Lords Sitting of 17 December 1970

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN: END OF STATE OF EMERGENCY
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty to deliver to your Lordships a Message, signed with her own hand, respecting the State of Emergency. The Message is as follows:
"Her Majesty by Proclamation dated December 12 1970 having declared that the industrial dispute affecting persons employed in the electricity supply industry did in her opinion constitute a State of Emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and it having appeared to Her Majesty that the State of Emergency has now ceased to exist, Her Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation dated December 17 1970 to declare that the said Proclamation of December 12 is revoked."
That concludes the gracious Message, My Lords. I hope that it will be agreeable to your Lordships if, as provided by Standing Order No. 27, I move that this Message be taken into consideration, and that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, when we consider the Motion in my name already on the Order Paper to-day relating to Her Majesty's gracious Message on Monday last.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in
1508
accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following 35 Acts and one Measure:

Income and Corporation Taxes (No. 2) Act,

Family Income Supplements Act,

Contingencies Fund Act,

Town and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Act,

Expiring Laws Continuance Act,

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Glasgow Corporation (Works &c.) Order Confirmation Act,

Stirling County Council Order Confirmation Act,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Nottinghamshire County Council Act,

Preston Corporation Act,

Lindsey County Council Act,

Northampton Corporation Act,

Pembrokeshire Water Board Act,

Port of Tyne Act,

Barry Corporation Act,

Gateshead Corporation Act,

City of London (Various Powers) Act,

Gloucester Corporation Act,

West End Baptist Church, Hammersmith Act,

East Suffolk County Council Act,

Liverpool Corporation Act,

Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act,

British Railways Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

Monmouthshire County Council Act,

Port of London Act,

Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Act,

Bootle Corporation Act,

Bridge Street Baptist Church, Banbury Act,

Grimsby Corporation Act,

Oxfordshire County Council Act,

Reading Corporation Act,

Wiltshire County Council Act,

Church Commissioners Measure.

THE SPORTS COUNCIL
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 a decision has now been reached concerning their intention to make the Sports Council an independent grant-aiding body.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness about this matter. A statement will be made as soon as practicable.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while we have a variety of Ministers we never get a satisfactory Answer to this Question. While realising that the noble Lord is not responsible for the fact that there is no firm answer to-day and apologising to the House for tedious repetition, may I ask him whether he is aware that I have no alternative but to continue to put down Questions, hoping that one day the Government Front Bench and I will not only travel hopefully but arrive?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I hope her wish will be granted. Our next to-morrow will be her next Question on this subject.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that people concerned with the organisation of sport are very much looking forward to this announcement? Will he ensure that an answer is expedited as soon as possible?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are having discussions at this moment with the Central Council of Physical Recreation and with the Regional Sports Councils, who have to be consulted.

BRUCELLOSIS: DIAGNOSIS TESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 they consider the facilities for the diagnosis of brucellosis adequate and what steps are being taken to train technicians in the Rose Bengal Test in view of the intention to designate accredited areas early next year.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, additional laboratory staff and resources have already been allocated to meet the high initial response to the new brucellosis Incentives Scheme. It is too early to say whether this response is representative, but further staff and equipment will be allocated, if necessary. A laboratory technician can be trained to undertake the Rose Bengal Plate Test in a matter of days, but I assume that the noble Baroness is referring to the new arrangements under which trained lay assistants will be able to undertake the field work of obtaining blood samples for this test. Training courses for these lay personnel start next month, with priority to those in the regions from which the final choice of eradication areas is likely to be made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am most pleased with the noble Lord's welcome statement. Without appearing to be critical, may I ask him to bear in mind during the training period that as it takes only four minutes to do the test in the laboratory, the delay at the moment, of, I think, nine days, is a little difficult to understand? Perhaps the noble Lord would undertake to improve the productivity of the technicians whom he is now using.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we are now slightly encroaching on the next Question on the Order Paper. The interest of the noble Baroness in this matter is well known, and I am confident that everything she says on the matter will be studied most carefully.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble Lord.

BRUCELLOSIS: ABORTION SAMPLES AND NOTIFICATION
2.44 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: 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 what is the average time elapsed between the taking of samples from a cow which has aborted and the notification to the owner of the animal concerned.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the interval will vary appreciably with the type of sample material that is available and the number and complexity of tests involved. For samples tested last month at laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Scottish Agricultural Colleges, the average time was nine days. The noble Baroness will, however, be aware that under our Scheme arrangements a single negative test result will not suffice to release the animal from isolation; this must await confirmation from a further sample taken at least 14 days after the animal aborted.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I would ask him whether he will press his noble friend to speed up in every possible way the results of these tests, and the notification, as there is an enormous increase of the disease if people are not notified fast enough.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, again, the interest of my noble friend is well known in this matter, and my right honourable friend will be studying everything she has said. But I assure her that the Ministry press ahead as fast as possible in these matters.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those answers, which give us great satisfaction, but at the same time it is something that we regret, and I do not know whether the Government realise that the first intimation that we had—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps he would couch his supplementary in an interrogatory form.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I thought that I was doing so, but I may be wrong. Do the Government realise that the first information that reached us of the further postponement of the putting into operation of the eradication scheme was given to us at a meeting outside this House, when it was not specifically dealing with the cattle side, and that we were then told for the first time that the Eradication Scheme was not to be put into operation until October of next year?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think we dealt with this subject rather fully on Tuesday, and I feel that it is a little outside the scope of this Question. However, what the noble Lord has said will be borne in mind.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, do the Government realise that this is a question which, however important it may be from the point of view of those who keep cattle, is even more important from the point of view of human health? Are Her Majesty's Government aware of the great spread of brucellosis among the human population; and that unless immediate steps are taken to deal with the problem that spread will increase, thereby causing an immense amount of suffering to people who incur the disease, which is in all forms incurable?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government are certainly aware of the great urgency of this matter, and they are taking the steps which they consider are appropriate.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is it coming home to the noble Lord that in matters of brucellosis testing noble farmers, despite how he may feel, do not like being Lords in waiting?

METRICATION: TRAINING OF YOUNG PEOPLE
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 they are satisfied that colleges of education are preparing students for the change-over to metrication.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I am confident that the colleges of education are alive to the importance of metrication and of the need to prepare their students for it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask him whether he is satisfied that the Metrication Board take the same view that he has just expressed? May I also ask whether his Department have been in contact with the Metrication Board on this issue? If they have not, will they get in touch with the Board, and give them an opportunity of making known to the Department their feelings regarding this important matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, a survey of the colleges' activities in this field is currently being planned by the Metrication Board, and the noble Lord may be interested to know that the Secretary of the Association of Teachers in colleges and departments of education is in fact a member of the Education and Training Steering Committee of the Board.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the basis of his confidence is that colleges of education are preparing properly for the introduction of metrication? Have the Department themselves taken any initiative in the matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question, because it gives me the chance to explain the slightly difficult position of my Department in certain matters, and the way in which we try to resolve our difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will know, the Department of Education do not have responsibility for the curricula in colleges of education, which rests with the colleges themselves and the area training organisations of which they are members. What the Department have done is to try to give guidance in the introduction of school pupils to the metric unit. Guidance is given by the Department's and school council's various publications; and of course Her Majesty's Inspectors advise
1514
the colleges on such matters and have stressed the importance of metrication. Perhaps I might add that H.M.I. courses for serving teachers have also included appropriate treatment of the subject.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord consider that this metrication system, conditioning us to go into the Common Market, may be wasted money? We are now getting such support as anti-Common marketeers that we are satisfied that it will be a colossal waste of money.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted to inform the noble Lord that that question falls well outside the remit of the original Question.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the colleges of education throughout this country only about 10 per cent. of the students get exposed at all to any science? Is it therefore likely that they are being given adequate instruction in metrication? Is this not a case for the Government to take clear action in the matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I hoped that I had told the House that the Department of Education had tried to take clear action by dissemination of information, which is where our responsibility lies. As regards the reception of information coming back we shall have to await the findings of the survey of the Metrication Board.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the advice being tendered by Her Majesty's Inspectors is being taken by the colleges? I am aware of the reply he has given to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, but in view of the fact that this is a reasonably urgent matter, may I ask that the Department take serious steps to satisfy themselves on this point? Is the Minister aware that some inspectors in the employment of local authorities are not by any means satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to prepare students for this developing situation?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I can only say once again that local authority inspectors are autonomous. May I repeat the fact that we have tried to disseminate information to those local education authorities in whose employ are

1515
those inspectors to whom the noble Lord is referring.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, would the Minister take notice of the fact that I have in my hand an article by an L.E.A. inspector in which he states opinions which quite clearly indicate that he thinks that a great deal more needs doing?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the information that he has given me. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would care to look, for instance, at such publications as Metrication in Schools, to the Administrative Memorandum 15/69, which was sent out from the Department of Education and Science, not to mention various other publications, which really show that the Department is acting as fully as it possibly can within its legislative remit which it holds under the 1944 Act. This was the basis of the noble Lord's original Question.

YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
2.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would be pleasant, at least for me, to think that the Leader of your Lordships' House was more or less incapable of being out of order. I am unfortunately only too well aware that this is not the case. I hope that, with the leave of the House, what I am about to say will be regarded as a Statement of business and so be in order. Your Lordships will doubtless be aware that at the end of this year Sir Kenneth Mackintosh will be handing over his duties to the Gentleman Usher of the Rod. He will then be going on a period of very well earned leave. The sad fact is that when we come back in January we shall no longer find Sir Kenneth in charge of our administrative affairs. I should not like to let this occasion pass without a word of appreciation and gratitude to Sir Kenneth for his 17 years' service to your Lordships.
He came here as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain and Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod in 1953. That was at a time when the Lord Great Chamberlain was Housekeeper and Administrator to the House of Lords
1516
and, as the Queen's representative, had certain responsibilities for the whole of the Palace of Westminster. Sir Kenneth became Serjeant at Arms in 1962 and when, in 1965, most of the Lord Great Chamberlain's administrative responsibilities were divided between the two Houses he continued to carry out, on behalf of the Administration Committee of your Lordships' House, many of the functions which he had previously exercised on behalf of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
I do not know what we should have done without Sir Kenneth's knowledge and experience during this transitional period. He has seen many changes during his service: some have, no doubt, been more palatable to him than others may have been, but he has accepted all these changes with unfailing grace and good humour. It is my belief—and I am sure that this belief is shared by your Lordships—that we owe him deep gratitude for the way in which he has discharged his many and varied responsibilities. Whether it is in carrying the Mace with due pomp and ceremony, or arranging the Opening of Parliament, or solving many of those difficult administrative problems in which it is virtually impossible to satisfy everybody—as, for example, the allocation of offices—we shall miss his firm and friendly guidance. I am sure that it will be the wish of everyone that we should extend to him on the eve of his retirement a special message of warm thanks and good wishes. We wish him and Lady Mackintosh every happiness in the future.
My Lords, at the same time it may be the appropriate moment to announce to your Lordships that, after consultation with all concerned, our other Naval person, Sir Frank Twiss, has appointed Colonel Charles Sayers to be Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod from January 1, 1971, and that the Lord Chancellor has from that date appointed Colonel Sayers to be also the Deputy Serjeant at Arms. This means that Colonel Sayers will be Black Rod's deputy for all purposes and, in particular, will attend the Lord Chancellor in carrying the Mace.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as always, the Leader of the House will receive the leave of the House to make a Statement, and I can assure him that he was entirely in order in what he was

1517
doing. His Statement was, as usual, expressed in amiable and appropriate terms. I should like to share in the tribute that he has paid to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh. When I first came to your Lordships' House I was rather frightened of Sir Kenneth—and I think some other noble Lords have been, too. We then moved into the new arrangement and the powers of the Lord Great Chamberlain were changed, although it is worth recalling that the Lord Great Chamberlain still has certain responsibilities and Sir Kenneth Mackintosh has carried them out on his behalf. As a result of the change, Sir Kenneth Mackintosh has had an exceedingly difficult job with no fewer than four—or it may be three—separate masters.
When I became Leader of the House it fell to my lot to give some consideration, along with certain other noble Lords, to the arrangements for the administration, and the roles of Black Rod and the Serjeant at Arms. In order to study this, it was necessary to investigate in some depth the duties of Sir Kenneth. I do not believe that any of your Lordships will ever know how hard Sir Kenneth has had to work in these past few years. It was quite staggering to look at the list of duties drawn up for this careful, objective analysis. However large or small the task, Sir Kenneth was always ready to take the responsibility.
It is in the nature of the job, dealing as its holder has to do with a large number of different people, Members of your Lordships' House of varying temperaments (if I may put it so), that it imposes a great strain and responsibility to ensure that everything works perfectly. We can say with confidence that the very high standards of decorum and efficiency required for the duties which were carried out by Sir Kenneth, under the late Lord Cholmondeley who did so much for your Lordships' House, have been fully maintained. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. When I was Leader of the House I was conscious of the extent to which one could always rely on his discharging any task, however minor or however important, with great efficiency.
It is a fact that we have now settled on new arrangements, which I believe are more efficient, centralising the responsibility on Black Rod, with the new Yeoman
1518
Usher as his deputy. I would hasten to add—and this was always the view of those who were concerned in this connection—that at no time did this in any way reflect on Sir Kenneth's discharge of his responsibilities.
He will now be retiring; and Lady Mackintosh, a most charming person—and I sometimes wish we had been able to see more of her—will be leaving us. I am happy to think that those charming girls who work in Sir Kenneth Mackintosh's office are likely to remain, although how long they will be allowed to remain I do not know. At any rate, I should like to express my personal gratitude, and I am sure that we all share the views expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
My Lords, we should like, too, to wish the new Yeoman Usher all good luck under Sir Frank Twiss. I would only add that I am still a little bothered about the method of appointment, which appears to be shared, for historic reasons, between the Lord Chancellor and Sir Frank Twiss. It is of course a fact that the Lord Chancellor carries a special responsibility for your Lordships' House, but I think that at some stage we shall have to make clear that responsibility for these appointments does rest with the House.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we should certainly wish to be associated with the eloquent tributes which have already been paid to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh. He has upheld the highest possible traditions of a very important office. I often wonder how many of your Lordships appreciate the exacting nature of some of these jobs behind the scenes, and indeed on the scene itself, which go to make the proper and efficient working of this House. Sir Kenneth has certainly discharged his duties with great distinction. We should also like to associate ourselves with the thought that Sir Kenneth and Lady Mackintosh will live a long time to enjoy a well deserved retirement.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I am sure I speak for him as well as for myself when I say that during the whole time that we shared the Leadership of this House we owed a very great deal to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh.

1519
I do not know whether it was his efficiency or his humanity which was more prominent, but both were always there in full measure at the disposal of all of us in this House. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend and myself, I should very much like to be associated with the proper tribute which has been paid to him and to Lady Mackintosh.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that those who, like myself, sit on the Cross-Benches would wish to endorse and support all that has been said about Sir Kenneth Mackintosh. We wish him well in the future and join with all that has been said.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Monopolies Commission.

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
3.3 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place yesterday afternoon. This is the Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I wish to make a Statement about certain proposals which I have to-day tabled in Brussels"—
that was yesterday—
"regarding United Kingdom participation in the European Economic Community's financial arrangements in the event of our accession.
"In brief Her Majesty's Government have proposed that over the first five years of our membership of the Community our contribution to the Community budget should build up by equal annual steps to a basic key which should lie in the range of 13 to 15 per
1520
cent. of total contributions. Thereafter, for a further three years, the year-to-year changes in our share of contributions should be subject to limitations on the lines of the correctives the Six have provided for themselves up to 1978.
"We have further proposed that there should be provision to review, if necessary, the operation of the financial arrangements in an enlarged Community.
"The House will expect me to explain the significance of these proposals for the United Kingdom. I must first emphasise that any estimates inevitably depend on a large number of assumptions which have to be made about the ways in which the enlarged Community would develop in the years after we and the other applicant countries had joined. To take just two of the most important factors: it is really very difficult to judge what the size of the Community's budget will be at the end of this decade, and what share of the total will be devoted on the one hand to schemes of agricultural support, from which we, with our relatively small and highly efficient agriculture, cannot expect to be major beneficiaries, and on the other to regional and industrial development and other programmes.
"It is because of these uncertainties that in the past the Six themselves have in practice reviewed their own arrangements whenever unforeseen developments have upset the balance which previous agreements were expected to produce. We have therefore proposed to the Six that a suitable review provision should be an essential part of any agreement.
"Having made clear to the House the inevitable limitations of any estimates, I can give some indication of what we expect the proposals we have put to the Community might involve. If we assume that the Community budget in 1977 was to be 4,500 million dollars, as we have suggested to the Community, then under the proposals we have now made, after making an estimate for receipts, our net contribution would build up gradually from about £30 million in 1973 to about £140 million to £180 million in 1977.

1521
If, however, the Community budget remained at its current level of about 3,000 million dollars then our net contribution would reach about £60 million to £85 million in 1977, on the same estimated basis of receipt.
"We have also to take account of the fact that in the short term membership of the Community will have certain other adverse effects on our balance of trade as a result of the increased cost of food imports and the loss of some of the trade preferences we enjoy in other markets. For this reason, it is important that we should move up gradually towards our ultimate contribution.
"Neither this Government nor our predecessors have ever attempted to disguise the fact that membership of the Community will involve a substantial net contribution to the Community budget and, at least in the early stages, other balance-of-payments costs. But again, like our predecessors, we believe that account must also be taken of the prospect of dynamic economic advantages of membership which would be substantial. As to these, one has to make a judgment about the likely response of British industry to the opportunities and challenges that would be presented by our entry into the Community. The Government's judgment—and it is shared by the over-whelming majority of our leading industrialists—is that the response would be vigorous and determined and that we could expect to achieve a significantly higher economic growth rate if we joined the Community than if we remained outside.
"The Government also consider that membership of an enlarged Community will provide considerable opportunities for British farmers. Without underestimating the problems that have to be faced in the early years of our membership, therefore, we hold firmly to the view that our entry into the Community on reasonable terms would be in the long-term economic interests of this country.
"We are also convinced that enlargement of the Community would be in the interests, political perhaps even more than economic, of the whole of Western Europe. It is with these considerations in mind that the Government
1522
have formulated the proposals which I have tabled in Brussels to-day."
My Lords, that is the Statement. I might also, for the convenience of your Lordships, add that it is envisaged that we should have a debate on this subject after the Recess and before the next Ministerial Meeting on February 2.
3.9 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement. It is, as he has indicated, a matter that will need some careful debate, and I am glad to know that we are going to have an opportunity to debate it before the next meeting of the Council of Ministers. It is a very intricate matter, as I am only too well aware, and I do not intend to press the Minister to-day on any of the points he has made. I simply say that it seems to me at first glance, although I shall want to look at the Statement in greater detail, to be a reasonable opening position to put forward.
I should like to ask two questions. I shall understand if the noble Marquess cannot answer them to-day, but perhaps we can have them answered when we come to debate the issue more fully. My first question is this: are we to understand that this is 13 to 15 per cent. of the total contributions of the Community of ten, or is it a Community of seven, on the assumption that we alone will have acceded when these figures come into operation? Secondly, although it is clear that we are going to contribute 13 to 15 per cent. of the total budget of a Community of seven or ten—or whatever it may be—can the noble Marquess say how this compares, in terms of the percentage of our gross national product, with the percentage of the G.N.P. of the existing and potential members of the Community?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement, which at any rate shows that our very able negotiator, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, is now getting down to the nub of the negotiations. With your Lordships permission, I should like to ask three questions. First, since nobody can predict with any accuracy the precise effect on our economy of the acceptance of the principle of financing of the Common

1523
Agricultural Policy of the Six would not the Government agree that perhaps the most important thing in all these negotiations is an adequate review clause enabling corrective action to be taken in the event of our subscription to the Central Agricultural Fund having an unduly onerous effect on our balance of payments? The second question: is would they not further agree that if we should ever achieve a European monetary union, the effect, positive or negative, on the individual balance of payments of any member of the Community would be quite immaterial? Thirdly, would they not, finally, agree that, pending any progress towards a monetary union, which of course could be achieved only with the consent of the British Parliament, there are real prospects under the Treaty of Rome of a common regional policy which might be of great benefit to some of our own less developed areas?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly answer the first question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? I should require notice of his second question. My understanding is that this does refer to a Community of ten. It is hoped that that is what we shall achieve. His other question I should require notice of, and if I may be so bold I would ask the same indulgence of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I note his remarks and I should like to consider them and write to him.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Marquess agree with me that the Statement he has read out, which is a repeat of what was reported in the other place yesterday, indicates with unquestionable clarity that if we join the E.E.C. we are to incur in the future financial liabilities of a most oppressive character, while on the other hand the benefits which are assumed are likely to be of a highly speculative character? If the noble Marquess does not agree with me, will he, with his usual courtesy, give me the reason why?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I do not know whether I can give him chapter and verse as to the reason why, but my feeling is, as with
1524
my right honourable friend, that the benefits that will ultimately be gained by joining the Community will far outweigh the disadvantages.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if the noble Marquess is unable to agree with me, how are we going to advise the electors of this country on an important, vital fundamental issue of this kind, which may change the whole character and quality of the United Kingdom? Surely in the circumstances no decisive action should be taken until the electors have had a further opportunity of giving their decision.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, with reference to the last question, is the Minister aware that in another place yesterday afternoon reference was made to the White Paper which was issued by the previous Government in February of this year? Is he also aware that there is a wide divergence of speculation in the White Paper as to the high burdens or the low burdens which might be borne by the British people, and could he give us an assurance that once the negotiations are reasonably reaching a point of culmination a further White Paper will be issued to this country, so that the fears of many people, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, may be assuaged?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly take into account what my noble friend has said. I do not think he will expect me to give him a positive assurance to-day, but I can undertake to pass his remarks to my right honourable friend.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the noble Marquess please see, if it is at all within his capacity, that this House has copies of the Treaty of Rome available so that they can be read, and read thoroughly, before noble Lords are asked to take any vote whatsoever? Is he finally further aware that on the first famous occasion when this vital question reached the other place the Foreign Office had only one copy of the Treaty of Rome, and that was in French? Will he see that we are well-informed and know what we are doing when we are voting on that written document, which does not suit the British people because of its profound illogicality and lack of wisdom?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I speak subject to correction on this matter, but I imagine that there are copies of the Treaty of Rome in the Library. If not, I will certainly undertake to see that copies are available there before our debate.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, while welcoming the indication of a full Parliamentary debate early in the New Year, and without going into the Statement repeated by the noble Marquess, may I ask whether he will address himself to another related need? Will he say how the British people are to be enabled to exercise their undoubted right to approve or disapprove any terms that may be offered for British membership of the Common Market; and is it proposed that the matter will be decided in this Parliament? If so, will it be by a free vote, or will it be at a General Election, or by a referendum? Will the noble Marquess please give a clear answer to this crucial point?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lady really expects me to give a complete answer to that point on the Statement I have made this afternoon, but I shall naturally take note of what she said.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Marquess not tell us what will be the intentions when the terms arrive—whether this Parliament will decide or whether the British people will have a voice in the decision? The economic argument now is fading into insignificance because of the argument that the political issue is greater. To me the political issue means the end of sovereignty and the abolition of the Commonwealth. Can the people not say something on this matter?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, are we really to assume that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, thinks that the present Parliament does not represent the British people?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has actually taken the words out of my mouth. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, feels very strongly about this matter, but I think we should wait a little longer to see how we get on.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps the noble Marquess will agree with me that if we sign any treaty, be it the Treaty of Rome or any other, it will require ratification by Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Treaty of Rome contains no escape clause, will Her Majesty's Government consider the advisability of suggesting to the present members of the E.E.C. that in the event of this country adhering to the Treaty of Rome, provision should be made in the future, by mutual arrangement, that should any member of the E.E.C. find that for political, economic or social reasons their continued membership is deleterious to their national interest they should be able to withdraw, say, on the giving of five years' notice?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is a very wide question, but I will undertake to pass it on to my noble friend.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that these are matters that we shall discuss very fully in the debate? And is he aware that the views from the different ends of the House do not necessarily represent the views of the majority of your Lordships' House?

BUSINESS: POSTPONED STATEMENTS
3.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question on Business? We have followed a rather unusual procedure in postponing yesterday's Statement until to-day. I have no doubt that that was entirely correct and that it would have done great damage to yesterday's excellent debate if we had in fact taken that Statement then. But may I ask the noble Earl whether he will pursue his personal studies further, with a view to trying to find solutions, such as the one we adopted in this case, to remove some of the inconvenience with regard to Statements? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and others have raised this

1527
question. In particular, I wonder whether we ought not in such circumstances, where the Statement is repeated on a later day (and we might even do this on occasions when we missed a Statement entirely because the House was not sitting), to have not the whole Statement read out—because, after all, it is already printed in the Hansard of another place—but a shorter one, in order to enable questions to be asked upon it—and I stress "questions".
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think there is a general feeling in your Lordships' House that the questions which arise from Statements and the timing of Statements are matters which need looking into. This matter has already been discussed in the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House, and certainly I shall be very glad, both personally and, if need be, with reference to the Procedure Committee, to consider carefully the specific questions which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just put. I very gladly give that undertaking.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Some of your Lordships will already be familiar with the provisions of the Bill, which have been pressed for by the friendly societies for a long time. A Bill similar to the present one was introduced in the last Parliament and completed all its stages in your Lordships' House, ably piloted by two "Frank" supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowles. It reached the Committee stage in the other place when it was overtaken by the Dissolution. Since then the Bill has been slightly enlarged. It now contains provisions which confer powers on the Registrar to inspect societies and branches, to make orders forbidding them to contract new business, and to petition the court to wind them up. Otherwise, there are no substantial changes. In these circumstances, I am sure that your Lordships will not wish me to speak to the Bill at great length.
1528
The friendly societies have a long and honourable history. They were the forerunners of our present system of comprehensive National Insurance, but although they still have a very valuable part to play in our national life, they are to some extent fettered by the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act of 1896. To my mind, their most valuable contribution is their encouragement of self-help and mutual help within a comprehensive Welfare State. They allow many of the most provident and worthy of our citizens to save for their future welfare and to make provision for their old age. This old-fashioned virtue of thrift is surely one which all of your Lordships will wish to encourage, and it is undoubtedly true that the friendly societies embody it in their very essence.
The Bill has two purposes: first, to simplify the procedure for the merger of registered societies, which may take place either on amalgamation or by transfer of engagements of one society to another; secondly, to simplify the procedure for the dissolution of registered societies. It also makes a number of small amendments to the 1896 Act which prepare the way for consolidating legislation which we hope to introduce before too long. For some time the membership of the friendly societies has been slowly reducing, although it is worth noticing that they still have funds totalling over £800 million. This reduction in membership, together with a substantial increase in management costs, has meant that a number of the smaller societies have ceased to be economically viable. The answer is to amalgamate in order to form larger units, but with the law as it is at present this is a lengthy and an expensive process. The law compels a society wishing to amalgamate to obtain the support of five-sixths of its members and beneficiaries. It is most unlikely to gain this support, not because of active opposition but because of the indifference of what need only be a small proportion of the total membership, who will not trouble to respond or express a view. Only once this procedure has failed can a society apply to the Registrar to dispense with consent, which he may allow with the approval of the Treasury.
Clause 1 abolishes the present requirement to obtain the individual assent of five-sixths of all the members for the amalgamation of two or more societies.

1529
Instead, a special resolution has to be passed after full information regarding the terms of the proposal has been given to all members—and under Clause 4 a special resolution requires a majority of three-quarters of the members voting. Clause 2 gives to members or persons affected by the amalgamation rights of appeal to the Registrar. Clause 3 allows the dissolution of a friendly society with the consent of three-quarters of its members instead of five-sixths, but in this case it is three-quarters of the total membership who must consent. This will bring friendly societies into line with other registered societies. The clause also clarifies the right of a member who is dissatisfied with the terms of the dissolution to apply for relief to the county court.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are the new clauses which give power to the Registrar to inspect societies and branches and to petition the court for their winding up. He may also make orders forbidding societies and branches to contract new business and may require them to produce documents. The powers conferred by these clauses are not regarded as likely to constitute a major new sphere of operations for the Registrar, and their exercise will not require any increase in public service manpower or in staff costs. The powers are regarded as reserve powers to be used in those exceptional cases in which registered friendly societies get into financial or administrative difficulties and in which the interests of the members or the public call for action on the part of the Registrar.
My Lords, the remaining clauses consist mainly of technicalities. I hope that I have said enough to succeed in making clear the purpose of the Bill and that your Lordships will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has moved the Second Reading of the Bill with commendable clarity and brevity. He will not be surprised to know that I support his proposition that the Bill be given a Second Reading, because I did spend a good deal of time helping to get it through
1530
this House against the assiduous efforts of his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who, I have no doubt, is now a 100 per cent. supporter of the Bill. There are the three clauses, Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which are new since the House gave it previous support in the last Parliament. The explanation which the noble Lord has given of the intentions behind these clauses seems to me entirely adequate, but, as he knows, there is a liaison committee of the friendly societies which has expressed anxiety about these intentions. I hope that they are satisfied with the explanation which the noble Lord has given. But I wonder if he can tell me whether any inquiry has been made, any consultation has taken place with them, and whether they have expressed to him or to his Department that they are satisfied with what is behind the new clauses? I hope he can assure us on that. At any rate, I am quite sure that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether he can tell me if, for these purposes, building societies come within the definition of "friendly societies".
3.31 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am most grateful to both noble Lords, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who I know did a great deal of work on the previous Bill. I am grateful to him for treating me with greater kindness than perhaps my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn treated him. May I say, on his point about the friendly societies liaison committee, that they have been consulted throughout and they have given a general welcome to these new clauses. They have raised just one point with us, on the question of the amount of notice that is given to a friendly society under Clause 6, where the Registrar has power to suspend the business of a registered friendly society and, before making an order, has to give 14 days' notice. They are anxious that this should be a longer period. We have undertaken to look into this point and, if necessary, to move an Amendment at the next stage. So far as concerns the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Rovle, the answer is that building societies are not covered by this definition.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the Registrar is the same.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered. In rising to move this Motion, I should like to tell your Lordships that certain manuscript Amendments to this Bill have been tabled. They are numbered 6A, 6B and 10A respectively, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and, again, with regard to Amendment 10A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Copies of these Amendments are available in the usual way. I am asked to point out that in the supplementary Marshalled List the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has been erroneously omitted from Amendment No. 10A.
Moved, That the Report be now conconsidered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 11 [Sentences imposed by Crown Court]:
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 27, after ("of") insert ("whichever is the shorter of the following periods, that is—
(a)")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships probably know, Clause 11 as at present drafted is designed to perpetuate the present practice at assize and quarter sessions whereby a judge of assize or court of quarter sessions may change a sentence at any time during the assize or the sessions, as the case may be. Now that assizes and quarter sessions are to be abolished and there will be a Crown Court in almost continuous session, that practice must clearly be modified, and for the ordinary case Clause 11(2) provides that the sentence may be varied or rescinded within 28 days. That was an arbitrary date, though to be right, bearing in mind that there are 28 days within which to appeal.
When, however, one gets to subsection (3), dealing with two men tried on an indictment, one of whom pleads guilty and the other not guilty, the final trial, when alone the judge can assess what is the proper sentence, may be at some distant future date. As originally worded it provided that the sentence might be changed within 28 days of the conclusion of the whole trial. It has been pointed out that that might mean a very distant future date, when maybe the judge concerned had forgotten all about the case. The object of the first Amendment here is to provide that the period during which a judge can alter a sentence or order will be whichever is the shorter of the two periods—28 days from the conclusion of the joint trial, or 56 days beginning with the day on which the sentence or order was first imposed.
The next Amendment, which substitutes a new subsection for subsection (5), is really to clear up ambiguities. It is to provide that the varied sentence shall take effect from the date of the original sentence, unless the court otherwise orders; but for the purposes of calculating the time within which one may appeal the period during which one may appeal is to start, as is the present practice, from the date when the sentence was varied.
Finally, subsection (6) is designed to cater, as it were, for exceptional cases: by paragraph (a) for cases in which two men may be tried quite separately but on related facts, where some special period of time can be determined by court rules. Paragraph (b) is designed to deal with cases, among others, where the sentence or order which it is proposed to vary is not a sentence or order connected with the offender. It may be an order, for instance, in the case of a breach of recognisances on a surety, somebody who is not before the court as an offender. These are technical matters which have been pointed out by the Criminal Appeal Office. In these circumstances, I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have absolutely no hesitation in advising the House to accept all three of these Amendments in turn, and I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice for having moved them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
"(b) the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which the sentence or other order was imposed or made."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having perhaps dealt wrongly with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in speaking to them at the same time as moving Amendment No. 1. They are all technical points, to clear up the provisions of Clause 11. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) Where a sentence or other order is varied under this section, the sentence or other order, as so varied, shall take effect from the beginning of the day on which it was originally imposed or made, unless the court otherwise directs:
Provided that for the purposes of section 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (time limit for notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal) the sentence or other order shall be regarded as imposed or made on the day on which it is so varied.
(6) Crown Court rules—

(a) may, as respects cases where two or more persons are tried separately on the same or related facts alleged in one or more indictments, provide for extending the period prescribed by subsection (2) above.

(b) may, subject to the preceding provisions of this section, prescribe the cases and circumstances in which, and the time within which, any order or other decision made by the Crown Court may be varied or rescinded by the Crown Court."—(Lord Parker of Waddington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Right of audience]:
LORD TANGLEY LORD TANGLEY moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 41, at end insert—
"(A1) Solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the Crown Court on any hearing of or in connection with any appeal or any proceedings on committal to the court for sentence."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing
1534
in my name. Some of your Lordships may remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an Amendment dealing with this subject matter. That Amendment had three branches, all dealing with the right of audience of solicitors in matters before the Circuit court which are at present dealt with at quarter sessions. The first branch of the Amendment dealt with the case where a solicitor has represented a client in proceedings in the court below, there is an appeal, which is a rehearing at quarter sessions (and will be a rehearing at the Circuit court), and the client wishes the solicitor to appear again.
The second branch proposed that a solicitor should have a right of representing his client before the court on a question of a plea of mitigation of sentence when the client had been sent from the magistrates' court to quarter sessions (in future to the Circuit court) for sentence. The third branch of my Amendment went much wider than that. After considering the weighty views which were expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I have come to the conclusion that it went rather too wide. I have omitted it from my present Amendment and have confined it to the first two points.
May I remind your Lordships that at the Committee stage both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Viscount, expressed strong support for my Amendment, and even went so far as to say that it should be voted for; and they said that they would vote for it if it were cut down to the extent to which I have cut it down to-day. I do not know what their attitude will be to-day.
I do not think your Lordships would wish me to take a long time in moving this Amendment or to repeat a great deal of what I said on the Committee stage. I think perhaps I have said enough already, subject to one point. This Amendment seems to be the first of what I may term a maze of Amendments on Clause 12 of the Bill, and those Amendments include a number put down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which, between them, virtually transform the original Clause 12 into a new clause, and a new clause which would give much wider and deeper

1535
powers to the noble and learned Lord and subsequent Lord Chancellors.
Perhaps I may permit myself this observation. I believe it would be very much for the convenience of your Lordships if, in referring to my Amendment, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could give us some idea of the reasons for widening the scope of Clause 12 in the way that he has, and possibly some prevision of the way in which he might be prepared to act in the event of his being given those additional powers. If that were done, I believe it would be for the convenience of your Lordships' House, and would be a clue to getting through this maze of Amendments on Clause 12.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, as Amendments to the proposed new subsection (A1), Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Line 1, leave out ("Solicitors") and insert ("The solicitor who appeared for an accused person in a magistrates' court");
Line 2, after ("Court") insert ("on behalf of that person").
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg formally to move Amendment No. 5, and I will at the same time, if I may, formally move No. 6. I say "formally" for this reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has indicated, there are Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which appear to overlap with his Amendment, and to deal with the same problem. It would save time and would, I think, be to the convenience of the House if we had explained to us, while we are discussing Lord Tangley's Amendment, the purpose and effect of the Lord Chancellor's Amendments. If, at the end of that discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley felt that he should withdraw his Amendment, then there would be no need for any debate on my Amendments to his Amendment. If he felt that he should not withdraw his Amendment, then I would ask, with the leave of the House, to put forward the reasons why I have tabled Amendments to his Amendment. I think that it would take up perhaps unnecessary time were I to do so now.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will readily accede to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, to
1536
take this opportunity of explaining both what has happened since the Committee stage, when this matter was last before your Lordships, and also the effect of the subsequent Amendments, which I intend to move in due course, if circumstances permit me to do so, and to explain the reasoning which underlies them. I hope that the effect of my so doing will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, to withdraw his own Amendment, since I believe that my own give him as much as he could reasonably ask for if his own Amendment were carried, and perhaps more.
As he has correctly told your Lordships, although my own Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9 on the Marshalled List, appear in a somewhat mystifying and unintelligible form, they were intended really to recast Clause 12 into virtually a new clause. I think the best service I can do your Lordships, before I give my reasoning and explain why I have put this Amendment down, is to read Clause 12 as it would read on the assumption that these Amendments were moved into it; because as I say, it is intended as a new clause, although the actual mystery of the draftsman's art has led the Amendments to be put down in this form. If Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 were passed, Clause 12 would read as follows:
"(1) The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct that solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings in the Crown Court, or in proceedings in the Crown Court of such description as is specified in the direction.
"(2) A direction under this section may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits, or as respects a specified area, region or circuit, or as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits.
"(3) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section as respects any one or more places where the Crown Court sits the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to any shortage of counsel in the area in question, any rights of audience formerly exercised by solicitors at any court of quarter sessions in the locality in question, and to any other special circumstances."
I think it is at that point that the manuscript Amendment (No. 10A), of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne comes in, to omit the word "special" before "circumstances", and insert after "circumstances" "affecting the public interest". May I say, in passing, that if we get so far, it is my intention to accept that manuscript Amend-

1537
ment, subject to any drafting improvement that the drafters may subsequently desire to put in. The final subsection, at present subsection (3), of course remains unchanged. It reads:
"Any direction given under this section may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient".
Having discharged that task, I should like to make it clear that in doing this I am aiming in this and the subsequent Amendments, Nos. 13 and 15, relating to Clauses 16 and 21, respectively, to perform the obligations that I undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at the Committee stage of the Bill. I made it clear, both in discussing the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Committee stage, that my overriding motives throughout have been to preserve the integrity and improve the efficiency of English justice—a priceless trust which we have all inherited from our predecessors and which I earnestly desire to hand down to my own successors untarnished, and improved by such reforms as this Bill seeks to effect. Even the interests of the client, which I have sought to serve all my own professional life, and which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, so rightly emphasised in his speech during the Committee stage, can be safeguarded only in the context of this overriding requirement.
Both branches of the legal profession are working under strain at the present time. Both, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, reminded us at the Committee stage, are seriously undermanned as a result of the constant increase of legal business since the war and possibly also of the increases in taxation and shorttages of ancillary manpower which have been the characteristics of those post-war years. The solicitors' branch is seriously undermanned and, probably as a result of shortage of ancillary staff, if anything worse understaffed than the Bar. Both are working under strain. It follows that if either, or both, choose to make dossiers at the expense of the other, both can uncover some failure in the standard of public service which they ought legitimately to wish to supply.
It also follows that a sufficient supply of really mature barristers and solicitors to fulfil each their separate functions will
1538
not be fully available for some years to come. Given adequate recruitment, both branches of the profession can hope to provide qualified practitioners fairly rapidly, compared with some other professions which have longer periods of training. But good lawyers, like good port, mature slowly, whether in bottle or in cask, and I am mainly concerned with the mature version which we produce.
The remedy for this situation can, I think, be found in two related prescriptions. The first is to remove unnecessary inefficiencies in our court administration. That is what we are trying to do by this Bill. But it would be quite wrong to adopt panic measures which would undermine the foundations on which judicial and professional integrity have been slowly built up over the years. The second prescription, however, is at least as important as, and perhaps more important than, the first. With two branches of the legal profession working under strain, it is vitally necessary to reduce to a minimum mutual friction between the two, and to increase to a maximum mutual co-operation and trust between the two. Maximum co-operation and maximum communication must be the order of the day, and not mutual recrimination and suspicion.
Although I hope I may say this without giving offence to either of these branches of a distinguished calling, it is no use pretending that this issue does not have some of the features of a demarcation dispute, just as the disputes which take place, let us say, between the boilermakers and the engineers give rise to something in the nature of a demarcation dispute. But I should not myself recommend fusion or federation as a remedy in this case. The formula in any kind of dispute of this kind is to wish to create the maximum of trust. The way of doing that is to exhaust, and use to its fullest, existing negotiating joint machinery, or, if such machinery is not available, to see that it is made available; and at all times to keep the channels of communication open and unblocked. By that I mean the channels of communication between the two bodies concerned and the sponsoring Department—in this case, the Lord Chancellor's Office—and not simply the mutual communication channels between the two.

1539
That brings me back to the situation as I left it at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, very kindly, at my request, did not press his Amendments to Clause 12, in exchange for an undertaking by myself to bring about a meeting at which he and I could discuss the matter in the presence of the representatives of the Bar Council and of the Law Society, with a view to an honourable and reasonably rapid improvement in the terms of the Bill. The Amendments which I have now put down are the result of that meeting, in the sense of their being the consequence of that meeting. But I must make it clear that they are my Amendments. They are not the result of some secret bargain which was arrived at in that meeting, or some secret bargain between the Law Society and the Bar Council. I put the Amendments forward on their merits, and their merits are what I now wish to discuss.
Your Lordships will remember that Clause 12, as it stood unamended and as it stands now, gives the Lord Chancellor power to open the Crown Court on a geographical basis—in our discussions the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, described it happily as a horizontal basis—when a case is made out for so doing. The noble Lord put down on Committee, and has now put down in a revised form, an Amendment which would open the courts automatically and without inquiry on what he called, equally happily, a vertical basis; that is to say, the opening would be nationwide and dependent oil the type of case and not on the geographical area.
It seemed to me, on looking at these Amendments, that there were three main defects or criticisms which could be made of them. The first was procedural. The case was attempted to be made, I thought, without adequate previous discussion, rather than on the basis of the full use of the machinery which exists between the Law Society and the Bar Council in the form of joint committees and which ought to be used if the professions are to go forward on a basis of mutual trust and co-operation, as they should.
The second was that the Amendments lacked the flexibility which I hoped was one of the main virtues of the present Bill. There could, it seemed to me, be
1540
no case for making the provisions relating to the opening on a vertical basis rigid and virtually immovable, while those for the opening on a horizontal basis remained discretionary. I should have thought there was no reason for rigidity in either; no reason to suppose that both professions, which are evolving very rapidly, will stay as they are for another hundred years, which may be the interval before another Judicature Act, and will not require further adjustment from time to time as their relationships develop.
The third criticism which I pointed out at the time and which was also strongly emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, was that the cases differed wholly, both in nature and in virtue; tile first two, which remain upon the Marshalled List now, depending upon the type of jurisdiction possessed in the higher court, and the third depending upon an unrealised potentiality of a jurisdiction in the lower court.
But by far the most significant feature of the debate on the Committee stage, at any rate so far as my own thinking was concerned, lay in the support given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, to the first two of the then Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and their opposition to the third. I made so bold as to draw the attention of the Bar Council to this, which I regarded as the most significant factor in our discussion. This was the state of affairs when I had the pleasure of joining the meeting which was called as a result of my promise to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley.
When the meeting was called, I found, not wholly to my surprise but to my great sorrow, that there had been a lamentable lack of communication between the two branches of the profession, and between them and my Office, and that the existing negotiating machinery had not been wholly exhausted or even used as fully as it might have been. At the meeting two documents were produced—a printed document and a Press handout—neither of which I had seen at the time of the debate on the Committee stage, although the former was subsequently shown to me by a Member of the other place who

1541
had had it sent him by a constituent, and neither of which had been seen in advance of distribution by the Bar Council.
I mention this not in any sense of reproach but simply as fact when I say that they both contained complaints of a breakdown in the administration of particular courts, which complaints, at any rate in my view, ought not to be kept to be used as ammunition in argument but ought to be raised at once between the two branches of the profession as soon as they arise; and which, if satisfaction is not obtained at that level, ought to be brought in good time to the Lord Chancellor's attention for remedy, and not saved up for some future date in the event of legislation. My Lords, if our meeting has achieved no other result, I would hope sincerely that one consequence will be the unblocking of the channels of communication between the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Lord Chancellor's Office. In the event, I found the Bar Council resentful at having, as they thought, been put into the dock without an adequate opportunity to reply; and the Law Society suspicious because they believed themselves to be in deadlock with the Bar. I hope that this will never happen again.
My Lords, I next had to deal with the substance of the Amendments we were there to discuss. In this connection I thought it decisive that the Lord Chief Justice's speech required that something should be done. I could not overcome the resentment of the Bar or, as it seemed to me, do justice to the case unless I gave an opportunity for their side of the matter to be considered. I could not overcome the suspicions of the Law Society unless I made it clear beyond a peradventure that the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as expressed in your Lordships' Committee, backed as it was by the opinion of my noble and learned friend, should be given adequate weight. I accordingly proposed that Clause 12 should be re-cast on the lines of my present Amendment. If this be accepted, both vertical and geographical cases will be placed on the same footing and made to depend on an argued application in which all interested parties have an opportunity to state their views.
1542
Moreover, I think an added advantage is that full flexibility will be maintained. Not only will the first two parts of the Amendment originally set down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tangley, be open to discussion, but the third as well, and any other adjustment which either branch may wish to make from time to time. There will be no need to wait for another Courts Bill; no need to mount a Press campaign with resulting damage to the public interest and to the prestige of both sides of the profession. The third point is that it must be recognised, and I think recognised by all, that the expressions of opinion which fell from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, must be expected to weigh with me very heavily indeed if, as I assume to be the case should my Amendment go through, an application under the new Clause 12 is made to me immediately after Royal Assent.
I can therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, as I have promised him privately to do, that in the event of my Amendment being accepted in preference to his own, and in the event of such an application being made, I would pay high regard to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne in coming to any conclusion on such an application. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation myself, or shall have no hesitation if I am permitted to do so, in commending my own Amendment to the House. It is not designed as a compromise; it is not, to use a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on the last occasion, "a carve up". It represents a considered opinion of my own as the best possible and most honourable solution to a genuine dispute, after listening to the debate on the last occasion, which included such weighty opinions as those I have described from the Cross-Benches, and after listening privately to the representatives of both the Bar Council and the Law Society in the presence of one another. My Lords, should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tangley, as I hope he will, accept the assurances that I have given, I shall at a later stage have much pleasure in moving my Amendment.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am not too happy about any of these Amendments, but I hope that the House will accept the proposals made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may take the same course. These proposals have the great advantage, as I think, of flexibility, which indeed is one of the objects of this Bill—to introduce into the administration of justice a great deal more flexibility than we have now. Without taking up more of your Lordships' time, I hope the House may so agree.
4.6 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I am of course very grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the trouble he has taken—and he has indicated part of the trouble that he has taken. I want to make just one or two points clear before I finally make up my mind whether or not I should ask your Lordships to proceed with this Amendment. The first point is that I absolutely disavow the idea that this is something to do with a demarcation dispute between the Bar and solicitors, or indeed that this can be settled by way of a deal between barristers and solicitors. As I tried to say on the Committee stage, this is a matter where the public interest, and in particular that of the client, is mainly involved, and the client's interests are not and can never be subject to a deal between two branches of the same profession. I would never have taken part in any of the discussions to which the Lord Chancellor has referred if I had felt that I was taking part in any such deal, which I certainly was not.
Therefore, it was with some apprehension that I heard the noble and learned Lord say that if these Amendments to Clause 12 which stand in his name go through, he would consider an application. My Lords, I should have thought he ought to consider this matter of his own motion, not on an application from solicitors or from barristers. That is entirely the wrong atmosphere in which to consider this. It may very well be that the matter will be brought before him either by the Bar or by the solicitors, but I would beg the Lord Chancellor not to wait for an application and to treat this as though it were a dispute between two parties which he had to decide, but to
1544
bear in mind, as he says he will, the very weighty remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, and to consider this matter of his own motion as soon as the Bill goes through.
Before I finally decide whether or not to proceed with this Amendment, I think perhaps your Lordships may wish to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, because their support was far more important than anything I could say on the Committee stage, and it was unequivocal, to the effect that something must be done now. May I finally thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack most gratefully for addressing me as "the noble and learned Lord"? I only hope it does not get him into any trouble with the Bar.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as a layman one has great hesitation in intervening in a debate in which so many notable and learned Lords are taking part, but I should like to know the reception, perhaps, of the House to the advice of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. My understanding is that our Standing Orders prevent us from taking manuscript Amendments on Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is not Third Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: If I may develop this point, I say again, on Third Reading; and the obvious reason is that the House should not have put before it a manuscript Amendment and be asked to accept it without having another opportunity, before the Bill moves to another place, to look at what has been finally agreed. It is perfectly true that we are to-day on the Report stage. We have had, rightly, a manuscript Amendment moved—or it is likely to be moved, or it is now being considered whether it should be moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may interrupt at this point, I think that the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There is no manuscript Amendment before the House now. Lord Tangley's Amendment appears on the Marshalled List; mine appears on the Marshalled List as well. It is not a

1545
manuscript Amendment; it is an Amendment to Clause 12. These Amendments appear on the Marshalled List as Nos. 8 and 9. I think that what may have misled the noble Lord is that I ventured to read out the whole of the clause as it would be if the Amendments were passed. But what I was discussing is in no sense a manuscript Amendment. The only manuscript Amendment—if my Amendment is passed—which the House may be asked to consider is No. 10A, which stands in the name of Lord Goodman.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the matter under discussion at the moment is the printed Amendment in my name to an Amendment of Lord Tangley. No manuscript Amendment is now being discussed. I should have thought, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that it was not in accordance with the customs of this House to introduce a discussion about manuscript Amendments, which may or may not arise, in the middle of a debate on an Amendment to an Amendment, when both are printed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is clearly a case where a layman should not have intervened, but I have been listening to the debate with considerable fascination and interest. I was clearly wrong in thinking that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was speaking to a manuscript Amendment. Since he was not, all my fears have been dissipated. The only reason I rose was to seek the protection of the House to see what we were being expected to send to another place and to make sure that we understood what we were doing.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, no one would wish to impute the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in the slightest degree. He was perhaps premature in what he said: future events will show whether or not he was.
My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House, for I have moved my Amendment formally; but the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, rather threw out a suggestion that it might help him to make up his mind (and I hope it will) if he heard my views on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I do not know
1546
whether it is right to call this a demarcation dispute or not; it rather depends on from what angle one looks at it. It has some of the features of a demarcation dispute; but I am sure of one thing—that the Lord Chancellor has not considered himself, holding the office he does, as an arbiter in a demarcation dispute. What he has had to consider—and it is his duty to consider it—is where the public interest lies. There are two professional bodies, with views as to the public interest which may differ but which are held by both with the utmost sincerity. It was his duty to make up his mind what should be done.
Speaking for myself, I think that the Amendment that he has put upon the Marshalled List is a very considerable improvement upon what was suggested initially by the noble Lords, Lord Tangley and Lord Goodman, and on what was suggested in the debate by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and myself; because it does give the Lord Chancellor and his successors flexibility over the whole field, which I think is very desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, commented upon the Lord Chancellor's reference to his considering the substance of Lord Tangley's Amendment on an application being made to him. I do not attach so much importance to the use by the Lord Chancellor of those words on an application", because I should have thought that if an application was necessary it would certainly follow upon the Royal Assent to this Bill. I do not myself think that it will be necessary. After our discussion in Committee and again to-day I believe that the Lord Chancellor will inevitably give consideration to this problem over the whole field.
May I say a word with regard to the Amendments that I tabled to Lord Tangley's Amendment now under discussion? The case that Lord Tangley made in Committee, and made again to-day, was to give a solicitor who had appeared on behalf of a defendant in a magistrates' court a right of audience on the hearing in the higher court of an appeal from the decision of the magistrates, and the right of audience where his client had been sent on committal for sentence to a higher court. I must say, as I have said before, that I think that the case for

1547
that change is made out; but the Amendments I have moved are to restrict it to that change and no more.
When I raised this point on Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said absolutely clearly—I need not quote his words—that that is what he intended. But his Amendment as drawn then, and as drawn again to-day, really goes much wider, for, as it stands, it would enable one solicitor to brief another solicitor to appear in the higher court; it would enable one solicitor to get another one to act, maybe a member of his own firm or of another firm, in the higher court. That was not what Lord Tangley asked for. No case was made out for that. The case that was made out was that the solicitor who appeared in the lower court for his client should have the right in those cases to appear for him again—and not that any other solicitor should have that right. I am sure that, inadvertently, in putting down his Amendment this was overlooked; and that is why I tabled my two Amendments.
I personally support the proposition that the same solicitor should have the right of following the case in the public interest and in the interests of his client, to the higher court only in those two categories of cases: appeals from the magistrates' decision where the solicitor has acted for the defendant at the original hearing; and in those cases which are sent for sentence to a higher court and where the solicitor is fully acquainted with all the circumstances. But one thing is absolutely clear: the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which he has so clearly explained, can give full effect—and the Lord Chancellor has given a clear intention that it will—to the proposal of Lord Tangley, as, I think, qualified by what I have said. If that be the position, how satisfactory it is!
I hoped when we had our last debate that an adjournment and discussions between the Bar Council and the Law Society would lead, if not to complete agreement at least to a very substantial measure of agreement. From what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has said, and from what the Lord Chancellor has said, I think it has become clear that a very large measure of agreement has been reached. If the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is accepted, I think that it will give
1548
him the power to do all that is required in the public interest. He will have flexibility; he can make adjustments from time to time; he can see how things are working out. So, believing as I do that that is right, I should like to withdraw my Amendment which we are now discussing. But I can do that only if the noble Lord, Lord Tangley (who can also speak again, as I have spoken again, with the leave of the House) intimates that it is his intention and desire to clear the way for the Lord Chancellor's Amendment by withdrawing his own Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, would interrupt and say that he will withdraw his Amendment, then I think we can keep in order, because then I could proceed to withdraw my Amendment without saying anything more.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, as some of your Lordships may remember, on Committee stage I expressed myself rather strongly in favour of much wider rights of audience to solicitors and indeed indicated that, as then advised, I would vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, if it was confined to what were then paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Amendment, which are now the subject of the Amendment which he has moved. Since then I have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. One thing that really impresses me—and it is something to which I drew attention on Second Reading—is that the real virtue of the recommendation of the Beeching Commission is its flexibility; and it seems to me that Clause 12, if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is accepted, introduces that flexibility which is required in this, as in other matters in the Bill.
The clause as amended would provide extensive power over a wide area to regulate the rights of audience both geograpicaily—that is, horizontally—and vertically. There is complete flexibility, and to that extent I venture to think it is more extensive than the Amendment which now stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley. I was interested in the point which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, brought forward about the Amendment as at present drafted permitting solicitors to instruct other solicitors. I am sure that the noble

1549
Lord, Lord Tangley, never thought to provide for that or would think that the clause should cover that. But it might well be thought right—and this is another instance of where flexibility is required—that a solicitor who was unable to appear in an appeal against sentence might get one of his partners to do it and not instruct another firm at all. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but it illustrates how dangerous it is to put matters of this sort into a Statute. For my part, I would much rather leave it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, under subsection (3) of this clause, would have the right to give directions, subject to any conditions or restrictions he thought right according to the circumstances of the case.
In these circumstances, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, may feel justified, particularly in view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this Amendment. I was not able to be here on the last occasion, but as chairman of a quarter sessions in the North for over 25 years, I have had a great deal of experience of the difficulties which often occur as a result of the Bar being undermanned. What I like about the noble and learned Lord's proposed Amendment is, as the Lord Chief Justice has just said, its flexibility. We must remember that we are at the beginning of an important reorganisation of the law, and while we all hope that it will lead to smoother working it is difficult to forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 to 15 years.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that we cannot expect to get another Bill of this importance probably for 100 years. What he has got, if he gets his Amendment, is the discretion to adapt his decisions to the situations that may arise under the new Bill, and this seems to me to be very important indeed. I, too, hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will not continue to feel too hot under the collar. There has been a lot of dispute about this—whether one might call it a demarcation dispute does not matter. The public interest requires that something should be done about it. In the 18th
1550
century solicitors became scriveners and there is no doubt that that was in the public interest. I think that the present proposals are very much in the public interest and it seems to me, as one with some experience in this work, that the proposals which are to come from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will give us the very best method of dealing with the situation. So I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment and we can then get on to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I shall relieve your Lordships' suspense by saying that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I must withdraw my Amendment first to keep in order. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, having made it clear that when the time comes he will ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendments to his Amendment.
Amendments to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
4.25 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the measures which the Government are taking to strengthen the machinery for promoting competition in industry, and for providing safeguards against the abuse of market power.
"We shall in due course introduce legislation to re-shape the Monopolies Commission, to widen its scope and powers, and to make it more effective. Meanwhile, within the scope of the existing legislation, we shall make important changes of practice which will foreshadow the legislative proposals

1551
we shall eventually bring forward, and set the Monopolies Commission on a course enabling a smooth transition to be made to the new Commission which will replace it.
"In the transitional period we shall increase and strengthen the staff of the Commission, and appoint additional full time members as necessary.
"The Commission will be encouraged to become the expert and authoritative source of information to the Government on situations of imperfect competition, and I shall be ready to consider proposals from it of possible subjects for formal inquiry. The power to make references will remain with me, but I shall have no objection to the Commission making its proposals public if it so wishes.
"To enable shorter inquiries to be undertaken in appropriate cases the Commission will be asked, so far as is possible within the existing legislation, to direct its attention to specific issues as an alternative to the traditional wide-ranging monopoly inquiry. For example, the Commission may be asked to investigate a particular practice by a company or industry, or to report on prices in a monopolistic situation. I hope, too, that these limited inquiries will permit simpler procedures to be adopted.
"I shall make further references as necessary. I shall continue to use the power to refer proposed mergers to the Commission if I consider that competition in the relevant market would be restricted to a damaging degree as a result of the merger. I shall also hope from time to time to issue guidance on the principles being followed in making references to the Commission.
"The Commission has in the past been used to inquire only into the activities of private industry. In future, I shall be ready to make use of the power in Section 2(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act 1948 to ask the Monopolies Commission to give the Government information and assistance on questions arising out of the operations of publicly owned enterprises which are in a monopoly position. But I shall bear in mind the need to avoid burdening those
1552
industries with a wholly unreasonable succession of investigations as has happened in the past.
"These measures will start to strengthen the authority of the Commission at once, and to make it a more effective body for promoting competition throughout the economy. But the Commission cannot be fully effective in the new directions I have outlined without legislative changes. In preparing such legislation we shall aim in particular to provide for a reconstituted Commission; for appropriate new powers to collect information and to propose inquiries; and for its powers of formal inquiry to be extended to cover public monopolies such as nationalised industries and other statutory trading bodies which are in a monopoly position.
"The Government are also reviewing the restrictive trade practices legislation with a view to extending its scope and making it more effective. In particular, we shall be considering the case for bringing services within the legislation, for making registrable certain anti-competitive practices by single firms, and for making certain types of restrictive agreement illegal. I should like to emphasise that in the preparation of legislation I shall want to consult fully with representative bodies in the light of experience of the steps outlined above."
4.30 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for making that Statement to us. It is an important Statement, because since the prospective end of the I.R.C.,, the Prices and Incomes Board and the Consumers Association, we are left with few Government institutions for investigating matters that need to be investigated in our economic industrial life. What we felt when we were in Government was that the term "Monopolies Commission" was really a misnomer, and that what was needed was a body to protect the consumer and to ensure an increase in industrial efficiency. That was the reason for the Commission on Industry and Manpower, which we had drafted and were in the course of debating when the Government changed. The use of the phrase, "departures from perfect competition", is a little frightening. It sounds

1553
too purist. And with its openings to give the Commission rights to investigate Rolls Royce, which is a near monopoly, I.C.I., Courtaulds, the railways or coal, it worries us.
The questions that I want to put to the noble Earl are these. First of all, can we have a Green Paper? I know that setting out the proposed underlying principle is difficult, because we found great difficulty in stating the principles behind references to the Commission when we were in Government, but it is an important matter to get the Government's reshaping of the policy of the Monopolies Commission.
Secondly, I am puzzled about the references to nationalised industries. Will the Commission carry out an investigation of the National Coal Board, the Railways Board or the C.E.G.B., for example? And in the event of their making a recommendation, is it then within the purview of the Government to alter the Statute which set them up by the issuing of an order?—because these are the ordinary terms of reference of the Monopolies Commission when they investigate private industries.
There is in the Statement a reference to the inclusion of services. This puzzles me a little, because my understanding is that the Monopolies Commission can already investigate services so long as there is a 33⅓ per cent. combination of people giving these services who are, to speak, colluding together. Finally, can the noble Earl say anything about directing the Commission particularly to look at competition in the context of international trade? I personally, along with many others, have always been worried as to whether what is regarded as monopoly, which is actually oligopoly, would be considered in the context of how much of the internal trade of this country people got, instead of taking into consideration the very severe competition that comes to firms in the home market from the external suppliers.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's questions are concerned, I do not think I can promise him a Green Paper, but certainly I will pass on the suggestion to my right honourable friend. As for nationalised industries. I speak subject to correction but it would
1554
certainly be my understanding that in anything which required a change in the Statute under which the nationalised industry in question operates it would not be the Government's intention to proceed other than by Statute.
Thirdly, so far as the question of international competition is concerned, it would certainly be my view (and I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong about this) speaking, as it were, without the book, that the monopolies reference would cover the type of international situation which the noble Lord has in mind, if it was creating a monopoly situation within this country; and I think it is possible to imagine circumstances in which that would be so.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the Statement, especially as it gives further proof of the dogmatic rage of the Government which confuses the economics of the 20th century with those of the 19th century, may I ask whether the Government have thought out how this situation of perfect competition can be established, deviations from which will be referred to this new Commission?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the Secretary of State would make references where he was satisfied that there was an abuse of monopoly power. I cannot go beyond that. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this Statement. I see nothing dogmatic, ideological or doctrinaire in it. If he does, then of course he is entitled to his opinion.

COURTS BILL [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("in any place where the Crown Court sits which is specified in the direction")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as a result of what took place prior to that welcome interruption, I take it that Amendments No. 6, 6A, 6B and 7 are not moved. It now falls to me to propose my own Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, on the subject of manuscript Amendment No 6A, which stands in my name, it is a procedural accident that it is there at all, because it was originally an Amendment to Lord Tangley's Amendment, which also was associated with my name, and I was informed on putting it down that one could not move an Amendment to one's own Amendment. Accordingly there is no intention to have a substantive Amendment. But I wonder whether I might seize the opportunity, without remotely wishing to introduce a discordant note into what I sense is going to be a highly amiable discussion on previously controversial points—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, as a matter of procedure, might I know what we are doing? There is nothing about a manuscript Amendment here. The first reference that I heard to a manuscript Amendment was from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHEPHERD: No; from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: He said that there might be one later.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if we can disentagle ourselves from what has rightly been called a maze, and if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will allow a suggestion, it may be as well if I move my Amendment. He can then make whatever remarks are appropriate on it and be wholly in order.
I want to make only two remarks about Amendment No. 8, which is coupled with No. 9, the contents of which I have already fully explained in the previous debate. First of all, I am extremely sorry to see the raised hackles which accompanied my reference to "demarcation dispute". I am afraid I was expecting them. But if the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, could have seen the faces on the Labour Benches, as well as the Cross-Benches, from the distance of the remote place on which he sits, I think he would have seen that the shaft went home. I did not actually say that this was a demarcation dispute; I said merely that it had some of the characteristics of one. I was delicately hinting to both learned professions that they must make better use of joint negotiating machinery than they
1556
have done in the past; and they must keep in close touch with the Lord Chancellor's Office if they want things to move smoothly and redound to the prestige and distinction of the profession to which they are both related. If they want any advice, I am sure that they can get some from the T.U.C.
The second thing I want to say is this. Again with great deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, quite obviously I have the power, if my Amendment is passed, to operate (to use the phrase used on the occasion of the gracious Speech) by my "certain knowledge and mere motion". But it is an extremely incautious thing for a Minister responsible to Parliament to do. I shall most certainly receive a number of representations from the Bar Council. I have already received a long document from the Criminal Bar Association (I think it is called), the association of practitioners at the Criminal Bar. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that the public interest, in the sense that I tried to describe it, has to predominate. But who knows about these difficulties? The answer is: the two branches of the profession. The Lord Chancellor, with the best will in the world, does not go round the courts on the circuits. Of course he is informed by the Judiciary of what goes on. Of course he is in touch with the registrars of county courts, and the appropriate officers of the quarter sessions courts—or Crown Courts, as they will become. But he looks to the two branches of the profession to give him information, and not to assume that he has it.
If this is going through, and is going to work, I should expect to receive full information from all the persons who can give it to me. It is futile to expect me to say, and idle to say, simply because my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice have made speeches in this House—to which I have already told them I will give the weightiest consideration, because they operate in a decisive way upon the course of these discussions—that I must just pull a lever and operate my powers without considering what anybody has to say—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give way for a moment?

1557
I never suggested that he would act without consulting others. The phrase under question was, "on an application". I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on any proposal that comes forward, will take the views of both sides of the profession. He should not say that it is idle for them to suggest, if by "them" he is referring to me and anybody else, because I never suggested that he did it of his own motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not intend to refer to my noble and learned friend at all; I was referring, to the complaint that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, of my earlier speech. It is not sensible to say that I must operate entirely of my own motion just because two of my noble and learned friends have made important and weighty speeches in this House. I expect to be informed by both branches of the profession and, without reproaching them in any way, I hope to be informed by them, even better than I have been informed in the past, of their needs and complaints. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will not regard that as in any way a reproach or criticism of anybody. I feel that these things do not advance the public good and that the proper use of channels of communication is one of the lessons that we all ought to learn from what has taken place. I beg to move.
4.44 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I said a moment ago that the last thing I want to do is to introduce any discordant note into what I hope is going to be a highly amicable atmosphere this afternoon. I should like to make some observations. First, I am not as horrified by the reference to a "demarcation dispute" as are some of my colleagues. In a demarcation dispute I have always found that one side is also on the side of the public. If I may venture to say so, I believe that to be the situation here, if you care to regard this as a demarcation dispute.
I have listened with great attention to the statement which the Lord Chancellor was making; and after I had listened to it my first impression was, what a superb advocate he is! I was carried away wholly by it, until at the end I asked myself what he had said. I then arrived
1558
at the conclusion that he did not appear to have said anything that I could identify as amounting to the remotest pledge or promise. But I have total confidence in the integrity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If he gives us an assurance, then that is good enough for me.
There are some of the younger members of the Law Society—and even some members of its Council—who are acutely anxious about the position. I should like on their behalf to say that the sooner the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate his intentions in this matter and, particularly, fulfil the assurance he gave when he said that his Amendment would give in this situation as much as Lord Tangley's Amendment, or more; and the sooner he can confirm the reality of that situation then, from the public point of view, the better.
He has made references to what appears from his point of view to be the rather unhappy situation when a difference of opinion between two sections of a great profession is publicised. May I venture to say that I do not accept this? If the matter is referred to the public in moderate and courteous terms this can be nothing but good. I do not think these matters are best dealt with by discussions between the profession themselves behind closed doors.
I am sure he will not take it amiss if I also say I hope that, in listening to the representations that are going to be made to him by the solicitors and the Bar, he will make available to each side the arguments of the other. I hope he will not regard this next comment of mine as remotely unfriendly. I have noticed that both sides appear to be persuaded quite often by extraordinary arguments. It will be highly desirable that each side should know what the other side is saying on this matter. I do not think it would be appropriate to say any more than this. For my part I am happy to withdraw this Amendment and to rely on what I take to be the good will of his statement rather than the absence of positive assurances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just say, as I think I may do by way of reply, that I am extremely grateful to noble Lords about this? I have tried to do my best to

1559
achieve a just solution in the public interest. It is inevitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out, that if you have only heard one side—which is virtually the position—you cannot make an absolute promise to that side. I have given as strong an indication as I thought it appropriate to do as to the way my mind is likely to work in the absence of arguments to the contrary. I know, as I said in my opening remarks, that I found the Bar resentful and the solicitors suspicious. It is a great mistake to underestimate the depth of that resentment or the depth of those suspicions. They can be overcome only over a period of time and by mutual co-operation and trust.
One of the people I hope that both professions will trust is the Lord Chancellor. By that I mean rather the corporation sole than the person who happens to sit physically on the Woolsack at any given time. I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Office will continue to be, as it has mainly been, an object of trust, by which I mean not merely the occupant of the Woolsack for the time being, but the whole staff with which he co-operates. I hope that by experience even the younger members of the solicitors' profession will realise that they will get a fair crack of the whip and a fairer crack the more they communicate both with their opposite numbers at the Bar—because there are young members of the Bar trying to make their living, too—and with the Lord Chancellor's Office, if they think that things are going wrong. I should not like in any way to diminish my gratitude for the kindly references to myself which the noble Lord made in the course of his remarks. I thank him very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("In exercising his powers under this section") and insert—
"A direction under this section may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits, or as respects a specified area, region or circuit, or as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits.
(3) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section as respects any one
1560
or more places where the Crown Court sit."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 were discussed with Amendments Nos. 4 and 7. Amendment No. 10A is a manuscript Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which perhaps he will be good enough to read out to the House.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 9, line 5, leave out ("special") and at end insert ("affecting the public interest".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 10A was to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the opportunity of making his decisions in this matter on the fullest possible basis. As the clause was originally worded he was entitled to take into regard the shortage of barristers, the previous availability of audience to solicitors and "any other special circumstances". It was felt, purely as a drafting matter, that that might restrict the total freedom of his discretion. Hence I have suggested in this Amendment that for "special" circumstances there should be substituted circumstances "affecting the public interest", or such other wording as equates to the same thing. I gather from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that it is his intention to accept that Amendment which, if I may say so, will be found to be greatly encouraging to those people who still entertain certain doubts on the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I indicated, I am very happy to accept this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who, quite rightly, does not like manuscript Amendments—will take it from me that this is virtually a drafting Amendment and an improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appointment of Circuit Judges]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 22, after ("barrister") insert ("or solicitor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 12 is concerned, I believe that what is involved will much depend on certain observations that may fall from your Lordships. So perhaps I might invite your Lordships to comment before we decide on the question of withdrawing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is right. It is really my Amendment No. 13 which raises the issue which the noble Lord wants to discuss. I take it, therefore, that the noble Lord does not move his Amendment No. 12.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 12, line 22, at end add ("or a Recorder who has held that office for at least rive years").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I now come to move my Amendment, No. 13. The significance of this Amendment can only be seen if your Lordships moved on to the Amendment standing in the names of, I think, the noble Lords, Lord Tangley, Lord Goodman and Lord Annan, on Clause 21, because they really ought to be considered together. Although my Amendment is not strictly a paving Amendment, it ought to be treated as one for the purposes of this discussion.
These Amendments together put forward my own proposed solution to the second of the two controversies between the two branches of the profession which have been ventilated in the course of dealing with the Bill. The first, the extent of the right of audience, has now been fully ventilated in our previous discussions. The second is concerned with eligibility to the Circuit Bench. This controversy was discussed on Second Reading, but in the light of what has taken place on Clause 12 it was not proceeded with on Committee. The Amendment which I have put down is again put down on my own authority, but I have only put it down in consequence of and after the discussions which have taken place in the interval between Committee and Report.
By a paradox—because it is a paradox, which I do not wholly understand—the main controversy in public has been about this second matter. I do not know myself why this should have been the
1562
case. My own opinion, which I did not attempt to conceal from the House on Second Reading, is that the question relating to rights of audience is of greater immediate practical importance and logically a question which has to be discussed first, as it has already been discussed to-day. Each problem has to be seen in the light of the other and each needs some separate discussion. But in one respect relevant to this Amendment the problems are different. The right of audience is now discretionary in the Lord Chancellor as the result of what we have done to Clause 12. It never has been so discretionary before. The right of appointment to the Bench, which belongs to the Crown, has always been discretionary and has always been exercised on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, or in the case of the highest Judicial offices, the Prime Minister. That will still be the case in what ever form Clause 16 emerges from this House.
What we are now discussing are the legal qualifications for eligibility to the Circuit Bench. The qualification for eligibility to the county court bench—its predecessor—has always been seven years' practice at the Bar. The higher standing of the new Circuit judges is reflected in the more stringent requirement of 10 years' practice contained in the present text of the Bill. I do not suppose that the particular qualification will necessarily make a great deal of difference to actual appointments. If I may give an example rather nearer home, I do not think that any legal qualification is necessary to be Lord Chancellor. Notoriously, bishops who have never been lawyers, and deans who have never been lawyers, have been sitting on the Woolsack in the past—I think the last was Lord Keeper Williams in the 17th century—and sometimes I think even laymen have held this position. But I suppose something ought to be written into this Bill as it has been in previous County Courts Acts and in Judicature Acts.
As I said on Second Reading, my original principle in framing the Bill was to maintain the status quo with matters not essential to the radical reforms which the Bill proposes. But as the debate proceeded I became more and more conscious that I had been guilty of at least one inconsistency which orginally I had

1563
thought of as immaterial, which I now do not think is immaterial and which I now seek to put right. As matters stand—that is, before the passage of this Bill—solicitors can be qualified and paid chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions, though they cannot be recorders of boroughs. They cannot, unless the Bill is amended, be the new part-time judges christened "Recorders" by Clause 21. Although these judges are christened Recorders, they are really something quite different. It could therefore be reasonably argued that I had not maintained the status quo but actually moved it against the solicitors, and to their detriment.
I therefore suggested to the meeting that I held that, at least in the interests of consistency, I ought to offer Recorder-ships to the solicitors' profession. It was then pointed out to me by one of the representatives of the Law Society that, if I did so, I would have the opportunity of opening up the Circuit Bench itself to solicitors, without any of the dangers and disadvantages which I had foreseen on Second Reading and without the necessity of the solicitor transferring to the Bar with all the potential insecurity which such a transfer would involve. I would then be able to appoint mature solicitors who had had experience with juries and had proved themselves in a judicial capacity. I found this argument attractive, and I hope the House will find it attractive, too, for it is the genesis of the present Amendments. If these Amendments are accepted, solicitors will be eligible for the Recordership and, after five years of part-time judicial experience, they will be eligible for full whole-time and pensionable membership of the Circuit Bench.
For the reasons indicated on Second Reading, I do not expect a long queue of suitable applicants, but I realise that more than practical advantage is at stake here. As has been indicated more than once, solicitors are sensitive to what they regard as partly a slur upon the standing of their profession. I do not myself feel that this feeling is justified. The solicitors' profession has long since risen to the ranks of the top professional qualifications, equal to any other in the land—the Bar, the surgeon or the Prelate—in the estimation of the public. But the matter has significance, and if there
1564
is a supply of suitable candidates to be got by this road I shall be only too happy to avail myself of it. I still think that if in early life a solicitor harbours judicial ambitions he would probably be wise to transfer to the Bar, just as, I may say, one of my most distinguished pupils, realising that advice and not advocacy was his forte, transferred to the solicitors' branch of the profession and is now a senior partner in one of the most eminent of London firms of solicitors, and, on the appointment of my predecessor, represents his profession on some of the most important legal committees in the land.
But, my Lords, I can put forward these Amendments as genuine improvements to the Bill, and if they add to the harmony of the legal profession they will do more than serve their purpose in the short term. If, in addition, they serve to create a new supply of suitable judges to an already pre-eminently distinguished Bench, they will also justify themselves as a permanent addition in our legal system. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for moving this Amendment and I trust that the House will accept it. I daresay some solicitors will say that this is a back-door way of entry, but I have been long enough in your Lordships' House now to have learned the lesson that when you can get the substance you should not go chasing shadows. Here is a way in which solicitors can become eligible for appointment as Circuit judges. It is a way in which probably, if my Amendment had been accepted, one would have expected the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to proceed in the first instance in order to find out who the candidates were and whether they were willing, and I hope very much that acceptance of this Amendment will go a long way towards assuaging certain of the difficult feelings to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred in the earlier part of the debate.
5.1 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, in discussing this Amendment it is obviously convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 15 which, associated with it, will produce the result the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack desires to effect.

1565
The first thing I wish to say is that on any compromise one must not expect to achieve all that one set out to do. The effect of a compromise is that part of what you want you do not get; but so far as this compromise is concerned I am satisfied with it. I think it meets both points of view: it allays the groundless anxieties of a number of people who think that solicitors would only be qualified to carry out high judicial office if they had had a probationary period as recorders. I am only too pleased that that should take place, and I believe that after a while the quality of the solicitors who are appointed will amply demonstrate the wisdom of the course that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has adopted.
I will also say this in relation to the Lord Chancellor: I do not believe that making this compromise was easy for him, and in my view it is greatly to his credit that he has decided that in the interests of harmony and of maintaining a proper relationship between the two professions he is prepared to make a concession about which I know he has had grave personal misgivings. On that account I thank him; and I thank him not only on behalf of solicitors but also on behalf of the general public, whose interests I believe will be served in this way.
There are one or two other observations which I think it is pertinent to make. The extent to which the Amendment will be of value to the public and to the administration of justice depends upon the use that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes of it. I hope he will not take it amiss if I remind him of one or two things that he said during the period of high controversy and that he may perhaps, like myself, regard as more appropriate for immurement for all time. He said that he wondered why solicitors regarded themselves as eligible for appointment, since they had always been eligible for appointment as chairmen of quarter sessions and as deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. As only two of them had ever been appointed he took this as an argument that they were not specialty qualified. I venture to think that that again is rather a remarkable argument: only two of them were appointed because only two were invited.
1566
In fact, what he was saying is that because they had not been appointed, therefore they were ineligible.
I believe I am right in saying that not a single solicitor Member of this House—and there are some extremely distinguished solicitors in your Lordships' House—has ever been invited to be either a chairman or a deputy chairman of quarter sessions. I make that observation not in order to revive controversy but because I think it has high relevance to the question of who is appointed in the future. I think he must make himself acquainted with the field that is available, and I hope he will bear in mind that the Lord Chancellor is—and again I do not say this critically; it is almost inevitable—nearly always a Metropolitan animal. Much of what has been said about the solicitor's profession of which a great deal is true, relates exclusively to London and not to the profession throughout the country. An immense amount of advocacy is carried out by solicitors all over the country. If one reviews the situation since undefended divorce became triable in county courts one finds, so I am told, that much more than 50 per cent. of all undefended divorce cases are now conducted by solicitors, and obviously conducted satisfactorily.
I believe the Lord Chancellor will make available to himself a very rich human pool which will greatly improve the quality of the Judiciary because it will make available a number of people who are not only learned in the law, not only learned in advocacy, but people who, on the whole, have much better contacts with ordinary human beings, because the nature of barristerial activities often debars that. Although, on the face of it, this is only a slight change, in my view it is an important one that will lead to great benefits.
The other thing I should like to say is this. I abstained, and continue to abstain, from any references to fusion, because that was not the issue in this case. This proposal is not to be taken as remotely any advance towards fusion. I do not believe that this change is an advance towards fusion; and since it would be unfair that anyone should have regarded the intention to make these proposals in the light of possible fusion, I wish to say emphatically that it was never my intention to advance the cause

1567
of fusion by making the proposals that I made in this matter.
Certain references were made that I think it would be wrong to leave on the record without some comment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in the course of a speech made a number of observations as to the possible awful consequences that might ensue as a result of this change and other changes connected with increasing the area of advocacy by solicitors. I do not know whether the House was impressed by those observations. It is a sad fact that a man of his outstanding distinction should have that particular blind spot. I would only say to the House that if the awful consequences that he apprehended come about, then I and my colleagues here to-day who have advocated these changes will have a most awful burden of responsibility on our shoulders. But I do not believe that the Bench or the Bar or solicitors will be debauched as a result of these changes; I do not believe that we shall see witnesses suborned by judges all over the place. Those apprehensions are totally fanciful.
I believe that what has been brought about to-day will effect a great improvement, and particularly in the general atmosphere between the two professions. I confidently believe that one day—it may be 100 years hence, it may be 50 years hence, it may be 20 years hence—there will be a review of the whole professional relationship in this country. I hope that will come speedily. I do not think any solicitor here to-day is very strongly associated with me, although I believe my noble friend Lord Fletcher has expressed the view that on the whole his bias is towards change. Whether or not that comes about, it is imperative that until it does the two professions should operate in total harmony. In so far as some discord, some differences of view, have been introduced by the discussions which have taken place, I hope the attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the ready reception of his proposals by solicitors, will go a long way to put it right.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what I regard as a very statesmanlike suggestion on his part. I do this particularly because for years past, as possibly
1568
he will remember, when he was here in another capacity I tried to get his predecessors to accept the idea of solicitors becoming judges of the county court. I failed, although I had some support from eminent judges who are members of your Lordships' House. So it is particularly satisfactory to me that at this stage the Lord Chancellor should have taken this step.
So far as I am concerned, I am not an applicant and I shall not trouble him with my qualifications, such as they are, but I want to reinforce the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in two respects. First, I think, as he says, that the Lord Chancellor, because of his position and previous experience, is probably more concerned with the London scene than he is with the scene outside London. After all, the man who becomes a judge inevitably has been a silk and therefore has practised under the Lord Chancellor's eye, so to speak, in London. So far as my own country, Wales, is concerned, I am sure we could put up a number of distinguished solicitors who in time would be eligible for appointment as recorders. Therefore perhaps his net could be extended a little more widely—I mean not only his net so far as the "fish" are concerned (that is, to catch possible solicitors as judges) but also his net to catch those who would advise the Lord Chancellor on who are eligible. Many of us know such people. Take Wales, for example; it is quite a small country and we know practically everybody who is likely to be in this particular field. I am certain that several of us could, without any difficulty, put up names to him.
The other point on which I wanted to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was that regarding fusion. I am a fused animal in a sense, because I am a solicitors in this country and I am still a member of two Bars in Commonwealth countries, Malaysia and Nigeria, where the professions are fused. For many years I practised in what was then the Straits Settlements, now part of Malaysia, as barrister and solicitor. In fact so far as I was concerned, although I am a solicitor in this country, I practised as a barrister in the Straits Settlements. By a curious chance, the leading advocates at the Straits Settlements Bar, who also generally appeared in the States up country, were solicitors, not barristers. There is a

1569
reason for that which I need not go into, but it disproves any suggestion that solicitors do not make good advocates. As a result, many of the judges had been solicitors, because they were appointed from the local Bars.
I should like it to go on the Record that I do not think the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, had any great weight, because quite frankly they had not. As I say, I practised for years in a fused profession, and although there are difficulties about fusion the noble and learned Lord did not mention any of them—and those he did mention were not difficulties. On the whole, I think that in time to come there will be a fused profession in this country. You will still want specialists, of course.
I gave evidence myself before the Ormrod Committee, which I hope will report fairly soon—I have not heard anything about it lately. I suggested one system of legal education and examinations, after which you would have one profession, as in the medical profession, but some of them would become specialists. That in fact is what happened to a large extent in Malaya. And if you wanted to take in a man from another firm, if it was necessary, you did so. Your clients never went to him afterwards.
I remember that in one important case I was acting as junior counsel in a case in which we sued the Government—you could sue the Government in Malaya long before you could here. We sued them because the "Rajputana" coming into Penang had run down a junk. We sued the Government in tort. I appeared in the High Court. When we went to the Court of Appeal we took in as leading counsel a senior member of another firm in the same place. So there is no difficulty about that. We did not think that the steamship companies who were our clients would ever go to him, nor did they; there was no jealousy on that account at all. So I think that we need not be too worried about the allegations or criticisms of those who have never experienced this particular form of legal organisation. I am quite certain that in time to come some such form will arise in this country.
With those few words, I should like once again to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I hope that what he is now doing will have great
1570
success in, as he put it, providing the flexibility which is so needed in our legal administration in this country.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I say a word in reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said? I had an experience in America—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, are we discussing fusion? Fusion is not the subject of an Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if your Lordships do not want me to speak, I will not, but I was going to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. This Amendment is all right, but I hope that it does not end in fusion, because I think that would be a bad thing for this country. I will not give my reasons, as your Lordships apparently do not want to hear them, but it was an experience that certainly impressed me a great deal. If your Lordships do not want to hear it, I will not give it.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, as in the case of the previous group of Amendments, while not very happy about these Amendments, I hope that the House will accept the proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If I may explain why I am not happy about them, it is simply for this reason. With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I think it is quite right to raise the question of fusion, because I am passionately convinced that the people of this country have an inestimable advantage in having a divided legal profession. I will not repeat what I said in Committee, or the graphic picture painted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States about the appalling disadvantages of their fused system.
But you cannot have a divided profession without a dividing line. The Bar accept that they can have no dealings whatever direct with the client; that they must not see the client unless the solicitor is present; that they cannot make any financial arrangements with the client; they may not, even if they are clerk to a local authority, do any conveyancing, which may effectively stop them being so appointed. They may not see any witness except the client and

1571
expert witnesses. They may not become a director of their client companies. On the other side of the dividing line, there is nothing except rights of audience in the higher courts and eligibility for High Court and Crown Court judgeships—nothing else at all. For some years now that side of the line has been gradually moving and disappearing.
What troubles me is that unless we bear this carefully in mind we may find that we have fusion without the advantages or disadvantages ever being discussed. We must be quite clear in our minds that if High Court advocacy and eligibility for High Court judgeships go, there is no possible object whatever in anybody being a barrister. All lawyers would be solicitors and could do everything. I am sorry to stand here, in a sense, wearing the mantle of Cassandra, but I think it is a point which is vital to the future of our legal profession, and I hope that it will always be borne in mind on this sort of question.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, I am not sufficiently familiar with the rules of your Lordships' House to know whether it is in order, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, questioned, to discuss fusion, but I observe that both the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner have referred to the subject of fusion. That is not the reason why I rose. I really rose to support some of the observations of my noble friend Lord Goodman, and I do so because the main question we are discussing on these Amendments is one to which I referred in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, I should like to take the opportunity of saying how much I welcome the corn-promise which has been arrived at as a result of the discussions which have taken place since Second Reading.
I regard the solution which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has proposed to the House as being, if I may say so with respect, of eminent wisdom and common sense. I think it gives the solicitors' branch of the profession all the satisfaction that they require, both as regards the status of the profession, and as providing an adequate opportunity for those solicitors who are eligible and qualified by their attainments and experience
1572
for judicial office to be appointed to Circuit judgeships. And I observe that it goes even further, because by reason of the operation of Clause 23 of the Bill, as I understand it once a person has been appointed a Circuit judge he will be eligible to act, on the request of the Lord Chancellor, as a judge of the High Court, which I think is something which will be appreciated. For myself, if I may say so parenthetically—I am sure my noble friend Lord Goodman will agree, but I am sure some of the noble and learned Law Lords sitting here will not—I look forward to the day when a solicitor who happens to be a Privy Counsellor can also be qualified to sit on a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
On the question of fusion, because of the remarks that have fallen from my noble friend Lord Gardiner, I am tempted to say that I thought his observations made it more necessary than ever that the Lord Chancellor should give serious consideration to the proposal, which was put forward by myself and a number of my colleagues who sat on the Evershed Committee some years ago, that the time is really ripe when a Commission—perhaps a Royal Commission, but at any rate some suitable Commission of Inquiry—should be set up to consider the whole question of the Judiciary. Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, could put his point of view, and others could put their point of view.
But it is no use blinking the fact that there is a substantial body of opinion in in this country which thinks that, however admirable our present system of the legal profession, divided as it is, may be, nevertheless there could be advantages in the public interest if there were some change in the present situation. That does not mean necessarily in the direction of fusion, but perhaps in the direction of a modification of the present rigidity and in the interests of providing more flexibility, and with the object of removing what in a great number of cases must be the inconvenience and undue expense to the public of being compelled, without any necessary advantages to the clients, to consult and pay for the advice of both a solicitor and a barrister, when they could equally well be served without having to submit to that necessity. Therefore, without expressing any final questions or views on the subject, I would

1573
repeat the plea that I have made on a number of previous occasions, that this is a subject which is now overripe for discussion by some independent body, preferably constituted by a predominance of laity.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to say that I, for one, think that the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor are reasonable and right, and give him the measure of flexibility that is desirable. The reason why I interrupted the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was because we really are not discussing fusion in this Amendment; we are on the Report stage of a Bill, and we are discussing whether solicitors can be appointed as recorders. When the time comes to discuss fusion, as has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, there will be those who take and can express powerful arguments against it, in what they believe to be the public interest.
I am rather sorry that fusion has been introduced into this debate, because it is a very controversial subject. We were proceeding with great harmony, and I was hoping for increased harmony between both sides of the profession. I well remember the reaction years ago, to the practice that then existed, of solicitors, of non-practising barristers in local government services doing conveyancing. I think the dispute was then called a demarcation dispute. I cannot remember. But I do remember that the Bar gave way upon that point. I think it would be much better rather than discussing the difficult question of fusion here to-day, to let that rest and to get on with this Bill.
5.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I should like to say two or three things in answer to what I seem to remember was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. In the first place, I should like to thank all noble Lords for the various kindly remarks made about myself. I have sincerely applied my mind to this problem, and I thought that this was the best way of achieving a just result. It was also based upon a logical principle which did not involve wider implications than those which I desired
1574
to raise. In particular, it did not, and I hope it will not be thought that it did, raise the question of fusion at all.
But I should like to say one thing about the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, without lifting the veil too much over the mystery of judicial appointments. Judicial appointments are probably, day-to-day, by far the most difficult work which a Lord Chancellor has to undertake, and probably the most responsible; because if you once get a bad judge you cannot get rid of him, and he can do an infinite amount of harm during quite a long judicial life, Therefore an enormous amount of expertise on the part of the Lord Chancellor's advisers takes place in selecting suitable judges. Of course, in principle—and the higher you go the easier in that sense it is—a Lord Chancellor knows the leading members of the Bar himself, most of them by their Christian names, often as fellow Benchers of his Inn; and those of them he does not know, he can very easily find out about owing to the very close discipline and fellowship which exists in the barristers' profession. If you once embark upon the course upon which I have embarked, even to the limited extent to which I have, that advantage disappears. Moreover, it is difficult to compare a solicitor with the kind of references a solicitor will have, with a barrister with the kind of references which will be available to him.
What I wanted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and through the House to the solicitors' profession, was this. Of course in principle a Lord Chancellor can let out his fishing line into the sea, or he can hunt the coverts, or do whatever you do, to see whether he can find a suitable number of solicitors or barristers to be judges. Up to a point, in the higher reaches of the profession that is exactly what he does. He knows what he wants and he finds it, and he knows where to find it. If he wants a good patent lawyer, he knows where to go. But you would be surprised how many people ask, although I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would be a bit surprised.
If you are dealing with a wider range of applicants or potential talent for recorderships (which are the equivalent of chairmen or deputy chairmen of quarter

1575
sessions) then they must not assume that they will be noticed unless some responsible body brings their name to the attention of those who may be looking. When you are dealing with the Bar you are dealing with a profession of 2,500 people plus—2,584, and it is going up fairly fast. But when you are dealing with solicitors you are dealing with 20,000 plus, which is a different order of magnitude, and an altogether different problem of selection is involved.
Therefore, I say to these solicitors of this country who may contemplate an appointment of this kind that they must not necessarily assume that the Lord Chancellor will notice them unless they bring themselves, with a suitable series of references, preferably accompanied by a reference from a judge who has seen them work, to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and then investigations can be made. But to keep the kind of separate records about 20,000 people, on the scale which is now kept by the Lord Chancellor's Department about every barrister of ten years' call, is utterly out of the question. It presents practical difficulties, and I hope that the noble Lord will bear this in mind and bring it to the attention of those with whom he is in contact.
The last thing I wanted to do was to argue the question of fusion at all; but I must say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, about it. I believe that the difficulty about advocacy is that nobody can see the sleight of hand that it involves. You cannot see an efficient advocate at work unless you yourself are an efficient advocate. In fused professions there are many people who can win the confidence of lay clients by their qualities, which are no doubt most agreeable, but they waste a lot of time and money of their clients both in the courts and thereafter. Even if they win their case, they take about six times as long in doing it, and that costs everybody money.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was greeted with derision by some Members of this House, when he said that, quite apart from the question of ethics and integrity, which are very real facets of the matter, an important American lawyer was quoted as saying that four judges in London did the work
1576
of 30 in New York, and that the figures for Germany were even more startling. The reason for that is because Bench and Bar have an expertise which no other country has. When the time comes to argue fusion, I hope that the House will not throw it away in a fit of enthusiasm, because I will not be on their side if they do. All I am saying is that I have done my best to solve this particular dispute, and I am very grateful for the way my efforts have been received.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Pensions of Circuit judges]:
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 18, after ("of") insert ("the Lord Chancellor and").
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I moved on Committee and which had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. When one looks at Clause 18 of this Bill one sees that the Lord Chancellor may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine what salary shall be paid to a Circuit judge, and in subsection (5) that the judges will get
"such allowances as the Lord Chancellor may with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service determine".
Then in Clause 19,
"the Lord Chancellor may from time to time recommend to the Minister for the Civil Service …"
All that language is no doubt very carefully chosen.
However, one then sees in subsection (2) how the service is to be calculated. The point I raise is in connection with subsection (7), where it is said,
"The decision of the Minister for the Civil Service shall he final on any question arising with regard to—

(a) the application of any of the provisions of this section to any person, or

(b) the amount of any pension under this section, or

(c) the reckoning of any service for the purpose of calculating such a pension."

So far as I can see, that is the only place where the Lord Chancellor is excluded. As I said in Committee, I feel it is wrong that the Lord Chancellor should be excluded. Therefore, I propose that

1577
subsection (7) should read, with the insertion of the words "the Lord Chancellor and":
"The decision of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for the Civil Service shall be final on any question …"
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor (he did not describe it as "weighty pressure" but perhaps he might have done so) said:
"I think I must agree to consider this Amendment before Report."
Then he said,
"…with the leave of the Committee I will take this back and consider it again before the Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/12/1970; col. 737.]
The noble and learned Lord has not tabled an Amendment to deal with the matter. I hope the pressure, plus the consideration, has been sufficient for him to be able to say that at this late stage and hour he will accept the Amendment without any further debate.
I think it is right that the Lord Chancellor, whom I described on the last occasion as the father of both professions—and then the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, rather astonishingly is reported in Hansard as having described the noble and learned Lord Chancellor as "a young father"—should certainly be a party to the final determination of this question, and it should not be left solely to the final decision of the Minister for the Civil Service. Unless the Lord Chancellor is a party to the decision, it seems to me that the line of distinction between the Executive and the Judiciary, which is well worth preserving, is going to get somewhat blurred. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in spite of paternity and pressure, both of which I find agreeable on occasion, I must, I fear, disappoint my noble and learned friend. I have done what I promised to do, which was to take this proposal back and consult colleagues and advisers, but I am sorry to say that I still come up with the same answer. The Bill, as it stands, in both the branches the noble and learned Viscount referred to, preserves the status quo of the role of the Treasury. The Civil Service Department (which is not very happily named in some ways; it ought to be
1578
"Public Service Department") is the residuary legatee of the old functions of the Treasury as provided by the old Acts, the County Courts Act and so forth. The Bill simply perpetuates that. No new constitutional principle is involved.
The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment would be resisted on three broad arguments. I do not want to weary the House with them at any length at this hour. The first is that the Amendment is in fact contrary, in a sense, to the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility, because it is unthinkable, in the present machinery of government, that any decision of this kind could be taken without the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. There would have to be consultation and concurrence in relation to the pensions of judges. The second argument is that the Amendment, if it were written into the Bill, could, at least in theory, produce deadlock. The noble and learned Viscount said nothing about what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not concur with the Civil Service Department. The third reason is, and I think it is a sound one, that it breaks with a precedent which has existed certainly for the past fifty years and has, so far as I know, never produced any difficulty.
I have reflected about this matter with as open a mind as I can summon to a subject in which I confess myself not particularly well versed. I have consulted with colleagues, and I have consulted between advisers, and the answer I come up with is an answer which is disappointing to my noble and learned friend. I am sorry to say this, but the answer is still what it was on Committee stage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that is an answer that we did not get on the Committee stage, because the noble and learned Lord merely said that he would look into the matter. I have listened with great care to what my noble and learned friend said. I thought his first two reasons were mutually contradictory. First of all, he seemed to argue that it was quite unnecessary to mention the Lord Chancellor because of the collective Cabinet responsibility which he would have with the Minister for the Civil Service. Then he put forward the other argument, that the Amendment did not resolve the difficulty, as the Minister

1579
for the Civil Service and the Lord Chancellor might disagree. What about collective responsibility in that case? The third argument is perhaps the best: that it has worked all right up until now and there is no reason why it will not work all right in the future By tabling this Amendment again, we have had the benefit of my noble and learned friend's cogitations. I certainly do not propose to press the Amendment at this time, but I am glad to hear that he will continue to exercise a beneficial influence on the Minister for the Civil Service. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Appointment of Recorders]:
5.39 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 20, after ("barrister") insert ("or solicitor")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you need not be apprehensive that you are about to have a second speech from me. This is the Amendment that enables solicitors to become recorders and enables them thereafter, if they bring themselves sufficiently to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, after five years' service possibly to become judges. It is of course the crucial part of the agreement that has been reached. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Temporary High Court and Circuit judges]:
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("to do so") and insert ("as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this subsection")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to give effect to an undertaking which I gave to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne at the Committee stage. He raised various points about the provision for temporary judges, and this Amendment is to bring out the purely temporary nature of their appointment. I have no doubt that they will probably be called "commissioners" in the same way as they have always been called "commissioners" in the past, just as the Old
1580
Bailey continues to be called the "Old Bailey" when for more than a hundred years it has been known as the "Central Criminal Court."
But I do not feel it appropriate to accept my noble and learned friend's suggestion that the word "commissioner" should be written into the Bill. I still think that you cannot have a commissioner unless you have a commission, and one of the main objects of the Bill is to destroy the commission. I realise that from one point of view I am being inconsistent about this. I made fun of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for complaining that the Common Serjeant was neither common nor a serjeant, but I think he has gone on so long and to upset him would cause so much trouble, that one can let that particular sleeping dog repose in such peace as his judicial appointment gives him. But I really do not think one should start by writing into the Bill a new set of solecisms and, therefore, I could not go so far as my noble and learned friend went on the Committee stage. But I hope that what I have said will show that I have given genuine consideration to what he said, and that I have tried to meet the difficulty which he feels. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for going as far as he has gone, because to my mind this Amendment emphasises—and rightly emphasises—the temporary nature of the appointment. But the noble and learned Lord has really gone further than speaking to this Amendment. He has made his reply to an Amendment which is in my name, and which so far I have not moved, so that in a sense I am forewarned as to what he would say were I to move that Amendment. It might be to the convenience of the House if I said now what I would say if I were moving that Amendment, and then it may not prove necessary for rue to do so.
I think it is a pity, if no distinction is drawn in the description of High Court judges, if in future we have people who are permanent High Court judges and people who are temporary High Court judges, who will, if I understand correctly, at least when they are sitting judicially, all be referred to as High Court

1581
judges. In the court lists and in the papers, while they are sitting, they will all be High Court judges and, I imagine, so referred to. It is a pity if the present status and permanence of the High Court judges is in any way impaired. I shall not dilate upon that. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows that I have certain fears in that connection.
Therefore, I think it advisable and desirable that, if possible, some name should be given to those who are appointed to these temporary positions to act temporarily as High Court judges. Heretofore, they have always been referred to as "commissioners", which has been well recognised. Of course, that name derives from the fact that they were appointed under the Commission of Assize, and it is quite true that the Commission of Assize will go. But I do not think that that is really a valid argument for not giving them the name "commissioners". After all, under this Bill we are going to have recorders, although the recorders of boroughs are being abolished; and I must admit that I am entirely ignorant of what a recorder has ever recorded. So there is nothing so very anomalous.
I hope I am not treading on the toes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, by saying that the Common Serjeant is well recognised. There are no uncommon Serjeants. But we are used to these various names, and I think that some name is desirable. If I cannot sell the name "commissioners" to the Lord Chancellor—he said before I spoke that he would not accept it, though some Lord Chancellors have second thoughts—but he will say that he will give further consideration to the matter, then I shall welcome that. Perhaps he will say that he will find some other name. When he spoke in Committee he said,
"I am quite prepared to think of another name for them."
May I put forward the suggestion that they should be given the name, "Assistant judges of the High Court"? I should be quite happy.
I leave it to the Lord Chancellor to choose what name he thinks most appropriate. I prefer "commissioners", because that is a name by which those acting temporarily as High Court judges
1582
have for so long been known. But if he prefers "Assistant judges of the High Court", I shall be quite content. All I am concerned to see is that the distinction is preserved between the High Court judges who are permanent and those who are not. I have said my piece on this. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will make some encouraging response, so that I need not move the Amendment which raises this issue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I certainly will think of alternative names. I certainly will consider "Assistant judges "or" Acting judges", or any other name that may be suggested by ingenious Members of your Lordships' House, and if I feel that I can accept any one of them I will certainly do so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock has just informed me that in Australia they are referred to as "Acting judges".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps: they can have acting rank as I had during the war, or local and temporary rank. But I am quite happy to consider this in the spirit in which it is suggested. I should not like to accept it ex improviso.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say that the expression "Acting judge" very much appeals to me?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much obliged, my Lords. We seem to be moving towards a consensus. But if I may reflect deeply upon this and see whether it needs to be written into the Bill, I will do so. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have made suggestions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 18, line 3, leave out ("to be a temporary") and insert ("a Commissioner to act temporarily as a")
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in view of the assurances of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of what he would do should my Amendment be moved, and assuming

1583
that he will do it without my Amendment being moved, I do not propose to move it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18, which is of the same complex and is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("to do so") and insert ("as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this subsection").—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of accommodation]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 31 after ("State") insert ("for the Environment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope I am not being too optimistic in thinking that, as the next four Amendments put down by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could only have effect as being consequential on No. 19, that is an indication that he proposes to accept my Amendment. In those circumstances, I propose to say practically nothing. Your Lordships may remember that during the Committee stage I moved a similar Amendment. It is based on the view that, where possible, Acts of Parliament should say what they mean, so that educated people reading them can understand them, and that if you are referring to a Minister you should say which Minister you are talking about. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is perfectly right. I intend to accept this Amendment, with gratitude that he should have proposed it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20, which is consequential on the last one.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("said Secretary of State").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may now move Amendments
1584
Nos. 21 and 22 together, because they are both consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("said Minister's duties") and insert ("duties of the said Secretary of State").
Page 21, line 1 after ("State") insert ("for the Environment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("of") insert ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [The ballot, and swearing of jurors]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 24, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
"(7) Proviso (b) to section 1 of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 (under which a judge may order that a jury be composed of men only or of women only) shall cease to have effect."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, may I also speak to Amendment No. 34? This Amendment is based on the view that, although we are only continuing existing law, in a new Act in 1970 we should not enact a law based on an assumption that there are cases which either men as men are not fit to hear, or women as women are not fit to hear. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us on the Committee stage, these one-sex juries have been ordered on only three occasions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On four occasions.
LORD GARDINER: And it looks, from the nature of those cases, as if, on any view, they were in each instance wrong. I cannot think it right that in these days we should continue to have such a law. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. Probably I should have been in favour of letting this provision wither

1585
rather than be killed. There are three reported decisions and, I think, a number of unreported cases. Of the three reported decisions, two were obviously wrong and the third was arguably right, because it was ordered at the request of the defence. But, having regard to the expressed view of the Committee at the Committee stage, I have decided to advise the House to accept this Amendment. This is probably the better course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
Clerk to Magistrates Courts' Committee
" . Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule IV to the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 shall be amended by inserting after the words 'shall also appoint a' the words 'Justices' Clerk to be the'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Merthyr and myself. May I be allowed to offer an apology to your Lordships for what happened at the Committee stage? This same Amendment was tabled for the Committee stage, but it so happened that on that day (a week ago last Thursday) both Lord Merthyr and I were not well and, without either of us knowing about that, we expected that the other would be moving the Amendment. I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner for his effort that evening to keep the Amendment alive, and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the remarks that he passed about it, although he said that he hoped that what he was saying would encourage Lord Merthyr and myself not to move it on the Report stage. I am sorry I cannot agree to that course, because both of us feel strongly about this Amendment.
It may well be that we are now approaching a completely different subject—indeed we are—from anything which has been discussed so far on Report stage, or even previously on the Committee stage; and it may be that the Amendment I am now moving does not seem to have the same amount of importance as the matters which we have already
1586
discussed. But in view of the fact that the magistrates' courts of Britain try something in excess of 90 per cent. of the total number of cases coming before the courts, it might be wise that we should consider anything that can be done to improve the administration of those courts—and that, I claim, is the purpose of this Amendment. If it were carried, paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 4 of the 1949 Justices of the Peace Act would read as follows:
"A magistrates' courts committee shall appoint one of the members to be chairman of the committee and, subject to the following sub-paragraph, shall also appoint a Justices' Clerk to be the clerk to the committee and may appoint such other officers … as the Secretary of State may approve".
My Lords, if the Bill goes through as now drafted, the position in all the counties of Britain with the exception of Rutland (and, obviously, there are reasons for that, because it is the smallest county) will be that a magistrates' courts committee may appoint anyone to be their clerk. Usually the county clerk or the clerk of the peace occupies that position, and more often than not they are the same person. But in the case of the boroughs the justices' clerk is ex officio clerk to the magistrates' courts committee, and this Amendment seeks to put the counties in line with the boroughs.
In his speech last week the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that this might be done by persuasion instead of by putting it into the Bill. With deep respect, I suggest to him that that would be a very ragged arrangement. One or the other must apply; and I cannot for the life of me think that it would be advisable to leave it entirely to persuasion. I want to tell your Lordships why I think both should be dealt with in the way in which we deal with the boroughs. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was wrong to fetter the committee's choice. In that sense, he means the magistrates' courts committees of the counties. But, again with respect, I would say to him that in the case of the boroughs this fettering, as the noble and learned Lord called it, has applied since 1949, and it has been a fettering which has been a very great success since then. I have not heard or read of any complaints or criticisms of that system or any suggestion that it has not been a success in the boroughs.
To my mind, no one can be as capable of understanding the problems of a magistrates' courts committee or of a bench of magistrates as the clerk to that particular bench, and he, I believe, should act as their executive officer. Justices' clerks are in daily contact with the system. They are professionally involved, and they are therefore much more aware of its effects than either the lay justices or the council clerks. My noble friend Lady Wootton, in a small intervention made at the same time as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was speaking about this question, suggested that if this Amendment were carried county magistrates' courts committees would have to change their clerk. As those clerks are invariably the chief officers of a county council, is my noble friend suggesting that they are so unoccupied that they must have a multiplicity of jobs, including the job of clerk to the magistrates' courts committee? I should have thought that a responsible, important officer like the clerk to the county council had quite enough to do to look after the affairs of that county council, without coming in on the work of magistrates' courts committees.
It has been suggested to me outside this Chamber that clerks to the counties have an influence with the county councils, the local authorities, which no clerk to the justices could possibly have. I would criticise that suggestion as being a very unfair commentary on the county councillors' ability to judge on merit cases put to them by magistrates' courts committees. It is a bad thing for the administration of justice in this country if what is done for benches of magistrates in a physical sense, in the way of provision of buildings and the like, depends on the influence of the man who happens to be the clerk at that time. In my 30 years as a magistrate I have not found any difficulty arising from the presentation by the clerk to the magistrates' committee of his case to the local authorities. I believe that what happens in the boroughs in that respect could happen in the counties, but if the clerk to the council was the clerk to the magistrates' courts committee there could be divided loyalties, and that would not be conducive to good administration.
The 1949 Act introduced a new system leading to—I hope that I am not putting
1588
it too high—the independence of the Judiciary from the undue influence of the Executive. In the course of my magisterial life I have always been very concerned about any fusion—we have been using that word a lot to-day—between the Executive and the Judiciary. It is for this reason that I have always suggested in Standing Committees in another place that magistrates should not sit in the police authorities of our country. I believe that they should be completely apart and should have nothing to do with the administration of the police.
It is that principle that I am now adopting on matters like the provision of court houses. My mind goes back to an experience in Brighton when we had to erect new law courts. I remember how the local authorities came forward with plans which were completely inadequate for the needs of the courts of Brighton. The magistrates' clerk, knowing the great needs of the town in that respect, was able to put to the local authorities a strong case on behalf of his magistrates' court committee, to show the need. What would have been the situation had the clerk to the magistrates' courts committee been the town clerk of the borough? It would have been an impossible situation. So the provision of court houses, offices and equipment, the training of staff, the training of new magistrates and the appointment of staff should be determined by the magistrates' courts committee and their clerk as their chief officer. Then the justices' clerk would be the clerk in the counties to the magistrates' courts committee. To me that is logical. I cannot see that there is any better way of doing it.
Before 1949, the clerk of the peace was the clerk to the justices when sitting in sessions; so he then had some claim for an appointment as clerk of the magistrates' courts committee. The present Bill abolishes that office and so severs his connection completely from the justice of the peace. From the time of the passing of the Bill the clerk of the county council will have no direct dealings with the work of the magistrates' courts committees and their courts. I believe that here is an opportunity to create a uniform system in this respect for the boroughs and the counties. I am asking your Lordships to agree that the time has come to

1589
rationalise the position. It may be, referring to what we have already said several times in the course of previous Amendments to-day, that this is another form of demarcation. It may be that there is a slight division between the counties and the boroughs. In the light of what the present Bill does, I believe in putting both under the same heading so that what applies at the moment in the boroughs must apply in the counties. I beg to move.
6.16 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that you will not accept this Amendment. To start with, it is quite out of order, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out at Committee stage. This Bill does not deal with magistrates' clerks at all. My noble friend Lord Royle is very ingeniously riding his hobby-horse into this Bill. I realise that any clause in a Bill which goes through Parliament and receives the Royal Assent becomes part of the law of the land. It is like the famous case of the town clerk at Gloucester who in the General Clauses Bill of Gloucester inserted far down the Bill (I believe it was about Clause No. 189) a provision to the effect that the marriage between the town clerk of Gloucester and his wife was "hereby dissolved". That is a famous story; and in very much the same sort of way, my noble friend Lord Royle is trying to ride his hobby-horse into the Bill.
I ask the House to say that this clause ought not to be put into the Bill. This Bill deals with the higher courts of criminal jurisdiction. The magistrates' courts are good courts, but this is not a Bill concerned with them. It may be that before long there will be a further inquiry into the working of the magistrates' courts. There has not been one for quite a long time. The last was a Royal Commission of which for a short time I was myself a member. As a result of the Commission's Report the excellent Justices of the Peace Act was passed. I think that it is time that we had a look at that, and it may be that this is a matter which should be carefully discussed during the coming years by a Royal Commission, or by some other inquiry into the work of the magistrates' courts. If that were to happen, it
1590
would be a suitable opportunity to put forward this proposal.
Nor do I think this is good on its merits. As I see it, we are introducing a new system. Why start interfering with the position in the courts below? My noble friend said that this works well in the boroughs. That may be so: my experience does not lie in the boroughs. But the present system works very well in the counties, and they are satisfied. The clerk of the peace is the man (in my county, at any rate) whom the justices like to have as the clerk to the magistrates' court. There is a great deal to be said for this in the counties, because in the majority of cases as Lord Royle said, the clerk of the peace is also the clerk to the county council. So, apart from trying to fetter the great counties system in this country and thrust upon them what is done in the boroughs (which I suggest is completely unfair) it would be taking out of their hands a system that they are working and which they like and fettering them in the appointment which they prefer to make. That is wrong.
The present system has the great advantage (on which Lord Royle rather poured cold water) that because the man is the clerk to the county council as well as clerk of the peace, he is in an extraordinarily good position for organising the whole thing. He is in a very much better position than any single justices' clerk throughout the country, because he knows exactly how things work; and he is the obvious person to act as mediator, if need be, between the magistrates' courts committee and the appropriate committees of the county council. This Amendment, I suggest, is an attempt to interfere with a system that is working perfectly well and to thrust on the counties what may be a very good system in the boroughs, though in fact boroughs and counties differ in all sort of ways. I think that the counties would be upset if my noble friend's proposal were accepted, and I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I cannot possibly hope to rival the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Royle on this subject. Indeed, I had no idea that it would lend itself to such flights. I should like to make two points

1591
on a much lower level. My noble friend raised the point that this was a case of the interference of the Executive with the Judiciary. I would respectfully point out that the functions of the magistrates' courts committees are entirely administrative, and therefore the issue does not arise. My second practical point is the one that I made in Committee. If this Amendment is carried, every county in the country except one (which I think is the smallest) would have to remove the holder of this office and appoint somebody else, not necessarily of their own choosing. It may be that the clerk of the peace has too much to do and that some counties may be willing to make a change, but I think that it is an outrageous suggestion that this change should be forced upon them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I had some hand in setting up a magistrates' courts committee in my own county after the passing of the 1952 Act, and I remained chairman until the end of last year. The experience that I had in this respect makes me think, though I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and for the Justices' Clerks Society, that I cannot possibly support this Amendment. I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, have said. I think that we must resist this Amendment on two grounds—first, on the question of principle. As has already been mentioned, we spend a good deal of time paying lip service to the principle that local government bodies should have freedom to manage their own affairs, and then we start whittling away that principle on occasions like this. To my mind, one cannot possibly justify an Amendment like this unless there is reason to believe that things are going wrong. My experience over 16 or 17 years with the clerk of the peace and the county council staff serving the magistrates' court committee has proved that this arrangement is the right one. Nothing ever went wrong, and none of the horrid things the noble Lord suggested might go wrong ever did.
The position in the county with a number of magistrates' courts is quite different from the position in a borough, where the work of the court is concentrated and
1592
where, as likely as not, the court itself is in the town hall. In the county, one is dealing all the time with planning, with the architect, with the treasurer, and everybody else. That is not to say that the magistrates' courts committee do not want the advice of the magistrates' clerk on many occasions. The way we dealt with this in my own county was to have a magistrates' clerk appointed as liaison officer with the clerk of the committee. He attended the committee on all occasions, except when his own salary was in question, and we gained a great deal of benefit from this system. If this system has worked in my county for 17 years, there seems to be no reason why anyone should think that the present position is wrong, and therefore I hope that, so far as counties are concerned, matters will be left as they are.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to say on behalf of the County Councils Association that they are totally opposed to this Amendment, and they also object to the way in which it has been introduced. If the workings of the magistrates' courts committees are to be examined, let them be examined properly and impartially. In my own experience—and I became a member of a magistrates' courts committee at its inception—I found that there was no objection to magistrates. Indeed, most of the members of the magistrates' courts committee appointed by the county were magistrates. There was no question of the Executive having influence over their Judiciary, or anything of that kind.
I feel that there is something more behind this proposal. I think there is a resentment because magistrates have to come to the county or borough for their money, and that this has some bearing on the general question of how the courts are administered. One must realise that in the county, at any rate, the treasurer has an important function, because he must budget for the county, and the county architect and other officers have important functions. It is an advantage to have these officers working together with a clerk of the magistrates' court who is closely associated with them. My own experience is that the system works very well. If there is any evidence that it does not work, that is the time when the law ought to be amended. But it should not be done under this Bill, and not until the

1593
matter has been properly discussed. The Amendment says that a justices' clerk should be appointed but there is nothing to prevent a magistrates' court in a county from appointing a justices' clerk from another county. What would happen in this case, I do not know. Equally, there is the question of what would happen in a county with five or six petty sessional divisions and one justices' clerk has to be appointed. I do not think it would make for the good working which my noble friend Lord Royle thinks it would have. It would be much better to leave things alone until it is shown that they do not work properly.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, this Amendment would curtail the powers of magistrates. We are urged to stand on our own feet, and who should be better fitted to do this than magistrates? I speak as a magistrate and as a county councillor. I have heard the arguments on both sides, and I think that they are irrelevant at this moment and should not be considered at this juncture. I should be very interested in them when our magistrates' court committee next appoints a clerk; that is the time when the argument should be deployed, when the magistrates can decide for themselves, rather than in this House. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to support noble Lords who have spoken against this Amendment and I hope that the House will not accept it. The only reason I rise is to stress the important link between the magistrates' courts committee and the county council. Though the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said that this was not important, in my experience, it is most important, for many reasons. For example, the finances for the probation service and other needs have to be provided by the county council. I would say, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that the counties have no wish to be lined up with the boroughs on this matter, though they may on other things. I think that it would be resented very much indeed if this Amendment were inserted into the Bill.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am also against this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Royle has virtually
1594
made this a battle between the magistrates' courts and the county councils. For many years I have had a foot in both camps. For 22 years I was on my county council as chairman of the Finance Committee, chairman of the Council, and on practically everything there was. For 26 years I have been a magistrate for my county. The only sadness about this is that under the law, enacted on the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I have to preside over my Bench to-morrow for the last time under the age limit. My noble friend Lord Royle said that the magistrates' courts committee under the present system would be likely to come under the influence of a man who happens to be clerk to the county council. Under my noble friend's proposal might it not similarly come under the influence of the man who happens to be the justices' clerk?
LORD ROYLE: My noble friend will forgive me, but I did not say any such thing about influence.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I have a note of my noble friend's words at the time. But let me take the argument and not relate it to my noble friend. There has been flowing through his argument the idea that the county council was not the right organisation to have a voice in the control of the magistrates' courts—that is, irrespective of the fact that they provide all the money. I feel that it would not be right to appoint a justices' clerk as clerk to the magistrates' courts committee, because the justices' clerk would naturally have some interest in the remuneration to be paid to justices' clerks. I feel that that would be giving him a personal interest in the affairs of the committee which it would not be proper to impose upon him.
My noble friend also cited the case of the boroughs. As has been pointed out several times, the circumstances in the boroughs and the circumstances in the county are quite different things. A borough will probably have only one court, or perhaps a couple of courts, whereas a county may have 20 or 30. This is a matter that will have to be faced at some time, because under the Bill now before us quarter sessions will ultimately disappear, and therefore clerks of the peace will disappear. While it may be a fact that in many cases a clerk to a county council happens also to be

1595
clerk of the peace, there are many counties—and they are the most important counties—where the clerk of the peace is an officer appointed in his own right, quite independently of the county council.
It may well be that when the Circuit courts come into operation the clerks to the Circuit judges—that is to say, the people who used to be the clerks to quarter sessions—will have to be civil servants. But obviously this is a matter upon which long and intimate negotiations will have to take place, and it is not a matter to be spatchcocked at the last minute in a Bill dealing with something entirely different. This Bill does not deal with magistrates' courts, and it would be dangerous to put this clause in. The county councils, naturally, so long as quarter sessions remain, will have a financial interest in the running of the magistrates' courts. What their position will be when the new system comes into operation, I do not know. But that again is something that will have to be faced, and something about which there will have to be negotiations at a high level. For all these reasons, I sincerely hope that my noble friend's Amendment will not be adopted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rather suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and to my noble friend Lord Merthyr, in the light of criticisms which I advanced on the Committee stage, that they should not move this Amendment. They were well entitled to disregard my advice. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Royle, may now begin to see that he has not got the sense of the House with him, and that it might be wiser for him to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I know that I have the right of reply, but the hour is getting late and I do not want to take up all the points that have been made. However, I have two or three thoughts at this time. The first is: "God protect me from my friends!" The second is that I have in mind something which no doubt noble Lords will remember—Casabianca:
"The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled."
So far as my supporters are concerned, they have not fled; they seem never to
1596
have existed. My only regret is that my noble friend Lord Merthyr was not here to share the experience with me.
However, I find a little comfort in that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Committee stage that this was a matter which might be part and parcel of new legislation at some time in connection with magistrates' courts. In any case, I cannot handle two of those ivory sticks alone. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Holders of certain existing judicial offices]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, line 32, at end insert—
"(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, in any case where—

(a) any such pension or derivative benefit as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above becomes payable to or in respect of any person; and

(b) the period of that person's service which falls to be taken into account in determining the amount of that pension or benefit includes, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, service in any judicial office specified in paragraph 1(2) above,

rules made by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service may make provision for the payment of contributions towards the cost of the super-annuation benefits payable to or in respect of that person by any authority which, before the appointed day, was responsible, directly or indirectly, for meeting the whole or any part of the cost of the superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of former holders of that office.
(3) Rules made under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not require the payment of any contribution in the case of a person who serves at least fifteen completed years as a Circuit judge, disregarding any period of service taken into account by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above.
(4) The power to make rules under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument containing any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is largely a technical Amendment which I foreshadowed on the Committee stage. It deals with contributions to be made towards the cost of superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of a Circuit judge where those benefits were greater than they would otherwise

1597
be because service in one of the judicial offices specified in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule has been treated by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 as service as a Circuit judge. It provides three sub-paragraphs to follow the latter sub-paragraph on the authority of which the Lord Chancellor will be able to make rules in the form of a Statutory Instrument to secure that in such circumstances a contribution towards the cost of the benefits in question shall be payable by any authority which immediately before the appointed day was responsible directly or indirectly for meeting the whole or any part of the cost of the superannuation. These paragraphs take the place of paragraphs which originally found their place in the Order Paper but were found to be defective, and which I indicated in Committee would be replaced at this stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 64, line 2, leave out paragraph 16.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think I can honestly say to the House, even though I am tempted to say it dishonestly, that all the Amendments which follow from now on are drafting, technical or consequential. If that he so, and if it is the feeling of the House that I may possibly be right, I will either move them formally or en bloc according to the wish of the House. I am moving now Amendment No. 28.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has omitted Amendment No. 27.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I did it dishonestly. I am sorry. I call Amendment No. 27.
Schedule 3 [Premises formerly used for business of abolished courts]:
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 45, line 10, after ("for") insert ("severance or other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will be quite brief. This Amendment is similar to one that I moved in the Committee stage, and which the noble and learned Lord kindly undertook to look at again to see whether the word
1598
"severance" was really necessary. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the consideration which he gave to the Amendments which were designed generally for the protection of local authorities. I am happy to say that they are well satisfied with the assurances given. In the case of this Amendment, I gather that as a result of further discussions the Lord Chancellor's office is satisfied that it is desirable to have the word "severance" in, and on that basis I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord has suggested, I am happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28. I think that what I said before is now true.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 2, leave out paragraph 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can move honestly the remaining Amendments en bloc if the House agrees.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, one of the Amendments is in my name, but I am quite content.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the one in the name of the noble Lord is an Amendment which I think we agreed on in Committee. The noble Lord has his "the" in the wrong place. But I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the defective drafting of the Bill.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, it is not that. It is Amendment No. 34, which is consequential to Amendment No. 24, and I spoke to it when I was dealing with Amendment No. 24.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I can move the remaining Amendments en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Schedule 8, page 64, line 2, leave out paragraph 16.
line 34, at end insert—
"( ) In section 118(1) for the words from the beginning to 'every such officer' substitute

1599
'Each of the officers specified in Part II of Schedule 3 to this Act'."
Schedule 8, page 68, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) In section 13(5)(a) of the said Act after 'High Court' insert the Crown Court '.
( ) In section 16 of the said Act (power of High Court to vary sentence on certiorari proceedings) for references to quarter sessions substitute references to the Crown Court."
Schedule 9, page 73, line 34, column 2, after first ("(1)") insert (", (2)").
Schedule 10, page 77, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) For the purpose of determining the amount of any benefit which becomes payable to or in respect of a contributory employee to whom this paragraph applies and who, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, paid contributions as if his remuneration had not been reduced, the contributory employee shall be treated as having received the remuneration which he would have received but for the reduction referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above."
Schedule 10, page 77, line 48, at end insert—
"( ) section 9(2) of the Local Government (Clerks) Act 1931."
Schedule 11, page 80, line 34, column 3, leave out from ("(1)") to ("and") in line 36 and insert ("the last 'and' in proviso (a) and the whole of proviso (b)")
Schedule 11, page 89, line 24, column 3, after ("to") insert ("judge of")
Schedule 11, page 90, column 3, leave out lines 6 to 8
Schedule 11, page 93, line 21, column 3, after ("118") insert ("(2)")
Schedule 11, page 93, line 21, column 3, leave out line 27.
Schedule 11, page 94, line 39, column 3, at the beginning insert ("Part II of")
Schedule 11, page 97, line 55, column 3, leave out ("paragraphs 11 and 12") and insert ("paragraph 11")
Schedule 11, page 99, column 3, leave out line 21.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of December 10, 1970):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Courts 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 purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendment be agreed to.
On Question, Privilege Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, thanking your Lordships for the help that I have received.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
6.31 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a state of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920; and also for Her Most Gracious Message received this day informing the House that by Proclamation Her Majesty has revoked the Proclamation of December 12 declaring that a State of Emergency exists.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

RHODESIA: PRETORIA TALKS
6.32 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the talks being conducted in Pretoria between Her Majesty's Ambassador and Air Vice-Marshal Hawkins, and whether they will make a statement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I raise this matter at this last opportunity available to me before the Christmas Recess because I think that the Government have an obligation to that loyal and steadfast minority of Europeans in Rhodesia, and to the 5 million Africans, to keep them in touch with the development of the talks in Pretoria which affect so closely their lives and interests.
I call see that, from the point of view of what might be regarded in certain quarters as the crude interests of Her Majesty's Government, there may appear to be tactical advantages in keeping the whole matter of Rhodesia quiet until after the Singapore Conference. It could be argued, I suppose, that that conference is going to take on the character of a ceremonial leave-taking of many of our fellow members of the Commonwealth by Great Britain—in fact, of the Commonwealth in the form which we have known it up to now—prior to our entry into the European Common Market; and that subsequently we shall be free of the pressures exercised on us by Canada, Australia and the Afro-Asians, with regard both to the sale of arms to South Africa and to a settlement with Mr. Smith, irrespective of any previous commitment made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Five Principles.
I cannot believe, and I do not believe, that the Government in general, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, would be party to such a policy, and I know that this can be dismissed out of hand. I assume—and I know that I am right in assuming—that the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, and repeated by the Lord Privy Seal in your Lordships' House quite recently, mean that the determination of Her Majesty's Government is that no settlement should take place outside the spirit and letter of the Five Principles, and that nothing other than that would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
I would therefore draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that since a decision to start the talks in Pretoria was made, the Rhodesian Front régime has published the Residential Property Owners' (Protection) Bill, which carries racial discrimination in Rhodesia nearer to South African policy on race than has ever happened before. This is not an astute bargaining counter for use in future negotiations with Britain, to be withdrawn, in return for some political concession, at a later date. Let me quote from a leader in the Rhodesia Herald of December 9, 1970—only a few days ago. An extract from this leader is as follows:
"The Conservatives' initiative this year—"
1602
that was the initiative to start the negotiations—
"was undertaken ostensibly to find out whether there was a possibility of a settlement in accordance with the Five Principles.
"It still seems reasonable to regard the publication of the draft Bill"—
that is the Residential Property Owners' (Protection) Bill by the Rhodesian régime—
"as underlining the virtual certainty that the Rhodesian Government does not envisage such a settlement".
I am sure that the Herald, which has played a conspicuously courageous and important part during all this long controversy, is right in the conclusions it has reached.
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of Rhodesia knows that the publication of the Bill in question, which is part of the Rhodesian Front Party's philosophy that was demanded by its members at the last Party convention in September of this year and has now been dutifully produced by Mr. Partridge, on behalf of Mr. Smith, is simply another step towards producing the full position of racial discrimination in Rhodesia. Anyone who knows that country will also agree that, once that Bill is passed into law, Mr. Smith, or anybody else, will be unable to go back on the decision to pass that legislation.
People in Rhodesia are asking: "Why is Britain going through an empty charade of talks about some hypothetical political settlement which they realise, and the British Government should realise and which public opinion to a large extent in Rhodesia realises, cannot be a success from the start?" This is so unless—and here is the nagging fear that is felt by many people in Rhodesia—Her Majesty's Government have decided that there will be a settlement outside the Five Principles, and that the minority of Europeans who have stood by the things that we have stood for in relation to this controversy with Rhodesia are going to be left to be members of an apartheid State, and the 5 million Africans are going to be left to seek their salvation by an eventual recourse to force.
My Lords, from the point of view of those who have tried to sustain the British point of view in this long civil struggle in Rhodesia, and from the point of view of the African population, the fear of

1603
betrayal by Britain is very real and is at the present moment being fed by a continuance of the Pretoria talks. I believe that the right action for Her Majesty's Government to take at this particular juncture—an action that would test the sincerity of the Rhodesian régime, and might eventually lead to a better understanding and a better atmosphere in which those talks could be conducted, if, eventually, they might become successful—would be for the Government to make clear that they would not be prepared to continue even with the talks about talks which are going on in Pretoria at the present moment, unless the Residential Property Owners' (Protection) Bill is withdrawn and no discriminatory legislation is introduced into the Rhodesian Parliament while any negotiations, or talks about talks, between British representatives and Rhodesian representatives are in progress.
I hope that my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, when he answers my Question, will be able to say something about this. I realise very well that in his present position his scope for doing so is circumscribed. But I would emphasise that at this particular juncture it is most important that the suspicions—which are widespread—about the possibilities of a change of policy by Her Majesty's Government within the near future should be set at rest straight away, and that a definite statement that there has been no change, and that there is no prospective change, in policy should be made by Her Majesty's Government, first in the interests of those whom we feel closest to in Rhodesia, and also in the interests of the Commonwealth in general.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has asked for these assurances from Her Majesty's Government, because I entirely agree with him that it would be most regrettable that we should disperse for the Christmas Recess, and before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meet in Singapore, without having some reassurances from Her Majesty's Government on the very important matters of principle which the noble Lord has raised—not for the first time, indeed, in this House or in another place of which both he and I were Members.
1604
I entirely share his apprehensions of the legislation which is now proposed in Rhodesia. What they legislate about is of course not directly our affair, but it does very much affect the context in which any possible agreement might be reached with the Smith régime.
I will say quite frankly to your Lordships that I have always been pessimistic about the possibility of reaching any honourable settlement with that régime. One of the most uncomfortable moments in my whole public life was when I had to rise at our Party Conference and defend the policy of negotiating with the Smith régime in the early days after U.D.I. Because I simply did not believe that one could reach an honourable settlement and I think that all previous experience in fact justified me in that point of view. Nevertheless, I would not deny for one moment that Her Majesty's Government were right to attempt the exercise, provided that it was within the Five Principles.
It is because there are fears in all parts of Africa, and in the rest of the Commonwealth where they are concerned with these matters, that it could be just possible that Her Majesty's Government were contemplating some other form of settlement that I think it is right at this time to ask the noble Marquess for reassurances upon this point. These talks about talks have now been going on for some little while, and, my Lords, as I say, it is right that we should ask for this reassurance from the noble Marquess before we disperse for Christmas.
6.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for putting down this Question, and to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for taking part in this debate? I know that your Lordships will not wish me to take up the time of the House at any great length tonight, but it gives me an opportunity very briefly to make a few remarks on the points which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have raised.
The House will remember that in reply to a Question in another place, on (I think it was) November 16, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that the House

1605
would be informed when he had something substantial to report, but that he did not intend to make any statements about the progress of Her Majesty's Government's contacts with the Rhodesian régime. I must say to the House at the moment that that remains the position. At the same time, noble Lords will be aware that we have on several occasions stressed the importance of keeping all exchanges confidential at this stage. I do not think my noble friend Lord Alport has interpreted this refusal, if you like, to disclose the substance of our communication with Mr. Smith as some sinister indication that we intend to abandon the Five Principles. I should like to say to him and to the noble Baroness, quite categorically, that this is not so. Her Majesty's Government have given repeated assurances on this point; and I would also remind the House of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe exactly a month ago in which he said the same thing.
The reason we wish to keep exchanges confidential is quite simple: it is to avoid publicity which might prejudice the outcome of our approach, and we hope that the Rhodesians will do the same. I should like at the same time to make it clear that there have not been any talks between Her Majesty's Ambassador in Pretoria and Air Vice Marshal Hawkins in the sense of negotiations, or indeed of conversations; nor between anyone else on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian régime. There is absolutely no question of negotiations until we are satisfied that enough common ground exists to make them worth while.
Thus, as we have repeatedly made clear, the first step towards resolving this problem is to establish whether or not the régime are willing to negotiate realistically on the basis of the Five Principles. This was the purpose—no more and no less—of the communication sent last month to Mr. Smith through Her Majesty's Ambassador in Pretoria. And I can assure your Lordships that if any developments of substance do occur, a Statement will be made at the earliest opportunity to your Lordships' House. I should like to resist the suggestion made
1606
by my noble friend that this is an empty charade. I think the suspicions that he has alluded to are unfounded in this respect.
It has been suggested that the news of the régime's intention to introduce legislation which will enable Europeans to bring about: the expulsion of non-Europeans from their residential areas shows the futility of trying to reach a settlement. While Her Majesty's Government deplore anything which would increase racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia, I would not agree that this or, for instance, their action against the leaders of the multi-racial co-operative, Cold Comfort Farm, must be regarded as an indication that the régime are not prepared to negotiate within the Five Principles, and that consequently Her Majesty's Government should abandon their attempt to find a settlement on that basis. On the contrary, we feel that these developments underline the urgent need for us to continue our efforts to carry out the commitment, which has been clearly and repeatedly explained, in the hope that we can help to create the kind of atmosphere where constructive change can be brought about. Certainly we are not in a position to do this in present circumstances.
My Lords, we stand firm in our belief that we are pursuing the right—indeed, the only practical—course to solve this problem. I do not know whether we shall succeed, but we must hope that the Rhodesians will recognise the enormous advantage of a settlement for their country, and that they will appreciate that the consequences of failure will be serious for the future of Southern Africa as a whole. For it will encourage those who believe that violent upheaval is inevitable in Southern Africa—a view which Her Majesty's Government are by no means prepared to accept.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.