Lords Sitting of 4 March 1966

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

FARMERS' MACHINERY SYNDI CATES GRANTS (EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER 1966
11.5 a.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move that the Farmers' Machinery Syndicates Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1966 be approved. The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963 provides at Section 6 for one-third grant towards the cost of certain buildings occupied by farmers' machinery syndicates. These grants were introduced after the 1961 Annual Review to encourage this form of co-operation among farmers, and arrangements were made that grants should run for a five-year period, up to the end of March, 1966. The Act of 1963 provided accordingly for the period of grant approvals to end in March this year, but provision was made for the period to be extended up to, but not beyond, the end of March, 1968. This Order provides for this extension.
It is the hope that the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural co-operation proposed under the Agriculture Bill, which we introduced this Session in another place, will take over the administration of these grants. But we cannot be sure when this will be, and the Order which I am asking your Lordships to approve provides for the full permissible extension of two years. If the present arrangements under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963 are eventually superseded this Order will be nullified. It is a holding operation and on that basis I hope that your Lordships will be content to agree that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Farmers' Machinery Syndicates Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1966, be approved.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PAYMENTS IN AID OF AGRICUL TURAL SCHEMES (EXTENSION) ORDER 1966
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM):My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order 1966, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNI ARY INTERESTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
11.7 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reconstitution of older Universities]:
(2) Before making an application under this section a University Court shall require to obtain the concurrence of the Senatus Academicus and shall consult the General Council, the Students' Representative Council and such body or bodies as appear to the University Court to be representative of the academic staff of the University.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and I can do it in very few words. I will ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not a fact that the intention of the clause will be fully covered if the words I propose to delete are deleted. If that is not so, will Her Majesty's Government

875
kindly explain to me the force of the words which I wish to delete. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("require to").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is, as almost always, completely logical. Her Majesty's Government have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Making of ordinances
4. The procedure for the making of ordinances as prescribed in section 21 of the Act of 1889 shall cease to have effect, but the following provisions of this section shall apply to the making of an ordinance under section 3 of this Act, that is to say—
(b) throughout the, period of one month from the sending of the draft of the ordinance to the Senatus Academicus and to the General Council, notices, stating that the draft has been sent to the Senatus Academicus and to the General Council and naming a place within the University where the draft may be inspected at all reasonable hours, shall be displayed publicly within the University;
LORD HUGHES: With permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, all of which hang together and give effect to an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place to look at the question of the time given for the consideration of ordinances. In the Bill as it stands, the period is one month. These Amendments change the period to eight weeks. Similar views in favour of a longer period were expressed in your Lordships' House during the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am very happy to put down these Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No.2.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after ("but") insert (",subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section,").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("one month") and insert ("eight weeks").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) Before proceeding to make an ordinance, the University Court may determine that on the ground of urgency the foregoing subsection shall apply in relation to that ordinance as if every reference to period, except in paragraph (g), were construed as a reference to the period of one month; and forthwith notices to that effect shall be sent to the Senatus Academicus and to the General Council and shall be displayed publicly within the University.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
University staff ineligible to become rector, or assessor on Court except in certain cirmustances
11.No person holding an appointment from the University Court of any of the older Universities shall be eligible to be—

(a) elected as rector of that University, or

(b) nominated or elected as an assessor on the University Court by any other person or body than the Senatus Academicus:

Provided that nothing in paragraph (b) of this section shall prejudice the right of the University Court as provided for in Schedule 1 to this Act to co-opt a person holding such an appointment.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved to leave out "from the University Court of" and insert "in". The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings the wording of the clause into line with that adopted in Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph (k), and Parts II, III and IV. In discussion on the Schedule in another place it was pointed out that the formula "person holding an appointment from the University Court" did not cover all the staff of a university since a professor or other

877
member of the teaching staff may technically hold his appointment from the Crown or from some other patron. The formula "a person holding an appointment in the University" was substituted in the Schedule in order to ensure that the restriction on the co-option of members should relate to all university staff.
The same considerations apply in this clause. No member of a university staff, whoever his patron may be, should be eligible to be elected as rector or nominated or elected as assessor to the Court except by the Senate. The Amendment would make it impossible, for example, for a regius professor to be elected as rector in his own university. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("from the University Court of") and insert ("in").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Annual Reports and Financial Statements
12.—
(3) No person shall be qualified to be appointed as an auditor under this section who is, or any member of whose firm is, a member of the University Court or of the staff of the University concerned.
11.18 a.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (3):
Provided that this subsection shall not apply:—

(a) to a member of the staff of the University concerned if he is employed by that University only as a part-time teacher; or

(b) to the appointment as auditor of the University concerned for the period of three years commencing with the passing of this Act of a person who immediately before that date held office as auditor of that University.

The noble Viscount said: I am bound to say that when I put this Amendment down I was not aware that the matter had been discussed at some length in another place, as I believe it was. Nevertheless, I think that this Amendment raises two points which might be considered again by your Lordships' Committee. Subsection (3) disqualifies from appointment as an auditor any person
878
"who is, or any member of whose firm is. a member of the University Court or of the staff of the University concerned."
There are two points here. The second paragraph of my Amendment is, as it were, a transitional one, and I will deal with that first because it is perhaps the less important.
I would suggest to your Lordships that where there is a person on the Court of one of the universities at the moment who would be disqualified under subsection (3), it would be reasonable to give a limited period of exemption from this particular provision, during which time another arrangement can be made. I do not think that it is unusual, in the case of a new provision (such as I believe this to be), for a short period, at any rate, to be given while the matter may be considered and the change required by the Statute put into force. If no such provision as appears in my paragraph (b) is incorporated in the Bill, then anyone who is disqualified under this subsection will immediately have to leave the Court; or, alternatively, he and his firm will have to give up their post as auditors to the university. I believe this to be a matter which ought to be dealt with gradually, and not at once, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a reasonable provision.
The first paragraph is rather more important. The words of subsection (3) simply say,
"… the staff of the University concerned ".
Now it so happens that in some, if not all, of the universities covered by this Bill the readers or lecturers in accountancy are very often appointed part-time: they do not form part of the permanent staff of the university at all, but come in as and when their duties require. If these people and their firms are disqualified from auditing the accounts of the university, merely because they are part-time lecturers or readers, it may very well be that a difficult choice will have to be made: either the university will have to give up the extremely eminent services of one or more of these part-time teachers or, alternatively, the firms will have to stop auditing the accounts.
There is not the slightest suggestion in my Amendments that the principle behind Clause 12 is not quite sound; indeed, I am sure it is right that a person upon the Court or the staff, and that

879
person's firm, should not be involved in auditing the university accounts. But I believe that an exception should be made for somebody who is a part-time lecturer and somebody who is not on the staff of the university at all. For these reasons I suggest that your Lordships may like to reconsider the absolute disqualification in subsection (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD SALTOUN: May I say a word in support of my noble friend? I should like to put this point to the Government. It does not often happen that a chartered accountant becomes very distinguished, but it does sometimes happen. I think in that case it might be the wish of the university not to deprive themselves of the teaching power of somebody extremely distinguished; rather would they want to avail themselves of it. If that accountant were a member of a firm who were the university auditors the university would be deprived by this clause of that advantage. I think, therefore, it might be worth while to consider the noble Viscount's Amendment very carefully.
LORD BALERNO: I am unwilling to take issue with my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross, but I think it would be a retrograde step to go back to include part-time staff. The exclusion of part-time staff, if I recall rightly, was in the Bill at one stage and then it was removed; and its removal from being exempted from this kind of thing was, in general, approved, as I understand it, by the Scottish universities. I believe that the form of words for the whole of this clause has been redrafted since the Bill was originally presented in another place, and that this has been brought into line with the common practice and the desires of the profession. I may be wrong in that; but there was considerable redrafting of the clause. In that case, I think it would be inadvisable to rush into an Amendment at the present moment without having considered all the implications in the matter. I agree that the second part of my noble friend's Amendment may well bear hardly upon the auditor or the professor of accountancy in the University of Edinburgh,
880
both of whom belong to the same firm. It is doubtless that case which he has in mind. But whether an exception should be made to what I think is the established principle does require the Committee's most careful consideration.
LORD HUGHES: I have been so eminently reasonable on this Bill so far that it will probably be a disappointment, at least to a certain number of your Lordships, if I say I cannot accept this Amendment. I hope, however, that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will accept what I am going to say as reasonable justification and that they will not press the Amendment. The noble Viscount, in fact, accepted that the principle was right: that the accounts of any body should not be audited by persons who have any connection whatever with that body. This is normal commercial practice. Indeed, the Companies Act contains a section (Section 161(2)) to the effect that no person shall be appointed an auditor of a company who is an officer or a servant (or is a partner of an officer or a servant) of that company. So far as the universities are concerned, the position is really very similar. I should have said at the outset that the noble Viscount was wrong in assuming that there had been a long discussion in another place on this point. In fact, it was not discussed, so his Amendment serves the purpose of enabling this point now to be discussed for the first time. I think that what he had in mind was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that there was discussion in advance, which had the effect of the Bill's appearing in the form in which it did.
As far as the universities are concerned, a provision on the lines of subsection (3)—excluding any member of the staff from being an auditor—is included in the "model charter" which the Privy Council have prepared as a guide to new universities; and it is included in most, if not all, of the new charters: for example, those of Strathclyde and Heriot Watt. It appears in the Universities of Durham and Newcastle Act 1963; and I think I may therefore say with propriety that the principle has already been accepted and approved by both Houses as appropriate to the circumstances of a university. In

881
fact, we know of no university Act or charter which includes a provision on the lines of the Amendment.
I have sympathy with the purposes lying behind the Amendment, because I understand that there are members of the staff at Edinburgh, and perhaps elsewhere, who would be disqualified by this provision. There is no suggestion in the Amendment that the present practice has in any way led to the slightest impropriety. One has sympathy with particular individuals who may be affected by this embargo. Nevertheless, the Government are quite certain that the principle is right and that there ought to be no question at all of tampering with it, either temporarily or permanently, for the benefit of any particular individual or even groups of individuals, which is what would be done if we limited it by restricting the exclusion to whole-time members of the staff or by delaying its operation until, presumably, present connections between members of staff and auditing firms have run their course. For these reasons, therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving the Government view on this Amendment. I am glad that I have not turgidly repeated arguments put forward elsewhere. Would the noble Lord be good enough just to confirm this one point: that the Government intention as to the meaning of this clause is quite clearly that part-time staff of whatever sort are to fall within the embargo? I think it might be useful guidance for the universities, and indeed for the accounting profession in Scotland, if the Government's intention behind these words were at least made certain, rather than that there should be some doubt and for the matter in due course to have to be adjudicated upon in a tiresome and expensive way. It would go some way if the noble Lord were to make this clear. I will say in a moment the view I take about the Amendment in general.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I make one point arising out of the noble Lord's speech? It is not so much a matter of having sympathy with the individuals concerned as having sympathy with the universities concerned, because the univer-
882
sities have presumably chosen these people as lecturers or professors as being those with the best experience, as best qualified to hold those offices and—what is important from the point of view of professional men not always accustomed to teach—as also those who are the best teachers available. It is not a question of sympathy with the individuals but sympathy with the universities. With all respect to the noble Lord and what he said, while one does not want to make exceptions unnecessarily to a general principle, there is not an exact parallel between companies who are trading and universities who are teaching. It is a little difficult to see how there could be in any way a conflict of interest in this particular case.
LORD HUGHES: May I first answer the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross? The exclusion will apply to the part-time members of the staff. It will apply to all staff. Then, coming to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I would say that there is no need to have sympathy with the universities. The sympathy is necessary only for the individuals, because the Bill as it stands meets the wishes of the universities on this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, stated, if there were any need to extend sympathy to the universities it would be if this House were to impose on them this Amendment which they do not wish.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord a question? As a "quarter Scot", I am rather tremulous about interfering in this matter, but suppose a university wanted to have a lecture on accountancy, for example, or some such subject—an isolated lecture. Would they be unable to ask their auditor, who might be the best qualified person, to give it because he would run foul of this clause, even were he not paid?
LORD HUGHES: Without notice, I should not wish to give an answer to that. I am certain that universities will be just as ingenious as anyone else in enabling teaching to be carried out without infringing the law.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think it has been worth while to have this discussion, but in view of what has been said by the noble Lord. Lord

883
Hughes, and also having heard what my noble friend Lord Balerno had to say about the matter, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2) Report received; Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

RATING BILL
11.34 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Right to rebate in respect of rates on dwellings
5.—
(5)Subject to subsection (7) of this section, it shall be the duty of the rating authority to consider any application made to them under this section and, if satisfied that the application has been duly made by a person qualified to make it, the authority shall grant the rebate, if any, to which the applicant is entitled under this section.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out the words after "of this
884
section" down to and including "the application" and to insert:
"the rating authority if satisfied that any application made to them under this section".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment aims at dealing with an administrative matter. It does not affect the purpose or substance of the Bill in any way. As drafted, the Bill provides that if an application for a rate rebate is made to a local authority it shall be the duty of the rating authority to consider any such application. The practical effect of this provision would be that in dealing with applications for rate rebates the local authority would have to refer each application to the appropriate committee, and the committee would have to consider the application and give its decision. This procedure seems to local authorities to be an unnecessary circumlocution. The consideration and grant of rate rebates in the form in which it would necessarily come before the committee would be more or less formal. The local authorities consider that this is a case where consideration by the committee might be avoided if they were authorised to delegate the decision to their officers.
The local authorities think that this would simplify and expedite the whole procedure of dealing with these applications. It is, of course, right that responsibility for matters of this nature should rest ultimately on the elected representatives of the authorities. My Amendment does not alter that situation. It requires the authority to be satisfied that any application has been duly made and that the applicant is qualified to make it. Under the Bill as drafted, or as the Amendment proposes, the ultimate responsibility for granting or withholding a rate rebate rests with the elected members of the authority. The difference is that, as the Bill is drafted, it would be necessary for each application to be referred to one of the committees of the council for consideration before it was met. Under my Amendment the application would be delegated to the chief officer who would give a decision.
Of course, if a case arose in which some member of a committee or of the council knew something of the circumstances, and knew, perhaps, that the decision of the chief officer was not based on a true understanding of the facts, it

885
would always be open to that member of the authority to raise the matter specifically. But a formal reference of applications to a committee, and the rather pointless and empty procedure of a committee determining whether an application should be met or not, would be avoided.
As the Bill was first drafted there was in it a provision requiring the same procedure—that is to say, reference to committees—to be adopted in cases of applications to pay rates by instalments. I think that the Government saw in another place the force of the argument that I am submitting to your Lordships this morning, and they amended this part of the Bill and agreed that consideration of an application to pay rates by instalments might be delegated to the chief officer but they were not willing to go a step further and say that consideration of an application for a rate rebate might be delegated to the chief officer.
I hope that your Lordships will take a favourable view of this Amendment. Local authorities, and particularly the procedure of local authorities, are often criticised, sometimes by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They are said to be unnecessarily dilatory and to involve unnecessary reference of administrative matters to committees. To some extent these criticisms are justified. But local authorities are anxious, if they can, to avoid unnecessary delays in their procedure. This is a case where that could be done, and I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would welcome an opportunity of expediting applications for these rates rebates. I am certain that the persons who make application will welcome the expedition of their applications. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out from ("section") to ("has") in line 3 and insert (" the rating authority if satisfied that any application made to them under this section").—(Lord Ilford.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope that the Committee will not support my noble friend Lord Ilford and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in this. I say this with great respect to my noble friend and his knowledge of local government, but it seems to me that there is a valid distinction between the two parts of the Bill so far as the machinery
886
of local government is concerned. In the first case it really is a matter of routine, but in the case of rebates there may be a conflict of interests between the applicant and the rating authority as to who has to pay.
We should put the responsibility for making these decisions fairly and squarely on the local authority itself. It does not seem satisfactory to allow this to be dealt with by one of the officers of the authority and to bring in the committee only if a particular case is brought to their attention by one of the councillors or aldermen. The Bill should be clear about this. There should be no disguising of the fact that this House takes the view that the local authority should be responsible for deciding about these rebates and how much they should be, and that, if anything goes wrong, it should be the local authority, not its members and not an officer, who are the people responsible.
LORD WADE: I am inclined to the view that the wording in the Bill is preferable to the wording suggested in the Amendment. I think that the responsibility must clearly rest with the local authority. I do not think that there will necessarily be long delays in bringing these applications before the committees. That is a matter for the local authorities to arrange as best they can. But as the noble Viscount has said, clearly the responsibility is that of the local authority, and it is better that it should appear so in the Bill.
LORD ILFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Of course, under the Amendment the responsibility for these decisions still rests with the local authorities.It does not take responsibility away from the elected representatives.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I briefly support my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and say, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Ilford, that it seems to me that the weakness of his Amendment is that there is no machinery for appeal from the decisions of the chief officers to the elected representatives. On that basis, I would strongly urge your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the Minister whether, when he replies, he will outline the procedure to be followed when

887
something goes wrong? Whenever money is to be handed out, there is always a small percentage of rogues who will cheat. What will be the procedure? Will anybody be surcharged if a rate rebate is given to somebody who afterwards proves not to deserve it? I should like to know the policing provisions.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect to all concerned, I think that this Amendment has probably arisen out of a misunderstanding. We have to remember what councils are. They cannot think; they cannot speak; they are inanimate statutory bodies, who have to function in some way or another through members of the council, through committees of the council or through officers of the council. This clause places on this inanimate body two things—a duty to consider an application and to decide whether they are satisfied.
The Amendment leaves in the question of whether or not they are satisfied. All that is sought to be left out is an express statement of the duty. This is really a matter of wording, I think, and I agree, for the reasons given by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that it is advisable in a case of this sort—it is a new thing, after all—to have an express duty. I suppose, if we pressed it to its logical conclusion, the poor applicant might have to ask for mandamus, if he felt that his application had not been considered properly, but I do not think that we need take that sort of remedy seriously into account.
The substantial point is to make clear to councils that it is their duty to consider and to aid the anonymous lady, whom I shall continue respectfully to call Lord Wade's "old lady friend". After all, they will be dealing with people who are badly off and not accustomed, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is, to reading, considering and understanding Clause 6 or any other clause of the Bill. This is drafted on the assumption that the council must consider these applications. They must not take sides, as it were, and regard themselves as an authority whose duty it is to turn down applications when there is any doubt. They have—I will not call them judicial functions, but they have the duty to be fair in considering applications. That is the reason for the wording.
888
I do not think that this kind of duty, or the obligation to be satisfied, puts on them in either case a prohibition on having the matters considered by an official. They could consider a matter either in full council or in a committee of the council, or by having the matter considered, in the first instance, by an official, and then have cases brought up before the council or considered by the official himself doing it on their behalf. All these matters of procedure—because they are matters of procedure—are matters for the council itself. And procedure will vary with different councils.
Your Lordships will know that in housing applications, where I think there is no expressed duty but where there is a well understood one, some small councils consider every individual case. I knew a small rural district council in my former constituency who used to do this. They were very careful and considered all the applications under numbers, and if the local member wrote to them about it, they persistently, and in my view quite rightly, did not report the fact in council. They tried desperately hard to be fair, and I think they succeeded. But to ask the council in a place like, say, Leeds or Manchester to consider every single housing application cannot be a sensible way of doing it, though they are at liberty to do it if they choose.
LORD ILFORD: Unless the noble Lord is putting it differently, it would be the same under this Bill.
LORD MITCHISON: I disagree. That is why I said that I thought there was a misunderstanding. I do not think the Amendment would have that effect. The Councils would still have to be satisfied. There is no real difference between the two things; it still puts the responsibility on them. How they discharge that responsibility is a matter for them. It is not for Parliament to tell them how to do it. It leaves the applicant in this case with rights against the council, but, far more important, it makes it perfectly clear that in this case, at any rate, they are not to act solely on behalf of the (if I may put it this way) other ratepayers or the Exchequer. They are to act as a body to consider the application. The Bill as it stands has an element of impartiality in it about which I think we all agreed in the course of the debate,

889
and which it seems to me advisable to stress in the wording of this clause.
Therefore, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will accept it from me that I do this, not solely for the reason that it would involve sending the Bill back to another place, but because on the merits of the matter I think the fears of the local authorities, so far as they have them, are quite misconceived. They ought to regulate their own affairs in a sensible fashion, having regard to the question before them; and if it is left to them, as under the Bill it is, I am sure they are well able to do it. I hope, therefore, with respect to the noble Lords who moved the Amendment, and with appreciation of the knowledge they have of this sort of thing, that they will take it from me that I am advised, and I think rightly, that the Amendment would not make any substantial alteration. All it would do would be to remove a few words and to make life just a shade harder for Lord Wade's old lady friend.
11.54 a.m.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord answer me, because his answers to my noble friend have made my mind even more confused than it was? He is hinting that these councils can interpret their duty in different ways. If they are going to interpret the calculation of the applicant's income in different ways, sooner or later somebody is going to be surcharged. Will this be the councillors or the chief officer? Or is it possible to interpret in more than one way the income of the applicant?
LORD MITCHISON: I hope and believe that nobody will be surcharged, though I agree that the Bill is necessarily complicated, as any Rating Bill is almost bound to be. The financial authorities of any council will understand it. There has been a good deal of discussion with municipal treasurers about this matter, and they find no great difficulty. If the noble Lord will excuse me, I will not go at length into the duties of a district auditor. I find it difficult to think of a likely surcharge in a case like this. There is a penal provision in this clause for (if I may use the word) naughty applications; it is a general one. I do not think that councils are going to find this point as difficult as all that. If they make
890
honest mistakes, surcharges are unlikely. I think I can go as far as that. But it is not my job; it is the district auditors' job, and a rather judicial one. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I thought that I had answered the substance of his question, but he is quite right in thinking that I did not answer him formally.
LORD BURDEN: From what the Minister has told us, it seems to me that in the view of the Government this Amendment is unnecessary. Councils will, as they do in regard to many other questions which are referred to them, have these applications listed, and all the relevant details procured by the officer. The matter will then go to the appropriate committee for a decision, and this will conform to the principles which are laid down in the Act. Everybody agrees that the council must make the ultimate decision; no one is altering that. But before the council comes to a decision, the relevant details will be collated and submitted on a list, or in an appropriate way, by the officers who are responsible to the committee. I take it that that is within the four corners of the Bill, and it is what the Minister has told us this morning.
LORD ILFORD: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, this question? I understood him to say that this Amendment was apparently based upon a misunderstanding; that it will be open to a local authority dealing with these applications to delegate to the chief officer the decision in the first instance. I do not know whether I understand the noble Lord correctly.
LORD MITCHISON: Yes, I think so. The responsibility is placed fairly and squarely on the local authority, not only by the words it is sought to omit, but by the words about satisfaction which it is agreed to leave in. How they discharge their responsibility is a matter for them. The practical remedy for the old lady or old gentleman—or even the young lady or young gentleman—who does not understand his or her rights, is to go to the town hall and ask, or to get their local councillor to raise it, if they so desire, when there is an opportunity, as there would be in the type of procedure outlined by my noble friend Lord Burden. The appropriate officer

891
may come in with a stack of these applications, and say: "These are all right". Councillor Jones may then get up and say: "Yes; but there is Mrs. So-and-So. Are you sure she is all right?" Then they would go into the matter in that way.
This really is, I suggest, a matter for the councils. They must be allowed to run their own affairs. We must not try to abate their responsibility, which is a real one, or, on the other hand, dictate to them how to discharge it; because the way they do it must differ, for instance, according to the size of the council and according to their habits of mind and habitual procedure.
LORD ILFORD: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But before doing so, perhaps I might say that I do not think my Amendment would have made the task of Lord Wade's old lady any more difficult. I have had long experience in dealing with applications of old ladies. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Reckonable rates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
12.1 p.m.
LORD WADE: Yesterday on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said he was extremely sorry for Lord Wade's "old lady friend" who could not understand Clause 6. He has referred to her again to-day, I should explain that this is a mythical old lady, but there are real old ladies and old gentlemen who would find the Bill quite unintelligible. I have had some difficulty in understanding it myself. As I explained yesterday, I am not advocating that legislation should be primarily reading matter for old ladies. I am anxious, however, that it should be understood.
I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that a circular has already been sent out to local authorities, and that something further is intended. Even a circular is not always easily understood. Where there is an advice bureau in
892
operation in a town or village, I think it might be helpful if they could assist. There are some of these old ladies and gentlemen who are a little hesitant at going to the town hall, and I think the staff of the local authorities will be pretty overworked in April. I think some of these people might be a little frightened off if there were penalties for naughty applications, as the noble Lord said. Therefore, perhaps the advice bureaux might be of assistance. If that is so, it is important that they should be fully advised as to exactly what the circumstances are in which a person could be entitled to relief under the Bill.
LORD BOOTHBY: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that, as a general principle, old ladies should be discouraged from reading anything.
LORD MITCHISON: I would remark that the noble Lord's old lady friend is typical, and I would add that, as a type, she has many boy friends in both Houses of Parliament. We are all concerned with people who have to deal with complicated legislation and who find it a little difficult to ascertain their rights. I entirely agree with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, just now. I do not want to commit anybody to anything until I discover whether there are difficulties of some sort, but I hope it will be noted. Citizens' advice bureaux have done much useful work of this kind, and, as the noble Lord said, it may not be possible for people to go into the town or wherever the advice is to be found.
I do not know whether there is anything more I can add, except that it has to be a very naughty application indeed to get the applicant into trouble. If your Lordships look at subsection (8) of Clause 5, you will see that it has to be the furnishing of information which is known to be false in a material particular, or the withholding of any material information. I think that is really pretty naughty, but the second part of it might occasionally be a case for advice. At any rate, everyone wants the advice to be given, both by way of circular and by any other means that are available. I hope the Ministry will succeed in making the circulars as simple as possible. It has been done successfully by this same Ministry

893
(this is not a Party question) with Rent Acts and legislation of that kind, and I think we ought to be able to manage it in this case.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Wade, may derive some satisfaction from the fact that most of these elderly ladies will be visited by the officers of the National Assistance Board, who will be well informed about this.
LORD WADE: May I point out that a number of these people who will benefit are not entitled to National Assistance? I appreciate the point, but it must not be thought that only those
894
coming under the National Assistance Board will benefit from this Bill.
LORD ILFORD: I did not say "all of them"; I said "many of them".
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2), Bill read 3ª, and passed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past twelve o'clock.