Sitting of 9 December 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, with your permission, to ask the Leader of the House if he can give us any idea as to the few remaining days of the present sittings and what business your Lordships will be asked to do in them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for asking me the question. I will give him all the information I can to-day, but there will have to be, I think, a final statement later in the week. There is always a question as to how far certain Bills may have proceeded both here and in another place. I should like to say at the outset that I do not intend to move the Second Reading to-day of the British Museum and National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill, as there are one or two matters remaining to be settled in connection with that, and it will be put down for next Tuesday. I hope the day of the adjournment of the House will be December 19. At any rate it is the present intention of the Government that Parliament may be adjourned on the 19th—that is, Friday week.
I desire to mention one matter in connection with that in order that we may be quite clear as to the work we have to do before the vacation. It may be necessary to ask your Lordships to meet on Monday next, but I cannot at the present moment say definitely. I am sure your Lordships would rather meet on Monday in order to do what is necessary in regard to Bills before we depart for our vacation than to leave any work unfinished to be done after the 19th. As regards the Bills we have to deal with there is Lord Strachie's Local Government (Clerks) Bill to-day. I under-
466
stand that there will be no question of an immediate Committee stage upon that Bill and that it may be well left over, at any rate, till after Christmas. The Grey Seals Protection Bill is now merely formal and it will be finished. As regards the Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Bill, Lord Amulree will move the Second Reading. I have not yet the actual date when the Second Reading will be taken, but it will be as soon as possible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Has it been through the House of Commons?
LORD PARMOOR: It has just come up to us to-day. I do not think that it is a Bill which will require any long time for discussion in y our Lordships' House. As I say, the Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Bill has come up to-day and will be put down for Second Reading as soon as possible. Then there is the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill, of which the Second Reading will be moved by Earl De La Warr on Thursday, when the Grey Seals Protection Bill will have a Third Reading. The Second Reaching of the Ancient Monuments Bill will be moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Second Reading of which I propose to move myself, will also be on Thursday. I think I had better leave over, for a moment, other matters to ascertain what the position is of these Bills. Possibly we may have the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, but I doubt whether it will be through the other House in time. The same observation applies to the Education (School Attendance) Bill, but we must be prepared to deal with those Bills should they be sent up.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not proposed to deal with the Education Bill and the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill before Christmas?
LORD PARMOOR: Only in the sense that possibly they may be read a first time. I do not think we shall be able to get further than that before Christmas. It may be necessary to ask your Lordships to meet on Monday, and if you agree to that—and I am sure you will in a matter of this sort—then I have every hope that we shall have the adjournment on the 19th.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREEMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
GLASTONBURY GAS ORDER, 1930.

  CLACTON GAS ORDER, 1930.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order reported with reference to the South Yorkshire Electricity (Extension) Order, 1930, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CENSUS ORDER, 1930.
  LORD MARLEY: My Lords, with reference to the Census Order, 1930, I beg to move that paragraph 13 of Part II
  468
  of the Second Schedule to the Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved. This is purely formal.
  Moved, That paragraph 13 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  DUMFRIES WATERWORKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time, I should like to remind you that the question with which this Bill deals was settled some forty years ago, when the Local Government Act, 1888, was passed. In those days Parliament, perhaps not very unnaturally, was inclined to be rather frightened of the county councils—new great democratic bodies elected by all the ratepayers. It was indeed a great change in the conduct and control of local government, which was taken entirely out of the hands of the squires and country gentlemen and put into the hands of a newly-elected body. Therefore it was not surprising that Parliament thought that in the first instance the clerks of the county councils should be the old clerks of the peace who were known so well in the counties; and ipso facto these clerks of the peace became the clerks of the county councils. But a great deal of water has passed under the bridges since those days and it seems right that there should be a revision of these appointments.
  These county councils are very important bodies, and I think your Lordships will agree that on the whole they have done their work extremely well and very carefully. That they have done their

  469
  work very well is shown, I think, by the fact that one Parliament after another has seen fit to give them more and more important duties. This Bill, I should like to say at once, is an agreed Bill. That is to say, the people who are affected by the Bill—the clerks of the peace and the county councils—have agreed to this Bill through their organisations, the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and the clerks of the peace and county councils. Therefore I hope your Lordships will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading on the ground that it is an agreed Bill. I ought also to say that this Bill will not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.
  When the Local Government Act, 1888, was passed, the clerks of the peace were appointed by the standing joint committees to be clerks of the county councils, and it is very interesting to note that the clerkship of a county council—a very important office—is a freehold office. A man who holds that office cannot be dispossessed of it, even though he is too old or too infirm to carry on the work. He cannot be dispossessed of office in those circumstances. There is no age limit. Again, last but not least, he cannot be discharged for any misconduct on his part, unless that misconduct in some way affects his executive duties to the county council. That is to say, he can misconduct himself in any way he likes so long as that misconduct does not affect the business of the county council. You will see, therefore, that he is in a very exceptional position. I doubt if anyone else is in such a position in this country at the present moment. This Bill provides that in future the clerk of the county council shall be appointed by the county council and not by the standing joint committee. Quarter Sessions will appoint separately in the future the clerk to their own body. Therefore there will be a distinct division—a clerk of the peace and a clerk of the county council.
  At the present moment, the position is rather curious in that a county council has no say in the appointment of their clerk, who comes in, as I have said, ipso facto. Although they have to pay the salary and emoluments of that clerk, they do not appoint him. It seems rather curious that the people who pay are not allowed to call the tune. That is rather contrary to our present ideas
  470
  of how things ought to be done. In the future, clerks of county councils will hold office during pleasure and will be liable to be dismissed by the county councils, subject to this provision, that the Minister of Health for the time being will have the right of saying that he does not approve of a dismissal. That will give protection to these officers. The Bill further provides that clerks of county councils will vacate office at the age of sixty-five ipso facto. As regards clerks of the peace, the provision as to holding office during pleasure will not apply, although the provision as to age does apply. These officials will hold office, not daring pleasure, but during good conduct. They are, therefore, in a rather different position from that of the clerks of the county councils.
  Then the question has to be dealt with of what shall happen to the clerks appointed before this Bill becomes an Act. In the case of those clerks who have not accepted superannuation under the Act of 1922, they will not vacate office at the age of sixty-five ipso facto as do the others. Of course there are a large number of clerks—I believe the majority—who have not accepted superannuation under the Act of 1922, because the mere fact of accepting that would mean that their office would cease to be a freehold one. Another point is that at present it is rather curious that the clerks of the county councils, following the practice of the clerks of the peace in the past, appoint all the staff of their various offices, although, of course, the staff is paid by the county council. It is the clerks of the county councils who appoint, dismiss or control all the servants of the county council, who, to be exact, are servants of the clerks and not of the council. This does not apply to the clerks of the peace under this Bill, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is very proper in these days that the servants of a county council, who are acting under the orders of the county council, and are paid by the council, should be under their control.
  There is also provision for compensation for clerks deprived of their office, and it is arranged that those clerks should be entitled to superannuation on payment of a pension based on one-sixtieth of the amount of salary for the last five years. I think it is generally

  471
  agreed that it is only right that men who nave willingly given up this very important right should have some compensation. I think I have said enough to show your Lordships what are the main objects of the Bill. It is, of course, a long and complicated Bill, but, as I have told your Lordships, it is an agreed Bill. I think you will feel that it is desirable that, if you are pleased to give it a Second Reading, the Committee stage should be put off for a considerable time. I propose, therefore, if you give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, that we should not take the next stage until practically the end of January. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
  LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think it would be convenient at the outset, to prevent unnecessary discussion, if I were to state what is exactly the attitude of the Government towards this Bill. I entirely assent to what the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has said as to the question of tenure of office, emoluments and superannuation of clerks of the peace and clerks of county councils having been for a considerable time under discussion. It is quite true, as he says, that in the year 1888, when the county councils were first established, the clerks of the peace became ipso facto clerks of the county councils, and at that time clerks of the peace who had been appointed by the magistrates under the old system of county government took part not only in the sessions work in the ordinary sense but in all the local government work that was then carried on by the magistrates as magistrates, and not by a representative body. Accordingly, when the change was made, as I think was quite right at that time, clerks of the peace were maintained in their positions and took on the double duties of clerks of the councils and clerks to the magistrates.
  As everyone knows, clerks of the peace have a peculiar tenure of office which is called freehold tenure—that is to say that, except for what is called a misdemeanour, they are not liable to be given notice or dismissed through incompetence or inability to fulfil their functions. This has naturally given rise to the question whether clerks of councils under the Act of 1888 have the same tenure as clerks of the peace, and a case
  472
  came up to your Lordships' House, known as the Leconfield case, and your Lordships held that, under the Statute, there was no doubt that the clerk of the council had the same security of tenure as the old clerks of the peace. This meant, not only that the council did not appoint him, but that they had no power to dismiss him or ensure that his duties were efficiently carried out.
  Before I say one or two words on the Bill itself, I should like to say that I think that nobody with experience of county councils—I have had twenty-five years of it, beginning in 1888, which is a considerable time—would support this Bill merely out of a desire to show any want of respect for the work which the clerks of the peace have done. Although they had this freehold tenure, everybody who has knowledge of their work will bear witness that they have done it in an admirable and public-spirited way and generally to the satisfaction of everyone. Of course there may have been particular exceptions, but I am glad to say that in my own County of Buckingham there have been no such exceptions. I should like to read to your Lordships what was said by Mr. Neville Chamberlain when he was Minister of Health. In writing to the County Councils Association he used these words:—
  "If the Government are returned to power and are assured that the Bill will receive the full and active support of the County Councils Association, they will be prepared either to adopt and introduce it as an agreed measure, subject to the general exigencies of public business, or to give facilities for its passage, as may be found most convenient."
  The present Government desire in every respect to give an assurance to the promoters of the Bill to the same extent.
  Of course we cannot be responsible for the exigencies of public business if they come in the way of a Private Bill such as the noble Lord's Bill, but it is our desire to follow what was stated by my right hon. friend's predecessor and to give every assistance that we reasonably can towards the Bill becoming law within the present Session. I think it is very wise of the noble Lord to leave a long time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. Perhaps I have rather a special knowledge of these things, and the Bill does not appear to me to be very difficult to understand or

  473
  difficult in its working, but it has a number of complicated phrases and it refers to a certain number of old Acts.
  I think that there are only two points in this Bill on which any difficulty could possibly arise. I believe it is agreed on all hands that the time has passed when freehold tenure of such an office as is held by either clerks of the peace or clerks to county councils should continue, and in future, preserving, as I hope and believe, very fully their existing rights, those officers will be subject to ordinary dismissal by the authorities for whom they are working, subject to an appeal to the Minister of Health. I believe that this is regarded as satisfactory from every point of view, and has been agreed upon by all the authorities concerned, the local authorities on the one side and the officers on the other. There is one point to which the noble Lord referred as to which I might say just a word. I refer to the question of compensation. Without any intention of criticising the Bill, I would suggest that the terms proposed are unduly generous, or at least are on the generous side. I do not find fault with that in the least, and I think it is a right way of approaching a question of this kind, when you are dealing with men holding important offices who are trusted in matters of very great consequence and who, so far as I know, have hardly ever betrayed their trust. The Government desire to adopt the attitude that I have described, and I thought it would be convenient for your Lordships to know this at the outset, as it might shorten our discussion.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, you will probably agree that the time has now come when county councils should appoint their own clerks and clerks of sessions, but what this Bill provides, as I understand it, is something rather different. It seems to contemplate that the clerk of a county council and the clerk of the peace will in future normally be the same person, and will be appointed neither by the county council nor by the court of Quarter Sessions, but by private arrangement between the Chairman of the County Council and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. The consultations and negotiations that are
  474
  provided for in Clause 2 (2) must obviously be of a private nature, and I am certain that the county council to which I belong, most of the members of which are the supporters of the present Government, would certainly not acquiesce in any such arrangement. The clerk of the peace is always a lawyer, at least I think so, and it is in my opinion essential that he should be a lawyer, and a man who has considerable knowledge of the working of courts of law. He has to act as adviser to the Quarter Sessions on questions of legal procedure. The work of the clerks of the county councils is now greater and more complex than it was, and I think it will probably happen that the county councils will wish in the future to appoint as their clerks persons having long experience of local government work. In this I think they will be reinforced by the Association of Local Government Officers, who will be unwilling to see the plums of their profession going into the hands of members of another profession. Therefore, I think in most cases this will happen, that one person will be appointed clerk of the peace and another clerk of the county council, and I think it would be more satisfactory if it were provided in the Bill that the clerk of the county council should be appointed by the council and the clerk of the peace by Quarter Sessions.
  There are several other points of criticism in the Bill. Clause 5, subsection (4) states that—
  "The clerk of every county council shall be, by virtue of his office, clerk of the joint committee."
  Of course the joint committee is not a committee of the county council, and it might be thought that the clerk of the peace should be appointed clerk of the joint committee, and not the clerk of the county council. There are other points of criticism, to which I will not now allude, but I venture to think that if this Bill is given a Second Reading it will need considerable amendment in Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  Close season for grey seals.
  1.—(1) Subject us hereinafter provided, there shall be, both in England and in Scotland, an annual close season for grey seals, that is to say, seals of the species known as halichœrus grypus, extending train the first day of October to the fifteenth day of December, both inclusive:
  Provided that, in the case of England, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and, in the case of Scotland, a Secretary of State, may at any time by order direct, either generally or as respects any area described in the order, that, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision—

  (a) there shall be no close season during the twelve months next following the making of the order; or

  (b) the next close season shall commence and end on such dates as may be specified in the order.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR) moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:—
  "(2) An order made under this section which renders lawful the killing of grey seals during their breeding season may contain such regulations, if any, as the Minister or the Secretary of State thinks fit for prohibiting, during such period as may be specified in the order, the killing of grey seals in places to which they resort for breeding by any weapon or instrument or in any manner, not being a weapon, instrument or manner sanctioned by the regulations."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to Lord Danesfort on the Committee stage of the Bill. As I told him at the time, it was impossible to go quite as far as he wished, but I think he will admit that this Amendment is a very big step forward in the direction which he would like to travel. Actually the purpose of this new subsection is to make it possible for the Minister, or the Secretary of State, when he decides to make it lawful to kill grey seals during the breeding season, to make regulations as to the means by which the grey seals shall be killed. It is possible so to do because during the breeding season the killing will be done in an organised fashion, by possibly a
  476
  raid on the rookery. Therefore it should be perfectly possible to lay down regulations whereby this organised killing is carried out. It is not possible to go further and lay down regulations for the killing of all grey seals outside the breeding period, for the reason that I gave your Lordships in Committee. Then the killing is done by individual fishermen, who at some time or another come across a grey seal. They are possibly not expecting to see grey seals, and they have with them no rifle or other means of killing seals; they just kill in the best way possible. Your Lordships will see, I think, that under those conditions it is quite impossible to lay down or to enforce regulations, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 22, at end, insert the said new subsection (2).—(Earl De La Warr.)
  LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having gone some way, at any rate, to meet the case which I ventured to put forward on Second Reading and in Committee, but I hope he will not think me ungrateful if I say that his Amendment goes only a very short way to meet the case that I raised, because his Amendment is severely restricted both as to place and time. It is restricted as to time because it only applies to those times when an order is made rendering lawful the killing of grey seals during the breeding season, and it would not apply to any other part of the year. As regards the restriction of place, it can only restrict the mode of killing at places where the grey seals resort for breeding. It would have a certain effect, I know, in preventing the cruelty which has for some years past existed as to the mode in which grey seals are killed, but it would leave untouched the cruelty which occurs in all places and at all times except those prescribed by the Bill.
  What I would venture to ask the noble Earl is this: Would it not be possible for him to extend the powers of the Minister somewhat, so as to meet possible cases of this sort? Supposing cases were brought before the Minister in which there was very aggravated cruelty, by fishermen or others, in the killing of these grey seals. As the Bill stands, unless it occurred in the breeding season, and at the breeding places, the Minister could

  477
  take no action at all; but if the noble Earl extended the wording of this Amendment, or put in another new clause, then the Minister might deal specially with cases of that sort brought to his attention—really cases of aggravated cruelty with which otherwise he would be unable to deal. The noble Earl has said, quite truly, that in the eases which he contemplates there would be some organised process by which raids would be made under proper restrictions, but in cases such as I have suggested would it not be possible to give the Minister this power? Then he might organise raids, so that the seals would be killed otherwise than with cruelty. I should be very grateful if the noble Earl would promise to consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, with a view of widening his Amendment, which, I think, although valuable, is very restricted.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Of course I will consider any matter put forward by the noble Lord, but we have considered this matter very carefully and I am afraid I cannot hold out any hopes of any alteration. I will, however, certainly look into the matter further.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Offences in relation to grey seals during close season.
  2.—(1) Every person who—

  (a) during the close season knowingly and with intent kills, wounds or takes a grey seal; or

  (b) being an owner, charterer or hirer of a boat uses, or permits any person to use, it for the purpose of killing, wounding or taking a grey seal during the close season;

  shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall on summary conviction be liable—

  (i) in the case of offences under paragraph (a) of this section, to a fine not exceeding five pounds in respect of each such offence; and

  (ii) in the case of offences under paragraph (b) of this section, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds in respect of each such offence.

  EARL DE LA EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "owner," to insert "master." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in accordance with a suggestion that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, and I think that, on the whole, it might be an improvement.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 12, after ("owner") insert ("master").—(Earl De La Warr.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("or
  (c) contravenes any such regulation as is mentioned in subsection (2) of the preceding section;").—(Earl De La Warr.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, there is also another consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 21, after ("paragraph (b)") insert ("or paragraph (e)").—(Earl De La Warr.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, may I say that the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill is postponed until Tuesday next?
  House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.

EPISCOPAL PENSIONS (SODOR AND MAN) MEASURE, 1930.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
BENEFICES (EXERCISE OF RIGHTS OF PRESENTATION) MEASURE, 1930.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
1. Forty-seventh Report, being the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Episcopal Pensions (Sodor and Man) Measure, 1930;
2. Forty-eighth Report, being the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Benefices (Exercise of Rights of Presentation) Measure, 1930:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EAST AFRICA.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.

ABERDEEN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the parishes of Maryculter and BanchoryDevenick in the County of Kincardine:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SHEFFIELD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Dronfield and the parish of Leighton in the rural district of Chesterfield in the County of Derby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.