Lords Sitting of 29 April 1968

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

GREECE: USE OF N.A.T.O. ARMS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what limitation has been placed on the use of NATO equipment by the Military Government of Greece.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHATFONT): My Lords, so far as I am aware, no country has placed any limitations on the use of equipment supplied to the Government of Greece under NATO auspices.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not a little cynically incongruous that the forces of NATO, which are supposed to be for the purpose of the defence of freedom and democracy, should be used by a Government—as tanks have been used, in the streets—to overthrow both democracy and freedom?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall not follow my noble friend along all the implications of what he has just said. I would simply say that, while it might in theory be possible to impose conditions on the supply of arms under NATO auspices to Greece, it would in practice be very difficult to enforce those conditions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, who is now the Chairman of the Council of Europe, in which he has indicated the opposition of European Governments to any recognition of the Government of Greece? And in view of the facts, should we not, if
868
we wish to keep in touch with Europe, at least take the initiative in stopping the supply of arms to the Greek Government?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think these are two separate questions, and I suggest to my noble friend that the question of recognition is outside the bounds of the original Question which he asked. So far as the supply of arms is concerned, Her Majesty's Government will of course consider in the light of the circumstances at the time any request from the Government of Greece for arms. But we cannot in this speak for any other Government in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

VIETNAM: U.K. REPRESENTATION AT HANOI
2.37 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the United Kingdom is not represented by an Ambassador at Hanoi.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it would be inconsistent with the principles accepted at the 1954 Geneva Conference to treat Vietnam as two separate States. We recognise the Government of the Republic of Vietnam which we regard as the successor Government to that which we recognised in 1950 when Vietnam became independent.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but is not this utterly inconsistent? Did not the 1954 Agreement recognise the unity of Vietnam, and was not that agreement opposed by the Saigon Government which our Government have recognised? Is it not the fact that the North Vietnam Government is a de facto Government, and that even if we disagree with it we should have diplomatic arrangements with it?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the question of the de facto or de jure existence of a Government in North Vietnam is one thing. The fact is—and it is a fact that has been very adequately underlined by my noble friend—that the 1954 Geneva Conference regards Vietnam as a unity, not as two separate States. It

869
would therefore be incongruous, not, as the noble Lord has said, to ignore this fact, but for us to have diplomatic representation in North Vietnam as well as in South Vietnam, which has what we regard as the successor Government.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lord, while accepting my noble friend's reply, may I ask him whether we can assume that Her Majesty's Government are using their good offices to bring about a peace conference between both sides in the Vietnam war?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to bring about an end to this war. We know, and my noble friend will know, that various discussions are going on to this end, and we shall do all we can to help them along. Indeed, if anyone asks us for our help or for our intervention in this we shall be very ready to help.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Although, apparently, we have now no Ambassador in North Vietnam, had we not a few years ago a Consul or Consul-General? I remember distinctly that we had a representative there.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is quite right. We have had a consular post in Hanoi since 1946. The Consul-General there, I regret to say, is not formally recognised by the North Vietnamese authorities as being fully entitled to consular privilege and facilities. He has access only to the Foreign Office Bureau of the municipality of Hanoi, which restricts his activities somewhat. But the noble Lord is right in saying that there is consular representation in Hanoi.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is the Consul-General then attempting to have some kind of relationship with a Government which we do not think exists?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think I made the point quite clear. His relationship is with the municipality of
870
Hanoi, which is a very different thing from the alleged Government of North Vietnam.
LORD 13ROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the situation in Vietnam, will my noble friend ask his colleagues to reconsider this whole matter? Is it not now becoming clear that the Saigon Government is less representative of the people of Vietnam as a whole than the Government of Hanoi? And ought we not, even as a gesture to securing peace talks, to begin our diplomatic association with the Government of Hanoi?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course I shall represent to my colleagues what my noble friend has said, but without very much confidence that they will reconsider this decision. We regard this division of Vietnam as a matter which only the peoples of Vietnam can resolve. We believe that there should be free elections in both halves of Vietnam, and that the Governments chosen in those elections should freely decide if, when and on what terms they should he reunified into one unity. I really cannot hold out much hope to my noble friend that the question of diplomatic representation will be reconsidered.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, is not the position in Vietnam the same as that in Korea and in Germany?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there is a superficial resemblance. I should not like to follow my noble friend too far down that road, but I am in sympathy with what he suggests.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that diplomatic representation has to be mutual, and if the Hanoi Government will not recognise our Consul-General is it not very unlikely that they will recognise anything further?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think there is a good deal in what the noble Baroness says. But the fact remains that the real reason why we do not propose to suggest diplomatic relations with the Hanoi régime, is simply the fact that we regard the Republic of Vietnam as being the successor State to the one that we formerly recognised.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Oakshott on urgent family business, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred since the restrictions were relaxed—

(a) on premises previously infected; and

(b) on premises previously not infected.]

LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say that I am sorry about the circumstances which prevent the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, from asking his Quesion.
Since March 18, after over three weeks of freedom from outbreaks, there have been 12 on premises previously infected and 10 on premises not previously infected. All these cases are in those parts of Cheshire and Shropshire in which the Infected Area Order has remained in full force.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer to this Question? Is he aware that 22 fresh outbreaks is a seriously alarming number? I wonder if he could tell us whether the experts think that this reinfection may be due to the failure completely to disinfect the premises on the occasion of the original outbreak, and in particular the supplies of fodder on the premises, the hay and straw; and whether it would be possible to include the destruction of the hay and straw on these premises in order to eliminate this particular source of trouble?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree that 22 new cases is serious, but taken as a proportion of the original outbreak the number is, in fact, not large. Indeed, it was expected that it would be larger in view of the fantastically heavy infection that must remain in this area of Shropshire and Cheshire. The noble Lord asked about the possibility of the infection remaining in straw. Experimentally it has been shown that this is
872
possible; and, of course, in all those cases where there is direct contact with the infected animals the straw is burnt.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister give the House any information whether there is or is not a case in Scotland? It was reported in the Press, and it would be useful and valuable information if the Minister could tell us the facts.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking a new Question, but in fact I understand this incident was a false alarm.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any suggestion that the recent outbreaks have anything at all to do with the resumption of the beef trade with South America?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to that is "No", but I am not quite sure what it proves.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his answer to my supplementary question. In view of the real danger of reinfection being caused by infection remaining in hay or straw, would the noble Lord ask that investigation be pursued into this particular source of danger with a view to destroying hay and straw supplies where they are adjacent to those parts of the farm where the animals were kept at the time of the previous outbreak? And would the noble Lord do everything possible to impress on farmers in this large area the need for continuing vigilance in every respect in order to stamp out finally the whole of this disease?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. On the question of fodder, I think the noble Lord would agree that it would be wrong automatically to destroy the hay or straw in all cases. The question of those cases in which it should be burnt and those in which it should not is a matter for veterinary judgment on the spot; but I will see that what the noble Lord has said is considered. With regard to the enforcement of the restrictions still in force in those areas, I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord says: that it is necessary to maintain the standard of care and the precautions. My right honourable friend, in what he said last

873
Thursday, emphasised the need for the utmost care and vigilance; and I hope that this Question and Answer will have the effect of underlining the importance of continued vigilance.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it would not be right in all cases to destroy ricks, and so on, but is the noble Lord aware that there is a theory that ricks which have not been destroyed harbour both rats and mice which can carry the disease? So might it not be a good thing to look again at this question of destroying ricks?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, I think the noble Lord would agree, on reflection, that if one has hay or straw in a barn away from contact with the farm animals it is a very serious thing to say that this, too, should be burnt. As for the question of other animals transferring the disease, even if one burnt the hay or straw there would be no absolute certainty that you would destroy the animals that had been harboured within it. It is necessary to draw the line somewhere. At the moment, we leave it to the veterinary judgment on the spot, and possibly the noble Lord will agree that this is the best thing.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government be willing to look further into the matter of meat imported from Argentina, where I believe the conditions in slaughterhouses are about as bad as they could be? Would he not also agree that, since man can be a carrier, that could be a possible source?
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord is carrying the Question rather far.

BRITISH HONDURAS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be making a Statement on British Honduras.
SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE, CHURCHYARD BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

WILLS BILL
2.50 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short measure is to rectify an unfortunate anomaly which arises out of Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837—an Act which, I believe, has not come before your Lordships for amendment since its inception. In essence, Section 15 states that where either a person who is entitled to benefit under the terms of a will or his spouse witnesses the signature of the testator to the will, then that person or his spouse loses all right to benefit from the provisions of that will. When the original Bill was enacted, this section was included with the object of preventing frauds on the part of those who may benefit under the will and who may therefore be tempted either to forge the testator's signature or to get him to sign a document when he is in no state to understand fully what he is doing. That temptation is greatly reduced if the law requires attestation by independent persons who are not benefited under the will.
The object of this Bill is not to alter the basic principle laid down by the Act of 1837 that the execution of a will must be effected in the presence of two independent witness. It is, as I have said, merely to remove an anomaly which has always been present, having been originally considered by the court in Wigan v. Roland in 1853 and repeatedly followed since then. It has, however, very recently been highlighted in the case of re Bravda, deceased. In that case, your Lordships may remember, two independent witnesses witnessed the signature of the testator but, in addition, two supernumerary persons added their signatures to those of the independent witnesses. Unfortunately, the supernumeraries were, in fact, the daughters of the testator and the sole beneficiaries under the terms of the will in question. It was held, with regret, by the Court of Appeal that, even though the sisters were supernumerary witnesses, a strict interpretation of Section 15 of the 1837 Act had to be followed and the gifts invalidated because, on the facts, it was not possible to find that the sisters' signatures had been

875
appended in any capacity other than that of witnesses.
It was appreciated by the Court that this decision was, on the face of it, contrary to the intentions of the testator; and it was for this reason that Lord Justice Russell and Lord Justice Salmon expressed the opinion that Section 15 of the Act should be amended to prevent a gift to a supernumerary from being invalidated. This Bill implements that suggestion. The main clause of the Bill provides that, in effect, if the facts in the case of re Bravda, deceased were repeated, the gift to neither beneficiary would be invalidated because it could be said of each that without her signature or the signature of any other beneficiary the attestation of the will had been effected fully in accordance with Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
My Lords, Clause 1(2) provides for the Bill to apply to all wills of persons who die after the Bill has been passed; and this is obviously right, since a will speaks from death. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the passing of this Bill can only be of benefit in that it will ensure that the wishes of a testator are carried out.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morris of Kenwood.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I can lay no claim to legal knowledge, but I feel sure that all noble Lords like myself who are laymen in the law will have been persuaded by the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, that this is a Bill which we should favourably consider. It originated in another place and had a simple passage through there, and I hope that it may have an equally simple and swift passage here; because it strikes me that if, as the judges suggested in the Court of Appeal, we are to amend the law in this direction, the sooner we do it the better. I notice from Clause 1(2) that it will apply
"to the will of any person dying after the passing of this Act, whether executed before or after the passing of this Act."
876
There is therefore an interest in getting it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
It happened that I read the proceedings in the Court of Appeal of re Bravda, deceased. I think that anybody who did so, while not questioning that the learned judges applied the law as it stood correctly, must have felt rather hotly within themselves that the intentions of the testator were not being carried out. That clearly created a situation to which Parliament should have regard. That is why I personally would give this Bill my warm support, and I hope that noble Lords will do so generally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris of Kenwood has explained to us so clearly the purpose of this Bill that on behalf of the Government I have little to add. It is a remarkable example of the utility of Private Members' Bills. All Governments get into a position in which for the current Session they cannot, whatever it is, accept any more legislation at all. Here is a case in which the Court of Appeal had to do an injustice and to draw attention to this anomaly. They did so only on February 2. Here we are on April 29, less than three months afterwards, the Bill having already passed the other House. It shows, I think, how useful Private Members' Bills can be. So far as the Government are concerned, I have nothing to say except that we are grateful to Sir Barnett Janner in the other House and to my noble friend for what they have done. We support this Bill and invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, there is nothing further that I need add to what I have already said. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his remarks. As he said, the affair of re Bravda, deceased, aroused considerable sympathy both in legal circles and outside. I think it right that we should get this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
2.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As is, I think, by now well known, I am a strong supporter of the office of justice of the peace. This is a unique system which has now lasted some 600 years. Justices of the peace try about 98 per cent. of all criminal cases in the country, and the remaining 2 per cent. they see in their initial stages on the way to the higher courts. When one reflects that there are 16,500 justices of the peace, that they sit in about a thousand courts every day all over the country and that they try about 1½ million cases a year, the number of times that complaints are made in the newspapers about them is really infinitesimal. Obviously, with 16,500 justices of the peace, somebody will say something silly about three times a year, or do something of which complaint is made; but I believe it to be the case that, in relation to their numbers, complaints are rather greater about the professional judges than they are about the justices of the peace.
From time to time, with changes which take place, adaptations have to be made and this has been the case, very properly, with the justices of the peace. We had a Royal Commission in 1910 and 1911, and we had another in 1946 which reported in 1948; and it is possible—I say no more than that—that when the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions has reported it might be desirable to look again at the duties, functions and operations of the justices of the peace.
Meanwhile this Bill sets out to do five things. First, it abolishes the ex-officio justices of the peace; secondly, it reduces the retiring age from 75 to 70; thirdly, it enables rules to be made for the better election of justices as chairmen and deputy-chairmen of their benches; fourthly, it introduces financial loss allowances for justices of the peace; and, fifthly, it provides for some rather minor changes in relation to the duties of the clerks to the justices.
My Lords, Clause 1(1) provides for the abolition of ex-officio justices. The reason for this is as follows. Until fairly
878
recently no justices had to undergo any course of training, but the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when Lord Chancellor, took the view that the difficulties of the justices were increasing and that they ought to have some form of training. He appointed an Advisory Committee on the Training of Justices of the Peace who reported in favour of making training compulsory. I accepted that Report, and now all the regular justices of the peace have to undergo a course of training. They are, as your Lordships know, appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of about 190 local advisory committees. A number of the members of your Lordships' House are chairmen of advisory committees, and I am greatly in the debt of these committees. Most of them prefer to be anonymous, and therefore they get no kudos; and, of course, no pay. I know what great trouble they take to try to get the best possible justices according to the requirements.
The first and overriding requirement is that justices should be men and women of character, integrity and understanding, and accepted as such in the community among which they live. The second requirement, very much stressed by the Royal Commission, is that they should be drawn from as wide a cross-section of the public as possible. The third requirement, to which I personally attach a good deal less importance, is that the Lord Chancellor, as the Royal Commission put it, must see to it that no bench appears to be the perquisite of any one political Party.
I rather regret that anything to do with politics should have to be considered in relation to any form of judicial appointment. As your Lordships may know, whatever happened before the war since the war no Lord Chancellor has paid the slightest attention to Party politics in any other form of judicial appointment which he makes. But I recognise that in this respect the justices of the peace have had a rather unfortunate history and that the recommendations of the Royal Commission cannot be ignored. So the 16,500 proper justices of the peace are appointed after very careful recommendations from the advisory committees. And though the Lord Chancellor is not bound to accept these recommendations, he usually—but not always—does so. The newly appointed justices have to

879
undertake to undergo a course of training, part to be done before they sit at all and the other part before the end of their first year. Then they have to undergo another course of instruction before they can sit on a juvenile panel, and they have to undertake to sit regularly. This is interpreted as not fewer than 26 days in the year—that is, one day a fortnight—or, in very exceptional cases, at least 18 days in a year.
In contrast to these appointed justices there are some 2,000 ex-officio justices. They are not men and women who anybody has thought would make good justices of the peace, but people who have been either appointed or elected to some quite different office. They are under no obligation at all to undergo any kind of training. They are under no obligation at all to sit regularly. The House may ask me, "Who are these peculiar 2,000 people?". Well, they are—I must not say "a rum lot", but they are a bit of a mixture.
There are 322 Privy Counsellors and some of these may be eminent people from the Commonwealth. Any of the ex-officio justices can be appointed a justice of the peace on his merits, but there is nothing to stop any Privy Counsellor from going to his local court as a justice of the peace. He has the right to insist to being sworn in as a justice of the peace, and he can immediately sit on the bench and decide cases.
Then there are, as ex-officio justices, the Chairman of the Greater London Council; 318 mayors; the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University and the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University. There are 532 chairmen of urban district councils; 64 High Court Judges; the Lord Chancellor (so I am abolishing myself); 469 chairmen of rural district councils; the Lord President of the Council; the Lord Privy Seal; the Chairman of the Council of the Isles of Scilly. As you see, they are a rather peculiar collection. The only people who really need to be justices of the peace ex-officio are recorders and chairmen and deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions and county court judges when they sit as chairmen of quarter sessions. They, obviously, need to be justices of the peace; none of these others does.
880
There are also, as ex-officio justices, 58 chairmen of county councils—I forgot them earlier; 25 Aldermen of the City of London; the Lord Chief Justice; the Solicitor General and the High Court Judges. The only reason why High Court Judges may need to be justices of the peace is simply because the right to bind people over to be of good behaviour, or to keep the peace, is conferred by the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 (which shows how old justices are) and it is open to some doubt whether High Court Judges, if not themselves justices of the peace, would be able to bind people over. Obviously, they ought to have that power, but I should have thought the sensible thing to do would be to give them the power, and then they would not need to be ex-officio justices any more. That, my Lords, is what subsection (1) does.
Clause 1(2) merely provides that if a justice, having once taken the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath, moves to somewhere else, he will not have to take them all over again. Subsection (3) is purely technical. There are some old Acts which are being repealed by this Bill; there is a little bit of one of them that we want to keep and we have put it into this Bill so that we can repeal all the Act. Subsection (4) provides that keepers of the rolls for the counties will not ex-officio be justices of the peace. In the Bill as originally drafted the keepers of the rolls of the counties, the custos rotulorum, were to be abolished. We did not think that really they had any duties left, though there were historic duties which they used to have. But some Members of your Lordships' House who are keepers of the rolls said that there were certain duties which the custos rotulorum had, and which the Lord Lieutenant did not have. At any rate, we are now keeping the keepers of the rolls, but they will not ex-officio be justices of the peace.
Subsection (5) of Clause 1 refers to signing documents and authenticating signatures. The point about that is simply this. Like previous Lord Chancellors, every now and then I get a letter from somebody, or a letter forwarded from a Member of the other place, saying, that I ought to appoint a justice of the peace—or, sometimes, that I ought to appoint so-and-so as a justice of the

881
peace, because "we do not have any in our locality, and obviously, we must have a justice of the peace to sign various documents which have to be signed and attested". I reply, as my predecessors always did, that I never appoint a justice of the peace to sign documents: it is a judicial office.
The position is this. There is laid down by various Acts a requirement that certain things have to be signed or witnessed by certain people; and invariably this can be done by a justice of the peace, a barrister, a solicitor, a doctor, a clergyman and some of the Acts add a policeman or trade union official. There is no more sense in making somebody a justice of the peace to sign a document than it would be to make somebody a doctor to sign a document. As it is found in practice useful to be able to go along to the local authority with documents because the chairman is a justice of the peace, the sensible thing to do is to qualify those who are chairman of local authorities but who will no longer be justices to be one of the people by whom these documents can be attested or signed, so that the public will get the benefit of the same people signing them. It is not necessary for them to be justices.
Subsection (6) confers on the High Court of Justice and other courts of record the powers to bind over a person to be of good behaviour, for reasons I have already explained. The subsection also provides for the abolition of what your Lordships probably do not know—I certainly did not; that is, any right or power to commit to prison or to issue warrants of arrest or search warrants which may be exercisable at Common Law by the Sovereign in person, the Privy Council, a member of the Privy Council and the Secretary of State.
Subsection (7) provides for the issue of a commission of the peace for the City of London, so that the justices of the City will have a commission of the peace and also an advisory committee. In this respect the City of London have carried on a fine campaign, which I much admire. A number of those to whom I have spoken about this Bill have taken the view that it is right to abolish ex-officio justices. They entirely agree with this proposal, except only so far as they themselves are concerned. I suppose this
882
is only human nature. The mayors, for example, say: "We entirely agree with this general proposal. Of course, it is quite right to stop the chairmen of these 'potty' urban and rural district councils being justices of the peace—but mayors, that is different! This is historic. A mayor is the No. 1 citizen. He is the link between the local authorities and the justices, and while we agree with all other ex-officio justices being abolished, you ought to make an exception for mayors." Then the chairmen of the urban and rural district councils say: "We quite agree with this in general, particularly as to the mayors, because they have a whole-time job nowadays and the thing is a farce. They come and sit once and then we never see them again the whole of the year. But we have a part-time job and we like coming along and sitting during our year of office."
Without challenging the principle as a whole, the City of London say that the aldermen of the City ought to be one exception. I have seen more than one deputation from the City of London. The Governor of the Bank of England has been to see me. A lot of literature has been printed. And I see they have also won the support of The Times and organised a number of letters to the Press. I have been courteously told that at Committee stage an Amendment will be put down to make an exception of the aldermen of the City of London, and on that I should think we should have a very interesting discussion.
Subsection (8) deals with the position of the stipendary magistrates appointed under five Local Acts. This is mainly directed to magistrates at Merthyr Tydfil and in the Staffordshire Potteries. This subsection transfers their position into a Public Act, instead of leaving it to the rather involved provisions of those five Local Acts which were passed some time in the last century.
Clause 2 of the Bill reduces the compulsory retiring age of justices from 75 to 70, and in the case of those to be appointed in future reduces the age for stipendiary magistrates from 72 to 70. I apprehend that in your Lordships' House the question of a retiring age is a somewhat delicate matter. In any case, it is very much a matter of opinion. When I re-read the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Justices of the

883
Peace in 1946 to 1948, I was amazed to find that I had given evidence before them. If anybody had told me I had, I should have strongly denied it, which shows what my memory is like. But I did, appearing on behalf of the Society of Labour Lawyers, a body of young barristers and solicitors with practices in magistrates' courts. I see that I said that none of us had ever had a complaint from a client about why he should have to he tried by Conservative magistrates or Labour magistrates, but that we frequently had had complaints about why people should be tried by these very old magistrates.
Originally, there were retiring ages for hardly anybody. Gradually it was found that, on the whole, it was better to have a retiring age, although it would be too low for some and too high for others. The difficulties of being able to say to Mr. A., "Yes, you can go on," but of saying to Mr. B, "I am afraid you're getting past it, old chap; you will have to go" were too great. So that nearly everywhere now, in Government and local government services, in industry and in every walk of life, there is a retiring age. As this is entirely a matter of opinion, I can only say that it seems to me that some retiring ages are too low. Of course, the retiring age for the police is very low; and one can understand the reason for that. But I am not at all sure whether Ambassadors and the best brains of the Civil Service ought to have to retire at 60.
Of course, the Lord Chancellor has great experience of appointments and personnel questions, and I am told that it is the accumulated experience of the Lord Chancellor's Office that, remembering that people vary very much, if it is necessary to place an age after which people are net usually quite so good as they have bees before, that age is 65. I am a bit passé myself, but for men who have to retain their hearing, who are after all laymen, who have to sit a whole day hearing a substantial number of cases, and to whom it is very important that they should not allow their attention to wander for a moment, I think the proposal that the age should be reduced from 75 to 70 has been generally welcomed. When I say "retire", I should add that the justices go on to a supplemental list, so that they can still have
884
the initials "J.P." after their names, though they no longer sit. In older to make it as painless as possible, the Bill does it one year at a time. At first the retiring age will be 74, and the year after that it will be 73, the year after that 72, and the year after that 71, so that they will not really notice it—at least, I hope not.
Clause 3 enables rules to be made about voting for the chairman and deputy chairman of magistrates' benches. I have had many representations from different parts of the country that when chairmen and deputy chairmen are elected, if there is a crowd of new justices who have only just been appointed, they have had no opportunity of any kind of telling which of their fellow justices will make the best chairman or deputy chairman. This has been accentuated I think, since I have required—if not insisted on it—my advisory committees, if possible, to nominate justices only once a year. That is because it facilitates the course of training if they can all take a course of training together. All this clause does is to enable rules to be made so that in a case where a justice has only just been appointed to the bench he cannot vote.
Clause 4 provides for the first time for financial loss allowances for justices of the peace. These will not be at a flat rate. They will be only modest in character, and will apply only if there has been a loss. They will be rather on the lines of those enjoyed by members of local authorities. One of the difficulties in getting enough weekly wage earners on the bench is the financial difficulty that they find. This provision will, I hope, assist in that respect.
We are also abolishing the three-mile limit. There is at present a subsistence allowance for those who live more than three miles from the court, the idea being that if they live more than three miles from the court they cannot be expected to go home to lunch; therefore they receive something to help them pay for their lunch. But this is really quite unreal. The limit is, I believe, three miles as the crow flies. But when one thinks of any large town, one realises that a bus journey of three miles takes a considerable time. A person has to get on a bus, probably has to change somewhere to get on another bus, then has to walk to get back to his house and then has to have his lunch. He

885
then repeats the operation the other way. There simply is not time for it. What happens in such cases is that when the justices rise for lunch, those who can afford to pay for lunch go to a hotel or café, and the weekly wage-earner has to go and have a glass of beer and a sandwich in the nearest pub, where he is not unlikely to run into those who may be appearing either as accused or witnesses in the afternoon. Even if he does not say anything wrong and nobody says anything wrong, I then get a letter from somebody who says: "I saw one of the justices talking to my enemy during lunch." So I hope the House will think this proposal is only reasonable.
This provision will not come into operation until the Treasury agree (the House knows of our present financial circumstances), but I hope it may not be too long delayed. I hope, also, that these provisions may help us to get more weekly wage-earner justices. While on that point, may I add this? As your Lordships may know, civil servants when justices of the peace have always had 12 days a year off without any loss of pay or holidays. I have persuaded my colleagues to agree that in future this should be 18 days; and that, I hope, will be a considerable help. I have approached, and had very sympathetic responses from, the chairmen of all the nationalised industries, all the local authority organisations, the Confederation of British Industry and the National Farmers' Union. Most of them are bodies which cannot direct their members what they are to do, but most of them are advising their members to treat their employees in the same way.
I should like to take this opportunity of appealing to all employers. They differ very much. Some are most cooperative and treat it as a compliment if the works foreman or some other employee is made a justice of the peace. A few of them, I am afraid, raise difficulties. The same difficulties do not seem to apply to company directors, who constitute a considerable proportion of the justices. They are important people in industry nowadays, and if they can get away, then I hope and expect that they will co-operate to allow the recommended employees to get away.
Clause 5 provides merely that rules may be made enabling certain adminis-
886
trative acts, like adjourning cases, which at the moment can be done by one justice of the peace but can be done only by a justice of the peace, to be done in future by the clerk of the court. It deals with the actions and qualifications of those who are acting on behalf of the clerk to the justices, who may not themselves be qualified. In subsection (3) it declares that it is the function, as indeed it is, of the clerk to the magistrates to give advice to the magistrates on questions of law. Clause 6 applies some of the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. Clause 7 deals with the commencement of the Act, and gives power to provide for transitional matters. Clause 8 shows that the draftsman has taken advantage of the occasion to repeal about 16 old Acts in this field.
I hope the House will consider that these are useful provisions. They are not put forward in any way as critical of the justices of the peace, but, on the contrary, to enable them to do their work even better. I find that they do their work extremely well. They are extremely conscientious. Only ten days age, on a Saturday, I was in Birmingham, and there were the justices of Warwickshire in large numbers all attending a sentencing conference. That is just the sort of exercise which, though under no obligation to take part in it, they are always so ready to do. I hope, accordingly, that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sure we have all enjoyed the felicity with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has introduced and explained the provisions of this Bill, whether or not we have agreed with every single word he has said.] hope he will not think it presumptuous of me if I remark what a pleasure it is to hear a member of the Government moving the Second Reading of a Bill with virtually no reference at all to notes. Thu only thing in the Bill to which I thought the noble and learned Lord might have drawn fuller attention, and for which he might have claimed further credit, was that we have in it no fewer than six pages of repeals of old enactments. In

887
that respect it seems to me a considerable contribution to the clearance and simplification of the Statute Book. I wondered whether the noble and learned Lord would single out the, at first sight, surprising fact that under the heading of "Repeal of Unnecessary Enactments" in Part I of Schedule 4 we find that the whole of the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 is being repealed. I take it that we can feel assured that this is not a tacit removal of one of the principal liberties of the subject which has been enjoyed for so many years.
I think your Lordships' House will always give support to any Bill calculated to improve the administration of justice. As the noble and learned Lord said, this Bill is concerned with the lay magistracy, and at the very outset of my speech I want to pay tribute to the 16,000 unpaid magistrates who bear throughout the country this very substantial burden. It is a unique system, and as a country we can be proud of it. But in being proud of it, we should remember to be proud of them: because it is through their readiness to give up valuable time to public service that we have this world-famous system. It is deeply rooted in history. I do not know whether anybody has ever calculated how much money it saves the public in rates and taxes, but my simple calculations to try to see what we should have to pay for stipendary magistrates if there were no unpaid lay magistracy have always led me into enormous figures. Not primarily on financial grounds but on that and every other ground I think your Lordships would wish to be associated with a high tribute to the non-professional magistrates.
The Bill in Clause 1 abolishes ex-officio justices. I suppose I must declare a kind of negative personal interest, because it abolishes my right to sit as a justice of the peace. I confess as a Privy Counsellor that I did not wake up to the fact that I was entitled to claim to be sworn in as a justice of the peace, still less that I ever had the right to commit people to prison. But this is what one learns through membership of your Lordships' House. It is very exciting, but I cannot really regret that it is soon to be a thing of the past.
There have been complaints that the mayor as chief citizen or the chairman
888
of a local council can sit on the bench during his year of office with no experience and no training. The Royal Commission twenty years ago made what has always seemed to me a somewhat curious recommendation here: that the right to sit on the bench should be withdrawn from chairmen of county councils and district councils but should be retained by the mayors of boroughs and the lord mayors of cities. I think it is a good thing that that recommendation was not implemented in that form, and I am not surprised that up to now no part of the recommendation has been implemented.
I am not sure how many complaints there have actually been against a mayor, for example, sitting as an inexperienced magistrate. I happen to remember, because it was mentioned while I was piloting through another place what became the Administration of Justice Act 1964, it being said that the Lord Chancellor at the time of the 1949 Act, who was a Lord Chancellor in political sympathies with the present Government, had been averse to getting rid of the ex-officio magistrates because he and his predecessors had found that so frequently one of these persons who attained the right to sit on the bench solely through his local government office proved in practice to be a very valuable member of the bench, and this therefore was a useful source of recruitment to the magistracy.
However, I for my part would not press that argument now, because something new has occurred. Training is now compulsory for magistrates. The first step was taken by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne when he was Lord Chancellor, and it was completed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Now no justice can take his seat on the bench until he has undergone a course of training. It seems to me that this must weigh heavily in the scales as regards whether we should continue to permits mayors and chairmen to sit on the bench during their year of office, because unless they are justices already it is quite clear that within that year of office, which will be an extremely busy year in other ways, they will scarcely have time to qualify themselves by a compulsory course of training. For that reason, if for no other, I am prepared to accept the general proposition here. I hope indeed that this Bill will be seen

889
as a declaration by Parliament that no one in future may take his seat on the bench without undergoing training.
Schedule 1 to the Bill lists exceptions to the ex-officio rule, but all the people named in Schedule 1 are people who are likely to be already well qualified before they could obtain their position. If a man is worthy to be appointed recorder of a borough it can hardly be alleged that he is not sufficiently qualified to sit in the magistrates' court in that borough. Noble Lords may note with some interest at the end of the Schedule that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis are to continue as ex-officio justices. I understand from what I have heard that there is a proposition that this should be altered by later legislation. So far as I can recollect from my experience as Home Secretary, there is a technical reason why it is desirable that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis should be ex-officio justices: because there might be some doubt otherwise whether they were statutorily qualified to exercise the duties of a constable. Mysteriously enough, it does not arise in the case of any of the chief constables of provincial police forces, but it is a point that requires attention in regard to the Metropolitan Police. I, for one, think it is an anomaly that we should find the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis in this list, but I certainly would advocate that we rectify the matter by a change in the law relating to the Metropolitan Police elsewhere, to make sure that these people retain their powers as constables, rather than that we should risk robbing them of essential duties by providing that they shall no longer be ex-officio justices.
As the noble and learned Lord indicated, Clause 1 also abolishes the system which has been established for hundreds of years in London whereby the Lord Mayor and aldermen sit as single justices in the City. I think I am right in saying that the position of the Lord Mayor of London is different in this context from that of the lord mayor of any other city, and different from the position of the mayor of any other borough. The difference is that a person cannot be elected Lord Mayor of London until he has served for several years as an alder-
890
man of the City of London. He will therefore be as well qualified already as any alderman by the time he becomes Lord Mayor. The Bill therefore appears in this subsection to be directed not against the Lord Mayor of London as such but against the capacity of the aldermen of the City to administer justice fairly and equitably.
I have no personal connection with the City of London; but I understand that the City does not allow the aldermen to sit as justices until they have undergone a system of training which is in fact more extensive than that which is now required of new magistrates elsewhere. It seems to me at lint sight that the sharp difference between the case of the City of London and that of the rest of the country in the context of this Bill is one that the noble and learned Lord did not mention, or at any rate I did not detect him mentioning it. It is that, whereas hitherto the ex officio magistrates throughout the rest of the country have gained the right to sit on thy; bench from the start of their year of office, although many have had no previous experience or training, that does not apply in the City, where no one, whether alderman or Lord Mayor, can sit as a justice unless he has undergone a course of training.
But training alone does not guarantee capacity. We all know that is so, in every walk of life, and I dunk your Lordships will be sympathetic to the desire of the Government to make a change in respect of the City of London if there is evidence of complaint against the quality of the justice that is administered in the City. For my part, I can hardly think that any Government would venture to propose to Parliament any radical change in the system of administering justice anywhere, except an the basis of well authenticated complaints against the system which it is proposed to disturb. It will greatly help the House if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in winding up the debate, will tell your Lordships what complaints the Government have received against the City of London system —complaints from the Law Society, perhaps, or complaints from the Bar Council, or complaints, indeed, from responsible members of either branch of the legal profession with experience of handling

891
cases before the aldermen in the City courts. Obviously, Parliament must take cognisance of the matter if it is commonly felt by barristers or by solicitors that their clients are less likely to receive proper justice if they are up before one of the City aldermen than if the case is to be heard by an ordinary country bench of magistrates.
If complaints like this are made—and I think your Lordships will be interested to know whether they are or not—one test that can be applied is the extent to which decisions in the City of London courts are reversed on appeal. I suggest it will be most helpful if the noble and learned Lord, when he is winding up the debate, will give the figures for recent years as regards the City of London. It would be helpful to have the percentages of cases decided by the City aldermen which are subsequently reversed on appeal, and to establish a comparison between that and the percentage of decisions reached by magistrates' courts elsewhere in the country which get reversed on appeal. That is the kind of objective test which Parliament surely must apply. In the administration of justice the proof of the pudding is in the eating, rather than in the recipe. When justice is not being done, changes must be made, and made fearlessly. When justice is being done, Parliament would be ill advised to change the system except on the most cogent proof that the quality of justice dispensed will be improved by the change.
As to the remaining provisions of the Bill, all of them are important. There is the reduction, over a tapering period, of the age of retirement from 75 to 70. I am still on the right side of 70, but I am not and never have been a magistrate, so I have no personal interest to declare here. However, your Lordships will probably appreciate the force of the noble and learned Lord's argument when he says it is difficult to differentiate between one individual and another over 70 and to say to one man, "You can stay on", and to another, "You must go". Certainly in principle it would be desirable if the average age of benches of magistrates could be reduced, and for my part I would not cavil at this proposal to reduce the age over a period from 75 to 70, although I can
892
well imagine that others of your Lordships below or above the age of 70 may have more to say about it.
I would mention only this one point: it is possible to grow deaf before the age of 70, and there are a great many people who are charged with offences in magistrates' courts who would rather see on the bench a magistrate aged 71 in full command of his hearing than a magistrate in his sixties who, it was strongly suspected, was not able to catch every word of the evidence.
If I may, I should like to second and to endorse what the noble and learned Lord said about the part which employers can play in enabling young people to take time off to sit as magistrates—and, I would say, younger people at all levels and ranks in the business. The noble and learned Lord said that one finds quite a large number of company directors who appear to be able to take time off, but there are perhaps disappointingly few employees. I think the practical difference is that the company director is his own master; he is self-employed in a respect which the employee is not. The employee, whether he is a high executive or no more than a labourer, is under a contract of service and is expected to give his full time to his employer's business. Most fortunately there are some firms which do, in fact, take pride in permitting the members of their staff to take time off to sit on the bench, or indeed to perform public services of other kinds. That ought to be far more widespread than it is, and anything which any of your Lordships can do to exercise influence in businesses with which you are personally concerned, to ensure that people who are well qualified to be magistrates, at whatever level they are serving the business, are allowed the necessary time, will of itself be a public service.
The thought has crossed my mind, although I may be wrong about this, that now we are bringing down the maximum age to 70 we need not be so much on guard against appointing to the bench people who have just reached the age of 60. To my mind, although I am all for securing younger men and women to be magistrates, if we possibly can, we ought not to sacrifice any possible field of candidates, and there are a number of men and women who really become

893
available to perform public services for the first time about the age of 60. This Bill would enable them to give nine or ten years of good service on the Bench while at the same time closing the door to their continuing on the bench when they are really too old to do so. I put forward this suggestion on my own responsibility, not from a desire to see benches cluttered up with people of my own age, but rather because it seems to me so important that we should not artificially shut the door on any category of people who could give valuable service on the bench.
I have no comment to make on Clause 3, which concerns the election of the chairmen of benches, but I should like to say a few words about the financial loss allowance and the changes in subsistence allowances. It was in fact I myself who in the 1964 Act introduced subsistence allowances for justices for the first time, and I do not resent at all that in this new measure the three mile limit is being removed. At one time 1 was opposed to extending financial loss allowances to justices, and if I remember rightly I argued against an Amendment to that effect which was moved in Standing Committee in another place on the 1964 Bill. I said that there seemed to me at that time to be a lack of evidence that financial loss allowances were really necessary, but that I would retain an open mind if further evidence became available. I think it would be helpful if at some stage in the Bill—this may be rather a Committee point—we could be informed about this evidence. In proceedings on the Second Reading in another place the Attorney General said:
"There is also abundant evidence from the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees, who nominate candidates for the bench, that many suitable people from the wage-earning section of the population cannot at present afford to serve as justices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 23/1 /68. col. 234.]
That may well be true, but it did not appear to be true four years ago, because after this point had been raised at an earlier stage of what became the 1964 Act, I instituted an inquiry throughout the country. Out of the 190 advisory committees which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned, 173, if I remember rightly, replied, and 166 of those 173 said that they had no evidence at all of their being debarred from recommending people who would
894
otherwise be suitable to serve on the bench because of financial difficulties. In some ways that surprised me at that time. But there is was: that was the evidence and from that and from other facts that were available up to that time four years ago there seemed little reason to offer financial loss allowances as well as subsistence allowances and travelling allowances to justices. But I say at once that if there is nowadays material evidence that without financial loss allowances we might not be able to obtain the services of some men and women who in all respects would make excellent magistrates, I would support this change.
Personally, I also support the changes proposed in Clause 5 relating to justices' clerks, and if I am right in thinking that those changes are welcomed by the justices' clerks themselves then I support them all the more warmly. There are a number of questions to be asked in Committee about particular parts of this Bill, but I am sure that we should give the Bill as a whole a Second Reading, and then examine it in Committee with all the care that anything concerned with the administration of justice always demands.

FUTURE OF BRITISH HONDURAS
3.55 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with the indulgence of your Lordships House may I interrupt this interesting debate to repeat here a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary concerning United States mediation in the dispute between Guatemala and the United Kingdom over British Honduras? The Statement is as follows:
"I am glad to be able to inform the House that copies of the Mediator's proposals have been placed in the Library of the House. These proposals envisage independence for British Honduras and a settlement of the dispute between the United Kingdom and Guatemala. We shall now study them in consultation with the Government of British Honduras, who have already been given the proposals. These proposals are being released publicly in British Honduras today.
"Until this process of consultation has been completed it would not be

895
appropriate for me to comment on their substance, beyond saying that Her Majesty's Government will of course give them very serious consideration. We hope that all others concerned will do the same.
"I wish to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the United States Government who agreed three years ago to undertake this mediation and to Ambassador Bethuel Webster, the Mediator, who has worked so long and so diligently to find a just and practical solution to this very difficult problem."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement here. We will certainly study it very carefully, as well as the proposals, which have just reached me but which I have not had an opportunity of studying carefully. I see that a draft treaty has already been drawn up between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Guatemala, and I hope I am right in saying that there is now no question of a "sell-out" of British Honduras. Certainly it seems clear from what the noble Lord has said that we are not going to cede sovereignty to Guatemala, despite Guatemala's claims, and I am glad to learn that it is intended to give British Honduras its independence. Subject to what the detailed proposals may contain, I think we must all welcome this Statement, as well as the role played by the United States Mediator.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions. First, is it intended to hold elections before independence? Then I notice in looking very quickly at this treaty that there are provisions about the docks. Is it intended that both Belize and Guatemala should be free ports ultimately; and what are the proposals regarding road communications between the two countries? May I also ask whether it is intended that this new country, Belize, should join the Central American common market?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I welcome the Statement made by the Government, and I should be equally interested to hear the answers to the questions formulated by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their reaction to this Statement. I think it would be wrong of me to comment on the substance of the Mediator's proposals at this stage, until we, and others concerned, have had the chance to study them more closely. I therefore hope that both noble Lords will forgive me if I do not comment on the various points of substance concerning communications and the other matters, which will need to be studied much more closely before Her Majesty's Government can comment upon them.
So far as elections or any other form of reference to the people of British Honduras is concerned—the way in which the wishes of the people of British Honduras should be ascertained—I think this is one of the points on which we shall need to consult the Government of British Honduras. The noble Earl will be aware that both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition of British Honduras have said that if there are matters in the proposals which are controversial the will of the people will have to be determined, I think they said by means of referendum or some other suitable means to be agreed. So far as the adhesion of British Honduras to the Central American common market, or any other international organisation is concerned, that will of course be a matter for the independent Government.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
3.58 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if we may now return to the Second Reading of the Justices of the Peace Bill, I think that time has been running out for the ex-officio justices, I hope we shall say 1949 when the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, introduced at the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill of that year an Amendment which sought to put an end to the office of ex-officio justice. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, was supported on that occasion by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, by Lord Temple-wood and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and it was

897
perhaps not surprising that Lord Merthyr's Amendment was lost that day by a single vote. Perhaps the ex-officio justices are to be congratulated on having survived that narrow shave in 1949 and congratulated on having survived so long afterwards, after the introduction of compulsory training for magistrates.
When one comes to the anomalous position of the City of London, it is of course quite incongruous. It is one of the many anomalies which abound in our public institutions. But I think the approach which, wisely, we always adopt is this. We look at these incongruous anomalies and say, "Does this thing work? If it does, although in theory it may seem anomalous, nevertheless let us retain it. Don't let us go in for change for the sake of change. Don't let us ever turn a good horse out of our stable, unless we are quite sure that we have a better horse to put in the stable in its place"; and also, to use an expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, we adopt the saying: "Let the proof of the pudding be in the eating."
So let us look at the administration of justice in the inferior courts of the City in the light of that test. Do the Lord Mayor and aldermen pass that test satisfactorily? As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out, the aldermen of the City are not untrained for their duties. Just to particularise a little about their training, I understand that they have to study legal textbooks; they visit prisons, detention centres and borstals; they attend on at least six occasions sittings of the City of London Court, and they attend also magistrates' courts outside the City. So it cannot be said, I think, that they do not know what goes on in the magistrates' courts outside. They attend, I believe, the sentencing exercises to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, and they have regular meetings with the Recorder and the Common Serjeant. So they are certainly not untrained to perform their duties. If, as I understand is the case, the main argument for abolishing the other ex-officio justices is that they are untrained to fulfil their duties, that argument does not apply to the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London, and therefore seems to provide no reason for include-
898
ing them in the list of ex-officio justices to be abolished.
Let us consider further whether the City inferior courts are efficient. I understand that in 1967, last year, they tried 19,000 cases, from which there were six successful appeals. That does not sound an inefficient performance of their duties. I wonder whether, and how many, magistrates' courts there are up and down the country who can boast as good a record as having lost but six cases on appeal out of 19,000 cases tried. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, invited the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the end of the debate to say whether there have been any complaints made about the administration of justice in the City courts. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be unable to say that any complaints have been forthcoming, and so I greatly hope that, incongruous though it may seem, the system of justice in the inferior courts of the City has passed with flying colours the test which ought to be applied; namely, does it work? It certainly does work, and although in theory it may seem convenient to sweep it away with all the other ex-officio justices, I hope we shall say that because it works, although it is incongruous, we shall leave the system of administration of justice in the inferior courts of the City alone.
4.5 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I feel that your Lordships may think it almost anomalous and almost impertinent that I, who retired from my seat on the Judiciary now some eleven years ago, should come to address your Lordships upon this Bill, but it was the covert attack, I was going to say, at any rate the provisions to which Lord Airedale has just referred, under which the jurisdiction of the aldermen is being taken away, that has forced me to come here. I can only say that during the 12 years that I was Chief Justice I had the greatest confidence and the greatest admiration for the way in which the two City courts always functioned. Nowadays, tradition goes for but little, but one may remember that in the City justice has been administered by the aldermen since the reign of Henry IV in about 1400. Up till that year justice was administered entirely by the Lord Mayor. Only in order to

899
relieve and assist him was it provided that three aldermen who had passed the chair should also be justices of the peace. That number was increased during Stuart and other early times. Finally, in the reign of George II, in 1742, all aldermen were made justices of the peace.
How has that worked. During my time as Chief Justice I can recall only one case which was brought up to the High Court—no case of certiorari, no case of mandamus, no instance of a special case. I am told, however, that during that time there were altogether three cases, two of which I think occurred when I was on circuit. I see that my noble and learned friend Lord Parker of Waddington has other figures which seem to show that between 1950 and 1967 there were altogether four cases brought before the High Court in which the decision of the lower court was altered. That is most remarkable, especially when one considers the enormous increase in the number of cases that have been before the City courts.
I have a few figures in that connection. In 1950, the two courts between them dealt with 5,554 cases; in 1960 with 11,765 cases, and in 1967 with 19,026 cases. Those cases were all dealt with by the aldermen, who are people chosen for their position by members of various wards, because of their experience in business and their standing in the City. They have to go through exactly the same training as ordinary justices; by being ex-officio justices they are not excused from taking the training. Unlike some of the ex-officio justices, they are appointed during the whole time that they are aldermen, so they get exceptionally long years of experience. Although training is very necessary, what enables a man to become a satisfactory justice is experience—experience of sitting in the courts and of learning his job, and every alderman learns his job in such manner.
It is not generally known that the Court of Aldermen has the power to refuse to admit a man as an alderman if they consider that he will not make a satisfactory justice. It is a power which is seldom exercised, but it was once invoked in the time when I was Lord Chief Justice when it was not thought desirable that a gentleman, against whose personal charac-
900
ter there was no complaint but whose business was connected with the licensed trade, should become an alderman. Because of his close connection with the licensed trade, it was thought that it would not be proper for him to become a justice since, of course, justices have a great deal to do with the licensees. They did not accept him as a member of the Court of Aldermen and therefore he could not be a justice. This example shows the care which is taken by the aldermen over the quality of the people who are elected to serve.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said quite rightly that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. During the time that I was Chief Justice I can recall only one case which came up to the High Court from the magistrates in the City; although I have been informed that there were in fact three cases, two of which were heard while I was on circuit. That is very remarkable. A few years ago, my noble friend Lord Parker, who will be addressing your Lordships in a few moments, said that from 1950 to 1967 there were only four cases in which the decision of the justices in the City had been reversed. That is a remarkable tribute to the justices and the care with which they carry out their work.
I do not think everybody realises the benefit—financial benefit, if you like—which this country gets from the City in the way in which they administer their funds and pay for the administration of justice. They undertake the whole of the cost of the Central Criminal Court, which is very heavy; they pay out of the City cash—in other words, out of their own private money, since the City cash belongs to the Corporation—the salaries of the Recorder, the Common Serjeant and the permanent Commissioners. The City rates pay the expenses of the permanent Commissioners only, I think, since nowadays, having regard to the enormous number of courts, the staffing of the Central Criminal Court is very much greater than it was. When I was called to the Bar there were never any more than three judges sitting at the Central Criminal Court. There are now 13 courts. Although they do not all sit every day, a great many of them do, and they have to be manned by clerks and by the Judge, who is a Commissioner appointed for those days.

901
The City find all that money, and also find the money to build the courts. They have embarked on a scheme which, I am told, is to cost £1½ million; and when they are finished, which it is hoped will be some time in 1970 or 1971, there will be 18 permanent courts. All these courts will have to be staffed by a judge of some standing. When one considers that the City find all this money and do all this work for nothing, I would ask whether this is really the time to make a change. None of the aldermen claims any allowances, unlike the situation in other police courts in London where magistrates are reimbursed. The City of London magistrates receive no remuneration at all, nor have they ever claimed any remuneration or allowances. One great benefit which the City magistrates confer upon the country is the fact that when they hear the protracted financial cases which are often brought before them—and there have been several very heavy ones of late—the magistrates and aldermen sit continuously. The case is not changed from one court of magistrates to another, although in fact the hearing may take some weeks.
I have had given to me particulars of some of the cases where committal proceedings have been taken by the magistrates before going for trial. In 1960 a case relating to a building society conspiracy had a preliminary hearing lasting over 14 days. In 1963 a case in which £1½ million was said to have been lost to the Revenue through the evasion of Customs duty lasted 26 days. In 1964 a case involving a fraud against the Stock Exchange took 13 days; and in 1965 there was another case which took 12 days. If those cases had been heard in an ordinary magistrates' court they would not have been heard from day to day but would have been put off for three or four days, possibly a fortnight; and very often it is difficult to get lay magistrates to sit since they cannot give up their work in this way.
When the City magistrates have these long cases before them, they invariably manage to sit on a continuous basis in order to get through the case quickly. This is of the greatest possible benefit to everybody, not least to the defendants, since it saves so much money. The City magistrates are familiar with commercial
902
documents and commercial practice and can seize upon the salient points of the case very often much more quickly than can mere lawyers.
I feel that if this proposition to abolish the City magistrates goes through a very large number of extra magistrates will have to be appointed to sit in the City. They will not take the trouble and time which is at present taken without some remuneration. Personally, I feel that this is a most unfortunate proposition, and I hope that by the time the Bill reaches Committee the Government will have given more thought to this matter and will let the City retain its own jurisdiction. In all the time I have been connected with the legal profession, I have never heard the slightest unfavourable comment on the action of the magistrates in the City of London. For those reasons I hope that this change will not be made.
4.20 p.m.
LORD MAIS: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, but I wish to speak on what to some may appear to be a somewhat narrow issue. Nevertheless, it is not a narrow issue for those who are affected by it. I speak as a magistrate, although I may not be one if this Bill goes through in its present form. I believe, nevertheless, that this is a good Bill and that it contains many necessary provisions which many noble Lords in this House will wish to see become law. The point to which I wish to refer to-day, and which has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and other noble Lords, is the effect that this Bill as it now stands will have upon the administration of justice in the City of London. It is proposed to remove ex-officio justices of the peace from the roll of active justice.In particular, of course, this applies to those who are elected to the mayoralty of boroughs and who hold their office for but one year. Many of them, perhaps, have not had the opportunity of training, nor were they expected to have that training, to sit on the bench. Therefore they are not necessarily qualified for judicial work. In saying this, I intend no criticism of a splendid body of men and women who perform a great public service and who carry out their duties with dignity and energy. But the fact remains that they are not elected for the purpose of administering justice, although

903
doubtless many of them would make excellent members of the bench.
The aldermen of the City of London, however, fall into a very different category; and here I must declare an interest, for I am one of them. I gave a good deal of thought to the position before I decided that it was proper for me to address your Lordships on this matter, since it affected me personally. But, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, I naturally have very strong feelings, and I hope that the House will accord me the tolerance for which it is renowned.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that ex-officio magistrates had no obligation to sit, nor did they have any obligation to train. But, of course, that is not the case so far as the City aldermen are concerned. They have a very clearly defined obligation to be trained before they are allowed to sit, and they have a very clear cut obligation, once elected, to sit upon the bench. There are, in fact, 26 aldermen on the Court, and I do not know whether it is generally understood that they are elected to that office. They are elected by the ratepayers of their ward, having been duly nominated, and are not appointed to that office. When they are nominated their names come before the Court of Aldermen, and the most important qualification which is looked for in them is their ability to perform their duties as magistrates.
The aldermen of the City of London are not permitted at any time, or in any circumstances, to sit upon the bench until they have completed a period of training. When they do sit, they sit for a whole week at a time, so that they have continuity on the bench, and the two City benches are manned six days a week throughout the whole year by the aldermen. Much will undoubtedly be said on this matter during the Committee stage, and I shall not delay the House to-day with further details of the work, the training and the special experience which the Court of Aldermen have for their particular tasks of manning the two Courts in the City.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, and other noble Lords, have referred to the figures which speak for themselves. I was going to give those
904
but I shall not waste your Lordships' time by giving them again, other than to refer once more—because it is worth referring to them—to the number of cases which were handled by the Court of Aldermen last year. There were 19,025 cases, 14,000 more than in 1950, and of those 19,025 cases, only 20 went to appeal and only 6 appeals were allowed. In the whole period since 1945, only 11 cases have gone to the Divisional Court by way of a Stated Case, and only 5 were successful. It is because of this record that I sincerely hope that the City aldermen will be allowed to retain their traditional responsibilities for the administration of justice in the City.
Having spoken so far on behalf of the City and as an alderman, may I, in conclusion, speak as one who is engaged in industry and point out that we are continually encouraged these days to make the best possible use of manpower? This being so, I think it should be realised that justice in the City is at present done, and very well done, by 26 aldermen. In fact, there are fewer than 26, because a number are over the age at which they are allowed to sit on the bench. But whether the figure be 26 or less, the task of manning those two courts is done, and I believe done remarkably efficiently, as the record will show, by those aldermen alone. If the present proposals are adopted something in excess of 100 magistrates will have to be appointed to carry out the same tasks. With that will have to go an additional court, the additional staff for that court and, under the new regulations, pay for the magistrates. This will involve a considerable additional charge upon the country, whereas at the moment there is virtually no charge against the country for the work done in the two courts in the City.
My Lords, I have covered but a few of the many points in favour of leaving the City magistracy in its present form, and others far better qualified than I will speak on some future occasion on these matters. I know only too well how much this Bill means to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I also appreciate only too well what an excellent Bill it is. But I earnestly ask this House to consider whether this Bill will lose anything by excluding from its provisions the Court of Aldermen and the

905
Lord Mayor. Will it not, in fact, gain something instead? For, apart from the many factors which have been brought before this House today in support of their work and efficiency, if they are excluded it will at least be possible to say that the Court of Alderman were not sacrificed upon the altar of uniformity.
4.30 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I am wholeheartedly in favour of any Bill which will enhance the reputation of that hardworking, conscientious and, on the whole, admirable body of voluntary workers, the justices of the peace. Thus, in particular, I welcome Clause 5, which relieves the justices of a number of what are almost administrative matters, and which, secondly, makes it clear that they can have the benefit of the advice of their clerk. When it comes to a later stage, I think we ought to look at subsection (3) of Clause 5 in rather more detail. In the first place, the advice can be given by the clerk only at the request of a justice. There are many cases in which the clerk sees the justices going wrong and wants to jump up and correct them, but apparently that is not permitted. Secondly, I think that those of us who have anything to do with the law find it very difficult to think that there is a point of law alone. It is always a point of mixed law and fact; and I should like to see subsection (3) worded in such a way as to make it quite clear that mixed law and fact is a matter upon which the justices can consult their clerk.
Again, I am wholly in favour of preventing from sitting some 2,000 justices (I think that was the figure the noble and learned Lord gave) who are not qualified by reason of training or experience to sit on the bench. We should all agree that it is quite inappropriate for a local mayor or chairman of a district council as a matter of prestige to sit on the bench perhaps once in his tenure of office, and perhaps even preside, when he has had no training or experience whatsoever. To that extent, I wholly welcome this Bill. But I do complain—and I am afraid I feel very strongly about it—of the fact that a number of people fully qualified to sit are being prevented from sitting. I am not referring to the Privy Counsellors, because I do not think they ever choose to exercise
906
their right. I am not like some of those of whom the noble Lord spoke, who say, "Abolish every other ex-officio justice, but not myself". Here, I declare an interest in that I was a justice of tie peace before I ever attained my present office. Nor am I complaining on behalf of Her Majesty's Judges, all of whom are stripped of their powers to sit. I do not complain, because it must be very rare indeed that any one of those Judges has the time to sit; and, anyhow, subsection (6) of Clause 1 gives to the Judges that most admirable and valuable power of preventive justice, the power to bind over —a power which justices now have.
It is in regard to the 26 persons who are among the most experienced magistrates in the country that I venture to complain. I have the administration of justice so much at heart that I thought it only right to-day to return from Assizes in order to take part in this debate; and although the pros and cons of this matter have been debated at length in another place I desire to speak in some detail, I hope without wearying your Lordships, if only to get it on the record in case, without disrespect to your Lordships, I may be unable to attend on a later occasion.
My Lords, as we all know, the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and aldermen is derived from a succession of charters. They have confirmed and redefined the functions of the Lord Mayor and aldermen, which functions have been exercised since even before the Norman Conquest. By the year 1298 the Lord Mayor was the Custos pacis, and the aldermen were described as the Justices and Keepers of the Wards. Moreover, in those days their powers were wider than those of the county justices. Indeed, they could inflict punishment before such power was ever given to the county justices. Charter after charter confirmed and extended those powers, showing, surely, the confidence that existed in the competence of those justices.
Coming to more recent times, we observe that in the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, by Section 11, their powers to act as justices are specifically preserved. Coming to a later date, to 1952, we find that by the Magistrates' Courts Act of that year, Section 121, the Dower of the Lord Mayor or any single alderman to sit alone on the bench was specifically preserved. Of course, this

907
unique position of the Lord Mayor and aldermen, and its long standing, may tempt someone to say that it is time there was a change. That is a complete non sequitur. Surely the position is that its antiquity demands that we should look at it, and look at it searchingly, but that a change should be made only if we are satisfied that it is called for and that what it is proposed to put in its place is better than what exists at the moment.
My Lords, may I give the institution, the Lord Mayor and the aldermen, a look, and a searching look, to see what one finds? We find, first, that no one is made an alderman unless he is considered suitable to discharge his duties as a justice in a proper manner. Even if he is elected by his ward, he is not admitted an alderman unless the Court of Aldermen are fully satisfied, after consideration, that he will make a good justice of the peace. Secondly, we find that long before any Lord Chancellor introduced any training scheme for justices a newly-appointed alderman had to partake in a training scheme. It has already been mentioned that he has to study books, he has to read notes and to visit prisons, as well as at least one detention centre and at least one borstal. He has to receive instruction in the methods and problems of punishment and treatment, and he has to attend the sittings of courts. All that is before he is allowed to sit. When that stage is reached, he attends courses arranged by universities, colleges and other institutions, and in addition he attends sentencing conferences—incidentally, sentencing conferences which I believe were instituted before the sentencing conferences not so long ago constituted for judges, recorders, chairmen of quarter sessions and magistrates generally.
Thirdly, we find that the Lord Mayor and the aldermen do not sit only on occasion: they sit for long periods, and regularly. Their work is such that they can safely be said to be among the most experienced in the country. Your Lordships have been given the figure for 1967–19,025 or (I believe it is) 19,028 cases. The Lord Mayor sat on 76 occasions, and the aldermen sat on an average 30 occasions. Compare that, my Lords, with the occasional sitting of the local
908
mayor or the chairman of a district council. Compare it also with the number of occasions on which the ordinary county magistrate is expected to sit—twelve occasions.
Fourthly, what of their ability? Here, your Lordships have I think been given the figures, the extraordinary figures, for 1967–6 appeals to quarter sessions allowed out of these 19,028 cases. It is a staggering record, something which I cannot believe any court or any bench could emulate. Your Lordships have been given the figures of appeals by way of case stated since the year 1945–23 years ago. And we find that out of 11 appeals in all those years—less than one a year—only 5 were successful. Finally, your Lordships have heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard that in his experience he never had a single case of an application to the courts for certiorari to quash a decision of the City magistrates. Certainly in my tenure of office no such application has been made. At any rate, that covers some 22 years; and, so far as I know, there is not in living memory an instance of an appeal being made to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to quash any conviction of the City magistrates.
So far from there being any criticism whatever of their competence, I believe that there is universal praise from both sides of the profession, solicitors and barristers, for their competence; and so far as the judges are concerned, I am sure that if proof of that praise were needed it is to be found by the presence here this afternoon of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard. This has been the position for a great many years now. Witness the successive charters relying on the competence of the magistrates; witness the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. And what did the Royal Commission of 1948 say about the system? They said:
"The traditions and practice of the City have resulted in a high standard of administration of criminal jurisdiction and we do not recommend any change for the adult court."
That was in 1948. Quite recently, in another place, the Attorney General said:
"I readily concede in regard to the City of London that the standards of the administration of justice in the City magistrates' courts are high."

909
I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will readily make the same concession.
Why, then, I ask myself, is there any need for a change? What, if anything, has happened since 1948, or indeed since 1952, which suggests that a change is needed? The answers to these two questions are surely, "No" and "Nothing", respectively, if—and I emphasise "if"—we are considering only the efficiency of the City courts and the standards of justice administered there. What, then, are the grounds for this suggested change? I have heard the following suggested; and there may be other arguments, although I have not heard them.
The first argument that I have heard is that it would be anomalous if 26 out of some 2,200 ex officio justices were allowed to remain. Frankly, I think this is the poorest of arguments if those 26 are doing, as I believe they are, a first-class job—even better than the general body of lay magistrates. No-one, I venture to think, desires to alter the most anomalous of all positions in the law, that of the office of Lord Chancellor. And what of the Attorney General? What of the Solicitor General? And what of the office of Lord Chief Justice, who is made a member of the Legislature? The less I say of that the better, lest some someone should desire to see me removed from your Lordships' House. Then I understand (though I am ready to be corrected about this, because my knowledge of Scottish law is not very great) that in Scotland the bailiff sits alone and is not a qualified lawyer. So this Bill itself preserves an anomaly in this respect. Uniformity is certainly not a main consideration; indeed, I doubt whether it is, taken alone, a proper consideration at all.
Secondly, it has been suggested that justices should not come from one particular class, as it is called, or one particular section of the community; that there should be a representation of all sections, including wage-earners. I do not propose to go into that highly-debatable subject. For myself I care not whence a justice comes or what his views are, whether he is a so-called salary-earner or a wage-earner, provided that he is a good justice. I would say only two things in regard to this argument. First, in considering where they come from, let
910
us go back some distance to Dick Whittington, and in more recent times (and I am sure he will not object to its being mentioned) I would take the ex-Lord Mayor, both no doubt extremely proud of whence they have come.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, this is not a Bill to provide for equal representation on benches of justices of all sections of society. It is no part of this Bill to provide for that. What we are considering is something quite different; namely, what, if any, justice who is now able to sit should be prevented from doing so—unless, of course, the Lord Chancellor of the day specifically appoints him? That is the only problem we are debating.
It is said, thirdly, that the Bill should extend to the City of London in order to prevent the courts from being manned by only one justice. Again, this is not the object of this Bill. If it were, how easy it would be to provide that at least two aldermen, or the Lord Mayor and one alderman should sit: at least two, manning each court. That again, however, is not what we are debating in this Bill. If it were, one would have to consider whether that was practicable. It may be that the Lord Mayor and aldermen, with their great zeal for the administration of justice, could so arrange things that a court was always manned by two. If that was found to be not practicable, we should then have to consider whether perhaps the Lord Mayor and aldermen, with all their training, were not just as good as a stipendiary sitting alone, having regard to the type of cases with which they have to deal.
Fourthly, it is said that there are no women aldermen and that therefore juveniles have to be dealt with, as they are, by Tower Hamlet justices in Bow Road, and domestic cases by justices at Chelsea. Of course, it does not follow that there will never be women aldermen. Indeed, at this moment a woman who happens to be the wife of one of Her Majesty's Judges is on the Common Council. But how important is this point? We go back to 1967 and to this figure of 19,025, or 19,028 cases dealt with which has been mentioned over and over again. In the same year the number of juvenile offences was but 158. So far as domestic cases are concerned, while there are no precise

911
figures, it is thought they run at the rate of two or three cases in a year. My Lords, one asks oneself whether, with modern transport, there is any real hardship caused by those cases, few in number, being dealt with otherwise than in the City itself.
So much for the possible arguments, indeed I think all that I have heard, in favour of the change. May I approach the matter from the other end by asking whether the change proposed is likely to be for the better. Of course such is the zeal—I was going to say the loyalty—of the Lord Mayor and the aldermen of the City of London that I am sure that, whatever the Bill provides, if appointed (and that means if the Lord Chancellor dispenses with the necessity that they must reside within 15 miles of the City and appoints them magistrates) they would undoubtedly sit. If that were done, there would be no danger in the administration of justice losing the experience of at any rate some of these aldermen. But would a court of two or three members, only one of whom is experienced, make for greater, or even as great, efficiency? My Lords, I should have thought certainly not. The expedition shown by any court must depend upon the capacity of its slowest member. Cases are bound to take longer, and much more so is that the case if the one really experienced magistrate does not preside—because that may well be the case. Some seventy or more additional lay magistrates would have to be appointed. The chairman and deputy chairman are chosen by the general body of magistrates. The lay magistrates—that is to say, those other than the Lord Mayor and the aldermen—being in the vast majority, is a court of two or three going to be more efficient?
Finally, it may well be—though it is difficult to be precise on this—that more courts will be needed. If there are to be another 70 or a full quota of 100 justices for the City; if they are to take juvenile offenders and domestic cases, and if there are to be women sitting as well as men, then undoubtedly even if there are not more courts needed, there will be more court accommodation needed. In addition to that, there is bound to be extra cost. There would be the extra cost of staff, the extra cost of travelling allow-
912
ances and financial loss, none of which is paid to the existing justices in the City.
My Lords, I hesitate to say this, but I should have thought that any Government would welcome a degree of good will, if not of confidence, from the City and, it may be, particularly at this moment. Here is an ancient institution, proud of the part it plays in the administration of justice and anxious to play an ever more extending part; and I say that appreciating as I do the vast sums which are being paid out for the construction of more and more courts, rising now to a total of 18 at the Central Criminal Court. Yet the present Government go out of their way, if not to insult the City, at any rate to make it less zealous in performing what is after all a voluntary act. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will at a later stage pass Amendments to the Bill which, as in 1949 and 1952, will preserve the powers of the Lord Mayor and the aldermen to act as justices.
4.55 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, this Bill aims at tidying up a number of matters, some of minor and some of greater importance but most of an administrative character. The extent to which it aims at removing the work of the past and substituting something fresh was, I think, very well illustrated—as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor—by the number of Statutes which the Bill will repeal or partially repeal. Some of them are very ancient. The Bill will repeal no fewer than three Statutes passed before the end of the 16th century. Not only the Habeas Corpus Act but the Jurisdiction in Liberties Act 1535 will be repealed. This is, I think, a general attempt to tidy up a number of minor administrative matters which have been talked about a great deal in recent years but about which little has been done.
Unfortunately, there has been combined in the Bill a proposal which has hitherto received universal condemnation. It is proposed to transform the administration of justice in the City of London by removing the present qualification for office which entitles the Lord Mayor and the aldermen to sit in the two courts in the City. It will also remove the claim of every mayor and lord mayor in the country to preside over the magistrates'

913
court in his borough or city. I regret that change. The right of the mayor to preside over the borough court is something which adds to his responsibility and dignity.
It is true that in recent years the work falling on mayors and lord mayors has been such that they have little time to sit in a magistrates' court. In most cities the mayor does not do so; he pays a formal visit perhaps two or three times during his year of office and that is all. I can quite see that, with the introduction of training and the need for greater experience, the time has come when that ancient arrangement should be brought to an end. I do not think that many tears will he shed over the chairmen of urban and rural district councils, but I regret the passing of the mayor as a magistrate. In expressing my regret I am speaking for myself and not for the organisation whose views I am sometimes tempted to put before the House.
My Lords, this proposal to transform the administration of justice in the City has hitherto met with no sort of support. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, made a very careful and I thought a most convincing analysis of the reasons which may have prompted the Government to select the City of London as a place for drastic reform. The result of his investigation shows that the advantages which may follow from this change are practically negligible. It is not very often in your Lordships' House that a proposal is condemned by the Lord Chief Justice of England, by the Master of the Rolls, who is going to speak in a few moments, and by a distinguished former Lord Chief Justice. I hope that I shall not be out of order in expressing the pleasure which we all feel at the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, amongst us this afternoon. He is always welcome when he is able to come to the House and I think that this afternoon he was particularly welcome.
In his speech, the noble and learned Lord emphasised two reasons why the present arrangements for the administration of justice in the City ought to be maintained. He pointed out that the class of case which is tried in the two City courts is different in some respects from those cases which are tried in other magistrates' courts. They differ in this respect: that every now and then, and not in-
914
frequently, a case of very considerable magnitude comes before the court, a case in which it is desirable that the magistrate should have some knowledge of business, some knowledge of the financial affairs of the City and the manner in which they are conducted. Indeed, it is only a few days since a case of this nature ended at the Old Bailey, after lasting for over 30 days. It seems to me, and it has always seemed to me, that one of the advantages of the arrangements in the City is that they ensure that these cases are tried by a magistrate who understands the working of business, the documents which are used in business and all the matters connected with a great commercial centre like the City of London. It is a great advantage to be sure in cases involving these difficult questions that an experienced judge is on the bench to try them.
The other matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred seem to me to be of equal importance. The City courts sit continuously. We do not have long cases with intervals varying in length between the days on which different parts of the case are heard. It is a great advantage, as all of us who have experience of conducting litigation know, that a case should not be broken up and resumed again perhaps a week or more later. It is a great advantage that the City aldermen accept as part of their duties the duty of sitting continuously in the City courts.
I propose to say no more about this matter this afternoon. We shall have an opportunity at the Committee stage of discussing it at greater length and I hope that at that stage we shall succeed in amending the Bill so as to remove what seems to me to be a totally unnecessary and undesirable provision. It would be very welcome, in view of the criticisms that the proposal has aroused, if the Government were to review their position before the Committee stage is reached and accept the principle that a change of this nature in the City is not necessary and is not called for.
There is one other matter in the Bill about which I should like to say something. The Bill will reduce the age at which a magistrate is transferred to the supplementary list from 75 to 70. I know that to-day there is a widespread feeling that younger people are to be preferred to

915
older people, a feeling which no doubt some of us who are in the category of older people are prepared to accept. But it seems to me to overlook the great difficulty that there is in obtaining people of suitable character and with suitable qualifications to undertake the duty of magistrate. It is equally difficult to obtain persons of the right qualifications and age to take their places as representatives in local government. It is not easy to ask a man to be a magistrate if it involves spending perhaps some days, not infrequently, away from his business.
I do not think that the present system, with the proposed financial assistance provisions, will make it very difficult for persons of the working class to sit as magistrates. I do not think the difficulty arises at that point, but at a different point. A man who is conducting his own professional practice or business cannot quantify his loss in order to recover financial assistance. The loss by the disturbance to his business, the fact that he has to absent himself from it and allow it to be conducted by others, and so forth, is a very real one, and one which is not easily overcome. We are going to take out of the field of potential magistrates persons between the age of 70 and 75. I think it would be much wiser to leave them in the field of active magistrates, having regard to the great difficulty of obtaining suitable candidates for office which exists to-day.
Is it really right to assume that a man of 70 is not able to conduct the business of a magistrates' court? During part of my life I had a very intimate experience of old people. The real point at which the break in a man's power comes is not at 70 but at 75. At 70 a man is as good as he is at 65, and many are as good as they are at 60. It is five years later that his physical powers begin to fail. I am sure that the Government would be wise to take account of the scarcity of people of all classes to accept the office of magistrate and retain the compulsory retiring age at its present figure. There is nothing more that I desire to say about this Bill. I think we all welcome its various and rather complicated provisions about stipendiary magistrates and justices' clerks. We all wish the Bill well, but I think it will be a better Bill when the
916
most objectionable sections have been removed.
5.9 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I welcome a goodly part of this Bill, but we must remember that here we are dealing not only with one of our oldest institutions but also with one of our best institutions, that of the justice of the peace. It is one of the glories of England. No other country has anything like our magistrates and justices of the peace: ordinary men and women, right-thinking members of the community, sitting to do justice between their fellow men. The system has gone on now in the counties since 1361 when, if I may remind your Lordships, a Statute was enacted that:
"In every county of England there shall be assigned for the keeping of the peace one Lord and with him three or four of the most worthy in the county with some learned in the law."
We have now come to the present time, and we still have in our counties and boroughs not only three or four, but many of the most worthy in the counties and boroughs. But we have with them—and this is much to be remembered—a clerk skilled in the law. In these days, with the increasing number and complexity of Statutes, the presence of the clerk and his ability to advise the court is an essential ingredient. Again, to go back into history, the trouble with the number of Statutes appeared in 1485, when a Chief Justice complained:
"How many justices think you now suffice without breaking their backs to bear so many, not loads, hut stacks of Statutes?"
This Bill does, I think, improve the position, in so far as the justices who are to be appointed are to be appointed for their ability and standing to be justices of the peace, and it gives recognition to the position of the justices' clerk to advise them. But may I add my word to those that have already been spoken about the special position of the City of London?
Before ever there were justices of the peace for the counties there were the Lord Mayor and aldermen who were justices for the City of London. They existed long before even the great Charter, Magna Carta 1215, in which it was said—and perhaps it is apt to cite it now:
"The citizens of London shall have all their ancient liberties and free customs as well by land as by water."

917
One of those is the administration of justice in the City of London. I have been in the court; I have heard appeals from the court; and I have known everyone concerned with the court. No one can say that the quality of justice in the City of London is lower than that of any other bench in the land—indeed, I would say that it is higher. I would put the quality higher even than that of the stipendiary magistrates. You have sound, right-thinking men, elected and selected for those very judicial qualities of patience, courtesy and knowledge of their fellow men to do this great task. Perhaps I may add that I happen to be chairman of the advisory committee for appointing magistrates for Inner London, and I can say that the method of selection for the City of London is no less good, and is perhaps even better, than that of the Inner London area.
I have spoken to those who practise in the court—to solicitors and to the police, an essential cog in the administration of justice—and no-one complains; no-one wants this change. Even the Magistrates' Association, who have been concerned that there should not be ex officio magistrates in the counties, think that the reasoning does not apply to the City of London. There is, in truth, no word of complaint in any quarter about the administration of justice in the City of London, and there is no call for any change. If there had been, this would be a time to review it. One is not against change. But when an institution has lasted so long, and done its work so well, I would suggest that at least an exception could be written into this Bill for the Lord Mayor and the City of London. Otherwise, I give general support to this Bill.
5.13 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I will be brief. There is one thing I wish to say before saying a few words about the City of London. I happen to be President of one of the local authority associations; namely, the Urban District Councils Association. While we are sorry that the prestige of being a justice of the peace for his year of office will now be taken away from the chairman of an urban district council, we nevertheless realise that there is every justification for ensuring that justices of
918
the peace have had their training. This is not possible in many cases for men who are elected as chairmen of urban district councils, and therefore the position which this Bill will produce is accepted. Perhaps I might just add that if a man has done public service and become the chairman of an urban district council, one would hope that that would be no detriment to his being considered favourably later for appointment as a justice of the peace.
I now turn to the subject which has really dominated this debate; namely, the question of the aldermen of the City of London. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not take amiss what I am going to say. I listened carefully to what he said in his speech, and it seemed to me that he dismissed the case for the City of London as coming from a pressure group. He mentioned the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England and others had been to see him, and that he had noticed that The Times this morning had been roped into the agitation. I was sorry that he seemed to approach the matter in that way. With respect, I must say that I felt the tone of his remarks indicated a rather satirical approach to this question. I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying that quite plainly.
During the course of this debate we have had speeches from a distinguished former Lord Chief Justice, from the present Lord Chief Justice, and many others. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will realise that there is more to this than simply an agitation which has been got up by certain interests in tit City of London.
I should like to remind your Lordships of a debate which took place in this House last January on the subject of the appointment of judges by the Lord Chancellor. During the course of the debate (I quote from Hansard of January 29, at col. 635) this was said:
"Whatever method the Lord Chancellor employs has had a satisfactory result. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that if that is so, there is a good deal to be said for leaving the method of appointment as it is."
My Lords, I think that that principle applies to the City of London aldermen. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that the speaker who used those words on that

919
occasion was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself. I think I will leave it there.
5.20 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I never envisaged the day when I should be speaking in a debate concerning magistrates. Sandwiched as I am between a number of very distinguished legal gentlemen, one the present Lord Chief Justice, one distinguished past Lord Chief Justice and a number of noble Lords deeply versed in the law, I am from the legal standpoint a complete layman. Nevertheless, I have one or two qualifications for taking part in this debate. First, my wife is a magistrate, and the youngest on the bench in Surrey where she sits; secondly, I am the reigning Master of one of the City Livery Companies.
Before I turn briefly to the provisions regarding the City of London, I should like to say one word about Clause 4. It is not only a question of distance which is of importance here; it is a question particularly of young magistrates, especially young female magistrates, making arrangements for young children, and factors of that kind which must be considered in the light of this Bill. I must, for reasons I have already given, declare to some extent a close family interest here. But where it is considered a good thing to have the young magistrates—and I think it will be agreed that on a juvenile bench young mothers often do make good magistrates because they see the problem from first hand—then provision should be made, and within these limits I certainly welcome Clause 4.
I now turn to Clause 1, linked with Schedule 2, regarding the question of the guild magistrates in the City of London. As the Master of one of the Livery Companies I come into contact with a great many of these people. As some of your Lordships who have held this office will know, one works one's way up as Master of a Livery Company through the livery and then through the court, and during those years one attends, or should attend, the voting of the Lord Mayor and of the sheriffs, and one sees something of the work done by these
920
people, not only in court but in the City as a whole. The real point here is that, quite apart from the training, which other noble Lords better versed in the law than I have already mentioned, they have very considerable responsibilities in public life, and nobody will know that more than the noble Lord, Lord Mais, who is himself very distinguished in this role. As a result of this, the aldermen and the Court of Aldermen, and of course the Lord Mayor, who comprise the bulk of the City magistrates, are therefore people who have had, if not more experience of human nature and human beings than magistrates on an ordinary county bench, at any rate as much because of the considerable training which they receive and the enormous amount of public service which they are required to undertake.
If I may mention one immediate past Lord Mayor, who is a past Master of my own Livery Company, and with whom I came into contact a great deal during the first months of my mastership, he is a gentleman who literally started his business life as an errand boy, and he is now chairman of one of the great provision companies quite apart from his distinguished City role. So when people argue (and I am glad it has not been argued to-day) that the Lord Mayors of London and the aldermen are people who come from what we sometimes know as the "upper crust", this argument can immediately be deflated.
I do not propose to go into the question of political appointments, because I am quite sure that many of the guild men of the City of London may well have differing political views. The main thing, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in his admirable speech, is that justice is dispensed fairly and efficiently and the absolute minimum number of appeals come about as a result. I am going to confine my remarks to those points. I rose to speak, as I say, only because I have been through the mill of a Livery Company and have also worked in the City of London for nearly twenty years, enjoying the friendship and sometimes the company of the very gentlemen who are the subject of one of the main parts of this Bill, which, apart from this provision, is I think a generally very welcome Bill.
5.27 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, how delightful it is for us to be able to take part in a debate where Party politics does not rear its handsome head. I feel something like "exhibit A" in this debate. I have been a lay magistrate for 24 years; I am 70 years of age, which seems to be the fateful deadline, and I have been the chairman of a county council, which would, if I had desired, have qualified me to sit as an ex officio magistrate in my county.
I think that our lay J.P.s are wonderful, even though I cannot look upon the question from an impartial and thoroughly unbiased point of view. They do valuable work; they do it inexpensively. They make enormous sacrifices in time and money, and, generally speaking, they enjoy the confidence of the public among whom they live. They deal with one million cases a year, and on the whole deal with them very satisfactorily indeed. There are, of course, some appeals, but the number of appeals against their judgment is in a very considerable minority, and when all is said and done there also are appeals which are upheld from stipendiary magistrates, from learned chairmen of quarter sessions—even from the Judges of the High Court. And when we get to the highest Court in the land it is not unusual to find that some Lords Justices take one point of view and some Lords Justices take another. So, on the whole, I feel that the lay magistracy is an excellent one.
The system works well, but with all systems it is probably a good thing from time to time to take them out of the attic and give them a general dusting over. That is why I welcome this Bill. It brings several aspects of the magistracy into line with our up-to-date ideas. First of all, there is this question of the age, with the reduction from 75 to 70. I know that this is hardly the place where I should try to make out a resounding case that people are too old at 70. Personally I do not believe it, and if there were a suggestion in the Bill for an immediate reduction to 70 of the age for sitting on the bench I should certainly oppose it. But the gradual reduction that is proposed in the Bill softens the blow, and I think it is the right way of dealing with the matter. In five years' time, when people have
922
to retire at the age of 70, it may well be that, with all the strains of this strenuous modern life, the people who are aged 70 will feel as old as we feel today at 75.
Some suggestions have been made in various quarters that there should be a "pick and choose" arrangement whereby the chairman of the bench, and perhaps the chairman of the advisory committee, and then the Lord Chancellor should say with regard to certain justices of 72 or 73, "Look, you are getting too old", whereas with regard to others he should say, "You seem to be quite fit; you may carry on until you are 75". In my opinion that would be invidious; it would be invidious at the local level and at the county advisory committee level. I believe that by introducing the sliding scale the Lord Chancellor has tackled the problem in exactly the right way.
But I hope he will not go farther and reduce the age any more, because, despite all the desire that there is for younger magistrates on our benches—and it is one that we find difficult to meet, because the young people usually have one or two feet up the ladder of their professional promotion—it is a fact that we are becoming an elderly nation. I know from my own experience that we have before us in our courts from time to time old ladies and gentlemen with white hair, and I believe it gives them a feeling of comfort and assurance to see that sitting on the bench is at least one justice who happens to be somewhere around their own age.
While we are tackling this question of the elderly J.P.s there is one thing that many of them would like to see. A good many of them are about 70 years of age—a little under or a little over—and have possibly had 20 or 25 years on the bench and are now feeling that they would like to step down after duty that has been well done. Some of them would willingly go but they do not want to lose their justice's status. They do not like to feel that they have been struck off the roll, and that is what happens to many of them who seek to leave the bench at the present time. They would like to be put on the Supplemental List, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to give not an undertaking but a hint that when

923
these old servants of the public, on reaching the age of 69, 70 or 71, feel that they want to have a rest, they will be allowed to keep that dignified title of justice of the peace and not have it reported in the local paper that "Mr. So-and-So has been struck off the roll of justices of the peace". This naturally gives a false impression to those who read it, and because of this possibility many justices will soldier on for years beyond the date at which they would willingly have retired had they been allowed to retire in the way I have suggested.
In my view, the proposal to abolish ex-officio justices is right. Many people who become mayors and chairmen of local councils are admirable citizens, hut the qualities which have enabled them to rise to these positions are not the same qualities as would fit them to sit on the bench. In fact, in some cases the opposite is true. A fine agitator can become the chairman of the council, but he would not necessarily make a good justice of the peace. Moreover, in these days, when we are insisting on training for magistrates before they enter on their judicial duties, many of these civic heads occupy their high office only for a year or so, and therefore there would be no opportunity for them to undertake this training. Many of them, of course, by their temperament and character and ability would be well qualified to become justices, but in these cases they could qualify for their names to be entered on the Commission through the ordinary channels. The City Aldermen come into a different category: they do receive training, and they serve for a long time. But I should like to say a word or two about them a little later on.
I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is proposing to compensate those justices who need it (not all of them, because they will not claim it) for the cost of their lunches when they have an all-day sitting, or for the loss of their wages, if they lose remuneration from their employer. I think this would enable a good many well qualified people to come on the bench who at present have to say, "No". But I do not think it goes as far as it should.
Let us take as an example the retired teacher who does a little writing and a little lecturing. If he sits on the bench
924
all day he loses that productive time which he could otherwise be devoting to writing an article or preparing a lecture. Yet he cannot claim for loss of wages, despite the fact that he has suffered what is readily identifiable as a financial loss. I think the payment of an attendance allowance might be better. It need not be a big figure, because in the realm of local government (in which I have also had some experience) there are many borderline cases where a man dare not claim for loss of remuneration because he happens to be self-employed, or a freelance operator in some trade or profession, and it is difficult for him to make out a case. I think the straightforward thing is to give an attendance allowance, to let everyone be entitled to it. Then those who want to claim it may do so.
I come now to the case of the City aldermen. I have been much impressed by the arguments that we have heard, particularly from learned Judges. There is no doubt that these City aldermen are men of great ability; they have had preliminary training before undertaking duties on the bench; they make a large number of attendances. But there are also powerful arguments on the side of the Bill as it is now drafted. I should like to look at a few of them. In the first place, these aldermen sit singly, instead of in threes. There are not enough of them to compose benches of three, and, although I do not want to make too much of this argument, I think that a court of three is better than a court of one. Many a time in my own court I have retired with my fellow justices being firm in my view that a person was either guilty or not guilty. I have listened to the views of the other two justices, and I have come to the conclusion that I have been wrong. If one person is sitting in judgment it is a big risk to take, especially if, by one stroke of the pen, we are going to ruin a man's character for the rest of his life.
This afternoon we have heard from eminent lawyers about the adequacy of these courts in the City of London. But ought we not also to consider the defendants coming before those courts? Ought we not to feel that they would have more confidence in a three-man court than in a court composed of just one man; and that they would have more confidence in a court constituted of

925
people of all classes, rather than one monopolised by the great captains and colonels of industry and commerce?
We have heard that the City of London courts are unable to deal with matrimonial and juvenile cases because there is no woman on the bench, and in those cases there should be a woman on the bench. Such cases have to be sent either to Tower Hamlets or to Bow Street. This is a point which is worth bearing in mind. But what strikes me as being anomalous is that all these City aldermen are members of the local authority, and this is contrary to the whole of our thinking and the whole of the Lord Chancellor's system of administration with regard to local authorities and benches of magistrates in general throughout the country. The rule generally is that not more than a certain proportion of members of the bench shall be members of the local authority. Yet here in the City of London every single member of the bench is a member of the local council, if I may call it that without derogating too much from its dignity. Furthermore, as I just mentioned, this bench of the City is not representative of all classes. The men who sit in that court are the top men of Britain; they are brokers and bankers and merchants, and so on. Good luck to them!I do not blame them for being that. But the best kind of bench, I think, is one constituted of people from all levels of society, people who really do know how the other half live.
One argument that has been used, not perhaps here this afternoon, although it has been touched on, is that the City courts have to deal with very intricate financial cases. It is a fact, of course, that the aldermen, by virtue of their commercial experience, are able to bring very expert judgment to bear on those cases. But do not let us be misled into thinking that it is cases of this kind that constitute the main business of the courts in the City. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard—whom I am sure we were all delighted to see here this afternoon—ranged back for a period of five or six years, and produced four of these long complicated cases—only four of them. I may say that on my own bench we have often had cases of similar complexity which have gone on for five, six or seven days. But these, as I say, are not the
926
main business of the courts in the City; and if anyone suggested that they were this would be a slur on the integrity of the City of London. The bulk of the cases there are the same kind of case that we get in our magistrates' courts all over the country.
The last figures that were published were those for 1966. Let us see the kinds of case with which the City magistrates had to deal. They dealt with well over 6,000 motoring cases, over 800 cases of minor larceny, over 300 of thefts from vehicles, over 100 of thefts from shops, 160 cases of larceny as servant, 366 of shopbreaking, 11 of possessing housebreaking implements, 14 of embezzlement, 9 of falsification of accounts, 170 of false pretences, 8 of fraud by agent and 30 of wounding. If I may speak in muffled tones there were also 9 cases of indecent assault that came before the City bench, one case of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16 and one case of rape. This is really a very good sample mixed bag which might be duplicated or triplicated in almost any bench in the country. So I think we ought not to get the impression that the City bench has to be composed of very special people because the bulk of their work deals with very special cases.
The argument has also been used that the resident City population is a small one, that it consists largely of caretakers and commissionaires and barristers' wives in the Temple who might hardly b capable of taking up J.P.s' duties; and I suppose that Canon Collins, one of the residents of the City, would be unqualified from another point of view. But there are big residential developments taking place in the City of London as present, and soon there will be a very wide reservoir of residents from whom one could select possible justices of the peace. And what is wrong with bringing ordinary justices of the peace from other parts of Greater London to sit on the City bench, just as we now draft them to sit on other benches in other parts of Greater London? It may be argued that many of these would not be residents of the City, would not live there. But how many of the aldermen live in the City? I think that far more live in the Surrey "stockbroker belt" than live within the square mile of the City of London.

927
I do not think the aldermen really have much cause to worry. I should not be surprised—although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not told me anything about this—that all the City aldermen who are now officiating in the City courts will probably be appointed by name as justices of the peace for the City if this Bill happens to get through your Lordships' House. So I do not think they need worry. They would sit, as they do now, perhaps with a lady or gentleman, an ordinary lay magistrate, sitting on either side.
We heard during the debate about Dick Whittington. The days when Dick Whittington was Lord Mayor of London may have been very glamorous and exciting days, but times have changed, and we cannot live in those far-off days for ever and ever. I support the Bill as it stands. I hope that, within the new reconstituted City bench, room will be found for those aldermen capable of rendering a very valuable service, but that this service will be rendered in their capacity as individual J.P.s and not ex officio as members of the local authority.
5.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to all your Lordships who have been good enough to take part in this debate, and I shall of course study with great care everything that has been said. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may I say that I am indeed grateful to the draftsmen for the work which they have done in repealing so many Bills as they have here, not only the Jurisdiction in Liberties Act 1535 and the Habeas Corpus Act 1640—only part of which is still existing at the moment—but the Bill which says that any Privy Counsellor can send anybody to prison. I hope nobody will ask me why we are repealing the Cheshire and Lancashire County Councils (Runcorn-Widnes Bridge etc.) Act 1947, because I do not know. I see that we also repeal part of the Petition of Right.
With regard to commissioners of police, the position is extraordinarily complicated, and is of the nature the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, indicated; that is to say, that being a justice of the
928
peace is not something which is added on ex officio to being a commissioner; it seems to be the basis of being a commissioner. It is right to say that a commissioner is not a constable, and therefore if he is not a justice of the peace apparently a good deal of his position will be undermined. It really requires a very careful examination of the Acts which relate to commissioners of police, and there has not been time for that to be done in the course of this Bill.
So far as the age of appointment is concerned, I quite agree with the noble Lord that there may be many people in their late fifties thinking about retiring who would make admirable justices of the peace. The practice of Lord Chancellors has varied. I do not myself have any lower age limit at all; some in the past have had. I do not ordinarily appoint a justice over 60, except in exceptional circumstances, partly because they cannot sit on the juvenile court after 65. In answer to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, said, I shall of course be most happy to consult with him about the wording of Clause 5(3).
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, was not very happy, I think, about the reduction of the retiring age to 70, in view, he thought, of the great difficulties of getting justices of the peace. I am most concerned to get the best justices of the peace from all sections of the community, but there is of course a very large excess in the number of people who have been recommended to advisory committees over those appointed. It is a misconception to think there is a shortage. I mention this only because I have read it once or twice in letters lately from people who seem to think there is some frightful shortage of justices of the peace. There is not. There are always many more on what I might call the waiting list than can possibly be appointed.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, certainly it will in no way be a detriment to somebody being appointed that he has been chairman of an urban district council. On the contrary. This applies to all those ex officio, including, of course, the aldermen of the City of London, that the particular nature of the office which they hold ex officio is such that they would

929
ordinarily occur to an advisory committee as distinguished local citizens who, if they had time to serve, would be appointed on their merits.
I always thought that what the County Councils Association said to the Royal Commission—this was about their own chairmen—on whether the chairmen of county councils should be ex officio justices of the peace was unanswerable. They said:
"The Association entertain no doubt that if any approach is to be made to the ideal that only the most suitable persons are appointed to the Commission of the Peace, then chairmen of county, borough, urban and rural district councils should cease to qualify for admission to the list merely by their assumption of these offices. The qualities which enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of justice of the peace, added to which there is the point that in many areas the office of chairman is a matter of rotation rather than of distinctive merit. In any event, if a chairman of a local authority is suitable for appointment as a justice of the peace, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office."
It would seem to me to be difficult to argue against that.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that young mothers will be eligible for financial loss allowances under Clause 4. This is just the sort of problem we have in mind, that of young mothers who have to pay somebody to look after the children, or the man with the one-man shop who has to pay somebody to look after his shop. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, I have no present intention of going below the age of 70. I will most carefully bear in mind what he said about the supplemental lists. I gather that he would be in favour of rather further and better financial provisions than the abolition of the three mile limit and the financial loss allowances. But I think he should let me get this through the Treasury first, and then we can see what can be done later.
The only remaining point is that with regard to the aldermen of the City of London. We have had interesting arguments on this, and I will take them all most carefully into account before the Committee stage of the Bill. A number of noble Lords who have connections with the City of London have expressed views one way, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland has advanced the argu-
930
ments the other way. The only things which I should like to make clear this afternoon are these: first, that nothing in this Bill is in any way aimed at the City of London. Indeed, I may say that I have had the most friendly relations with them over this Bill. I have had deputations from them. We have had our arguments, but I hope I can say that we have remained good friends. The Bill is not aimed at anybody at all except, so far as Clause 1 is concerned, at 2,000 ex officio justices. It is quite right to say that there is no complaint at all about the way in which the City aldermen have done their work. It is also quite true to say that, unlike mast of the other ex officio justices, they are given by their clerks the same sort of training which the proper justices of the peace have.
But the arguments on the other side are those which have been put by my noble friend Lord Leatherland. Why do we not have, as most countries have, all criminal cases tried by one man, either by a lawyer or perhaps by an experienced layman? An experienced layman would be much cheaper. Is not the reason this? If you are asked by a foreigner, "Why do you support your system of lay justices of the peace?", would you not say: "We feel that one man, however admirable, doing nothing but trying crime day after day, week after week, month after month, is not on the whole so good a court as a collection of ordinary citizens, men and women of different ages, different occupations, different backgrounds and experience, all putting their heads together to decide, first, what is the most common question: who is telling the truth?" They have to decide who is telling the truth.
What many, I feel, think best is if one can fairly say that the probability is that anybody coming before a court of justices will find someone there who is familiar with his habits of speech and thought and his economic and living conditions. From experience, it is not the weekly wage earner who is lenient with the weekly wage earner. Far from it. It is usually the weekly wage earner who says, "Well, you say that is your pay. But, of course, that is only your basic pay, is it not? That is not your take-home pay." It is a good thing to have this general spread of all kinds of conditions among lay justices.

931
I cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which any advisory committee for the City of London would not include among its recommendations for appointment all the aldermen of the City of London. So what are we really arguing about? The only thing we are arguing about is this: do we leave the aldermen as they are—sole, well-to-do males? Or can they not so far demean themselves as to have sitting with them two ordinary citizens? That is all it is about, though one must face the fact that one of them might be a woman. I have told them myself that I think they will love it. It all depends upon which woman, but I think they will find it much more interesting. I think everybody does. I should not be at all surprised if some of those in this Chamber live to see the day when High Court Judges sit with a couple of civilians. Sentencing is becoming more and more difficult and sophisticated, and two heads are better than one. One noble Lord said, I think, that he had had to alter his view, on hearing what somebody else had said. I believe that talking it over is of enormous help.
But there are two views on this matter. I quite appreciate the other view. On the whole I think it is mistaken, because all it comes to is whether these aldermen are prepared to sit with a couple of ordinary citizens, and particularly one a woman. My noble friend Lord Leatherland was quite right in saying that the cases in the City are much the same as those in another similar town. It may be—may it not?—that women who have to give evidence in a case of indecent assault prefer, even in the City, to have a woman on the bench. But these are things which we can consider further. May I conclude by again saying how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have taken part in what, to me, has been a most interesting debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL [H.L.]
5.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I believe that the objects of this Bill should appeal to your Lordships. They are in a modest way a furtherance of the policy of international co-operation through the medium of international organisations, about which many of your Lordships spoke on the recently debated Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, on January 25.
I will not disguise the fact that this is a highly complicated Bill. In my view, it is a Bill which will bear examination on Committee more than perhaps on Second Reading. I suspect that if I were to endeavour to cover the number of clauses in the Bill your Lordships would be more bemused than I was when the brief was presented to me at the week-end. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will remember that we recently passed a Bill to provide immunities and privileges for the Consular Corps. This Bill provides in some cases privileges and immunities for the more senior officers of international organisations who may carry out work either of a permanent nature or of a casual nature in this country. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we should do what we can to attract these international organisations to this country since we receive a certain amount of "spin-off", in the sense that we are closer to them and can take an interest in their work.
These clauses in themselves do not give the immunities and privileges to the organisations. This will be done by Orders in Council. This Bill therefore is an enabling Bill which makes it possible for Orders in Council to be made and then for the immunities and privileges to come into being. I think that I should say, because the House in the past has always been jealous about the granting of immunities and privileges, that these

933
Orders in Council will cover only the immunities and privileges which are contained in agreements which will be entered into by Her Majesty's Government. Such agreements may be made between Her Majesty's Government, as the host country, and an organisation which intends to come to this country. Certainly those privileges and immunities would not exceed those specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill. If one looks at Schedule 1 one sees that it is divided into Parts. The first Part provides for the privileges and immunities of the organisation itself as a corporate body; Part II provides for privileges and immunities of representatives, members of subordinate bodies, high officers, experts, and persons on missions; and Part III provides for certain privileges and immunities of other officers and servants.
I assure the House that what we envisage here is the granting of privileges and immunities which both Houses of Parliament will be required to approve when the Orders in Council come before them, and that they will be such immunities and privileges as are required by these international bodies in order to be able to work freely and properly in this country. It is difficult to rest this on a basis of reciprocity, since reciprocity will occur between the host Government and the organisation, but in practice there are many organisations which are operating in other countries, and we may well be a member of those organisations. We thus have a fairly good idea what immunities and privileges are required for those organisations to function properly. With those few words, I hope that the House will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, and if there are any matters of detail we can perhaps consider them more adequately in Committee. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Shepherd.)
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having explained the Bill so concisely and rapidly. Any points which I raise and which he does not feel inclined to answer to-day I hope that he will be able to reply to on the Committee stage.
934
I understand that the Bill replaces, with amendments and some new provisions, the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act 1950 and also the European Coal and Steel Community Act 1955.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord about the importance of international co-operation and of keeping good relations with other countries. But, as always on these occasions, your Lordships have to go through a kind of automatic ritual in expressing uneasiness about the number of concessions which we in this country grant to an ever increasing army of representatives of various international organisations. I am afraid that I have to express that uneasiness again and ask that this Bill should be looked at very carefully. I fully realise that immunities should be granted to people who come to this country as representatives of such organisations, but we must be sure that we do not give greater concessions here than are obtained for British people in similar posts abroad.
I see that Clause 1 merely gives the power to accord the privileges and immunities as set out in Schedule 1 and that there is nothing automatic about the privileges to be given. Schedule seems to consist of the maximum privileges and immunities which can be granted, and I should like an assurance from the Minister that there is no question of granting privileges and immunities unilaterally. Clause 10 of the Bill states that Orders in Council in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses 1 and 5 are subject to Affirmative Resolution. I see, however—and I do not quite understand this—that Orders under clause 6 are not subject to Affirmative Resolution but only to annulment in pursuance of Resolutions by either House. Could the noble Lord tell me why this distinction has been drawn?
Then, in regard to purchase tax, paragraph 7 of Part I of Schedule 1.states that there will be relief by way of refund of purchase tax for any goods which are used for the official purposes of relevant organisations. I am glad to see the phrase "for the official purposes". I remember that in the debate on the European Coal and Steel Community Bill in 1955 in another place, the then Under-Secretary

935
was asked whether there would be purchase tax concessions, and he replied:
"No purchase tax concessions are granted either statutorily or extra-statutorily …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 29/6/55; col. 445.]
Is this in fact a change of policy and, if so, could the noble Lord say why? Will British representatives of organisations in foreign countries be granted similar concessions in regard to sales tax?
The Explanatory Memorandum, in dealing with Schedule 1, states that there will be exemption from social security obligations. This is expanded in paragraph 13 of Part II of the Schedule. Does this mean that the National Health Service is available to members of missions in this country without their having to pay National Insurance Stamp contributions? I fully understand why they should have limited exemption from estate duty, but if they are to have the benefits of our National Health Service they should pay for it. Finally, there is a reference in paragraph 23 of Part IV of the Schedule to "members of the family of a representative". Could the noble Lord tell me what this phrase means? Would it include the second cousin of a representative or a third cousin once removed? I feel that the word "family" in the paragraph should have some clearer definition. I would end by saying that we will watch very carefully the Orders in Council which will be made under the Bill to make certain that they do not automatically include all the privileges and immunities mentioned but are tailored to the particular case. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to give your Lordships answers to these questions, either this afternoon or during the Committee stage of the Bill.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I also should like to welcome this Bill, which I believe represents very much a step in the right direction. But I should like my noble friend to say, either this afternoon or when we come to the Committtee stage, whether Clause 5 applies to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. He may prefer to wait until the Committeee stage, but I should be grateful for a reply as soon as he has the information.
6.12 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, for giving general support to this Bill. I am going to surprise the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, by saying that his is the easiest question. Clause 5 does enable immunities and privileges to be given to the two bodies to which he referred. I assure the noble Earl that this Bill does not in any way provide for ad lib. privileges to those concerned, and they will be restricted. As I said in my opening speech, they must not exceed those privileges which are laid down in Schedule 1 to the Bill. In fact, there will often be occasions when the privileges and immunities that are granted are less. I think I should also say that, basically, privileges and immunities will be granted to these various organisations according to the need and according to their type and character. There may also be conferences of a somewhat permanent nature, while others may be quite temporary.
The noble Earl referred to Clause 6, and he wished to know why these Orders do not require the Affirmative Resolution procedure. As he well knows, that is a rather cumbersome procedure and the Orders have to go through both Houses of Parliament. But most of the Orders that will be made under this clause will be in regard to conferences which are for a very short period, and therefore it would be cumbersome if such Orders were required to go through both Houses. It would be wrong if we were to deny privileges and immunities to these conferences. It may well be that what is done under this clause will be the initial paving work before a full-scale international organisation can be set up in this country.
The noble Earl asked me about purchase tax. Part I provides for the relief from purchase tax when an organisation is set up. Perhaps it might be a once-and-for-all purchase, in which case it would be easy to see what purchase tax had been involved and to make a refund. I stand to be corrected, but I think it is true to say that under this Bill there is no immunity from purchase tax for individuals. I think it would be an impossible task to check all the personal purchases made by individuals in order that they could be relieved of tax. However, the overseas staff of these organisations

937
will of course have relief from customs duties on entering this country. As I have said, these immunities and privileges will be based upon the criterion of the needs of the particular organisation.
In regard to the definition of the word "family", I know that it could be construed very widely. In fact, it has been used previously in regard to diplomatic and consular measures and there is clearly defined recognition of what is meant by the word "family". I do not have the exact definition with me, but I am sure that it refers very much to the close family of the officer involved. However, I shall see that the noble Earl is provided with that information between now and the Committee stage.
There may be one or two other points which we ought to consider, because this Bill is being initiated in this House. But perhaps we can talk about them between now and the Committee stage or, if necessary, at the Committee stage itself. I hope that the House will now agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' MUTUAL INVESTMENT TRUST BILL
6.15 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust was set up in 1961, following the passing of the Trustee Investments Act of that year. It was set up under a special section, Section 11, and the Treasury were able to authorise local authorities to do collectively what they were authorised to do individually. Therefore any scheme which is submitted, or any action which is taken with regard to this Trust, implies and needs Treasury approval. Since that time the Trust has operated very successfully on behalf of the local authorities, of which approximately 360, out of a total of some 550, contribute to the fund. Of course, many of the larger authorities have access to expert advice and are themselves able to invest. But it has undoubtedly been of very great advantage to the medium and small
938
authorities, while even the larger authorities have found it desirable to take advantage of the wide range which this Trust provides.
At the present time there are two funds—a wide-ranging fund and a narrow-ranging fund. This is, of course, to comply with the law that 50 per cent. must be invested in gilt-edged securities and similar Government guaranteed securities, and 50 per cent. may be in wider ranging funds which do not carry quite the same interpretation. The effect of this has been that the funds remitted for the Trust to invest amount now to almost£90 million on the wide-ranging fund and some £5½ million on the narrow-ranging fund. The difference is understandable, because the local authorities are themselves easily able to invest funds of such a very narrow range. On the other hand, the wide-ranging fund gives the small authority a very wide range of risks, in the same way as any unit trust provides it to the private individual.
It has proved to be profitable to them to the extent that before the Trustee Investments Act it was well known that a vast majority of authorities, if not all of them, were having to make pretty large equal annual contributions to their superannuation funds, in order to comply with the actuaries' requirements with regard to their solvency. I recollect that in the case of my own county, Middlesex, as it was at that time, where we had a very favourable superannuation fund, we were making an equal annual contribution which was at one time almost as much as the amount of the initial contribution.
Of course, the Act made a vast difference to local authorities by permitting them a wider range of investments. They were able to catch up with inflation much more easily. As a result of this many of the local authorities, if not all, are now not having to make quite so large a contribution from their rate fund. Therefore, the Act itself, and Section 11 in particular, has been of great advantage to local authorities as well as to the ratepayers, inasmuch as they have not been obliged to pay out so much money in support of the equalisation fund.
Having regard to the present range, and the restrictions which are implied as

939
a result of Section 11, the Trust now requires to widen the scope of the investments. As will be seen from the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill,
"The Company desire…to permit investment in Commonwealth countries, the United States of America and certain Western European countries in real property in the United Kingdom, and in the United Kingdom securities which do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 1 to 3 of Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1961…"
These particular requirements are that investments are not permitted in a concern which has an issued and paid-up capital of less than £1 million, or in a company which has not in the preceding five years paid a dividend on the whole of its shares.
On the question of £1 million as a figure, one could easily go either side of it, but a good deal of profitable investment has been missed because of this particular restriction, which the Trust is very anxious to see removed. On the question of the five-year period without paying a dividend on the whole of its shares, there are one or two instances recently which might be noted and which might have a very serious effect on this. I have noted that in one or two companies, in order to meet the requirements of the 3½ per cent. limit which the Treasury have imposed on dividends, some directors with substantial holdings have decided to waive their dividends. In effect, therefore, these companies will not be paying interest on the whole of their share capital. I doubt whether this was obvious at the time when this particular section was put into the Act, but on a strict interpretation, as I see it, this limitation would apply, and we are certainly very anxious that it should not apply to the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust or, indeed, to local authorities generally.
This is a company which does not exist for any purpose other than to manage the affairs and funds of local authorities. It has no individual investors; it has nobody outside local authorities. The controlling body is set up by the local authority associations under a scheme for which provision is made. The local authority associations have agreed that this extension is desirable and necessary, in order that the Trust may be able to do the best it possibly can on behalf of its
940
investors. The people who do the actual investing are skilled people. The local authorities are very well satisfied with what has happened in the past, and will be very glad to have these additional powers—which, I may say, have been agreed with the Treasury. The Treasury were in some doubt, to begin with, as to whether or not a scheme of this kind would have to apply to all local authorities, but they are now pretty well satisfied on that point, and that that would not cause any complications.
On the second point, on the question of investments abroad—in the United States, the Commonwealth, and so on—the Treasury have required, and have been given an assurance, that so long as the voluntary restrictions apply they will be very strictly applied by the Trust, and that it will not seek any investments of this kind. With regard to property investments, the first impression was that it might be possible to set up a separate property investment trust, apart and distinct from the other part of the fund. It is not the intention of the Trust to do anything of the kind. It will hold property for investment purposes in precisely the same way as it holds any other funds which are available to it.
My Lords, I hope that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships. It is simple in its effect; it is desirable from the point of view of the public interest, and I hope that your Lordships will give it approval. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pargiter.)
6.23 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am going to make one of my longer speeches. We on these Benches think that this Bill is probably necessary and that it is certainly sensible. It has our general blessing. I use the words "general blessing" because there is one point which I think requires further consideration, but I am going to leave it to my noble friend Lord Coleraine to deal with that, since it is a point that he has raised. Apart from that, I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading this afternoon.
6.24 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I, too, rise to support this Bill. I remember

941
the Trustee Investments Act very well. With Mr. Diamond, the gentleman who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I had the honour of leading for the Opposition on the Committee stage of that Bill. At one stage we moved a very interesting Amendment, to which I shall refer in a moment. The local authorities were provided for, and well provided for, and I think it is significant that the need for further provision and an enlargement of their powers has arisen, has been urged by them and has been approved by the Treasury. I have no doubt it is right. But the Trustee Investments Act applied, of course, to all trustees, and one would have hoped that it would cover many types of trust funds.
The Amendment we moved was an Amendment to prevent far more drastic restrictions than had ever been put on any trustee being imposed, or their imposition being continued, upon the National Debt Commissioners. That is a body which has not met since 1860, but I have discovered the reason: it has power to operate, and does in fact operate, by three members only of the Commission. One is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other is the Governor of the Bank of England and the third is the Deputy Governor. This, I think, explains why the Treasury has found it unnecessary to give any advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My Lords, it really is a fantastic position, and I say at once, before coming to the Amendment, that a Labour Government, directly after the war, was responsible for it. We put into the National Insurance Act 1946, provisions which were re-enacted in 1965 and which tied these people, as regards very large sums of public money indeed, to Government securities or Government-guaranteed securities. I shall develop that, if I may, on an Unstarred Question which I have down for Monday next. All I wish to say now is that, having seen this Bill and having noted the fact that it went through another place without a Division and with general approval, and also the fact that it now appears, subject to any point that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, may raise, to be likely to go through this House in the same way, it is a little difficult for the Government to say that there is no time and no opportunity to remedy the very serious mistake that was made
942
in relation to the investing powers of the National Debt Commissioners.
The sums involved are very large indeed. The present figure of the total National Insurance (Reserve) Fund—only one of the funds with which they have to deal—is £1,187 million odd—that is the cost. It has depreciated to £845 million, not because the National Debt Commissioners have done anything wrong but because their hands were tied by the very thing which, to a far lesser degree, has been tying the hands of local authorities in this case.
I trust that the Government are going to wake up to the fact that this is going on. It is continually going on. In the last ten years £40 million has been lost simply on the realisation of securities. That is not the result of any wickedness on the part of the Governor of the Bank of England, or the Deputy Governor or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not a Party point; it is something which has happened under both Governments. I earnestly hope that this nice little swallow, if I may so describe it, is the herald of the spring which, at the Government's own instance, will dawn upon the National Debt Commissioners very shortly.
My Lords, as to this particular Bill I do not think that the case could be put better than by the one Minister who spoke on the Third Reading. What he said was:
"I do not believe that we should attempt to supervise the Trust"—
that is, the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust—
"like a nanny in what it is going to Jo with the options it is proposed the House should give it. We should give these powers without tormenting ourselves as to hypothetical misuse or folly. The simple principle to be decided is whether we should widen these powers of the Trust in the knowledge that it is a wry well run Trust in charge of very responsible people and that these powers are unlikely to be misused."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), col. 792; 22/3/68.]
Those words apply equally to the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund. It is a very well-run trust, within its limits—but its limits are quite impossible ones. It is in charge of very responsible people —who could be more responsible than the Chancellor of the Exchequer a ad the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England? And it also follows

943
that the powers are unlikely to be misused. What is being done in this case should be done also in that far more important case. I think we ought to be grateful not only to my noble friend who has moved this Bill here but to those of both Parties who supported it, broadly speaking on the grounds I have just mentioned, in the Chamber below. We ought to say to the Government of the day, "Wake up and do the same thing for something for which you are directly responsible!"
6.32 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I certainly follow my noble friend Lord Derwent in his approval of the Bill. It is clearly a sensible Bill and I think it will do good. But there is one general point of principle which arises from it and which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, did not touch upon in his admirably lucid and concise speech in moving the Second Reading. It is a point that was not touched upon in another place, and which I yet believe to be of great importance; and I think that this House might well be seized of it. The point is this. As a result of this Bill, when it becomes law, this particular company, the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust, will be put in a privileged position as compared with other investment trusts or unit trusts operating in the field particularly of property investment.
It is not only that. I think that under the Bill as it stands—and as it must stand; because I do not think it is possible to amend it—the local authorities themselves will be at a disadvantage because they will be able to invest through this particular company only, when there are in existence something like half a dozen other companies through which they could make their investments in property. The position to-day, before the Bill is passed, before this development in the powers of the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust takes place, is that that Trust and other bodies operating in the same field are exactly on a par. None of them can invest local authorities' funds in property directly. I think I am right in saying that although they can invest in property companies, neither this company nor any other company can hold local authorities' funds in property itself.
944
When the Bill becomes law the effect will be that this one company will be able to make such investments in property but that none of its competitors will be able to do so. That does not seem to me to be equitable. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, referred to one comment made by the only Minister who took part in the Third Reading debate in another place on March 22 last. I should like to refer to another comment made by the same Minister. He was replying to criticisms that it was wrong for a public authority like the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust, to add to the pressure on the property market by investing directly in property. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury justified it by saying that we were all agreed that there was a public sector in industry and in finance and that there was a private sector. He said:
"… what is sauce for the private … goose must be sauce for the public … gander."—[col. 778.]
Conversely, I think it might be said that what is sauce for the public gander is sauce for the private goose.
As I say, it does not seem to be equitable that this public authority should have a privilege denied to a private company operating in the same field. But it is not only these private companies that are at a disadvantage. As I indicated a few minutes ago, the local authorities themselves are at a disadvantage. It may be the case—and I have no doubt that it is—that the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust is admirably managed; but it has not, it cannot have, a monopoly of skill and experience, and it seems a little unfortunate that local authorities are prohibited—as they will be prohibited when this Bill is passed and as they are now prohibited—from drawing on a wider pool of experience, skill and knowledge in the management of property.
My Lords, I am told, and I accept the position, that there is no possibility of amending the Bill. If I thought it would do any good I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, to withdraw it until he had considered the point that I have tried to make; but clearly it would be unreasonable to expect him to do that. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—not that he should reply now to this point I am making—whether the Government should not consider it desirable

945
in the future to bring in some quite small Bill to produce that equality between these various institutions which will be lacking when this Bill becomes law.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he will allow me to ask whether he has noticed (in col. 778) the reason given by the Financial Secretary in answer to the point he has just raised? He said that a good many local authorities already had the power—I think, under Private Bills—to hold land; and that one ought not to discriminate between those cases and the cases which would be dealt with under this general Bill.
LORD COLERAINE: Yes, my Lords, that is true. There are some large local authorities like Manchester and the Greater London Council which have promoted Bills to give them the authority to make their own investments. There are also one or two smaller local authorities which have promoted similar Bills. But it seems to me to be much simpler for the Government to promote a Public Bill which would cover all authorities and which would give them permission to do what these particular authorities are allowed to do already.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pargiter has fully and very clearly explained the purposes of this Bill. I think all I need say is that the Treasury were informed of the proposal to introduce the Bill and they approved of its terms. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, fired some of the shots which I should have thought he would have conserved until next Monday—
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, there is more for that occasion.
LORD BESWICK: —but possibly the noble Lord has a lot of spare ammunition. He appeared to think that there was a similarity between the Trust we are discussing and the National Insurance Reserve Fund. I would submit to him that there are significant differences, but as I have not the spare ammunition that he has at his disposal, I propose to conserve mine until next Monday.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made some very interesting points. He was kind enough to say that he was not expecting an answer this
946
evening, but perhaps I may say just this. This Trust, LAMIT as it is apparently called, is a non-profit-making body. It is, as the noble Lord said, expertly advised and adapted exclusively to the requirements of local authorities. Treasury approval of the scheme, which is necessary under Section 11 of the Trustee Investment Act 1961, takes into account the intention of the Trust to operate a balanced portfolio, and the proposed extension in this Bill would not impair the general suitability of the scheme for local authority purposes.
I would put this point to the noble Lord. If local authorities wish to submit other schemes for Treasury approval under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, they will be considered. I quite agree with him that it would be unsuitable to attempt to amend the Bill now before us. Similarly, I would say to him that if other bodies wish to seek an extension of the scope of trustee investment, such as investment in a non-authorised unit trust, that is a matter on which the view of Parliament ought to be obtained by separate legislation. With that, my Lords, I welcome the Bill and trust that it will pass safely through its further stages.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, the House and the noble Lord have been most patient, but may I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? So far as I know, the position of the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust and other property-unit trusts in the private sector is exactly the same so far as profit is concerned. They, too, are mutual trusts and the money that passes, so to speak, is in respect of management fees just as in the case of the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust. On the other point, I should still like to ask the noble Lord to consider it again. Surely it is extremely cumbersome for every local authority that wishes to have some other avenue of investment to promote a Private Bill or a hybrid Bill, and it would be perfectly simple for the Government, if they thought fit, to introduce a Bill which would cover any local authority which wished to take advantage of it.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, but the point I was attempting to make was that if local authorities find it cumbersome or burdensome, it is perfectly open

947
to them to make the necessary recommendations, and if they were made they would be considered.
6.45 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been received, and for the assurance that it will receive a Second Reading. I hope that the remaining stages will not detain your Lordships for too long. With regard to the points made by my noble friend Lord Mitchison, they are right outside the scope of the Bill. I wish my noble friend luck. I would ask him to think about this point. Having regard to the huge sums involved in the National Insurance Fund and so on, what would happen if they were all channelled outside Government investments into all sorts of other forms of investment? It might prove difficult for the Treasury. But that is a matter which will be discussed on another occasion.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to point out that that was why I read the quotation about not treating responsible people like a nanny? The Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England could be trusted to look after the point that he mentioned.
LORD PARGITER: As I said, my Lords, it is not a matter that I wish to pursue. It is only a thought which occurred to me while my noble friend Lord Mitchison was speaking. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. It has been the practice for a very long time in most matters affecting local authorities that the general law very often follows Private Acts of local authorities. In fact, it frequently happens that a local authority or a number of local authorities promote Private Bills, and ultimately the volume of opinion is such that the Government realise it is a matter of public interest and something is being proposed for the public good; and generally the provisions are incorporated in an Act. I should imagine that a similar procedure would be adopted here if it were seen that the present law is restrictive and that the provisions should be widened.
948
I am glad the noble Lord agrees that it is not possible to amend this Bill, which is a hybrid Bill and subject to a special procedure. It would create tremendous complications if any attempt were made to amend it, particularly to bring in bodies which are not now subject to Section 11 of the Trustee Investment Act. It is a peculiar body set up under particular circumstances by the Treasury under a particular section which was conveyed into the Act for the purpose. It would seem, therefore, that it would not be possible to do more than is proposed at present. But that does not mean that I am out of sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, or that I would not support a proposal for local authorities generally to have wider powers of investment quite apart from their investment in this particular body. But at this stage I wish to confine myself to what has been said on Second Reading and to thank your Lordships for the kind consideration you have given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

NIGERIA: CEASE-FIRE PROPOSAL
6.48 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, through the Commonwealth Secretariat, they will urge the Federal Government of Nigeria to accept the proposal of President Leopold Senghor of Senegal and President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania for an immediate cease-fire and a referendum of the population of the non-Ibo areas of the Eastern Region (Biafra) on the establishment of separate regions within the Federation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper in my name.
My Lords, the war in Nigeria and Biafra has now lasted for ten months. I am quite sure that every Member of your Lordships' House regards it as a disaster. The estimates are that during this war 70,000 people have died; and most of them have been civilians. In a sense, this war began before ten months ago. The hostilities were opened in September, 1966, when there was the appalling massacre in Northern Nigeria

949
of the Eastern population. The Biafran estimate is that 30,000 were massacred; the Federal estimate is 10,000. Even if the number be 20,000 it was one of the most cold-blooded massacres that has occurred since the Second World War. Men, women and children coming out of the churches were slaughtered as they left. And in addition to those who were killed in the Northern Region it is estimated that there were nearly 2 million refugees into the East and into Biafra. In every third home there was a refugee from the North.
I make no excuse for raising this issue again. On the last occasion, in February, when I initiated a debate, I was criticised for calling this the "forgotten war". I meant by this that although this terrible calamity is occurring in one of our Commonwealth countries, until quite recently the Press, television and the public generally have paid little attention to it. Perhaps, instead of saying "the forgotten war", I should have called it "the unknown war", or "the ignored war".
I want to correct the phrase, "the forgotten war", in two senses. In the first place, it has certainly not been forgotten by Mr. Arnold Smith, the Director of the Commonwealth Secretariat. I wish to pay as high a tribute as it is possible to pay to him for his services. Not only has he been utterly dedicated to seeking peace; he has also shown an ability and energy in endeavouring to bring about mediation which is beyond ordinary words to express. I acknowledge also that it has not been ignored by Her Majesty's Government; I acknowledge that they have supported the efforts of mediation which Mr. Smith has made. But the Government have not ignored the war in another sense which is not so much to be commended: they have stepped up—indeed, I might say, "steeped up"—the supply of arms to one side in this conflict, and this has been responsible for the death of a large number of people.
We have been assured that the weapons and arms which the Government have contributed have not included the "deadlier lethal weapons" and that they have been a continuation of the ordinary contribution of arms which the Government have sent in times of peace. But I do not think that the spokesman for the Government will deny, even if
950
the arms have been limited to that character, that they have beer enormously expanded. Unfortunately those who live in the old Eastern Region, now termed by them Biafra, do not believe that Her Majesty's Government have limited the arms sent to these conventional kinds.
There was a remarkable article in yesterday's Sunday Times by William Norris, and I propose to read two paragraphs from it. He writes:
"I have seen things in Biafra this week which no man should have to see. Sights to scorch the mind and sicken the conscience. I have seen children roasted alive, young girls torn in two by shrapnel, pregnant women eviscerated and old men blown to fragments. I have seen these things and I have seen their cause: high-flying Russian Ilyushin jets operated by Federal Nigeria, dropping their bombs on civilian centres throughout Biafra.
"These bombs, the Biafrans firmly believe, are British. They produce photographs of unexploded specimens to support their case and experts to declare that the dismantled fuses are of British pattern. They may or may not be right—too many Biafrans have a regard for truth which would make Ananias sound like George Washington—but this is not important. What does matter is that the people believe it implicitly, and with Britain openly permitting the supply of other arms to Nigeria, they have no reason not to do so."
I have had the assurance of my noble friend Lord Shepherd that these deadlier lethal weapons are not being sent. I believe him, and one of the reasons I have made this quotation to-night is to give him an opportunity to make an emphatic denial.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity. It is a lie—and I shall explain why I say it is a lie. I came to this debate on the understanding that we were looking for peace, looking for ways and means by which we can get both sides to a table. I hope that at this moment we shall pick our words with the greatest possible care.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I will lay the emphasis of my speech there, because that is my main purpose. But it was important at this moment, when we are approaching circumstances which may lead to peace, that there should be the denial which my noble friend has made. May I just ask him to tell us, when he replies to my speech, whether it is true, as stated officially in Biafran circles today, that Britain has offered a gunboat to

951
the Nigerian Navy? That may not be regarded as a "deadlier lethal weapon", but one would like to know.
There has been an extraordinary coalition in the provision of arms to Nigeria. Britain has provided arms; Russia has provided jet planes. Egypt has provided pilots. On the other side, arms have been sent from France through Portugal, because that is the only, and rather dangerous, route by which arms can reach Port Harcourt. In an earlier speech, I made an appeal to my noble friend that Britain should take the initiative in appealing to all Governments supplying arms to stop sending these arms. I repeat that appeal to-night. The very fact that we may be on the eve of peace negotiations makes it most desirable that all the Governments which are supplying arms should exert united pressure in order to bring peace.
I want to ask my noble friend to clear up one strange anomaly which I cannot undersand. It is in relation to the Crown Agents. The Crown Agents, I believe, supply orders from Commonwealth Governments and the British Government have the duty of issuing licences for any orders which they give for British arms. But while the British Government do not send deadly, lethal weapons, can my noble friend answer this: do the Crown Agents have the power to order these deadly, lethal weapons from other countries for the Commonwealth countries?
I have in my hand at this moment the Crown Agents' Bulletin for January of this year. It gives the orders of over £50,000 in value which were placed in December last. Out of 14 orders which the Crown Agents supplied, 10 were for the Nigerian Federal Government, and they amounted in that one month to the sum of £1,956,181. It may be said that the British Government are still maintaining what they had previously sent, but those orders through the Crown Agents (and I do not know whether they are included in the British Government's figure) indicate an extraordinary expansion of the arms which are being sent to Nigeria.
What I want to ask—and it is a question of real difficulty—is: Who are the staff at the Crown Agents? Who meets the cost of their offices? Who meets the
952
cost of the staff? Are they British civil servants? Have they any responsibility to the Houses of Parliament? If they have, then we have a right to a knowledge of the arms that they are ordering, even if they are being ordered from other countries than Britain.
The next point I want to make is this. It is now quite clear that the war in the Eastern Region, Biafra, is much more than the police action which the Federal Government indicated, and certainly has not concluded by March of this year as they said it would. Despite the overwhelming modern arms on the Federal Government's side, Biafra is doing much better than one would have believed possible. The Federation has suffered a series of losses in the last few months which have perhaps cost 20,000 lives. Therefore this is not just a temporary police matter, and unless we now go forward to negotiations it may be a war that will last for months, and perhaps even, in a guerrilla form, for years.
There are now new hopes of negotiation. Both the Biafran Administration and the Federal Government have indicated that they are ready to begin talks. The Biafran Government has appointed four negotiators who are prepared to leave for these talks in 48 hours. But disappointingly, a very similar situation is developing to that on the proposal for talks in the Vietnam war. There seem to be different views in London and Lagos. Dr. Arikpo, the Nigerian Federal Commissioner for Foreign Affairs has apparently said in London that the Federal Government is prepared to enter into negotiations immediately and without conditions.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend wishes to observe the purpose of this debate. He said "apparently". The words were perfectly clear, and what was said was "without conditions."
LORD BROCKWAY: I very much hope that my noble friend will not think that I am deliberately using the term unfairly. I am saying "apparently" because a different view has been expressed by the Federal Government in Lagos, of which Dr. Arikpo is the Foreign Minister. Therefore, I should be a little unfair to the Minister if I definitely put words into his mouth which, again I say apparently,

953
are being denied by the Government of which he is a Minister. That illustrates the difficulty. While in London he is saying: "We will enter into immediate negotiations without conditions"; at the same time, on the same day, in Lagos the Federal Government is saying that it will enter into negotiations only on certain quite definite conditions: the condition that Biafra will end its secession and the condition that Biafra will accept the twelve States. I very much want this contradiction to be cleared up, and I hope the Minister will not think that I put it in a way which raises any doubt as to the truth of any statement which has been made.
There is not only the difficulty about the actual conditions as to whether the talks will be unconditional, but also the same difficulty as there is in Vietnam—whether the venue is to be London or Dakar. I very much hope that the talks will not be delayed because the two sides are debating where they are to take place. London is rejected by Biafra because London has been supplying arms. Dakar is rejected by Lagos because Leopold Senghor seems to have indicated sympathy with Biafra. I should like to make this suggestion to my noble friend, and I hope that, if necessary, he will put it to Mr. Arnold Smith. The African Governments which were members of the Nigerian Peace Committee of the Organisation of African Unity (I am speaking from memory) are Ethiopia, Niger, the Congo, Ghana, Senegal and the Camcroons. One of those Governments might easily provide the place for such a meeting. I think my noble friend knows that I am not always sympathetic with the Government of Ghana, but in view of the fact that the earlier talks took place there and in view of the very sincere efforts which that Government has made towards peace, I should have thought that Ghana might well be made a place for this meeting.
The situation in Nigeria has fundamentally changed by the recognition which the Tanzanian Government has now given to the Biafran Government; and I think one can say that three other African States are likely to follow that recognition if peace talks do not begin. This is a tremendous change. At the beginning the Organisation of African Unity and African Governments generally
954
were opposed to the recognition of Biafra because they had in their own countries the difficulties of secessions. Now that African Governments are prepared to recognise Biafra the situation has changed.
I was very interested in the attitude of the Czechoslovakian Government about this. In Prague, Mr. Kohout, the Foreign Minister, this week said that Czechoslovakia had agreed to supply six training aircraft to Lagos last year at a time when all the African States supported. Nigeria. He added:
"I can affirm that since then there has not been, and there will not be, any further deliveries to the Nigerian Government".
This is a recognition that the whole situation in the African Continent has changed; where before there was universal support for the Federal Government, now Governments are beginning to support Biafra.
I believe that the possibilities of a settlement are great. Both sides must contribute towards it. I would say to my noble friend that Colonel Ojukwu of Biafra has gone very far towards making concessions. He has accepted common services throughout Nigeria, including joint diplomatic representation abroad; and that is a real dent in the suggestion of claiming complete sovereignty. If agreement is to be reached, the Federal Government must be prepared to make concessions as well. I do not believe it can any longer insist upon a union within Nigeria which is to be absolute and which is to be rigid.
There was in yesterday's Observer a quite extraordinary article by President Nyerere of Tanzania. I will read one passage:
"Unity can only be based on the general consent of the people involved. The people must feel that this State or this Union is theirs; and they must be willing to halve their quarrels in that context. Once a large number of the people of any such political unit stop believing that the State is theirs and that the Government is their instrument, then the unit is no longer viable. It will not continue to receive the loyalty of its citizens."
My Lords, much as we regret the fact, I do not think there is any doubt that that is the situation in Biafra to-day. I accept that there is the difficulty of the minorities in the East. I have been a little surprised that there has been quiescence among them. I would suggest that one of the decisions by any peace

955
conference should be as suggested by the Heads of State of Senegal and Tanzania, that a referendum should take place among them.
My Lords, I conclude by saying this. This is one of the greatest tragedies, perhaps the greatest tragedy, that has happened in the Commonwealth since the conflict between India and Pakistan at the end of the war. It is a tragedy for Nigeria, which we regarded almost as a model colony and which has now become divided. It is a tragedy because Africans are killing Africans. It is a tragedy because it is another illustration of one of the most terrible things today: the intensification of feelings of race and the antagonism of one race to another. It is a tragedy to Britain because of Britain's large part in creating this colony, and also because British interests are going to suffer very seriously if this war goes on. It is a tragedy to the whole human family. I am asking my noble friend who is the Minister not merely to give the kind of support which the Government have given in recent months, but to give it with urgency and determination so that the horror which is taking place in Nigeria shall be ended. I ask this Government to make a contribution of support to Mr. Arnold Smith and the Commonwealth Secretariat so emphatic as to enable this to come about.
7.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for giving us this further opportunity of discussing the deplorable situation in Nigeria, even if I feel, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that perhaps the least said at this moment, soonest mended. But I am glad that Lord Brockway has put down this Question, because it will give the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, an opportunity of clarifying what is a most confusing situation and the many conflicting reports which we have seen lately in the Press.
We read not only the reports to which the noble Lord has referred—Ilyushin jets dropping bombs, which I am very glad to hear are not British bombs—but also reports of the French, and I understand even the Chinese and the Russians, too, arming the other side. These are
956
extraordinary reports. There are rumours, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that many of them are greatly exaggerated, wildly exaggerated, reports, and I hope he will be able to tell us what really is going on, not only for the humanitarian reasons which the noble Lord has so well expressed, but also because there are many British interests in Nigeria.
Like the Government, we on this side of the House deplore the continuation of the war, and we are glad that Her Majesty's Government are playing their part in trying to bring about a ceasefire. It is clearly essential to bring the two sides together for this purpose. After all, they met last year, I think it was in August, three from each side; and we on this side of the House welcome any idea which is likely to help in this respect and which is acceptable to both sides, whether the proposals are made by the Commonwealth Secretary-General or by others such as those to whom the noble Lord refers in his Question.
In regard to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, I am sure that we should all like to give unqualified support on this issue to Mr. Arnold Smith—I should like to join with the noble Lord in this—and also, incidentally, to his Deputy Secretary-General, Mr. Adu, who comes from Ghana and whom I have known for very many years. I am very glad to note all the efforts that Mr. Smith and his colleagues are making in trying to get the two sides to meet again without preconditions. I saw Mr. Arnold Smith this morning and I know—I will not go further than to say this; I will not go into the details, although I had a long conversation with him—he is doing everything he possibly can to achieve this end.
I gather from the speech by Dr. Arikpo last Thursday, which the noble Lord mentioned (Dr. Arikpo is the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs) that he has confirmed that the Federal Government are prepared to embark on such talks as soon as the other side are ready. I think his are the true words, because that must surely be the first essential aim; and the question of a peace force or questions of sovereignty and details about any possible referendum or whether there should ultimately be a federation of twelve States, are in a sense secondary

957
matters. The first essential is to get the two sides together as soon as possible. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to tell us what the situation is and what the prospects are for a meeting to be held in the near future, either in London or elsewhere—or perhaps in London and elsewhere. I notice that on Thursday Dr. Arikpo said that it should be possible to arrange a meeting by May 1 at the latest. However, in the present delicate circumstances I would rather not say anything more on this subject this evening, since naturally we on the Opposition Benches cannot be as fully informed or as up to date as the Government. Therefore, I will only repeat that we would support any proposals which result in talks and which, as The Times said in a leading Article on April 26,
"begin honourably on both sides".
7.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I do not apologise for speaking on this subject, even at this late hour, because it is one of great importance. Although it may not be a "forgotten war" it is one that very few people know much about. I have often asked people what they know about Biafra, and they have said. "Isn't that an Italian football club?" That is about as far as the large majority of people can go. Yet this is not just a tribal internal matter; it is a matter of a large number of people.
I know it is difficult to get at the truth, and that people use the words "truth" and "liberty" for base and ignoble ends. I know there are many rebels against just law and wholesome moral restraint who have masked their caprice under the name of "liberty". On the other hand, we should have to blot out half the pages of heroic history if we are to erase the deeds done, the suffering endured, in the name of liberty. I am sure Biafra comes in the second category. They are heroic people. Some may regard them as wicked because they defend themselves, but I was there last month and I spent.five days, not only with the Ibos who are the main body in the central part, but also with the minorities, and there is no doubt whatever that they are strongly Biafran—the minorities included. I will speak about them later.
958
I do not want to raise too many difficulties about the question of bombs. It is quite certain that people believe that the bombs are British, and I said to them: "If I am going to be briefed as an advocate I must have the truth, and I must have evidence which would stand up in a court of law". They did not give me the evidence that would satisfy me in a court of law, but I did see the outside shells. I saw the casings which said, "Made in Britain" and I saw "GE" cut off—and it could not have been stuck on, because every dent and every cut corresponded with the other half of the casing underneath it. If it was faked it was done by a highly skilled person who had come from China, or somewhere like that. But it was not faked; it was definitely what it purported to be. When we put it to them that these may have come from another nation to which Britain had sold them, their answer was, "No, Britain makes a stipulation that they are not for re-sale". Of course that does not mean that the stipulation is kept.
I also argued—and I hope genuinely, because I believe what I have heard—that there was not an escalation. I dislike the fact that we went on sending arms, but I do not think we had escalated the war to that extent. When I asked whether these bombs might have been there before, the man in charge of the ordnance gave me his full assurance that he was there before this war broke out and therefore he could certify that they were not there because there was nothing of that kind among the ammunition which had come from Britain. However, there were the markings and sufficient superficial evidence for a large number of people to believe this story. It is easy for these things to be exaggerated, and I hope there may be some way of convincing them by an assurance that it is a lie. For instance, one might have suggested an examination by Crown Agents, or something like that.
I want now to address myself to the question of minorities, because this is an important and delicate question. It is true that many of the minority peoples were in positions of responsibility in the Biafran Government. It is true that there had always been peaceful relationships, cultural exchanges and a goad deal

959
of inter-marriage between these peoples. But the main brunt of the destruction in the war fell on these areas and had the effect of stiffening their loyalty to Biafra rather than the reverse. It had been pointed out that we could only meet the leaders, who were unquestionably loyal to Biafra—the others might be far away. It is true that one cannot examine every witness, yet the crucial test was the force of the argument put to me by Colonel Ojukwu: what happens when the minority areas are invaded? Instead of falling into the arms of the Federal soldiers and greeting them as great liberators, the inhabitants retreated towards Biafra. I went to meeting after meeting which was crowded by various minority groups who gave me "large welcomes", as they put it, a little tempered by their dislike of Britain, but still thinking that the Church of England was the Government of England. I tried to disillusion them on that point, and said that we had very little influence whatsoever but that I would do my best to put their case forward.
These were people from minorities, who said that they would be loyal as Biafrans. In some cases they were critical of individual leaders, but still they were more loyal than the other Biafrans. So I do not think there would be a great deal of trouble with the minorities. There is no doubt that some kind of a nation has been formed and, as I said out there, I consider it is a crazy way to try to get people into a Federation—bombing their civilians; and I know it was civilians because time after time I was shown the hospitals, the market places, the colleges that had been bombed. Of course there may have been military objectives as well to which they did not take me, but I went up as far as Onitsa and I saw what they were doing. I definitely saw a large number of market places that had been bombed. How can we expect people, 30,000 of them, or even if we amend it to 20,000, being massacred not in war but definitely being massacred, chiefly as they came out of the churches, right through the North, to federate? Between 1 million and 2 million were scattered from their homes—and these are true facts which are accepted generally.
To go on bombing their peoples and then say, "You will come into the
960
Federation whether you like it or not, and it is one of the conditions that you must come in and can never have your independence", is asking for trouble. We have asked for it in our own British history, and had it for years, with a certain country that used to be part of Great Britain and is now a republic. You will never get these people working together for a very long time unless there is far greater mutual trust. They definitely believe that it is genocide; that the others want to wipe out the Ibo people. They think it is also a religious war. I tried to calm them down. They think it is Moslems against Christians. There are no Moslems among the people in that western part of the Eastern Region; they are nearly all—95 per cent. of them—Christians, chiefly Roman Catholics, though there are a large number of Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists, with great names like Mary Slessor of Calabar, whose great work is remembered with love and affection by the people she cared for and thought of. And now so many of them are being killed by arms which they think are coming from Britain.
I know it is true to say that "If you stop your supply other people will supply bombs". But the psychological effect would be tremendous if Britain said, "It is time you got together, and until you do we are not going to send any more arms". I doubt whether one could say that it was a de facto Government, let alone de jure, of the Federal Army. The main thing, if we are to get them to come together, as I hope we shall (I do mot think it will be in London, because of this deep feeling: I wish it could be, because I think Ojukwu would be safer here) is that they should come together without conditions. When I say "without conditions" I mean just that. I pressed Ojukwu on this question. He had at first said a cease-fire and peacekeeping forces on the borders. But later on, I understand, it was to be entirely without conditions, though the cease-fire would be at the beginning of the agenda. Let us try to get that. But do not let 'us British try to force them back, because we had a wonderful blueprint of a great union of Nigeria. Do not let us press them too hard to go back into something which will cause more and more difficulty in the future. I am grateful to the Commonwealth Secretariat.

961
They have done fine work. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for introducing this Question, and giving us a chance of clearing our minds as to what are the real issues.
7.34 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I had not originally intended to take any part in this debate, but I came here with the intention of listening to see whether I ought perhaps to intervene, and I intend to be very brief. I am handicapped by a very considerable knowledge of Nigeria, which I have kept up to date since I left it. I think that the views to which we have listened to-night are so very much modern views, based on recent modern evidence; and they ignore some of the basic characteristics out of which these troubles have arisen. I am going to mention, in a sort of headline way, one or two things. For instance, the Ibo, the intelligent, thrusting, ambitious man, is very respectful of education and is anxious to have it; and from 25 years ago there has always been an Ibo ambition to run the show, wherever he was. That was what he always wanted to do. So it went on. I could enumerate quite a lot of subsequent years, but I do not want to take up too much time.
One has listened with due respect to the three previous speakers, to two violently pro-Biafran speakers and to one speaker who is anxious not to pre-judge. As he says, one cannot know as much as one ought to know to be dogmatic about it, and we certainly cannot know as much as the Government are in a position to know. I personally also feel that this debate is not making much of a contribution to the matter. It is true, as the noble Earl said, that "The least said, the soonest mended". May I at once say that in my opinion the Government's handling of this question up to date would receive my full support, and I deplore the idea that they should have stopped supplying any arms to the Federal Government. Amid all this we must remember, as the Government representative said in our last debate, that there is only one internationally recognised Government of Nigeria, the Federal Government, and we are dealing with the fact of a section which seceded and the bloody results of that secession. It is so easy to deal with the bloodstained
962
details of a war and to give, quite without meaning to, a false impression. It is not going to further anything to talk like that about it.
For instance, there was an exceedingly good article this morning from somebody who has also recently returned from Biafra. I want to quote only one or two sentences from what he wrote, just to show that all the brutality and all the terrible murders and things have not been done on one side. Do remember, too, my Lords, that two years ago it was the young Ibo officers who started this game of murder. They murdered all the Northern leaders, and their ambition was to eliminate every officer in the Army above the rank of major. That sort of habit spreads. I do not want to go into some of the details which I could mention, and which would give a very different picture from that painted by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and, with due respect, by the right reverend Prelate. This is what this article said:
"Not all the barbarity in this war has been on one side, however. While in Biafra I was given an eye-witness account of 200 minority tribesmen—Ibibios—who were beaten to death outside the Progress Hotel in Umuahia on the morning of April 2. The Ibibios, who included some old men and young women, were apparently suspected of collaborating with the advancing Federal forces. They were frog-marched across an open space while the local population attacked them with sticks and clubs. Then the bodies, the still living as well as the dead, were thrown into a dumper truck and taken for burial."
The whole problem of the minorities, as has been said by one noble Lord to-night, is a very important one. With the greatest respect, I would say that if the picture painted by the right reverend Prelate, of the minorities being friendly and undoubtedly siding with the Ibos, is true, then there must have been a vast change in recent years in their attitude. My own information, based on five years of living in Nigeria, and many visits since, right up to only two or three years ago, is very different.
If we may for once go back to the Question on the Paper, what sort of offer really is it that we are asked to press Mr. Smith to support? The President of Senegal is reputed to be a great friend of or sympathetic with the rebellious State, and President Julius Nyerere is the head of the only African

963
State which has declared itself as recognising Biafra and is a declared friend. Naturally, any suggestion coming from them would not be received with the greatest enthusiasm by the Federal Government. But, on the surface, this idea that there should be a referendum of the minor tribes in Eastern Nigeria and Biafra sounds so splendid. It sounds a splendidly fair idea. But what would be the result? Anybody who knows Nigeria could tell you that they would all vote in favour of the Ibo, because they would be frightened to death of what would happen to them if they did not.
There is bound to be intimidation in present circumstances. In any case, that is a matter which those responsible for dealing with this question would have to answer. But I think that it is not fair to the Federal Government to paint this picture of Biafra. I know there have been faults on both sides; but do let us remember as often as we can that we are dealing with a rebellion from a properly internationally-recognised Government, and in that case we should realise that the less we interfere the better, if it can be settled domestically. The ideal thing would be to sit round a table with no one from outside, if that were possible. But if that is not possible, and if somebody from outside is to be asked to help, then, for goodness sake! let it be somebody who is remarkably qualified for the post, as Mr. Smith is acknowledged to be.
I do not wish to add anything further to this debate. I can only say that I wish the debate had never taken place, because I think it will be better if we leave this subject alone until the issues are clearer and until any hope that the Government can give is more clearly seen. I do not think it is of any help to the Government to offer these suggestions from what must be imperfectly informed people, including myself.
7.43 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken for having put a lot of the other side of the case, because I think we all acknowledge that there have been atrocities on both sides and some faults on both sides. If I still think that we
964
should probably do better not to supply any arms to the Federal Government, it is because I believe that in the long run you cannot possibly force a large part of any country with certain racial origins and religious features to be part of a Federation, if it really does not want to be and if it will not be.
My reason for rising is to ask two short questions of the Minister. I apologise for not having given him notice, and I quite understand if they cannot be answered immediately, although I think they should be answered at some time, because, while I accept that there is a great deal of dangerous and difficult ground which it is possibly better not to tread at this particular moment, it seems to me that the more we can clear up the situation and responsibility of the British Government the better it will be for any form of negotiations and for Britain's influence in it. This is why we are all grateful for the denials that we have already had about bigger armaments being shipped, and by the even stronger denials which I am quite certain that the noble Lord the Minister will be giving.
But there are two things which we would like to know, the first in extension of something that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked. It is, not just what is the responsibility of the civil servants in the Crown Agents Office to Government and to Parliament, but do Her Majesty's Government have any control, direct or indirect, over the Crown Agents, and in what circumstances do they use it, or are prepared to use it? The second question is, what governs the level of small arms to the Federal Government? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that we have been supplying small arms to the Federal Government on a larger scale than we supplied them before hostilities broke out, but that we have not been supplying them to the amount which the Federal Government requested. I could quite understand and welcome it if we supplied them with no arms. I could quite understand it if we supplied arms at the level at which we previously supplied them. I could quite understand if we supplied these arms up to the limit of our capacity and what the Federal Government wanted. But I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the Government's thinking about the level at which it supplies arms if it falls below

965
what is requested and above what was supplied before hostilities broke out.
7.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will know that in the many years that he and I have served in this House the occasions have been rare when I could rise to say honestly that I agreed with him. With one part of his speech I agreed 100 per cent., and I feel that I must say quite bluntly to my noble friend Lord Brockway, and to those who have taken part in the discussion, that in all the time I have been in your Lordships' House this is one debate that I should prefer not to have taken place. Those of us who have any interest in Nigeria know that during the last few days we have seen a glimmer of light, that it was possible that the opposing sides at last, after ten long months, could be brought round a table.
We have had speeches here this evening that, to be frank, I do not believe have helped in the slightest degree possible. I think that if they were printed and read in either of the two areas in Nigeria they could be infinitely harmful to the cause that I know we all have at heart. I will say this to the right reverend Prelate. I do not know of any civil war of recent years or of ancient history where there have not been atrocities. One of the remarkable facts is that the decencies of war, if such there be, do not apply in civil war. No doubt atrocities have been committed in Biafra. But atrocities have also been committed in other parts of Nigeria. I do not think this will help. As I said at the beginning, what we are now trying to do is to fan the glimmer of light so as to be able to bring together the two parties at a table and to produce a lasting settlement. Her Majesty's Government have always been anxious to encourage any promising means of helping to restore peace in Nigeria. We have taken the initiative; we have worked quietly behind the scenes to see how we could bring an end to this tragic war in Nigeria.
I have seen the noble Lord's Question on the Order Paper, but I am not aware of the precise proposals to which the noble Lord refers, though I am well aware of the tireless efforts of Mr. Arnold Smith, to whom we have all paid tribute in this debate and in previous de
966
bates, and also the efforts of the distinguished President of Senegal to bring the two sides together. But I beg leave to doubt whether, by following the course enjoined upon us in the Question, we shall he able in present circumstances to contribute to the cause of peace as effectively as we have been trying to do up to the present.
Speaking for the Government. I must say that we should feel the gravest difficulty in urging, either directly or through the Commonwealth Secretary, that the Nigerians should adopt a particular method of settling their affairs or that they should accept a procedure which might be thought to pre-suppose a particular form of solution. Our task, as I see it, is modestly to urge both sides of the Niger to come to the conference table and to seek to work together towards a reconciliation of their difficulties and a solution which is acceptable to all the people of Nigeria. I am convinced that, whatever settlement emerges from the war, it must, if it is to last, be a Nigerian settlement worked out by Nigerians compatible with Nigerian ideas and aspirations. This problem must be solved by the Nigerians if there is to be a lasting solution in the years which are to come. It has been said that we have hidden behind the technicality of Nigeria's independence. But we must be careful, not only in the case of Nigeria but in relation to other countries, to do nothing which in any way questions their independence. We must not interfere. We can help, we can offer the hand of friendship, but we must not interfere.
I had hoped that this debate could take place without again involving the question of the United Kingdom's arms policy, about which I spoke some weeks ago in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. We gave very careful thought to this matter when the war commenced some ten months ago. If it were two independent Commonwealth countries which were in conflict, then perhaps there might well be a case for not supplying arms to either side; but this was a conflict within an independent Commonwealth country. It was a recognised Government of a Commonwealth courtly which had depended on us for much of her military equipment. As I said in our last debate, we should create a serious imbalance—and certainly it would be

967
biased—if, because a Government was in a degree of civil war, we were to deny it the weapons for carrying out its policy. But we made it quite clear—and we have kept to this—that we would limit the weapons and munitions which we supplied to Nigeria.
We regret the suffering, past and present, of the Ibos; but it must be remembered that the Biafran leaders rejected our advice some ten months ago to continue to seek a peaceful redress of their grievances. Those who appeal to force, even under provocation, assume a terrible responsibility. The fact that the Biafrans have ceded from the Federation against our advice does not absolve us from our obligations to the Federation. Nevertheless, there may be a case for cutting off British supplies if it could be demonstrated that this could bring peace closer. But I believe that to be the opposite of what would happen. The Biafrans would be encouraged to go on fighting rather than to negotiate, and the Federal Government would continue to get arms from elsewhere—and, understandably, they would pay less regard to the advice that we give them or to any appeals from us. We have been urged to use our influence with the Federal Government. The Federal Government have declared their willingness to engage in peace talks without pre-conditions. I am amazed that it should be suggested that we should now reward them for this act of moderation and statesmanship by cutting off such supplies as we have hitherto permitted to go to them.
To the best of my knowledge, no British bombs have been used in this war. At all events, no exports of bombs to Nigeria have been permitted. I have no doubt that many noble Lords were shocked, as I was shocked, by the terms of the dispatch from Aba which appeared in The Times on April 24. The writer reported on bombing by aircraft identified to be Russian and manned by pilots whom he identified as Egyptian. He then went on—and this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—to express shame that the bombs which they dropped should have been British. I do not know what evidence there was for this assertion, but it is totally false that any aerial bombs have been exported to Nigeria from Britain. We have care
968
fully checked the markings reported to have been seen on the bomb fragments in Biafra. None of these are authentic British bomb markings. The right reverend Prelate said that he saw some cases alleged to be British bombs, with the words "Made in Britain" and with the letters "G.E." I have been given the information from my officials—it is infinitely better from my officials than from me—that no British bombs ever had these markings.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord said that I had quoted from that article. My quotation was not from that article, and I did not say that the writer of the article claimed that the bombs were British. What he did say was that the Biafran people were convinced that they were British.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the trouble is that these reports are being put in such a way that one is led to believe that these are British bombs, just as not so long ago there were reports of British troops going to Port Harcourt, and tremendous difficulties and damage arose from those reports.
THE LORD BISHOP, OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I said that it did not satisfy me, but the "G.E." was obviously the first two words of the markings, and mean "Gelignite".
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps I may go on, because there is still something of interest in this story. As I say, I was distressed to find that, according to The Times, and what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, these assurances have not been accepted. As for the photographs of an aerial bomb which were produced in The Times on Saturday, April 27, I have caused these to be examined by highly qualified technical officers. I reaffirm that these bombs are not British. The Times has its answer. In fact, my Lords, it had the answer before the pictures were published. The grenades and mortar shells that were illustrated in The Times are not aerial bombs but infantry weapons, and we have never denied supplying infantry weapons.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, did not The Times say that the bomb was said by the Biafrans to be British?

969
The Times did not assert that it was a British bomb.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have examined The Times very carefully, and whether it said that or not it definitely implied it. There could be only one construction on the way it was written. I should like to leave this point in a moment to get to the heart of the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked me about a new gunboat going to Nigeria. That is news to me, and it is news to my officials whom I have consulted. I suppose that, like so much that comes out of Biafra, it is a question of news. I shall certainly inquire into this matter more fully to-morrow, but at the present moment it is news to me.
In regard to his question about the Crown Agents, that is a completely independent body responsible to no Minister and not responsible to Parliament. It does not employ civil servants. It was set up many years ago as a buying organisation for Commonwealth countries and colonial dependencies. It is purely and simply a buying office, and the relationship is between the Crown Agents and their clients overseas. I think it would be wrong for us in the British Parliament to have a control or a power of direction over an organisation which has been set up to service independent members of the Commonwealth. Therefore the services which they provide to independent countries are a matter for them and their clients. We enter into the activities of the Crown Agents only when they purchase or seek to purchase goods of United Kingdom manufacture.
As I have said previously, arms and weapons require a licence, and in the granting of a licence we look into the circumstances prevailing in the territory at the time. It is perfectly true that the quantities of ammunition and weapons have gone up, but there has been an escalation of the war. The number of regiments and battalions in the Federal Government has increased, and so, therefore, has the demand. But, as I have said, we have kept a very vigorous control over the character of those weapons.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is it true that, in addition to having kept a control over the character of the weapons, a control has also been kept over the amount and that not all that
970
the Federal Government asked for has been supplied?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have kept a control over the quantity. There have no doubt been occasions—though without the books in front of me I cannot be specific—when we Lave not sent as much as we have perhaps been asked for. But there has been this control.
I should like to turn to the issue before us. We are seeking to bring the two peoples of Nigeria together. We have made it quite clear that, in our view, both sides should approach the table with no thoughts of vindictiveness or bitterness. They should come together to seek a lasting solution. On April 6, in reply to a statement made by Doctor Azikiwe in Paris on March 30, the Prime Minister sent a personal message to General Gowon. That was a confidential message, but the implication was that the Federal Government had everything to gain and nothing to lose in testing the sincerity of the Biafran régime by calling for talks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs, Doctor Arikpo, came to London and had discussions with my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary. Those talks were confidential, but on April 25 Doctor Arikpo made a statement, and it is so important that I am going to suggest that I place it in your Lordships' Library, so that it can be seen and understood by all. But this evening I shall content myself with this one paragraph in which he said this:
"I have confirmed to the Commonwealth Secretary-General that the Federal Military Government are prepared to embark on talks without pre-conditions under the at spices of the Commonwealth Secretary-General as soon as the other side are ready. This should be possible by 1 May at the latest. I have made this abundantly clear both to Her Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth Secretary-General and I thought that the position ought now to be openly stated."
My noble friend Lord Brockway said that there was some doubt about the statement made in Lagos. I have not seen that statement, but I have been sent the message which Dr. Arikpo has again confirmed in Lagos to-day, that the Federal Military Government are ready to talk without pre-conditions. I hope that this

971
statesmanlike proposal will enable Mr. Arnold Smith to arrange an early meeting with high-level representatives of both sides in the Nigerian conflict, so that negotiations can be started as soon as possible. Colonel Ojukwu has called for immediate peace talks. Although he appears to be thinking of talks on a somewhat different basis, I trust that what he has set out are not intended to be taken as pre-conditions. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway knows, it is always a problem to see that what one man says is understood by the other.
But I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, what I said on a previous occasion—and I think it is worth repeating: that if either party in the conflict in Nigeria were to write to Her Majesty's Government, with proposals on which it would be possible to bring both parties to the table, we should be most ready to see that such a communication was not only considered but passed on, in the hope that it would bring both sides to the conference table. If there is any doubt now, we will do what we can to smooth over these problems and to bring both sides to the conference table.
My Lords, I want, in conclusion, to say only this. I suspect that both sides in Nigeria know in their hearts that there can be no military solution in Nigeria and,
972
indeed, that a military solution would not provide a basis for economic and social development of the country: that it must be a political solution. We have now reached the point, it seems to me, when there is apparent willingness on both sides. I hope that both sides in Nigeria will seize this golden opportunity and will make that glimmer of light of which I spoke earlier a golden light. And, although I said at the beginning that this must be a Nigerian solution, I hope that both sides in Nigeria will know that there are friends only too anxious to help them in this very critical hour.

SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SAINT MARY, SUMMERSTOWN BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.