means is incompatible with the dignity of lamp-posts. One might consider that the dog believes that this lamp-
1094
post is put there conveniently for its own purpose; and it might even be expressing an aesthetic opinion upon the lamp-post very much in accord with the views, for example, of my noble friend Lord Bossom—because these lamp-posts are not very beautiful things.
How can you get the dog to walk in the road or the gutter? After all, dogs, being intelligent beings, do not like to walk in the road or gutter any more than human beings do, because they do not want to be run over by a bus, or even by the butcher's boy's bicycle. Therefore, I would say that, even when the dog is on the lead, it is virtually impossible, with normal care, to prevent a dog from committing a nuisance on the pavement. Moreover, if it is going to be a larger rather than a smaller nuisance, and the dog is on the lead, the most desperate tug-of-war takes place. You can do your best, but you cannot effectively control a dog's natural habits, and therefore I believe that this Bill will not be effective in what it sets out to do.
It is not a necessary Bill, because the local authorities already have these powers, and even if their discretion is interfered with by this Bill on a national level, I do not believe that either they or the police would be able to carry out its purpose any better than it is carried out to-day. I sympathise with the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but I think Lord Silkin is probably right in suggesting that the answer is the cleaning of the streets more often, especially in those areas where this sort of nuisance occurs. I have to traverse the pavement to get to public transport every day by this main entrance into the park, and it is at times rather dirty and unpleasant. It seems to me that the local authorities might think of cleaning these particular stretches of pavement more often than they do, and I think that that would be the best way out of this problem. Of course this is a Private Member's Bill; there is no Whip of any sort on it. But I do express the view, I am given to understand, of my colleagues on this particular Bill; and I am naturally expressing my own personal and private view about it, too. I shall not vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, which I believe to be an unnecessary Bill and one that would not prove to be effective.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, with one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said I am in total agreement; that is that dogs in urban areas should not be allowed to run free outside their own homes off the lead. They are too often the cause of very bad accidents. Any motorist will swerve, naturally, almost instinctively, to avoid a dog running on to the street, and in swerving he may of course very easily go into a head-on collision with somebody coming the other way. I think that is very true. But in every other way I am afraid I am absolutely against the Bill. The chief reason is that, to my mind, it is totally unenforceable, as other noble Lords have said. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree that the worst thing one can do is to create legislation which is unenforceable. This Bill is unenforceable for one reason. No legislation, however efficient it is, can contradict an even stronger law, and that is the law of nature. And it is the law of nature, unfortunately, that a dog feels from time to time that it has to relieve itself, and nothing on earth that we can do is going to alter that. A dog has been trained from the earliest time that it must not do so inside the house but that it is perfectly all right to do so outside it. Is it now going to have to learn another lesson, that there are two kinds of outside? I would be the first to say that dogs are extremely trainable creatures, but to teach a dog the difference between the macadam on the pavement and the macadam on the street, I think is really expecting too much of it.
What is more, of course, on the pavement there are certain upright articles. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned lamp-posts, and my noble friend Lord Hastings mentioned trees. The male dog of course makes instinctively for these. Upright articles are almost invariably on the pavement; they are not on the street, and as a one-time motorist I am very glad they are not. They are, and will remain, on the pavement. Therefore, I feel that it is perfectly impossible for any owner of a dog to train the dog that it must never relieve itself except in the gutter; and even that, as my noble friend Lord Hastings said, is dangerous with traffic as it is to-day. And, lastly, are the Government really satisfied that
1096
the penalties as they are proposed in the Bill are going to prove a sufficient deterrent to the dog to prevent it from relieving itself? I myself very much doubt it.
3.30 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, a deal of good common sense has been talked this afternoon and I do not propose to go over it all again. I should merely like to point out one or two aspects of the case which so far do not seem to have received due attention. There are two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord who moved this Bill. Perhaps he could answer them before I say any more. The first is about nuisances. Are our nuisances all of one kind or are there major and minor nuisances? The noble Lord cannot answer that? The other question relates to the fact that many dogs are trained, whether it is reasonable or not, to defalcate into the gutter. I should like to know whether that would be an offence or not. It is true that it is not exactly on the footway but it is just adjacent to the footway, and people are often compelled to step off the footway while they are walking along a crowded road.
Something that really worried me more than anything else was the provision that, in public open spaces which adjoin a road, a footpath shall also be considered as a footpath within the meaning of the Bill. I think that is a terrible thing. To begin with, it would exclude dogs from having their run in all the parks in London. One could not even take a dog for a run on Wimbledon Common because there is a footpath all along one side of it. To take an extreme case, one could not take a dog on to Salisbury Plain. So I think that is a bad provision in the Bill and whatever is done that should be dealt with.
In regard to the fines for these offences, I feel inclined to use the word "ferocious". Fancy being fined £20 because one morning your dog has slipped out and made a mess on the pavement! In any event, these fines will have a most alarming effect on dog owners, especially those who are not well educated or well informed. If this Bill were introduced and enforced, the effect of it would be to persuade a large number of people to get rid of their dogs.

1097
The dog would perhaps be out all night, and when it came in in the morning the owner would be afraid that it had committed some offence during the night, and he would take the little round disc of identity from the dog's collar and turn the dog out of doors. It seems to me a terrible thing to have to say that people would do that, but it is well known that they do such things when their pockets are in any way threatened.
Finally, there is a provision to the effect that the police or district authorities may destroy or dispose of unclaimed dogs. That would be an open door to the resumption of the capture of stray dogs for vivisection. For many years the laboratories have tried to get permission to be given stray clogs by the police for laboratory purposes. So far those pleas have been successfully rejected. The Bill says only that the police or the district authorities may destroy or dispose of unclaimed dogs. If this provision were to become law it would permit them to sell the dogs to civilian purchasers whose bona fides had not been checked; and we should merely be opening the doors of the laboratories to a large number of fresh victims.

LONDON GOVERNMENT: THE CHILDREN'S SERVICE
3.37 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, if I may be allowed to intervene for a moment, I should like with your Lordships' permission, to read a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in another place in answer to a Question about the reorganisation of London Government,
The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have examined all the changes timed to come into full operation on April 1. Our initial reservations about the London Government Act remain, but our return to office came too late to allow us to reshape the new system in any material way. The new borough councils and the Greater London Council had been elected and were far advanced in their detailed preparations for the assump-
1098
tion of their new responsibilities. The desirability of a different allocation of functions had to be weighed against the danger of disrupting services by a last minute change of direction.
"None the less, we have been considering whether, in view of the strong feeling which exists in certain quarters, we should not, even at this late date, legislate to transfer to the Greater London Council responsibility for certain specialised aspects of the children's service in the Greater London area. Consultation between my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and the interests concerned showed, however, that, while there is considerable support for such a step, opinion is not unanimously in favour. There is, moreover, a widespread fear that a change of arrangements at this stage might be detrimental to the operation of the children's service and to the interests of the children themselves. We have therefore concluded that we must allow the transfer of functions to take effect without amendment.
"In this situation we shall now do our utmost to ensure the success of the new system. But we propose to keep the working of the Act under review, to ensure, for instance, that housing loses none of its impetus. We shall maintain close consultation with the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council, and we will not hesitate to introduce amendments at a later date, should experience suggest that it is right to do so. In particular, we shall reconsider the requirement to review educational arrangements in Inner London before 1970, which is imposed on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the London Government Act, 1963.
"In the meantime it is essential that local authorities in the Greater London Area should work closely together to co-ordinate the operation of the social services, and particularly the children's service."
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, when one remembers the many statements made by the Leader of the House (I am sorry he is not here at the present

1099
moment), and others in the Party opposite, as to what changes they would definitely make in the London Government Act if they came into power, this is indeed an astonishing Statement. It uses a great many words to seek to justify the fact that this is another instance of the Party opposite eating words uttered before they came into power. I am not seeking to dispute the Tightness of their conclusion, and I certainly welcome the statement that they will now do their utmost to ensure the success of the new system.
I am puzzled about one passage in the Statement. It says that the Government
"propose to keep the working of the Act under review."
Then, a little later, the noble Lord, quoting the words of his right honourable friend, said:
"In particular, we shall reconsider the requirement to review educational arrangements in Inner London before 1970 … "
May I ask him what that means? There is the requirement to review those arrangements before 1970. To reconsider that requirement would appear at least to indicate the possibility of introducing legislation to dispense with it. That does not seem to me to accord very well with the general statement that they will keep the working of this Act under review. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will explain what is meant by those words.
I, too, endorse the concluding paragraph of the Statement where the Minister of Housing has said:
"… it is essential that local authorities in the Greater London Area should work closely together to co-ordinate the operation of the social services and particularly the children's service."
We always recognised that as being essential under the provisions of the Bill we introduced.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is in favour of co-operation in this matter. It is indeed seriously needed, and it should be the concern of all who have the children's service at heart. I am a little surprised that he is surprised. I think he must have missed the second sentence of the Statement which I made, and I will read it out again:
1100
"Our initial reservations about the London Government Act remain, but our return to office came too late to allow us to reshape the new system in any material way."
If the noble and learned Viscount will look at the statements made at the time by various members of my Party he will find that they all contained, I think, a reservation that they would not attempt to do what was impracticable. Even if they did not, I should have thought that was obvious and would be well understood by everyone concerned.
As to the last paragraph, I am not here to add to anything that my right honourable friend has said (or is saying) in another place, but I took the statement to mean that he would keep this matter under constant review, as the usual phrase goes, and would re-examine it in that sense. It seems to me unwise to preclude a Minister charged with these very grave responsibilities in the matter of London Government from examining any side of it. It was a single sentence. I so understood it; I may have been wrong—I do not know—but I will gladly, if the noble and learned Viscount wishes, pass the question on to my right honourable friend and ask him to let the noble Viscount have an answer. I have given him my own reading.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord is in some difficulty in explaining what is meant by a sentence spoken by his right honourable friend in another place. I should be grateful if he would take steps to find out exactly what is meant and inform us of the precise meaning. Having said that the whole operation will be kept under review—and, of course, any Government would keep the operation of the Act relating to local government under review—he then apparently picks out this requirement to review before 1970 as something special, and says that that requirement will be reconsidered. It does not seem to me to follow. I may have missed something and I will not pursue it. But I hope the noble Lord will take that step.
In regard to the noble Lord's remark about the second sentence, that any pledge given was conditional on the practicability of the fulfilment of the pledge, may we take it that the same applied to a pledge given with regard to the reduction of mortgage interest rates?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may say so, that is really, to the noble and learned Viscount's own knowledge, an entirely different matter. On the first point, I would thank him for his courteous understanding of the position in which I find myself over this matter, and I will ask my right honourable and learned friend whether he can add anything to what he said. Personally—and I am speaking only personally—I have not much doubt about the meaning, which I gave to the noble and learned Viscount, but he well knows that one can read things which appear clear to one person and less clear to another.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, many of your Lordships who remember the passage of the London Government Bill through this House will understand exactly what I mean when I say that this Statement to-day has given me the most profound satisfaction and also caused me a considerable amount of amusement. I had to bear the brunt of the then Opposition's attack because of the provisions in the Bill which concentrated all the personal services in the London boroughs—opposition, which was very often ferocious, led by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House (I can well understand why he was not here to listen to this Statement), and nobly supported by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Now, so far as I understand the Statement, there is complete vindication of what we put into the Bill. My satisfaction is profound.
LORD LINDGREN: It is Hobson's choice.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I be allowed to read, for the third time, the second sentence of the Statement I read out? It says:
"Our initial reservations about the London Government Act remain, but our return to office came too late to allow us to reshape the new system in any material way."
That is what the: Statement says. It indicates no change of attitude at all, except that that which might have been practicable if there had been an earlier Election became impracticable when the Election, for certain reasons, was postponed till October.
LORD NEWTON: Let me say this, my Lords. It is very difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to justify his
1102
Statement, because he was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time the London Government Bill passed through it.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may one who was a Member at that time interject to say that I was one of those who offered to rescind the original measure. But we were expecting that the Government would go to the country at a reasonable hour and not wait until we were faced with a fait accompli.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Viscount who spoke for the Opposition expressed some surprise at the Statement which has now been read. I express surprise that he dared to speak in the kind of way he did. His Government clung to office until the very last moment. When certain statements were made in this House and in another place, it was thought that there would be a General Election at a much earlier date than when it actually occurred. But the Government of which the noble Viscount was a Member stayed in office until the last moment, and to expect the Government which has succeeded it in those circumstances to make changes in the very complicated matter of the government of London and of Greater London is an unreasonable and a Party point which no responsible speaker for a Party ought to make in this House. I am saying this because the criticism which has been made from the Front Bench and elsewhere on the other side of the House has been dealt with on this side with great reasonableness, moderation and caution; and charges of the kind which have been made from the Opposition require to be met with the kind of language which the noble Viscount used.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, may I suggest, as there is no Motion before the House, that we are now going into a debate, which I think is quite unreasonable. There will be ample opportunity to put down a Motion on this matter if it is felt desirable, but I think that we should now resume the debate on the Dogs Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, before that happens, I think, in view of what has just been said, that I ought to say this. I was just rising to my feet to say that we are not debating when the

1103
date of the Election was, and if the noble Lord thought it right to deliver an attack upon me I do not propose to answer him or to reply to it. I do not think it is worthy of him. All I do say to the noble Lord is that I understand quite clearly from him that there is no prospect now held by the Government of making any changes. They do not propose to make any changes at all, despite what they said, in the terms of the London Government Act until they have seen how it works in operation. That I welcome.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I just add one word in conclusion? The first sentence used by Mr. Michael Stewart, who was then attending to these matters from the Opposition Front Bench in another place—true, it was said at a Press conference but it will serve—was this:
"What we do is bound to be governed by the date at which we come into power."
That was said as long ago as March, 1963. I feel confident that my right honourable friend will exercise the same foresight in managing our foreign relations as he showed in another sphere by that sentence at that time.

DOGS BILL [H.L.]
3.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, to come back to the somewhat quieter subject of dogs, there will be few of your Lordships who do not sympathise with, and approve of, the object of this Bill. Nobody will deny the necessity for some sort of action to remedy the nuisance, which grows rather than diminishes as years go by. My one uncertainty relates to the probable effectiveness of the noble Lord's proposals for meeting this problem. Can they be enforced? I am reminded of a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—he is not here now—who said in a debate on dogs which we had a few years ago:
"What is the good of cluttering up our Statute Book with enactments that are not enforced or cannot be enforced?"
Does the noble Lord opposite feel that an overworked and undermanned police force will take note of, let alone take action against, an offence of this nature?
1104
The answer to the problem, as I see it, is something very different. I think the answer is drastically to reduce the number of dogs in London and other big towns and cities. The way to reduce that number is to put on a whacking great licence fee for all dogs so kept. The current 7s. 6d. dog licence, which, as your Lordships know, dates from somewhere about 1878, long before most of us were born, is in any case grossly inadequate, besides being notoriously evaded by all and sundry. But bring in a law requiring all residents who own and keep their dogs in London, or other big towns and cities, to pay on January 1 each year a sum of, say, £3—I very nearly said £4 or £5—for which they will be given a tag to be attached to the dog's collar showing that that £3 licence has been paid, and you may then see a considerable reduction in the urban dog population.
In any case, generally speaking, dogs have a pretty miserable existence in London and big cities and, as a dog lover, which most of your Lordships are, I should like to see them banished from towns altogether. So while I admire the public-spirited action of the noble Lord opposite, and congratulate him on the efforts he is making to clear up the streets, I am not enthusiastic about the particular proposals he makes. Nevertheless, I will not oppose the Second Reading.
3.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should just like to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on his Amendment. I consider that this Bill is quite unnecessary and impracticable. Clause l (1) (a) is unnecessary because, as we have already heard, this matter is already covered by existing by-laws. For instance, there is the shepherd driving his sheep into market. He cannot help it if his dog fouls a pavement or, for that matter, if a sheep fouls a pavement, and, if you are going to have him up because his dog fouls the pavement, to be practicable you should also have him up if his sheep fouls the pavement. Under the by-laws, of course, the man is had up only if he is proved to have been really blameworthy, but under the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, he is blameworthy in any event, so far as I can see.
I should just like to point to paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1), where the whole Bill

1105
falls down: it falls down on the word "adjoining". What is the legal definition of the word "adjoining"? How far have you got to be from an object before you cease to be adjoining? For instance, have you to be 100 feet, 100 yards or 100 miles'? We talk about England adjoining Ireland, but I am in England and if another human being is in Ireland I am not adjoining that human being. So it would appear that the word "adjoining" depends to a certain extent on the size of the objects said to be adjoining. Therefore, until we have a proper definition of the word "adjoining" in this Bill, where it occurs in the phrase
"a public open space adjoining any such footway"—
in other words, any public place adjoining where the lamp-posts are not more than 200 yards apart—it might mean anything. It might mean a public open space miles away. To me, it is nonsense.
However, I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Ailwyn, who said that all dogs in our urban areas should be done away with. We have in urban areas over a million people who own dogs, and a great number of these people are widowers or spinsters. They are lonely people, and a dog is a great comfort to them. I really cannot agree with my noble friend there. You also have the question of guide dogs for the blind. It would be monstrous if, under this Bill, a blind person should be "had up" if his dog fouls the pavement. It would be quite impracticable.
I should like to make just one further point about Clause 2. I think the police or requisite authority ought to allow three weeks for the claiming of a dog; and they ought not to be allowed, if the dog is not claimed, or if it cannot go to a responsible person, to send the dog to be used for research purposes. It ought to be humanely destroyed. I say that—it may seem sentimental—because there are establishments in this country that breed dogs for the purpose of research; and if you take a stray dog that may have come—presumably has come—from a home where it has been a pet and send it for research, then in my opinion it will suffer more than a dog which has been brought up in the impersonal atmosphere of a big kennel. My Lords, I will end by saying that I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill if it goes to a vote, as I
1106
presume it will. Therefore, I heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his Amendment.
4.3 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? Perhaps I should declare an interest, because I am the master of a pack of foxhounds, and, were I to take twenty couple to a meet in a neighbouring town, and if the stars in their courses should fight against me, by a simple process of arithmetic I might find myself liable to a fine of £200. Many noble Lords have already gone into this matter in a good deal of detail, and I do not propose to refer to that part of the Bill, the central part, which refers to the lamp-post, although I should have thought that common usage over the centuries would perhaps have given our canine friends a certain right, and that they should be allowed to exercise it in this way.
But I think that both the noble Lord who has proposed the Second Reading of this Bill and the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment have one point very much in common. What we should like to see stopped is the deliberate fouling of the pavements. With a dog that is out on its own—and dogs will always have their walks on their own—I do not think it is reasonable to expect that it can be stopped: because it is careful enough to avoid being killed by traffic. But this sort of thing has happened, and will continue so long as we have dogs. But what I think annoys us all very much is to see someone, with a dog on a lead, hopefully looking into a shop window while his pet fouls the sidewalk. It is in this sort of case that action should be taken. Instead of "yo-yoing" it straight into the gutter, they just stand there looking into the shop window. This, I feel, is the centre of the problem. It is not a matter for a Bill in your Lordships' House, but is more properly dealt with in by-laws made by the local government authorities in the various districts concerned.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I remind the noble Marquess that the second time it happened it would not be £200 but might be £800?
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: That seems to be a good point for the anti-blood sports people.
4.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I might also remind the noble Marquess that, under the terms of this Bill, the fact that he was hunting his pack, presumably, in a rural area would by no means guarantee immunity: it would almost certainly be in an area which was governed by this Bill. Apart from the somewhat equivocal support from the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, I think that every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate so far has spoken against the Bill, and I do not propose to disturb that unanimity. Not only do I speak on my own behalf, as this is a Private Member's Bill, but I also think it right to give some indication of the Government's attitude.
I always enjoy listening to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. There is a sonorous quality in his delivery which has something of a musical appeal, and his arguments also appeal to the intellect. But on this occasion, sadly, while the music was as attractive as ever, the words, it seemed to me, were almost an affront, not only to dog owners and to dogs, but to the intelligence. I strongly support the arguments which were advanced by my noble friend Lord Silkin in moving his Amendment, and, indeed, most of what has been said by other noble Lords during the debate; because where the Bill's proposals are not virtually impossible of enforcement, they are either quite unnecessary or so ill-conceived as to cause positive hardship.
No-one disputes—and this point was made many times during the debate—that the fouling of footways by dogs is a nuisance, and that any reasonable measure to reduce that nuisance is worthy of support. As my noble friend Lord Silkin made quite clear, county councils and borough councils already have powers under Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933, to make by-laws for the suppression of nuisances. And, indeed (and this has not been made clear during the debate), a great many local authorities have made bylaws which make it an offence to permit a dog to foul the footway of any street or public place.
This is the most convenient and, in fact, almost the only appropriate way
1108
of dealing with nuisances of this kind, because local authorities, with knowledge of their own areas, are in a better position than anyone else to deal with this sort of nuisance in the areas for which they have responsibility. My Department has a model by-law, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred, which provides that no person in charge of a dog shall allow that dog to foul the footway of any street or public place; and the by-law includes other provisions, including that of a fine not exceeding £5.
My Lords, as one would expect, by-laws on this subject are difficult to enforce, because the offences usually occur when there are no witnesses and it is not possible to trace the offenders. The duty of enforcement rests mainly with the local authority, and our experience shows that these by-laws are effective only in those areas where the local authorities have taken active steps to enforce them and to continue to give publicity to them. Whatever we did about this Bill, that would still be true; and without the active cooperation of the local authorities nothing we did would have any effect. There will be no advantage whatever in the Bill's proposal to make a kind of national rule, because local authorities will be energetic in enforcing such a rule only if there is a proved local need. I would point out that there is a major difference between existing arrangements regarding the fouling of footways of streets or public places and the proposal in Clause 1 of my noble friend's Bill. The Bill not only defines the footway as any highway where there is a system of street lighting with lamps not more than 200 yards apart but it enlarges the area of possible offence to include any open space adjoining such footways.
I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch say that at one time when he was far away from any habitation his constant companion was a dog. When I read the Bill I thought that that might not be the case. I do not know how far away from human habitation he was, or where the place was; but I can think of many places in this country—the New Forest, for example—far away from human habitation, in which it would become an offence under his Bill for him to exercise his dog. There are many urban areas where the street lamps are not more than 30 yards apart

1109
—which from the viewpoint of a dog is ideal—but the 200-yards provision would include in the area many lighted highways far beyond the built-up areas. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, mentioned, the term "public open spaces" would also include all parks, commons and other open spaces, as well as the grass verges and small greens set in the midst of streets, all of which are often the only places in urban areas where dogs may be exercised without nuisance to pedestrians and without causing danger to traffic.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, raised the point of the meaning of the term "adjoining". I live at the top of Highgate Hill, with a choice of open spaces within 200 or 300 yards. I would assure him that they are so "adjoining" the streets, with street lamps every 30 yards, that one has only to take a single step from the highway to be in the public park or open space. And I can assure your Lordships that, despite the difficulties which some noble Lords appear to experience, when I take my dog for a walk he exercises what I can only call a noble restraint in passing the area of lamp-posts at 25-yard intervals and then does whatever is necessary in the adjoining place, out of sight and without harm to anyone, as soon as we get to the nearest public open space. Under my noble friend's Bill, this would be an offence. A few days ago I travelled by night from Highgate, where I live, into Surrey. I took particular notice of how far I had to travel before the street lights ended. It was 22 miles. If this Bill were accepted, dog owners in London would have to hire helicopters if they would legally exercise their dogs.
I mentioned that the power of enforcing by-laws is exercised mainly by the local authorities; although, of course, the police can take action if they wish. But the Bill now before us proposes general legislation, which means that the duty of enforcement would be transferred to the police. This, apparently, is the intention of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. But, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has made clear, this would certainly not be welcomed by the police; and it would be contrary to the views expressed by the Royal Commission, and by all of us, against unnecessary increase in the duties of the police. It would be par-
1110
ticularly undesirable at present because of the shortage of manpower, and it cannot reasonably be expected that the police should prosecute for provisions of this kind designed to preserve public amenities.
I do not subscribe to the view that this matter is beneath the notice of your Lordships' House. I do not agree that the subject is unworthy of your attention, but I do say that it is intolerable to foist on to the police duties of this kind, when we are all too painfully aware that their numbers are too few to cope with the ever-mounting duties they have to perform in the way we and they would like. It is notable that local authorities are required to enforce the Litter Act, and it is right that responsibility for the enforcement of analogous legislation should also be left with them.
In Clause 2 of his Bill my noble friend deals with dogs that may be found wandering. It covers the same ground as Section 3 of the Dogs Act, 1906, but very much less adequately. I do not want to read out the whole of it, but Section 3 of the 1906 Act contains ten subsections and it sets out in most satisfactory detail what has to be done with regard to stray dogs. This has worked very well for nearly sixty years and I am at a loss to know why Clause 2 should have been put in the Bill at all, particularly as it lacks many of the safeguards of the 1906 Act and contains some differences of substance affecting the police.
For example, Clause 2 of my noble friend's Bill is not limited, as it should be, to dogs found in highways or places of public resort. It also requires dogs to be kept for fourteen days before destruction or disposal, compared with seven days in the 1906 Act. This would unnecessarily increase the trouble and expense to which the police are put in dealing with stray dogs. That may not be my noble friend's intention, because he does not provide in his Bill that the dogs should be properly fed and maintained during the fourteen days.
Then, under the 1906 Act the owner cannot have his dog back until he has paid the police expenses. That is a very simple procedure. But under my noble friend's proposals the owner could claim his dog as of right, without having first to pay the police expenses. That would

1111
leave the police with the onus of recovering the expenses as a civil debt. In fact, my Lords, Clause 2 of the Bill adds nothing useful to the provisions of the 1906 Act.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, on this point is it not also true that this Bill does not even say that if the owner's name and address is on the dog collar the police must inform him before destroying the dog if it is not claimed within the fourteen days?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is another omission. Those of your Lordships who are interested should read Section 3 of the 1906 Act which contains ten very comprehensive and sensible provisions, not only to ensure that the owners should be able to claim their dogs but also for the protection of the dog while in custody. Very little has been said in this debate about the proper protection and care of the dog. There seems to have been a general assumption that the dog is to be regarded as an offender; and that is something I completely reject.
There are many other objections to this extraordinary Bill, including, as my noble friend Lord Silkin mentioned, the hardship likely to be suffered by elderly, blind or disabled people, who depend very much on their dogs, as well as by the great majority of the 2 million dog owners in this country to whom their dogs are personal friends which they treasure very highly. If the Bill were passed, it would inflict hardship on the whole community of law-abiding dog owners and well-behaved dogs. I appreciate my noble friend's motives, but I hope he will accept that his proposals for furthering those very laudable motives would create serious difficulties. I think it has been made clear during the debate that to a large extent his Bill duplicates existing powers, which work reasonably well. Where he seeks to add to those powers he has failed to show that a need exists. But the greatest objection to the Bill is that if it were enacted we should be putting on the Statute Book legislation which was unnecessary, unreasonable and virtually unenforceable. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will decide to withdraw the Bill. But if he is not willing to do that, I would ask your Lordships to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin.
4.22 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, experience of more than fifty years of public life has taught me that arguments in favour of the status quo can always be produced with great facility. It does not really matter whether they are consistent or otherwise. My noble friend Lord Stonham and other noble Lords who have spoken have said that these proposals are not enforceable. At the same time, my noble friend speaks for the Home Office, which is the body which sanctions and approves by-laws made by local authorities which, in substance, are very much the same as the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill. If the Home Office is engaged, time after time, in approving by-laws which are useless and unenforceable, I feel very much surprised.
The truth of the matter is that they are not unenforceable. It is merely that people do not take the trouble, where by-laws exist, to enforce them. I am suggesting, in all humility, to your Lordships that this is a very undesirable state of affairs. If the local authorities who make the by-laws do not choose to enforce them, then it would be better if we had some public legislation which could be enforced by the police. I am told that the police are very busy and over-strained. In very many cases, that may be true. But are we going to have a holiday from all legislation which requires enforcement procedure by the police? Have we had such a holiday in recent years, and are we likely to have it in the future? I shall be very surprised, indeed, if that happens. It is a convenient argument to use in detail against some particular piece of legislation, but it is not an overriding reason.
I am sorry that local authorities make these by-laws and do not enforce them. I think it is extremely reprehensible. But there is a considerable amount of public uneasiness in this matter. As I have told your Lordships, I have received many complaints from all over this country. This is not a laughing matter; it is quite a serious matter. Nor is it true that this is a proposal which is going to inflict hardship or inconvenience upon old people and blind people. Guide dogs for the blind, I may point out to your Lordships, are so carefully trained that without any guidance or control by their owners they take to the gutter when they

1113
want to relieve themselves. It is part of their training. They do not have to be instructed by their owners; they are already instructed. And all of us who have dogs can easily guide them to do the same thing. There is not any real difficulty about it.
The only difficulty is to get provisions which will safeguard the streets passed and put into operation. I do not want to detain your Lordships very long. It may be that there are details in this Bill which are capable of improvement. I should be the last person to suggest that there were not, and few noble Lords who have introduced a Private Member's Bill have not been faced with the difficulty that the ingenuity of whatever Government Department is concerned has found something which it considers to be capable of improvement. That I am always willing to listen to, and I hope that I shall pay heed to any constructive criticism. But for anybody to say that these provisions cannot be enforced is to say that it is perfectly useless to have any by-laws at all and that they ought to be repealed. That is the logical consequence of it. I do not accept this.
As to the question of manpower, some noble Lords have said that this proposal is going to be solved by having the streets swept more frequently. I wonder how much more frequently. Where I live, the streets are swept every day. Are they going to be swept two or three times a day, and is that a means of conserving manpower? Surely this is an argument which cannot hold water. It is only a minority of owners—quite a handful—who are responsible for this trouble, and who let their dogs out every day or deliberately take them along the street and do not attempt to guide them to any place where offence would not be caused. To say that it will cause the employment of a great deal of manpower in order to cope with it is not at all correct. Anybody who has studied it knows that this is not so. Neither is it correct to say that dogs cannot be trained and controlled by their owners. In my opening speech, I referred to the National Dog Owners' Association, which has devoted itself for years past to explaining to the owners of dogs how they can train their dogs so that they will be obedient and conform to what is required. There is no real difficulty about this at all. I am sorry that points of that kind should be raised. Points of a constructive
1114
character suggesting amendment to the Bill I should always be delighted to accede to, but to say that, in principle, this is a thing with which we cannot cope, I cannot accept for a single moment.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had hoped that after the numerous and devastating speeches that have been made on both sides of the House, but principally on the other side, against this Bill, my noble friend would see that discretion is the better part of valour and would withdraw the Bill. Apparently, he is not willing to do so. I have the last word, but I do not think I need to say much.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that by-laws have been ineffective or have not been acted on. He makes some play with the fact that the Home Office approves these by-laws. I, myself, took the view that these by-laws were unenforceable. One would expect them to be unenforceable, and, speaking for myself, I am sorry that the Home Office have approved these by-laws which are not enforceable. But that is no reason why we should go further, bring in the police and do something which is even more unenforceable.
Most of the difficulty of which my noble friend complains takes place in the course of exercising dogs, and dogs are exercised mainly early in the morning or late at night, or on Sunday. If my noble friend goes to any of the parks—Kensington Gardens or Hyde Park—on a Sunday morning, he will see hundreds and hundreds of dogs being exercised, giving joy not only to the dogs, but to their owners. It is true that on those occasions if we had an army of policemen they might exercise some control. But how one can expect the police to be on duty early in the morning and late at night to supervise the activities of dogs is quite beyond me; and moreover those are just the times when they are needed for other purposes. So I base my case largely on the fact that this Bill will be unenforceable, as has been demonstrated by the fact that the by-laws are unenforceable.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, referred to the desirability of reducing the number of dogs.
LORD AILWYN: In London.
LORD SILKIN: In London or anywhere else. Dogs are a great comfort

1115
and pleasure to most people who own them, and it would be a great pity if we decided to reduce their number. But, in any case, to reduce the number by imposing a higher tax seems to me to be quite the wrong way to do it, because what you are then doing is penalising people who by and large are not able to pay this extra tax. It is mostly the poor people who enjoy the company of dogs and who need their companionship. To say that those people must be deprived of their dogs or made to pay a heavier tax, so causing them great sacrifice and hardship, is, I think, quite wrong. Indeed, I would go the other way. There are some cases where I would relieve people altogether of taxation in this respect. The old-age pensioner, who in many cases relies so much on his dog, and others of that kind, to whom even a 7s. 6d. tax is something of a hardship, I would relieve altogether of the obligation to pay this tax. Be that as it may, I think that the case has been fully made out against this Bill, and I hope the House will have the good sense to vote against it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I am well aware that to divert your Lordships' attention from the excitement of a dog's life to the humdrum routine of a solicitor's life must necessarily be something of an anticlimax. Yet I must do this, because the professional life of solicitors is largely governed by statutory provisions, and as conditions change, so it is necessary from time to time to invite Parliament to change the legislative framework to keep pace with the social changes that are going on all the time. That is really what I am inviting your Lordships to do this afternoon. The last time your Lordships had an opportunity of considering the case of solicitors was nine years ago, in 1956. That Bill was followed by a Consolidation Act in the following year, 1957. Apart from one quite trifling amendment in 1959, there has
1116
been no legislation since 1957. Therefore, it is necessary to ask your Lordships, if I may put it in this way, to bring the law up to dale.
May I say one word about the drafting of this Bill? It looks longer than it really is. The reason for this is that instead of merely trying to insert a phrase here or a phrase there into the Consolidation Act, we have, so far as possible, in drafting the Bill, where we have amended a section, repealed the section and re-enacted it as amended. That may make the Bill a little longer, but it makes it much easier to construe in years to come; and I hope your Lordships will feel that the solicitors have set a virtuous example in this respect.
I should like to say how grateful I am to have the countenance of the presence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, his predecessor, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning; and I hope that before the proceedings have finished the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, the Lord Chief Justice of England, will be here, too. The holders of these three great offices of State bulk largely in this Bill, and I should like to thank them not only for being present here to-day but also for the help which solicitors have had from them in the past. During the 28 years that I was a member of the Council of the Law Society, with my colleagues and members of the staff, I must have had innumerable meetings with the holders of these great offices. I cannot pretend that I always came away from those encounters with a feeling of unqualified satisfaction, but, none the less, we knew that we should have sympathetic and understanding treatment; and we have always had it.
I think this Bill can most conveniently be considered as dealing with five separate matters, as follows: education and training; the Compensation Fund; certain preventive provisions; certain provisions about the Disciplinary Committee; and certain consequential and procedural matters. I believe it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal with them in that way.
Education and training is just as important for solicitors as it is for dogs—in fact, more important. One of the great difficulties one has is to combine

1117
—and this applies not only to the solicitors' profession but, I think, to all professions—a general education with the necessary vocational or professional training, and to decide how within the scope of that vocational training one can best combine the academic and practical elements which, certainly so far as solicitors are concerned, there must be. After all, for a solicitor it is not sufficient only to know the law; he must also know what to do and how to do it. All these things have somehow or other to be combined, and the training has to be finished, let us say, at least before the student reaches middle age. The gap between biological and technical maturity is already too great to-day, and it is something that we must always recognise.
The system of training for solicitors is changing quite fast It is very different from what it was when I was articled, which was 50 years ago this year. Then the normal system was fairly standardised. You had to have a certain educational standard. You served five-years articles, which could be reduced to four years for certain things. You passed an intermediate examination at the end of the first year, and then a final examination at about the end of your articles. If you had a degree from a university, then the period of articles was reduced to three years; and if you had a law degree, you got exemption from the intermediate examination as well. But these exemptions were the exception in those days, and the five years' period of articles was the rule. There were no Government grants then, of course. You had to pay a premium to your principal to be allowed to serve in. his office, and there was no sort of pay while you were serving under articles.
Things are very different to-day. Social changes have led to what is really quite a new system. Sixty per cent. of the entrants to-day come with university degrees and, therefore, serve no more—though sometimes they serve less—than three years. Very few solicitors ask for a premium in these days; that is a dying custom. Most solicitors pay their articled clerks during their period of service. The Intermediate Examination has been abolished and has been replaced by the division of the Final Examination into two parts: the first, a general examination in the law from which a university law degree exempts, and then the second
1118
part, a specialised examination with a wide choice of specialised subjects. Then there is attendance at law school.
The result of all this is that it is possible to get through to-day with only two to two and a half years' practical experience. In almost all cases the newly admitted solicitor needs, and usually gets, further practical experience as an employee before being really fit to practise on his own or to become a partner. Although he is still called an articled clerk, the articled clerk is rapidly becoming a different kind of animal from what he was when I was an articled clerk. His life really is divided into three parts: first of all, his academic life; secondly, his practical and vocational training with some kind of pay, and thirdly, the further experience he gets after qualification at a higher rate of pay. I think the Law Society are to be congratulated on the adaptations that have already been made to these rapid changes. But much more remains to be done, and I believe it is necessary to proceed experimentally step by step.
I do not believe we shall get the right final answer all in one move. Here, the Law Society and the profession are handicapped by the fact that the legislative system governing the training of articled clerks for their examination is a mixture of Statute and regulation. Some of the items can be dealt with by regulation made by the Law Society (with the approval, of course, of the three Judges I have mentioned). Some of the changes would require the Law Society to come back to Parliament from time to time and ask for changes in the Statute law.
The first change, therefore, that is being asked for by the Bill—and I suggest to your Lordships it is a reasonable and constructive one—is that all these matters might be dealt with by regulation instead of partly by regulation and partly by Statute. That covers the first three clauses of the Bill and, with it, Clause 6 (1) (a) and (b), which deals with the conditions which the Law Society can attach to a practising certificate given to a young man who has had only two or two and a half years' actual experience in an office.
Looking at Clause 6 (1) (a) and (b), I am not quite happy about the drafting of it. I think it may be construed as authorising the Law Society as registrar

1119
to refuse a certificate altogether. That would be unnecessary, and going too far. If it has that meaning, then it should be amended, and if your Lordships are good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill then perhaps we could deal with that on a later occasion. That is what I wanted to say in justification of the clauses about education and training in this Bill.
The second item is the Compensation Fund. The Compensation Fund, as your Lordships know, is a voluntary fund established by the solicitors' profession, contributed to by solicitors, out of which compensation is paid to the victims of those very rare but very sad cases where solicitors defraud their clients. It is called a Compensation Fund because it is for compensation. It is a discretionary fund. There is no legal right to make a claim upon it. We have never called it an indemnity fund, but in fact all admitted claims have been paid. The money comes from a contribution of £10 a year from every practising member of the profession, and that has proved adequate over the years to meet the ordinary run of claims. But the Fund, I must admit, has had some very narrow escapes with the big, rare, deliberate, frauds which sometimes take place.
The great problem which has been exercising the Law Society is what is the best way of building up a reserve which would meet those big cases. Should one increase the normal contribution of £10? How can one tell what the increase should be? It may be too big, in which case too big a fund would be built up. It may be too small, in which case your problem would remain unsolved. No actuarial computation is possible with regard to claims upon this Fund.
Therefore, the proposal hit upon by the Law Society, and included in this Bill, is that the present contribution payable by everyone should not be changed, but that there should be a right on the part of the Law Society to make a levy on every solicitor, with certain exceptions, of a maximum of £50 in any one year. There would be no levy made in the case of a solicitor who does not handle clients' money, such as an employed solicitor, a local authority solicitor, or a Government Department solicitor. There would be no levy made for the first three years of
1120
a solicitor's life, and the levy for the next three years would be only half the normal rate. May I say that this is only, so to speak, a reserve power. There is No 1ntention of making such a levy at all if it can be avoided. There is certainly No 1ntention of making any sort of annual levy. In fact, if things go on in the future as they have in the past, it should not be necessary to make this levy at all. It is merely putting the whole resources of the profession behind the Compensation Fund as a reserve.
I am glad to tell your Lordships that this proposal has the very strong support of the profession. The idea was circulated to the provincial Law Societies nearly a year ago. They have had ample opportunity to consider it. They did consider it, and discuss it, with representatives of the Law Society at a conference held last summer, and the only amendment they suggested was this: whereas the Law Society had originally suggested a maximum of £40, the rank and file of the profession thought it was better and safer to increase that limit to £50. I can assure your Lordships that this proposal has the overwhelming support of the profession, after the profession had an opportunity of considering it thoroughly. Having got this reserve, if your Lordships will give it to us, it is felt that a long-desired extension of the type of case that could be met out of the Compensation Fund is now feasible: that is. the case of a person who suffers loss, not because of any actual fraud or dishonesty on the part of a solicitor, but because of undue and unexplained delay. Clause 16 of the Bill includes that as an additional category. Again I think it may be necessary to look at the drafting of that clause when we come to a later stage of the Bill, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading to-day.
I think I need say no more about the Compensation Fund, but may I say a few words about what I call the preventive provisions of the Bill? We have an elaborate code of discipline. We have the Disciplinary Committee; we have the Compensation Fund, to which I have already referred, but, what is far better than that, far better than either of those things, is to see whether one cannot prevent loss to clients arising at all. Of course, the Law Society over

1121
the years have been given by Parliament very wide powers of interference with solicitors, with the object of preventing loss from occurring, and in this Bill we have quite a number of clauses which carry a little further the existing powers of the Law Society in those respects. Most of these provisions, I think, are details of procedure and machinery of application for the issue of practising certificates and the conditions which may be attached to a practising certificate. Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 relate to practising certificates.
I think that I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to two specific points, particularly on Clause 5, which should be taken with Schedule 2. The Law Society have power at the present time to charge a maximum fee of £5 for the issue of a practising certificate, which is an annual certificate. It is proposed to increase that figure to a maximum of £20, the actual level to be approved from time to time by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. That may strike your Lordships as being a somewhat startling thing, but I have looked at the accounts of the Law Society, and at their budgets for the next five years, and I am afraid there is no doubt that some substantial increase in the certificate fee will be necessary. I do not think that £20 or anything like it, will be necessary. I doubt very much whether a case could be made, on application to the three Judges in question, time. That is merely a maximum.
In order to follow these points I think I must just tell your Lordships a little about the way the Law Society work. The functions of the Law Society apart from their statutory functions under the Legal Aid Scheme, are fourfold. First of all, there are statutory powers and duties, which are very onerous and very expensive; secondly, the law school and legal education generally; thirdly, activities on behalf of the profession as a whole, including, I may say, a great deal of public work in preparing evidence for Royal Commissions and departmental committees and other such bodies; and, fourthly (this is really quite a minor matter), the running of a club, with the usual club facilities, in London The expenditure
1122
of the Law Society covers those four different kinds of function.
The Law Society are, of course, incorporated by Royal Charter. Membership is voluntary, although the vast majority of solicitors in practice are, in fact, members. There is power under the 1957 Act, by order, to put compulsory membership into force with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, but that has never happened and I deeply hope that it never will. I think that voluntary membership is by far the best thing for everyone concerned.
The Society's income comes, first of all, from members' subscriptions; secondly, from examinations and law school fees; and, thirdly, from the fees for practising certificates and certain other documents. The club activities are meticulously paid for entirely out of members' subscriptions; and examination and law school fees go entirely towards legal education. All statutory duties, and the activities on behalf of the profession as ! a whole, have to be paid for out of the practising certificate fees. And much of the legal education, which is not self-supporting, has to be paid for in the same way.
I have told your Lordships that, as things stand at the moment, the Law Society will soon be running into a heavy deficit, so that an increase in this fee is inevitable. Which is the better way of doing it: to have to come to Parliament frequently, or to fix a maximum and leave the three Judges to decide from time to time what increase, if any, is necessary? I am pleading for the second course. There are many safeguards. Accounts have to be submitted to the Judges annually, and they have to be made available for inspection by any solicitor. One would have thought that the scrutiny of these three Judges was a sufficient safeguard. There is no public money involved here; we are dealing merely with payments to be made by solicitors.
The other matter I must mention to your Lordships, arising out of this clause, is the statutory provision which exists to-day about the division of the Law Society's income. Under Section 11 (2) of the 1957 Act it is provided that, of the £5 fee, 5s. should be applied to the

1123
Law Society's own use, and that the remainder should be applied:
"(a) in such manner and to such extent as the Society may consider necessary, towards the expenses of law schools provided or approved by the Society; and
(b) subject thereto, to such other purposes of this Act as the Society may think fit …".
Those words
"the expenses of law schools provided or approved by the Society;"
are not wide enough to-day to describe properly what the Law Society does in the matter of legal education. It would not cover, for example, the refresher courses run by the Society; special courses of lectures, or week-end courses, such as those which have been held on the Common Market and Common Market Law. It is proposed, therefore, to substitute the words
"the facilitating of the acquisition of legal knowledge".
That phraseology goes back to the actual wording contained in the Law Society's own Charter.
It is proposed also (and this perhaps needs a little more close attention) to abolish the statutory provision that only 5s. may be applied to the general purposes of the Society. Inevitably, in the nature of things, by far the largest part of the fee income must be absorbed in the statutory functions of the Law Society and legal education. Must one, every time there is a change in the level of contribution, do the arithmetic needed to secure that precisely 95 per cent. is spent in that way and only 5 per cent. for the general purposes of the Law Society? Here again the proposal is that the matter should be subject to the control of the three Judges. This is a very desirable safeguard, although I do not think it is a necessary one, because the record of the Law Society in public service and legal education is such that we would confidently claim that the Society can be well trusted by Parliament to make a proper division of their expenditure on their own account. But that is not asked for in this Bill. There is the safeguard that the three Judges should decide; and obviously it would be impossible to go to the three Judges and ask for an increase in the fees unless one were in a position to establish the purposes for which that increase was required and for which it would be spent.
1124
My Lords, there are a few other minor matters, in Clauses 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15, which are all extensions of the power of the Law Society to step into a solicitor's practice to prevent client losses. The clauses extend those cases where it has been found that there are certain gaps. I need not draw your Lordships' attention particularly to any of the provisions in these clauses, but if any noble Lord wishes me to explain them, either to-day or on some subsequent occasion, I shall, of course, be glad to do so. Clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 apply to a solicitor practising alone on whom some calamity falls, and they would enable the Law Society to do what the other partners, the surviving partners, of the solicitor would do if he were practising in partnership. Clause 12, for example, authorises the Law Society to take control of the practice on death. Clause 13 entitles the Law Society to work the clients' account before probate. Clause 14 enables the Law Society to step in where there has been no probate or administration taken out within three months. Clause 15 provides that a certain kind of freezing order should be treated as an act of bankruptcy.
The only two of those clauses I want to comment on are No. 14 and No. 15. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Senior Registrar in the Probate Division of the High Court does not think that Clause 14 is necessary; he believes that the matter could be dealt with under existing legislation, Section 162 of the Judicature Act. I would ask your Lordships' permission to reconsider that point before Committee stage and to speak further about it then. Clause 15, I must confess, gives me a certain amount of anxiety myself. Whenever you step in to do something for the clients you run the risk of being unjust to the solicitor. And here the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out that we are making something an act of bankruptcy which does not necessarily imply the existence of a debt, still less an unpaid debt, and it may be that there one is being unfair to the solicitor. Again, I should like to have an opportunity of reconsidering that before the next stage, but my present inclination is to ask your Lordships to omit that clause from the Bill.
The fifth matter—and I am coming very nearly to the end—is that there are

1125
certain points about the Disciplinary Committee. I think Clauses 20, 21 and 24 are those I should mention. First of all Clause 20. The quorum is three, and this clause proposes that if one of the three is absent, as may very well happen—a provincial solicitor coming from the North, held up by snow or fog or illness—then the other two should be entitled to say to the parties, "Do both of you want to go on or do you prefer to wait until our third colleague can be here?" This is entirely for the benefit of the parties to the litigation, who may have their witnesses, documents, counsel, solicitors and everybody necessary there.
There was, I am bound to tell your Lordships, a clause dealing with this subject in the 1956 Bill which was rejected in another place. There the matter was dealt with differently because it enabled the Disciplinary Committee to say, "We are going on hearing this with only two, unless either of the parties objects". That is a much more embarrassing statement, I think your Lordships will agree, to be put to an advocate than the statement proposed to be put under the clause as drafted in this Bill.
Clauses 21 and 24 say that an application to reinstate a solicitor who has been struck off or suspended may be heard by the Disciplinary Committee, with an appeal to the Master of the Rolls, instead of its being made directly to the Master of the Rolls as is the case under the present law; and I believe the Master of the Rolls sees no particular objection to the use of that procedure.
That is all I have to lay before your Lordships upon the Bill as it stands, but there is one final matter I think I ought to mention. That is a decision which has recently been come to in your Lordships' House, sitting in its Judicial capacity, in the matter of Brown v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. That in form was a tax case and it came from Scotland; but, none the less, in spite of those two disadvantages it has led to a decision which is binding on all solicitors everywhere. It is a very awkward decision, I am bound to tell your Lordships, because, while entirely accepting the decision of the House of Lords in its Judicial capacity, the profession is in this position: that it cannot carry out the law. It is not practicable to carry out the law. As things stand, there is an impasse: the law says do one thing; practice says that
1126
it is impossible to do it. It arises out of the question of what is to be done with interest earned at the bank on clients' money held in the clients' account if it is put on deposit and earns interest.
I should like to pray in aid what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Upjohn, said about this matter in the course of his Opinion:
"I reach this conclusion with some regret. The practice whereby a solicitor uses his clients' money, too small in individual amounts or held for too short a time to make an individual investment worth while in the interest of the client, but which in the aggregate amounts to a large floating sum, to earn interest for him is an entirely innocent and common sense practice which harms no one and probably indirectly benefits the general body of clients."
Unfortunately, in view of what your Lordships' House was constrained to say, if interest is earned in those circumstances the most elaborate calculations must be made and the interest apportioned among the various interests. This is not practicable and I will ask your Lordships at a later stage to consider a clause which I hope will remove the impasse between a perfectly right decision, one which is accepted throughout the profession as right, and a perfectly impossible practical situation. It is a situation which certainly ought to be resolved, and I shall give your Lordships the opportunity of doing it at a later stage in the Bill. I am not going to keep your Lordships any longer. I hope that I have adequately explained the main provisions of this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.——(Lord Tangley.)
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, for the way in which he has expounded the provisions of this Bill. I must confess, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, it is not easy to perceive, just from reading it, what its effect will be. I fully appreciate that the way in which it has been drafted will make the task of consolidation very much more easy, and it is obviously drafted in that way in contemplation of the possibility that a Consolidation Act will follow shortly after this Bill reaches the Statute

1127
Book, as indeed happened in 1957. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may perhaps be able to say that the process of consolidation of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, with the 1957 Act can be, and will be, very speedily accomplished.
The Bill deals, as the noble Lord has made clear, with a wide variety of matters. But before I comment on any of those I should like to pay a tribute to the Law Society, who have the responsibility, subject to Parliament, for managing the affairs of solicitors, upon the way in which they have tackled these difficulties and are seeking to bring the law in relation to solicitors up to date, not only for the purpose of providing better training and education for the young man and facilitating learning of the expertise of the profession, but also, as this Bill proposes, for extending the benefits to the public and the security of clients of solicitors. I give my support, for what it is worth, to the provisions contained in the Bill. There are, however, one or two of them on which I should like to say a few words. I will deal, if I may, with the subjects in the same order as the noble Lord dealt with them.
He dealt first with education and training, and I think he made out an overwhelming case for replacing the present statutory conditions with regulations. Regulations permit of much more flexibility; they are far easier to change. I listened with interest to the noble Lord's observation—I cannot quote his words—when he said that he did not think that the right answer had yet quite been found. It is a continuous process. As new developments take place, as new burdens are cast upon lawyers by what happens in this House and in another place, so the process of education and the system of training must constantly be reviewed and brought up to date. I think that the provision of regulations instead of statutory conditions is an important change and will aid in that respect.
I have always been keen—I have said so on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House—on seeking to develop not only a modern but, so far as possible, a common system of education between the two branches of the profession, so that those who first became solicitors might, if they thought
1128
that the other branch was more suitable to their qualities, fairly easily have changed to that branch, and vice versa. I believe and trust that the replacement of these statutory conditions by regulations may perhaps help that, too, to be accomplished.
The noble Lord drew attention to the possible amendment of Clause 6, which he said might be construed as enabling the Law Society to refuse to grant a practising certificate. I cannot express any view upon that—I have not myself considered the point—but what I should like the noble Lord to do, if he is considering an amendment to that clause, is to consider another point in relation to it which gave me a little concern. Under that Clause 1t is possible to refuse the grant of a certificate without conditions not only on the first application of a newly-admitted solicitor, but on subsequent applications by him, if he has not held a practising certificate free of conditions since the date of his admission. That is Clause 6 (1) (b). I do not for a moment suggest that the Law Society would do it, but if I understand the matter correctly, year after year and for an indefinite period a newly-admitted solicitor might be refused a certificate free of conditions. I am sure that is not the intention and that that would not be done, but I believe it would be an improvement of this clause to insert some limiting period for the imposition of conditions of that kind in respect of the newly-admitted solicitor.
I am not suggesting that there should be any limit prescribed in the other cases to which that power applies, but I think the case made out for this in relation to newly-admitted solicitors was the fact that they can now manage to qualify in two and a half years; and that does not give them sufficient practical experience. I am sure that it is right and proper in their own interests to provide that they cannot act on their own and go into partnership immediately upon admission until they have had that practical experience, and I trust that it would be an improvement in this Clause 1f, when he comes to consider amendments, the noble Lord would put down a limit in relation to newly-admitted solicitors for the time during which the practising certificate must be subject to conditions. I hope

1129
that the noble Lord will not take my suggestion in any way amiss; it is put forward merely with a view to improving the Bill.
I turn to the Compensation Fund. Here again, I should like to pay a most sincere tribute to what the Law Society have done. I think they have set a great example to other professions which handle clients' money. It is a great thing that this Compensation Fund should be contributed to, and indeed be totally provided, by other members of the profession. On; naturally hopes that the claims upon it will always be few, and that in the course of years they will be reduced. But it is the fact, as I think a great many of us know, that unfortunately from time to time that fund has been called upon to meet, and has had to meet, substantial liabilities. I think it is most remarkable that the noble Lord is in a position to say that any admitted claims have been paid in full.
I do not think that any of your Lordships will take the slightest objection—at least, I trust net—to the Bill's containing this power to impose a levy to replenish that Fund should that necessity unfortunately arise. Again, I do not think that anyone would have anything but praise for the fact that the Law Society, on their own initiative, are coming forward with a proposal to extend a power to pay out of that fund where there has been a loss because of undue and unexplained delay upon the part of the solicitor. I do not propose to say much about the fee in relation to practising certificates. Quite clearly, the need for an increase of the fee has been made out, and I have no doubt that the Law Society will keep the fee as low as they possibly can having regard to their other commitments.
I should like now to turn to what the noble Lord referred to as "the preventive provisions". Again I have no doubt that they are fully warranted. On reading the Bill I felt somewhat concerned about the particular provisions in relation to the solicitor acting on his own—I refer to the provisions which apply in the event of his death and as to control of the solicitor's practice. On first reading of the Bill they look to be somewhat drastic; but then one realises that the only effect of what is provided for here is to make the Law Society, as you might say, the partner of
1130
the single solicitor at the moment of his death: and the automatic partner, the Law Society, then acts as a partner. I think that these provisions are right, fully justified and desirable in the public interest and in the interests of the clients of that solicitor.
I, too, felt considerable concern about Clause 15. Under paragraph 7 of the First Schedule, to which that Clause 1s tied, the High Court Judge is given a drastic power. Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
"The High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application of the Society, order that no payment shall be made without the leave of the High Court or a judge thereof by any banker named in the order out of any banking account in the name of the solicitor or his firm."
That is a drastic and a far-reaching power. I have no doubt that "the High Court or a judge thereof" would not exercise that power unless the case was a serious one and the need for its exercise was fully warranted. I must say that I fail to see why, if that power is exercised by the High Court, it should also be treated as constituting an act of bankruptcy, and. as the noble Lord has said, it may be without there being any insolvency on the part of the solicitor. So it was with some considerable relief thai I heard the noble Lord say that on the Committee stage he may move to omit that clause from the Bill. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything with regard to Clauses 21 to 24.
I should like to say one word about the final matter to which the noble Lord referred, the decision in Brown v. The Commissoners of Inland Revenue. He told us that is was not practicable to carry out the law as laid down in that case and that he would come forward with a proposal to relieve the impasse due to the present impossible, impracticable situation. I do not quite know what it is he has in mind. If it be to reverse the effect of that decision, I dare say that may prove to be a somewhat controversial clause, because there is at present a Bill before another place called the Clients Money Accounts Bill which applies to accountants, architects, auctioneers, business transfer agents, estate agents, travel agents and so on, and which, at a cursory glance, would seem to me to follow the line of the decision in Brown v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue in relation to those professions.

1131
I mention that Bill because perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, would wish to consider its provisions. I do not know how far it has got. It is a Private Member's Bill. But, obviously, any proposal to deal with that case is something which would have to be very carefully considered. But I hope that we shall be able to find a way, without arousing much controversy, in which a solution can be found to the problem to which the noble Lord has referred.
That is all I wish to say on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a good Bill, a thoroughly beneficial Bill, and, in my belief, a much more important Bill to a great many people than one would realise from reading what it contains for just the first time. I wish it well, and I congratulate the Law Society on its production. It must have necessitated a very great deal of work on the part of the Law Society's staff, and, to my mind, they have produced a Bill which we should do our best to assist in getting upon the Statute Book.
5.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in congratulating both the Law Society on having introduced its Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, on the way in which he has explained its rather complicated and somewhat discursive provisions. It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate Lord Tangley, because he referred to the fact that he was articled fifty years ago; and so was I. We were fellow students at the Law Society and, I hope I may say, we were friends—at any rate, we knew one another. If we at that time had forecast that he would one day be introducing, on behalf of the Law Society, a measure in the House of Lords dealing with the solicitors' profession, and that I should be supporting him, I think that we should both have been accused of extreme fantasy, and a good deal more. But here we are. Since those days the noble Lord has distinguished himself, not only in the field of law but in many other fields. He has been a member of the Council for many years and President of the Law Society, neither of which distinctions I myself have ever achieved. He comes here with very high credentials, and certainly he has
1132
explained this Bill with all the clarity of which he is capable.
The Law Society has taken a great deal of trouble about this Bill. It is the result of a committee which was set up some time ago to deal with a number of matters which required legislation, and I think in the main, though not in all cases, they have sought to implement the recommendation made by the committee. I feel that the Law Society and the legal profession are very often misunderstood. Very few people realise that legislation which they seek to introduce—and we are very much more closely governed and administered, I think, than any other profession which exists—is for the benefit of the public as a whole.
I have often heard in this House, which ought to know better, but certainly outside it, that when we support a particular piece of legislation we are doing so because it is complicated and helpful to the profession and will create work for them. Nothing could be further from the truth. No 1mportant firm of solicitors desires to make money out of seeking to interpret a complicated piece of legislation. If I may impart a secret to noble Lords, the litigation which most solicitors engage in is the least profitable part of their practice. Indeed, in my own case we make a slight loss on our litigation. Therefore, the last thing we want to do is to increase it or welcome it. I say, with emphasis, that there are very few professions which are more public-spirited and more eager to do the right thing by the general public than the legal profession, and I think that this Bill is an example of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, referred to a number of provisions in the Bill and divided them into four sections, I will try to do the same. The first section with which he dealt was that dealing with training. I agree with him and with the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that life has become so much more complex, for there is so much more legislation dealing with business affairs and with the relationship of the public with Government and so on, that it requires a far greater and wider knowledge and understanding of affairs, and that this should be reflected in the training of solicitors. I agree also that this is a changing matter and that it is certainly far more convenient that any changes in the training

1133
and education of solicitors should be by way of regulation rather than by introducing legislation from time to time for that purpose. The caveat I should like to enter is that we need a constant flow of articled clerks into the profession. I think it is true to say that at the present time the profession is undermanned. We need more solicitors and, therefore, we need more articled clerks. So we want to do nothing which will discourage solicitors from taking on articled clerks.
It is quite true that in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and myself, before a clerk could become articled he had to pay a very heavy premium, heavy stamp duties and fees, and that during the whole time of his articles he received no remuneration. To-day that is out of the question: a premium is practically unheard of, and virtually all articled clerks get some remuneration. Indeed, in many cases they get an ordinary salary. But it must be recognised that during the first part of their articles they do not earn their salary. They know very little about the profession and can be of very little help, and their work is bound to be of a menial character. Towards the end of their articles they leave their firm altogether and go to the Law Society, where they are at present engaged full-time in training. So the amount of time that they are able to devote to the service of the firm to which they are articled is limited.
I would ask the Law Society to be very careful about still further limiting the time of service which an articled clerk can give to his firm and, ipso facto, to the amount of practical training he is able to get, because the best training is with the firm for which he is working. If the Law Society are so going to amend their regulations and system of training as to cause the articled clerk to give less time and service to the firm, I think they will find that more and more firms will become reluctant to accept articled clerks at all. It is already—and I speak from practical experience—a considerable inconvenience to find that an articled clerk to whom you have given a good deal of responsibility, who is able to conduct minor matters with slight supervision, suddenly has to go off to the Law Society, leaves all his matters unfinished, to be passed on to somebody else, and probably never returns. By the time he has completed his course his articles have
1134
come to an end. So this is a question which requires very careful consideration, and I am sure that the Council of the Law Society will give it.
Another point that I want to make on the question of regulations is that, as the Bill stands, it is contemplated that regulations will be used to a far wider extent, and they will have to be approved by the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice. Of course, one could find no more appropriate body to approve these regulations than those three gentlemen. But I should have liked to see a solicitor also concerned in approving the regulations; somebody who has had practical knowledge and experience of the regulations which it is proposed to introduce. After all, these three lawyers have spent the whole of their working lives in another profession. They have no knowledge or experience of the workings of a solicitor's office or of such questions as training. Not only would it be better if a solicitor were involved; it would also give greater confidence to the profession to know that the difficulties of the solicitor's profession were appreciated in approving the regulations.
My other point about the regulations is that I hope that in every case where it is proposed to submit these regulations for approval the profession will have the fullest opportunity of discussing them and of approving them, and that any proposals they may make in connection with these regulations will be taken fully into consideration. I have no doubt that that will be so, but I want to emphasise that, unless there is complete and full discussion and understanding of the proposed regulations by members of the profession, there will not be the general support of them which one hopes they will carry,
I should like to express my complete agreement, as I have done before, with the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about common training for both solicitors and barristers. I am sure that would be of mutual advantage. This matter has been mooted for a considerable time, but I do not know what steps have been taken to bring it about. I should like to go even a little further, though I do not know whether I should carry the noble Viscount with me, because I appreciate how difficult barristers are about even having a cup of tea with a solicitor, let alone entering a solicitor's office. I think it might do a barrister some good if he were

1135
able to spend a little time in a solicitor's office as part of his training. That may be too revolutionary, but I think it is worth considering. I hope that when the discussions take place about the common training of the two professions it will be taken into account. Some six months in a solicitor's office, towards the end of his training when he might be of some use, would certainly be an advantage to the proposed barrister.
On the question of compensation, of course I fully support the giving of full compensation out of funds provided by members of the solicitors' profession to victims of solicitors' defalcations. I am a little less certain about compensation for delay, negligence, physical or mental incapacity and so on. I think there is some responsibility upon the client to ensure that he goes to a solicitor who is reputable and competent to carry out his business. I know that some clients are ignorant and think there is not much to choose between one solicitor and another. It may be true that a client who has a small matter will go to the nearest solicitor, especially if he does not have a regular one, and that nearest solicitor may turn out to be one of the people in the category I mentioned. But if a person has a really important matter to deal with, I think there is a responsibility upon him to make some inquiries and to go to somebody reputable, and not to go to a one-man firm where, perhaps, if the solicitor falls ill or meets with an accident, the whole of his practice may go to pieces. Therefore, I am not so sure about full compensation in those cases. I would not actively oppose it, but I think it is worth considering whether some distinction should be drawn between the one case and the other.
I should like to say one word about the disciplinary procedure of the Law Society—and here I hope that they will not take it amiss if I say that in my opinion, in their desire to enforce ethics and the best practice among solicitors, they have tended rather to lean over backwards. That is the impression I have. I am very fortunate: I have never had to come before them, so I have no personal interest. But the impression I have gained, from reading a number of cases, and from hearing a number of experiences, is that they have been a
1136
little more severe than the justice of the case has sometimes required. If I might respectfully suggest it, a little humanity and a little appreciation by the Disciplinary Committee of the difficulties of solicitors when dealing with disciplinary matters that come before them might not be amiss. For instance, I agree that a solicitor should put clients' money into a separate account. But something may go wrong; and, so long as there has been no defalcation, this is not, in my opinion, a matter which is necessarily a case for striking a solicitor off the Rolls. I do not say that that would be done in all cases, but I believe that there is a case for combining justice with mercy, and I hope that the Law Society Disciplinary Committee will be a little more merciful in some of the cases they have to deal with.
Finally, there is the question of Brown v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I appreciate the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. This would conflict with a Bill which is at present before the House, which I believe was prepared in the days of the last Government and which the present Government are carrying forward. I think that is so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think the Bill is a Private Member's Bill.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): In the other place.
LORD SILKIN: Then my point does not arise in that form. But the fact remains that I think it is a Bill that will command a good deal of support. Certainly we know that a great many estate agents collect deposits and presumably put them on deposit account in the bank, but never account either to the purchaser or to the vendor for the interest. And there are many other cases of that kind.
While I can see the difficulty, in practice, of paying out to each client the exact amount of interest which his particular money has earned in the relatively short period it has been in the solicitor's possession, I cannot see any difficulty, assuming that the solicitor pays all monies of that kind into a deposit account, in paying the client the average interest earned, whether it is one per cent. or two per cent. for the period during which the money has been in the possession of the solicitor. That would be a

1137
compromise; and if, somehow, that could be provided in the clause which it is proposed to introduce, I think that might well be the solution to the problem.
It is only right to say that I do not think this interest belongs to the solicitor; and it certainly does not belong to the bank. The only person to whom it can possibly belong is the person on whose behalf the money is in the hands of the solicitor. If the only difficulty is that of calculating the amount of interest to which he is entitled. I would suggest that a rough-and-ready practicable method of giving it to him would be either to lay down that interest at bank rate, or something of that sort, should be paid for the period in which the money is in the solicitor's hands, or to stipulate some arbitrary figure. At any rale, the client should receive the amount of interest which the money has earned.
My Lords, I have dealt with some Committee points, just as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, did in introducing the Bill. I am sure that this Bill will have a very close scrutiny. Although it is not a Bill of general interest, it deserves the closest scrutiny, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
5.47 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, in my capacity as Master of the Rolls I have an inherent jurisdiction over solicitors—indeed, rather a paternal jurisdiction. So much so, that the Master of the Rolls has been said to be the father-in-law of all solicitors. As there are 20,000 practising certificates issued, one sees what a large family it would be. But in this capacity I have, of course, studied this Bill closely, and I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, for his very lucid exposition of it. It is really a modernising Bill, in which the Law Society bring themselves in line with the conditions of to-day. I am thinking particularly, at first, of the education provisions. As Master of the Rolls, I have still to admit every solicitor to the Rolls. I have to certify as to his education and his fitness. In this regard, the new trend away from articles towards a university degree in law plus practical training is the way forward in line with most professional qualifications.
One word about the Bar and common examinations. Of course, very different
1138
from solicitors, members of the Bar do not come under any Parliamentary regulation; whereas solicitors, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, are perhaps under more statutory control than any other profession. But I am glad to say that there is now sitting a joint committee of members of the Bar and of the Law Society with the very object of considering an easier interchange between the two branches of the profession, whether by common examinations, towards which quite a lot has been done, or in any other way. I hope that before long that committee will produce practical results, because I am sure that everyone concerned with the profession will realise the advantages of easier interchange, whereby a solicitor who is better fitted to be an advocate can become an advocate, or vice versa.
There is only one other matter I would comment upon, and that is the disciplinary procedure. At the moment, every application for restoration from a solicitor who has been struck off the Rolls comes before me and I consider whether or not he should be restored to the Rolls. I hope—and I have tried to follow the precepts which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has mentioned—to exercise a little humanity in the matter, so that after a time, if the man has really rehabilitated himself, he can be restored to the Rolls. I hope and think that none of the solicitors whom I have restored have ever failed. In the Bill, it is proposed that that jurisdiction of mine should be altered in this respect: that in future the application should first go to the Disciplinary Committee for them to exercise their views and decision on the matter, and that from there there should be an appeal to me. That, I think, would be a help; because I should like to know what are the views of the Disciplinary Committee, the people who struck him off, on whether he should be restored or not, before the power is exercised by me on appeal.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask this question? Would it come before the noble and learned Lord on appeal; or would he have the final word merely acting on the advice of the Disciplinary Committee?
LORD DENNING: As I understand the Bill, it would come before me on appeal, so that I could decide it as a Judge of

1139
Appeal, and could reverse it and take a different decision from that of the Disciplinary Committee.
The other matter which remedies a crying injustice and which has been mentioned is this. Hitherto a solicitor's clerk could be condemned equally with the solicitor, if he had been a party to the solicitor's fault. There was a case a few years ago where a solicitor had been guilty at fault and suspended for three years, and after his three years' suspension he was restored to the Rolls and regained his reputation in the City of London. But nothing could be done to help the clerk. He could not get employment with any solicitor except by the permission of the Law Society, so every time he wanted a job his past had to be brought up by reference to the Law Society. The Divisional Court commented on that. They said they hoped it would be remedied. Under this Bill, it will be. The solicitor's clerk, equally with the solicitor, can go before the Disciplinary Committee and ask, so to speak, for his character to be cleared: and, again, if they refuse there is an appeal to me as the Master of the Rolls.
I will not go further into the detailed provisions, but, having regard to the very clear exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, I would say, in my own personal examination, that I would commend the measure to the House as being a very wise, modernising and improving Bill.
5.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that all those of us who have had much concern with the Law Society have always been impressed by the energy and efficiency with which they carry on their task, and by their evident concern, in the interests of the public, to maintain the traditions of their very old and great profession. As the object of this Bill is to increase their facilities for that purpose, the Government welcome it—very much, if I may say so, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls.
There are one or two relatively small points on certain clauses that I would mention. Clause 6, as drafted, would, I think, enable the Law Society to refuse a certificate altogether; and I gathered from what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley,
1140
said, that that was not the intention. If so, no doubt he will think it right on Committee stage to put down an Amendment to make the position clear.
Secondly, I should like to associate myself with what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said with regard to the number of different applications in relation to which conditions might be imposed. As I understand it, the object of this provision is that if there is a young man who has just qualified but has not had sufficient practical experience to make it desirable for him to start straight out on his own, he can have a condition to that effect attached to his practising certificate. That may be quite reasonable in circumstances of that kind; but I would suggest for the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that that power should be limited, say, to the first two applications.
Clause 14, I suggest for his consideration, will not do. I need not trouble your Lordships with it in detail, but I suggest that its object could be achieved by an existing power—namely, by making use of Section 162 of the Judicature Act. I need not go into this point in greater detail, because, as the noble Lord knows, the Law Society, as I understand it, would quite accept that position if some practice direction were issued setting out the conditions under which a grant made under that section would be made; and I believe that something of that kind is under consideration. It may well be that by the time we come to the Committee stage some agreement to that effect will have been made.
I must also agree with what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said in relation to Clause 15, which provides that if the solicitor's bank account is frozen this is to be treated as an act of bankruptcy. It has always been the essence of an act of bankruptcy that it involves at least prima facie evidence of a debt; and the bankruptcy law is based on a question of debt. I have had the advantage of discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and I know that he well understands the objection. I think I ought to make it plain that the Government would feel bound, if necessary, at the Committee stage to press for that clause to be deleted.
The only other clause on which I need say anything is Clause 20. It provides

1141
that, with the consent of the solicitor in question, the Disciplinary Committee can be constituted of two members, instead of three. I would say, with a fair amount of experience of appearing for both sides before that Committee—not, I hasten to add, in the same matter—that my experience was rather in line with that of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. If there is any criticism to be made, it is that it is a body which tends to be extremely severe, and sometimes gives the impression that the members of the Committee are all very big solicitors who do not always fully understand the conditions of work of the small solicitor struggling with a small staff on his own.
I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that in a great profession like this, a Disciplinary Committee of three is, in any case, an extraordinarily small one. When one thinks of the size of the General Medical Council, or of the Benchers of the Inns of Court or the Professional Conduct Committee of the Bar Council, three seems a very small number on which a man's whole future should depend. I recognise the good intentions of saying, "Well, if one of the three has been held up because the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square have gone off, why can we not get on with two?", but I can see some disadvantage.
Any advocate who was asked if he would agree to the proceedings being continued with two would always feel difficulty in saying "I would object," because he would imagine that it would prejudice those who were there against his client. He would suppose their attitude would be: "Blast this man who is going to keep us all this time!" In such a case the advocate is under considerable restraint and, more or less, in practice is bound to say that he agrees. It is a matter for consideration, I suggest, whether the intention in fixing the number at three was that that should be the minimum number for a proper tribunal. If that is so, then it is not really right to say to the man whose whole future depends on the views of these people, "If we cannot in certain circumstances give you the proper tribunal, have you any objection to an improper one?" For those reasons, three ought to be the minimum number.
1142
I am sure we shall all be extremely interested if the noble and learned Lord is going to provide us with the proper solution to the case of Brown v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If he does, I think it would be the quickest period in which a decision of your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity, had been overruled by a Bill in your Lordships' House in its legislative capacity. I know it will raise great difficulties, but I think the only advice I can properly give, without going into details, to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, is not to pay undue attention to the suggestion that there is some other Bill which is likely to achieve this result.
Finally, with regard to common education, I should like to associate myself, if I may, with what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said. I think that a great many of us have both thought and said for a long time that to a considerable extent the education of the intending solicitor and barrister ought to be the same. The Law Society and the barristers have for a long time supported this, but, for some reason, one just does not seem able to get it done. For my part, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Viscount said. Therefore, while there are one or two matters on which the Government may wish to express a view on Committee stage, for the reasons I have given the Bill is one which I would ask the House to accept on Second Reading.
6.3 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, may I express my sincere gratitude to your Lordships for the sympathetic and kind way in which this Bill has been received? May I also thank noble Lords who have said kind words of the Law Society? They are nonetheless welcome because I believe them to be justified. May I also thank noble Lords who have made suggestions as to how this Bill might conceivably be improved?
I will first of all take up the point raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack about Clause 20. This clause, as I have said, is inserted entirely with the interests of the parties in mind, There are cases where there are a lot of books, witnesses, counsel and solicitors all ready, and a solicitor coming from the North or from Wales is held

1143
up. As it stands at the moment, there is nothing for it but adjournment. With respect, I accept what the noble and learned Lord said about the embarrassment to which an advocate might be put if asked the question, "Do you object to our going on?". I can well understand that. I have had that question put to me over and over again and know how difficult it is. But that is not the question that will be put under the clause as drafted. It would require this question to be put: "Which would the two parties prefer, to go away and throw away the day's proceedings or to go on before two?". It may only be for one or two hours until the third man turns up. This is a matter put forward entirely in the interests of the parties. I do not regard it as a very important one and I certainly will be prepared to consider it further when we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Curiously enough, I observe that the clauses which have been criticised, not only by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack but also by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, are the exact clauses about which I myself was not very happy; and I said so in my speech. Clause 6 is the first one. I am not happy about the drafting of this clause. I think it wants looking at; but what is intended is that, for the first three years, the Law Society should not have the right to refuse a certificate but should have the right to attach a condition that the holder should not practise alone or in partnership. I think that the drafting of the clause gets nearer to that than might at first appear. But that is the intention, and I will certainly look at it again before Committee stage to see that the intention is properly carried out in the Bill.
May I say how much I welcome the remarks that have been made by several noble Lords about the conversations between the Law Society and the Bar? They are proceeding now more quickly than they have in the past, principally because some of the constitutional difficulties of negotiation have been removed by the Bar. I must confess, though I did not mention it in my speech, that I had very much in mind the possibility of facilitating such discussions as are going on, if we had the power in the Law Society to make regulations rather
1144
than having to hold things up until we thought it proper to make another claim on Parliamentary time. That is an additional reason, in my own mind, why it would be proper to substitute regulation entirely for a mixture of regulation and Statute.
As one would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised a number of practical points, with all of which I think I agree. Certainly we do not want to stop law students from having proper practical training in the office. For many years I was chairman of what was then called the Articled Clerks' Committee of the Council of the Law Society, and I seem to have spent a disproportionate part of my life in trying to get a quart into a pint pot, so far as legal education is concerned. One must have a proper knowledge of the law, which involves academic training; one must have some practical experience of suitable length in an office and one must have a final examination which is a fairly difficult thing, because, after all, a solicitor is let loose on the public when given his practising certificate. Somehow or other, as I said in my speech, we have to get all this through before a man reaches middle age. If we had ten or fifteen years in which to do all these things it would be easy, but we have only five or six, and it is not so easy. But I assure the noble Lord that the Law Society is just as keen as he is that the practical training should be given as much emphasis as is possible, having regard to the difficulties I have mentioned.
Certainly the profession would be consulted about all these matters. I think there is a better system of consultation now between the Council of the Law Society and the general body of the profession than there has ever been before, owing to the perfecting of the system of local law societies. They used to be called provincial law societies, but one of the provisions in this Bill, which I did not think it necessary to mention, changes the name to local law societies. The reason is that there are two or three in Middlesex, and I am afraid I cannot be heard to say in this House that Middlesex is part of the Provinces any longer, particularly after the statement made on behalf of the Government this afternoon.

1145
There is nothing to prevent Bar students from coining into solicitors' offices for some months. We have had them in our office in the past, and it has been quite successful. I do not see chat there is anything against it. Once they have become barristers, then the quarantine provisions come into effect.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the Compensation Fund is, if I may say so with respect, not quite justified by the wording of the clause. It may be that I was not sufficiently clear in explaining it, but the additional condition under which a grant can be made out of the Compensation Fund does not involve any kind of delay or negligence, but only unexplained delay in paying the money due to a client, which is a much narrower thing than the noble Lord had in mind.
I am sorry to hear that there is some thought that the Disciplinary Committee is unduly severe. Certainly the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of a man who has been guilty of a breach of the accounts rules, though, somehow or other, the client has not suffered, I regard as a very serious offence. If we once relax and let it be thought that a man will not get into trouble for a breach of the accounts rules unless somebody suffers loss, then you might just as well tear up the accounts rules. I hope that the Disciplinary Committee, however merciful it may be in other respects, will never give way on the essential necessity of maintaining the full integrity of the accounts rules and the rules about handling clients' money.
That leaves me to deal with the question of Brown's case. If I may say so, I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack rather overstated what I promised the House I would do at the next stage. I do not think I promised to find a solution. What I said was that I would give the House an opportunity of considering a solution. That is not necessarily the same thing, although I hope that in the end it may turn out to be the same thing. The real trouble is that you
1146
get a solicitor in practice who has a large number of small amounts that come in from clients. Some may be in for weeks, some may be in for many days and some may be in for one or two days; and the monies will be coming in and going out for various purposes. Any one of those amounts, individually, could not be put on deposit at the bank. It would be impossible to put them on deposit, and they could not possibly earn interest. It is only because they are agglomerated with a great many more that the solicitor can do this.
If he had to work out exactly how much interest had been earned by each particular client, it would entail an impossible amount of work. The sort of result to the client would be an additional charge in the Bill: "To working out the amount of deposit interest due to you, 10s. 6d. Less deposit interest, 6½d. Minus tax at the standard rate, 4d., 2½ d. Total bill, 10s. 3½d." It is not practical politics to segregate these tiny sums in the cases where they are on deposit for a short time. Where you have a rather large sum on deposit for a reasonable time it is the practice of solicitors to account for the interest and pay it to the client concerned. We feel that we ought to try somehow to find a solution to what is a very practical problem, so vividly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Upjohn, in the passage from his Opinion which I quoted. I repeat that I am grateful to the House for the reception given to this Bill. I think it is a good Bill, and I am very much comforted to have had that confirmed by so many noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.