Lords Sitting of 20 May 1969

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

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS AND SHOP STEWARDS
2.35 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent industrial training boards are already financing the training of shop stewards, and to what extent they are encouraging more training for shop stewards.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, 20 training boards make provision in their grant schemes for the training of shop stewards, and others are considering the matter. These grants normally cover, wholly or in part, course fees, reasonable travelling and subsistence expenses, and salary or wages for the period of absence. I regret that information about the total amount of grant paid is not readily available.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Without more precise figures it is difficult to say whether it should give us satisfaction or not. But is the noble Lord satisfied that the present scale of training of shop stewards is a match for the extra responsibilities that will be laid upon them by the development of plant bargaining, which is now being advocated from all sides?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a considerable passage in the White Paper on industrial relations in which the Government say that they are urgently considering ways of improving the situation; and one of the aspects of further training will be in the field of shop stewards. To
298
that extent there is still more that we believe should be done; but, of course, there is a great deal going on, and a great deal being done by the trade unions themselves.
LORD BLYTON LORD BLYTON My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the paper that was issued yesterday by the Trades Union Congress, A Programme for Action, is one of the finest documents that has been produced? And is he further aware that we do not mind the Government going with the trade unions to the stake, but for God's sake do not take the Parliamentary Labour Party!
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend's remarks are always interesting and important, but not always relevant to the Question.

GREECE AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in their deliberations on whether Greece should remain a number of the Council of Europe, they took into account the fact that at least thirty democratically elected members of the Greek Parliament are still held in prison, in detention, or under house arrest, some of them being sick and aged.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the resolution passed by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on May 6, for which Her Majesty's Government voted, reaffirmed the need for a speedy return to a democratic régime in Greece.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the military dictatorship Press in Athens and in this country have treated the resolution of the Foreign Ministers as a moral victory? Is he further aware that since the resolution there has been a spate of trials, formerly significantly held up, in which 50 Greeks are now fighting for their very lives?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if anybody has interpreted the resolution in the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe as a moral victory for the régime in Greece, he is very much mistaken. This would be a very wrong interpretation of what that resolution meant, and what it is meant to bring about. I think I might say that the Greek Government are well aware of the very strong feelings that exist in this country about political prisoners and their treatment. I have much sympathy for the spirit that lies behind the Question that the noble Lord has put, but I must make the point—and this is a point that one always makes in terms of relations between one Government and another—that whatever we may think about the fate of the political prisoners in Greece, the Greek Government regard representations on behalf of Greek citizens as interfering in their internal affairs, and the result of such representations would be in my view much more likely to prejudice the prospects of release of these prisoners than to improve them.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Communist practices, which I gather the noble Lord, Lord Milford, wholeheartedly supports, do not on occasion lead to the detention of political opponents, both aged and sick, without trial?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, whatever may be the political complexion of this kind of activity, the detention without charge of anyone is obviously not in accordance with democratic practice. Her Majesty's Government deplore it. The fact that the people so detained may be sick and aged merely makes the practice more outrageous.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it would be more appropriate that we concern ourselves with the development of two-way trade with Greece, rather than that we concern ourselves with their internal affairs, for which we are not responsible?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, however important international trade may be, the fate of human beings in any country in the world will always be more important.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the great majority of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, from which I have just returned, who can by no means be said to be "pro-Colonel", did not at all object to the declaration of the Council of Ministers?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it is clear that the resolution of the Assembly of the Council of Europe did not call for the expulsion of Greece, but called for the Council of Ministers to take action. The Council of Ministers took action, and, as the noble Lord has said, I think the Council of Europe as a whole is well satisfied with that action.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the widow of Mr. George Papandreou wrote to Mr. Papadopoulos, the Prime Minister, on November 12 last expressing support for the revolution of April 21, 1967, as it had, in her words, "saved Greece from an oncoming Communist menace"? In view of Greece's history since the war, and its geographical position, would not the noble Lord agree that the Greek Government are right in being very conscious of the Communist threat from within and without her boundaries, and right in taking the necessary measures to ensure the safety of their country?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that this is the moment to echo, as I always like to do, the words of my noble Leader, and to say that those comments are interesting and important but not entirely relevant. The fact is that Her Majesty's Government are of course well aware of what is going on in Greece, and our view is that the sooner a democratic form of Government can be restored in Greece, the better. What may have been the causes and the historical lead-up to the revolution is, I think, quite irrelevant to the Question that we are discussing in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I then ask a relevant question? Would not the noble Lord agree that all these stories of torture in Greece are grossly magnified and bear no relation at all to what, in effect, is happening in that country?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, while I wholeheartedly agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said, would he reaffirm that the continued membership of Greece in NATO is vital to the defence of the right flank of the European countries?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think we have gone far from the original Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Milford, and I think we ought to allow ourselves to discuss the role of Greece in NATO on a different occasion.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would my noble friend say that our philosophy should be not to defend pseudo-Fascist States but democratic Governments?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I have taken the drift of my noble friend's question. I will take note of it when I have read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government also be in favour of the introduction of democracy in the Communist countries?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this really is another question. I think we are getting into deep matters of political philosophy. In the question of Greece, as in the question of any other country in the world, we are interested in the dignity and quality of life of human individuals. That will be at the heart of all our considerations in the matter of Greece and the Council of Europe.

S.E.T. AND THE BUILDING INDUSTRY
2.40 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: 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 whether it is their policy to subject reputable firms in the construction industry to unfair competition from firms using self-employed labour to avoid selective employment tax; and whether they are aware that this is increasing the amount of shoddy house building.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the problems created by self-employed labour in the construction industry and set up a Committee of Inquiry under Professor Phelps Brown on this and related subjects. The Committee's Report [Cmnd. 3714] was published in July, 1968. The Government immediately sought the opinion of both sides of the industry, and the Committee's recommendations are being urgently considered in the light of these consultations.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. May I ask whether she is aware that in the meantime it is the firms that employ trade union labour and the trade unionists whom they employ that are suffering?—because the device of self-employment is rampant where there is bad or no trade union organisation.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as I said, the Government are aware of the problems created by self-employed labour. I should like to point out, in the context of my noble friend's Question, that the increase in self-employed labour began long before the introduction of S.E.T.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this tax avoidance by these people is holding the Inland Revenue to ridicule? Is it not about time that action was taken? Is not the Minister aware also that new taxes need not be thought out if only the Government would collect the ones to which they were entitled?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I have noted the remarks of my noble friend. As always, he is extremely interesting and to the point—but not, perhaps, to this particular Question. We are aware of the difficulties but we cannot deal with the whole question of the collection of inland revenue.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, is not a very important aspect of the matter that in the building industry self-employed people are not subject to P.A.Y.E. and therefore do not pay income tax because they move about?

303
While it was a problem before the introduction of S.E.T., it is enormously aggravated now by the imposition of S.E.T. on building workers who are not self-employed.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we are aware of the various difficulties. As I have said, my right honourable friend is taking the whole problem extremely seriously—but that is not to say that I accept all the assumptions of the noble Lord.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure us that the Government do not think it improper that a man should be his own master; that they do not think it ought to be compulsory that he should have an employer?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord is a very good example of self-employed labour.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would it not be much easier to get rid of self-employment tax—I should say selective employment tax—altogether?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, if we did abolish S.E.T. it would not solve the problem of self-employed labour in the building industry.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Phelps Brown Committee confirmed that there had been an increase in the device of self-employment following the introduction of S.E.T.; that it expressed its fears of the consequences of an increase of 50 per cent. in the amount of tax? Now that we have a further 28 per cent. increase compounded, surely it is time for action.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, it is quite true that the Phelps Brown Committee confirmed that there had been an increase in self-employed labour; but, as I said, it had begun long before that. The Government are taking the whole situation seriously and that is why they have set up an inter-departmental working party to consider the very problems that my noble friend has raised.

S.E.T. AND GOODS DELIVERIES
LORD JACQUES: 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 whether it is their policy to encourage wholesalers and retailers to close down efficient transport departments and transfer the work at a higher real cost to transport firms that are exempt from selective employment tax.]
LORD BESWICK: NO, my Lords, the Government are not aware of any evidence that the difference in treatment between independent hauliers and the transport departments of firms which bear the tax has led to an uneconomic use of transport facilities.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he not aware that this and related questions have been referred to Professor Reddaway and that in the meantime it is widely felt that this is merely a tactic of delay?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know that matters relating to the self-employment tax have been referred to the Reddaway Committee. We are awaiting the Report of that Committee. So far as this particular problem is concerned, the matter has been referred more directly and immediately to the Finance Bill which is now going through the other place. If my noble friend will look at Clause 44 of the Finance Bill he will see that the particular dangers or particular anomalies that he has in mind are being looked after by Amendments to the present Finance Act.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say "self-employment tax"? Is this a new tax which is to be introduced shortly; or did he mean selective employment tax?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the phrase "self-employment tax" was introduced from the opposite Benches: it is a theoretical concept that I had not heard of before.

FUTURE BUSINESS: DEBATE ON BROADCASTING
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the list of speakers down for the debate to-morrow on broadcasting is quite lengthy, and I thought it would be for the conenience of the House if I said that dinner would be available to-morrow.
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION (FISH MARKET) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDINBURGH TRADES MAIDEN FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1969
2.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM) rose to move, That the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1969, laid before the House on April 23 last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these draft Regulations amend the Police Pensions Regulations 1966. They are in three Parts and I should like briefly to explain the changes. Part I provides for
306
the Regulations to come into operation on June 1, 1969, and for the dates from which Parts II and III take effect. Part II is consequential on the Pensions (Increase) Act 1969 and serves to increase the pensions of police widows and the allowances payable to children of deceased police officers. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these amendments are all very desirable.
Part III of the draft Regulations contains two separate amendments. The first arises out of a reorganisation of the higher ranks in the Metropolitan Police, one consequence of which is the introduction of the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The pension conditions appropriate to this new rank are to be the same as those for the existing rank of Commander.
The second amendment, contained in the draft Regulation 14, relates to the position of those children of deceased policemen who do not receive National Insurance benefits because their fathers were unable to complete the necessary contributions to the Scheme. Since July 5, 1948 (the date on which the National Insurance scheme came into operation), the Police Pensions Regulations have given police authorities discretion to increase the police allowances of these children up to amounts which are related to the National Insurance benefits for which they do not qualify. When the amounts of these National Insurance benefits are changed it is the practice to make corresponding changes in the amounts which can be paid by police authorities. As your Lordships will be aware, from October 8 last National Insurance benefits for children became payable at different rates, in accordance with the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1968. The amendment in draft Regulation 14 makes certain related adjustments as appropriate in the amounts payable under the police pensions scheme, but no adjustments are made which would reduce the amounts of payments already being made for children.
My Lords, all these changes have been agreed by the Police Council for Great Britain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1969, laid before the House on April 23 last, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) BILL
2.57 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morris of Kenwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of employer's liability for defective equipment]:
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert:
(""equipment" includes any plant and machinery, vehicle, aircraft and clothing;").
The noble Lord said: This is rather a mouse of an Amendment, but I think that it is required. It adds a definition of what is perhaps the most essential word in the Bill, the word "equipment". The Amendment may be a mouse, but it has taken quite a number of mountains to produce it here. Mr. Niall MacDermot promoted an Amendment about this matter and Mr. David Weitzman moved one at a late stage in another place; and the present Amendment is the third—in fact the fourth—that has appeared on the Order Paper. The previous ones were efforts of my own. The present one, prepared with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his Office, seems to me to be, as is often the case with drafting of this kind—for it is little more—to be better than anything that has appeared before, either in another place or in my own name. All it does is to make quite clear that "equipment" includes a number of things which may well be included anyhow in the word "equipment", which is a broad one, but it is just as well that it should be stated, particularly, I am told, in the case of vehicles. It is obvious that all these items ought to be included in the Bill. I do not think that this Amendment will make much, if any, difference to what my noble friend rightly pointed out at
308
Committee stage is a liability of the employers likely to be covered by the premium payable for insurance.
Before I sit down, may I thank everybody who has taken a part—all the mountains, including my noble friend the principal mountain, who has introduced a Bill which is long overdue and sets right a gap in the law that has made things unnecessarily uncomfortable for a number of employed people. This is a small Bill, but I venture to think that it will be a very useful one, and has been so treated both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Mitchison for what he has said, both about this Amendment and about the Bill in general. As he has said, this is a matter which was put forward in another place and initially resisted by the sponsors of the Bill. However, in the light of time passing and the comments and assistance which have been given to the sponsors by those who would have to deal with this type of problem, the sponsors now feel it right that the word "equipment" be defined; and the words used by my noble friend in his Amendment meet with the approval of the sponsors.
EARL BATHURST: I regret that I seem to have a blank sheet of paper where this Amendment ought to be. May I ask the noble Lord whether, as a result of this Amendment, the equipment on all vehicles must be properly maintained according to some instructions? If that is done and there is an accident, followed by a suit for damages, the provisions of the Bill presumably would not apply.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: I think I can assure the noble Earl that this in fact would be so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13):
THE LORD ADVOCATE (LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE): My Lords, I

309
have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morris of Kenwood.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask for information? I see that there is an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. Is it really necessary to take the Third Reading of this Bill now? My noble friend may wish to move his Amendment at the next stage, if the noble Lord would feel inclined not to take the Third Reading now. It is unusual, when a Bill has been amended, to take the remaining stages on the same day.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, I have taken note of what the noble Lord has said, but I am advised that the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had put down was only in the nature of a probing Amendment. I am sure that the reply which would have been given to the noble Viscount would have satisfied him. I think it is unfortunate that he did not ask another noble Lord to move the Amendment on his behalf. In the circumstances, I do not think that it would serve any purpose now if we delayed the Third Reading of the Bill.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, if it is in order to do so, may I seek some information in advance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate? May I ask him whether the word "clothing" in any way covers eyeglasses and protection for the face?
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, the noble Lord can take it that eyeglasses and the like are in any event covered by "equipment" in the terms of the Bill.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NURSES BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Constitution of General Nursing Council for England and Wales]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("nursing or other")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been put down at this stage of the Bill as I am advised that the new paragraph (2)(ii) in the First Schedule to the Nurses Act 1957, as provided by this Bill, may not achieve what was originally intended. The General Nursing Council for England and Wales want to make sure that if a nurse has the dual qualification of registered nurse and enrolled nurse, she can be elected to represent enrolled nurses only if she is clearly working as an enrolled nurse. As the Bill now stands, a registered nurse could be elected to represent enrolled nurses if she was engaged in nursing. Hence the Amendments I have put down, which I feel will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Constitution of General Nursing Council for Scotland]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out ("nursing or other").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13), Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILLS
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER) rose to move, That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such Bill, be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills; and that, on any such Bill, the Joint Committee do report whether the enactments proposed for repeal in the Bill ought to be repealed on the ground that they are no longer of practical utility, and do make such other report as they may think fit.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think that the English legal system is probably the best legal system in the world. Of course, like all legal systems, it has its better points and its worse points. Its best point, perhaps, lies in the integrity and ability of the Judges and its worst point in the form of its law. So far as Statute Law is concerned, as your Lordships know, I have been very concerned about its size. In its first programme, the Law Commission pointed out that there were only two ways in which we could deal with the size of the Statute
312
Book. The first is by Statute Law consolidation. It is evident that if we put five Acts dealing with one subject into one Act, it means not only that the one Act is a good deal shorter than the five Acts but also that we have reduced the total number of Statutes by four, and the resulting product makes the lives of those who use our Statute Law considerably simpler.
As your Lordships know, we have found how very convenient it is to refer these consolidation Bills to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. We now have four kinds of Bills referred to that Committee: first, pure consolidation Bills; secondly, consolidation Bills with minor corrections and improvements under the 1949 Act, and thirdly, consolidation Bills with Amendments proposed by the Law Commission. There is also, your Lordships will remember, a fourth class of Bill which goes to the Joint Committee; these are Statute Law Revision Bills. I am not sure that that is a very apt name for them. They are simply Bills which repeal a number of Acts. Right back in their first programme the Law Commission pointed out in relation to the Statute Law revision clause that our great difficulty was that Bills cannot be repealed unless it can be shown that they are technically obsolete. This, they thought, was far too narrow a test. They thought that the test ought to be: Does it do anybody any good to keep this Act on the Statute Book? Is it of any practical utility?
The purpose of the Motion which I am moving is to create a fifth class of Bill which would go to the Joint Committee, because if we are to have Bills which repeal existing Statutes on the footing that I have suggested—namely, whether or not they are of any practical utility—then I am sure, having consulted the Opposition and other noble Lords interested, that it would be a great advantage to both Houses if our very experienced Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills could look into such Bills.
Your Lordships may say: "If that appeared in the first programme of the Law Commission, why have you not introduced such a Motion before?". The answer to that question is that I have not had a Bill before to which the Motion could have applied. If it is then said: "Why have you not had such a Bill

313
before? "the answer is that the Law Commission have not been able to make available members of their legal staff with the requisite expertise. But they have now, and have had for some little time, two of their legal staff dealing with nothing else. The Bill which I introduced last week was, therefore, the first product. I cannot move the Second Reading of that Bill unless and until the other House passes a similar Resolution to that which is now before your Lordships' House, and, therefore, I do not propose to go in detail through the Bill. But it may interest your Lordships if I say that it is a Bill which would repeal the whole or parts of 206 different Acts of Parliament, starting in 1275. They are divided into seven groups: first, constitutional enactments; secondly, ecclesiastical; thirdly, law of property; fourthly, Sunday observance; fifthly, hallmarking; sixthly, enactments relating to the Commonwealth, and seventhly, miscellaneous.
I need hardly say that, in their usual way, the Law Commission have consulted everybody who they think could possibly be interested in the retaining of any of these Acts on the Statute Book. In regard to the ecclesiastical Statutes, for example, the most reverend Primate has been most kind in setting up a Committee to advise the Law Commission. Of course, on some grounds there are some Statutes of which sentimentally we may regret the passing, like the Act of the Attainder of Several Persons Guilty of the Horrid Murder of His Late Sacred Majesty King Charles I.
I notice that some of the newspapers which have been examining the Bill have expressed some surprise at the repeal of parts of Magna Carta. Originally, there were 37 Articles in Magna Carta, and 27 of them have already been repealed. We are not, of course, going to repeal the famous Article 29, which deals with the liberties of the people of England, or Article 9, which preserves the rights and privileges of cities, boroughs and towns. Those which it is suggested should be repealed relate only to obsolete aspects of widowhood and dower, the relationship between the Crown and its debtors, the making of bridges, the obstruction of rivers and putting down of weirs, and the treatment of foreign merchants in times of war and peace, which are enactments which have been effectively superseded by subsequent and more modern enactments.
Part of the trouble is that there have been times in which laws have been made and Acts have been passed by Parliament saying that this is to be the law not-withstanding any previous enactments to the contrary, but they did not actually repeal the previous enactments. So included is the Statute of Winchester, which forbids the holding of fairs and markets in churchyards; the 16th century Clergy Marriage Acts, which first made it lawful for clergy in this country to marry; part of the Act of Uniformity 1551, which makes it an offence punishable by ecclesiastical process for anyone not to go to church every Sunday and on Feast Days. No doubt there will be others which we shall miss, like the Act prohibiting common night walkers in the universities; but they would all be there, they would all remain part of our history; they would all be on the shelves of our law libraries in the volumes of the era in which they were passed. We shall make no headway with our Statute Book if we cannot begin now to get rid of a large number of Statutes which, however long they have been there—whether technically obsolete or not—do not serve any useful purpose remaining there.
Your Lordships will know that about every twenty years we have to reprint in some form or other the Statutes at Large, which of course must contain all the Acts which are now in force; and so we have gone on and on repeating all these old Acts in each edition. Obviously, there would be very great savings, as well as being good sense, if we could end that practice. I am told by the Law Commission that if the House can deal with this Bill this Session they will hope to have an equal sized Bill dealing with other fields next Session. There is, for example, a vast army of Acts on the Statute Book dealing with the laws of the forests.
Finally, your Lordships will notice that there is nothing in this Resolution limiting either House in any way from doing anything they like with this Bill. If the Joint Committee will be good enough to examine it, and report to us, it will then be open to either House to accept or to reject the Report, or do anything they like with the Bill, as they can with any other Bill. This, I hope, is a start, at long last, towards getting rid from our Statute Book of a lot of "junk"

315
which has been there for such a long time. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such Bill, be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills; and that, on any such Bill, the Joint Committee do report whether the enactments proposed for repeal in the Bill ought to be repealed on the ground that they are no longer of practical utility, and do make such other report as they may think fit.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to welcome the Motion. I am not a lawyer. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated to your Lordships it would be advantageous to lawyers if the law was simplified. We who pay the lawyers have always imagined differently. Undoubtedly to those of us who are laymen in the law it would often be of considerable advantage if the law was both shortened and simplified. Therefore, I feel that it is likely there will be a unanimous welcome for this Motion. I would not venture to express any view on the merits or demerits of the many Acts it is proposed to repeal, but I suggest that we can confidently leave it to the Joint Committee to examine them carefully, and then we will know in due course the outcome of their proceedings.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in his Motion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor talks of one or both Law Commissions. Are there two Law Commissions dealing with the English law?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are two Law Commissions. There is the Law Commission which sees to the law of England and Wales, and
316
there is the Scottish Law Commission. It may be that at some future date both Law Commissions will want to present such a Bill. Maybe—as in this case—it is a Bill presented by the main Law Commission, but after consulting the Scottish Law Commission. Or it may be that it will be a purely Scottish Bill brought forward by the Scottish Law Commission, and repealing only Scottish Acts.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for asking the question, but in his very interesting remarks he made no mention of Scotland. The noble Lord said that the English law was the best in the world. I respectfully say to him that there are some people who believe that in fact the Scottish law is even superior.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, with that very deep respect which I always hold for the Lord Chancellor, may I direct his attention to a word which he used in his closing sentence? I do so in the interest of historians in the future. He used the word "junk", and he used it in a context which seemed to indicate that it might have included, among other things, Magna Carta. I should not like historians in the future to say that "Lord Chancellor Gardiner was the man who said that Magna Carta was junk". Perhaps he can therefore amend his closing sentence, in order to vindicate that ancient enactment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies on that point, may I just ask one question, arising out of the Motion itself. The Motion says:
"… that it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by … and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments …"
I do not know whether there is any wide significance in those words and whether they will go so far as provision in substitution for or in lieu of any provisions in those enactments. I should just like to be quite clear exactly what we are being asked to approve in this Motion: whether we really are dealing only with the repeal of out-of-date legislation. I find it difficult to see what else is involved besides the

317
repeal, and what these words can really mean. I should be grateful if the Lord Chancellor could help us with that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first withdraw the word "junk" and substitute the words, "Acts which are not to-day really of practical utility". The answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is, as the Title of the Bill shows, that some parts of some Acts are expressly preserved in the first five clauses of the Bill, and indeed in the words "(except in so far as their effect is preserved)". That is intended to relate to these clauses. What the Law Commission have done is to take a particular subject, such as advowsons, and they find that it is almost all out of date, or is covered by later Acts.
318
Then they find that there is some piece, somewhere in some Act, which ought to be left but that it is obscurely worded. Such pieces are reproduced in one of the opening clauses. These matters include advowsons, rentcharges under the Copy-hold Act, inclosure of common land and savings of one kind or another. What they have done in those cases is to state very shortly what would have been left, putting it in modern form.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past three o'clock.