Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698069844213.pdf (Guyana)
179 Highlands and lslonds : [LORDS) Report 011 Land Use 180 HOUSE OF LORDS when the Final Report what period of time Report?

Further, had been prepared, were the members of the Panel given in which to write in and approve the Report?

Thursday, 11th March, 1965 The House met at three of, the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR Woolsack.
on the I • Prayers-Read by the Lord Bishop of St. A fbans � LORD HUGHES : My Lords, on the although question, in the Report, sup­ I am not aware of in people iooked at the same facts way.
On the second part, first part of the noble Viscount's plementary inaccuracies the case of a Report of this nature it me to find that would not surprise different in a different I do not know the exact time which was given, sponsible the Highland they have regarded quite satisfied one moment have consented going forward not been given adequate it.
• of the Advisory nature of the membership Panel and the way in which but having regard to the re­ of that they would not for in their name if they had Government their work, I am to a Report time to consider HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS: REPORT ON LAND USE 3.5 p.m. VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARO: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

: [The Question was as follows LORD BURTON: My Lords I thank for his reply.
Can he tell the Minister us whether the full Panel meetings?

there was any discussion at and Islands, To ask Her Majesty's how many meetings Panel on the Highlands as distinct mittees discuss Land Use : and whether was signed by all members of the Panel.]
from meetings of the Panel, took place to the Report on and prepare of Com­ the Report was not discussion, it from my own LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot information but knowing the Highland give that knowledge, if that I should be very surprised Panel, were not the case.

If in fact it is the case, and -there would mean that the Panel had in fact read the Report very carefully to it.
But what I will do, consenting if the noble Lord wishes it, is to inquire on this particular in due course, noble Viscount, Ferra'l"d. also to the and Lord Masscreene point and write to him and perhaps before VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARO: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, in the case of a Report of this great importance, all mem­ bers of the Panel ought to have signed it?
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY My that the OF STATE FOR over and Islands the Advisory work was by their Agriculture and Group, the meetings of which of the Panel, which met on five times each year during this much of the detailed UNDER-SECRETARY SCO1LAND (LORD HUGHES): preparation Lords, I understand of this Report occupied Panel on the Highlands a period of four years.

Under the close direction average period, carried out Forestry were, however, bers.
Every member of the Panel was given the opportunity in writing discussing Report was approved submission on and was signed friend, Lord their behalf by the Chairman, Cameron.

final by the Panel for to my right honourable on the draft Report and of it in full Panel.

The of commenting open to all Panel mem­ and submitted LORD HUGHES: Not necessarily.

The method by which a continuing such as the Highland their work is obviously for them to decide.
Panel elect to do body a matter best VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARO: My Lords, while thanking may I the noble Lord for his Answer, ask him whether 11ppear to be certain he is aware that there in this inaccuracies LORD BURTON: My Lords, in reply the noble Lord stated that he was not aware ol any inaccuracies in the Report.
181 Reinterment of [ l l MARCH 1965]Anne Mowbray Remains 182 Com-Panel to fail to consult bodies like the the Crofters' Commission, the Deer Commission, a report to the Forestry only last week mission, Com­ and so such a Report?

in on, before issuing Was he aware that the Forestry m1ss1on submitted Inverness saying suggesting in the Western that the Panel were inaccurate that there should be planting County Council Islands?

LORD HUGHES: Of course, the Highlands is a very unusual my Lords, place.
REINTERMENT OF ANNE MOWBRAY REMAINS look at the same situation conclusions.

LORD HUGHES: That, my Lords, merely bears out my point that different people-or, if I may add to it, different bodies-may and arrive at different have so far had the benefit of seeing the observations Commission honourable friend they are, I would say, very satisfactory to the membership Panel.
have made to my right on the subject, which the Forestry of the Highland 3.12 p.m. and I LORD DER WENT: My Lords, I beg leave ito ask the Question in my name on tJhe Order Paper.

whiah sitands [T1he Question was as follows To ask Her Majesty's : Government when the remains Duahess of Anne Mowbray, of York.

wi:11 be reintened.]


THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my right honoura:ble friend is consulting of Westminster A!bbey and of 1:lhe London Museum about arrangemenits yet been possible t<he auithorities lit has not for reinterrnent.

,to fix a date.

LORD DER WENT: May I ask the nable Lord whether have finished vhey have done this long delay?
tiheiir researches the London Museum ; and, if so, what is ,the cause of LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the with <tthe diffi.­ my right !honour­ not yet finished London Museum !have their researches.

will If your Lordships bear with me I would explain confronts cu1ty wihich The view has been put to able friend.

and the London t!he kbbey authorities Museum :that vhe reinterment shoo'ld delay.
The A!bbey take place wi,t<hout autJhoriltii.es the remains could reinter no more delay t!han would be needed to ensure tha,t rtlhe reinterment wa'S con­ ducted in a decent and reverent manner.
a com­ They are anxious memorative plaque and to itake a cast of the inscription London Museum would be exitremely reluctaillt rthe casket in the condition in whioh only because, were not in tihey were found, the rnmains a state fit for decent and proper re­ for in1ermen,t of scientific, but because and historical to bundle the remains back into on the coffin.
But the tihe opportunity in tiheir preseillt condition, knowledge to prepare not D2 VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND my Lords, could FERRARO: Further, the noble Lord tell me: does he know of where a Report has any other instances been made and the members of the Panel have not signed it?

Is there any precedent for a Report not being signed by all those responsible it?
for producing but my recent LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not aware of any such position, membership of your Lordships' House that that state­ is so comparatively ment does not carry any weight at all.

What I should like to say, if I may be to say this also in this pennitted been Chamber, I have never is that but I hope precedents, afraid of creating that I should never be a party to creating a bad precedent.
if a body is set precedents, V1scoUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, or not the noble Lord is afraid whether of creating up to make a Report and that Report the views of all the members embodies of that body, surely, without noble Lord is the regular to sign the Report as embodying views.

for all members their asking the it practice to create a precedent, LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it may or it may not be the case.

I have no indication that anyone else has that the Report is not acceptable the members of the Panel.
any indication to all do I believe ­ whatever-nor LORD BURTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether unusual Vol.

264 for a body such as the Highland it is not 183 Reinterment of [LORDS] Anne Mow bray Remains 184 would be irre­ imporitance The thick sil,t los:t. not only the larger in ,the coffin and more bones but many ones, and the separation and of these is a long and [Lord Stonbam.]

considerable vocab�y contains easily recognisable smaller identifica,tion difficult complete.
should be completed could be reinrterred task wibiah is as yet far from this lt was ,thought desirable so that t!he remains entity.

as a complete is LORD DERWENT: My Lords, <this not quite good enough.

This body burial.

During the really has had Chrlstian three months ,that ,the London Museum had these re­ have, without mains, have ·they yet discovered any­ thing by their resea,rche:s?

anybody know what further things expect to discover?

And does they authority.


and historical interest, but also a great deal of not only public interest-and archreological If the work were hufI:ied too siderable publ-ic scientific, interest.

much it might well be tha,t be botched that is the last thing that anypne con­ cerned would wish ,to happen.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE: the ta:sk would ; and I am quite $Ure that of whatever without delay?

The value the may pe?


Has My �ords, do have that the Government the continuance I understand not, in fact, authorised of these researches, of those researches results the time not come when this body should be reinterred London Museum, so far as 1 remember, started rity at all.

Did they subsequently obtain any authority?

these researches?

approved the Government suggest action without of what they are doihg?

Do approve?
Do approve?

lf not, I Did anyone authorise Have the Government should take is terminated that the Government to see that this matter this operation without aiy autho­ delay.

LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this it can be or sentiment as any question unless There are many burial and Christian removed f.rom the to a conclusion.

which it is expected body did receive was subsequently I do uot think place of burial.
original of any differ­ that ,there between the ence of feeling Govern­ noble Lord •and Her Majesty's of the re­ ment ; but the examination mains that has so far taken place will purpose serve no useful brought things Examination identity ship between Anne Mowbray and the Princes able to discover health, cess's her death, and perhaps the circum­ stances Westminster revealed are mauy other things be discovered.
of the burial Abbey ·to Stepney, will be the state of the P,rin­ the cause of There of that nature to in the Tower.

We hope to be of the transfer by confirming -and possibly by further from to discover.

may fur,ther establish a blood lfelation­ investigation.
the one LORD STONHAM: My Lords, friend has power that my right honourable He is to grant a licence pnd he is that licence, has not yet granted the representations made by considering of both Westminstbr the authorities and the London Museum before the licence.

Abbey granting for reinterment.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I put that does not answer the questi@ns to the noble Lord.

Are not thd London Museum under the Treasury?

not the Government in this matter?

Do the Government approve tinued?


of these experiments being con­ Have some responsibility approval LORD STONHAM: My Lorqs, so far the as Government would is that the Governmeµt position not wish that there should be any undue haste in a matter of this kind.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE: is concerned, Three LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am but are any of ,that are supposed to have really of the slightest sorry to press this matter, these things been discovered interest?
historical is a public aware that ,this by rthe Government?

ls it not trolled about time •that the Government stepped in and said if!hat these experiments�and they are little stop?

Is the .noble museum con­ more than ·tlhat-sbould Lord months!

LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my that right honourable this is a matter which bas aroused con- appreciates fr.iend on this I point I LORD STONHAM: The noble Viscount says: "Three months".

When I briginally answered indicated to take six months, months have elapsed.
received matter.

from a pity if the opportunities ari5.ing a Question that investigations of which some three But we 'have not many representations It is thought were likely that it would be ' on this 185 Water Desalination this investigation lost by an over-hurried reinterment we are not in a position remains decently should be irrevocably and properly.
when the to reinter WATER DESALINATION RESEARCH [11 MARCH 1965) Research 186 LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the remains Anne Mowbray will be allowed peace?

of to rest in 3.22 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands Paper.
in my name on the Order LORD STONHAM : As I indicated in [The Question was as follows : that has not been precisely Answer, and in my last my original supplementary, determined, concerned that it will be as soon as it can be decently and properly so far as an exact date is done.

; but I can give an assurance LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, will be more Her Majesty's Government specific?
Will Her Majesty's Govern­ ment now say to the London Museum that at the expiry of three months from to-day's date this body is to be handed over for reinterment unless appli­ cation is made to the Government by the Museum-and Government-for before reintennent?
a stfll longer period is approved specific by the To ask Her Majesty's Government has been made in the water since the and Industrial grant of up to £34,325 Association of desalting of Scientific offered over a year ago an to for ; whether a what progress problem Council Research earmarked the Water Research studies close watch is now being kept on work in the United States and whether and the Atomic Energy Authority made progress economic factors and other countries.]
: concerned have in their study of the in desalination and elsewhere as they affect this the Committee LORD STONHAM : My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend would regard three months from the present which could be allowed before reinter­ ment of the remains of the little Princess.

date as the extreme limit THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE­ TARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): My Lords, the Water Research Association has made good progress in its study of the economic factors water.
A mission the United States for discussions the Office of Saline the provision of sweet is to leave shortly for with underlying Water.

this reinterment?

representatives Can my noble friend LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am give us puzzled.

any reason for hurrying He stated that there might be some marginal but it is not clear to me what benefit arises from hurrying the reinterment.
benefit, LORD SHEPHERD : My Lords, this and putting is a matter of considerabl e delicacy, I do not think that it is in good taste to continue these questions.

May I suggest to the noble Viscount, who has an interest well discuss it through nels, to see whether away from the Floor believe feeling that that would be the general of the House on the matter.

the usual chan­ we could take it of the House?

r in this matter, that we could Research As announced stations, the and industry.
a Commit­ bas been last April, tee on Desalination established, including from Government research Atomic Energy Authority This Committee has carried liminary consideration gramme ,in conjunction The Atomic Energy Authority taken work on the use of nuclear for a desalination tee and the A.E.A.

have also kept a close watch on work in the United States and elsewhere.

plant.

The Commit­ out a pre­ pro­ with industry.


of a research has under­ energy established, watch British for arid areas, as the noble Earl is industry, aware, since he has kept an active on this matter, has already primarily proven method fresh.

This is the multi-stage evaporator, most efficient last ten years, some 40 installations which is regarded in use to-day.

Over the Britjsh firms have supplied to various parts a commercially into flash as the of turning sea-water D3 Vol.
264 187 Science and Technology [ LORDS] Bill 188 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL Order of the Day for the Third Read­ LORD SNOW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

is considering friend the Moved, That the Bill be rtow read 3a_-(Lord Snow).

which shows the noble Lord LORD BRIDGES: My Lords, having spoken on this Bill, both on Committee I apolbgise for stage and on Report, refer again.
What I have to speaking to is a point which arises out of an Amendment Lord Snow, to paragraph 3, an Amendment which I cordiailly accepted.

National Laboratory the Amendment, in Snow, said this : But in the course f moving the noble Lord, Lord moved by the noble Lord, 4 of Schedule [Lord Snow.]

3.25 p.m. are conscious everywhere.

Her of to main­ of the world.

They form in total more than 70 per cent.


of the land-based plants now in operation Government Majesty's the need to support research tain our lead in what could be a growing export market for large desalination plants.

Minister of Technology plans for increasing on desalination make a statement the scale of effort and hopes to research, soon.

My right honourable ing read.
fairly THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My 20 gallons design studies of increasing encouraging reply, are being produced he is aware that in the United has been made on by the pre­ may I ask him Lords, while thanking for that that some progress fhe lines of action initiated vious Government, whether States in the Oakridge of the Atomic Energy Commission plant which for a desalting Tennessee would be capable of producing a day, with the possi­ million this capacity up to bility a day, and gallons 50 or 100 million that this quantity would probably pro­ vide the most economic method of water by the· use of nuclear producing Is the noble Lord also aware reactors?
that, when I was in Washington last the Office of Saline Water said autnmn, that they not only valued the co­ with industry operation but would also like to see co-operation extended with this country well as applied research of desalting?

problems in fact, continuing?

operation, in basic as into the in this country.


Is this co­ l,aboratory that t�e Science We have therefore decided to re­ Council should be authorised staff to the Rutherford Research cruit new on terms which would enable them to be mem­ hers of the Atomic Energy Authority's sion scheme if they so choose.

Tlie.y intend to apply this measure to the 1Daresbury Laboratory proximity arguments Vol.

264 (No.

48), col. 24, March 9, 1965.]


to Harwell and to which the same do not apply.-[OFF1c1 which is not in close pen­ do not in Cheshire, A REPORT, I wish to.

say a word or two about eight years of I had better facilities the larger and more one, which started and accessible in the South of Enfland.

by administrative They are both laboratories action Laboratory of this epactment.
say a wo�d or two of these two labora­ the exclusion of the staff of Da•resbury from the provisions Perhaps about the relations tories.

NIRNS.

Harwell, important to ago, is convenient It universities was always agreed that as a,nd when further they would be provided would be more accessible universities.
of which is at Daresbury, the laboratory to the universities of Liver­ convenient pool and Manchester, which h ve strong departments Harwell on for many years, but of course the only started laboratory was Daresbury two years ago and it will still be, say, eighteen months before work research Both laboratories are starts there.

should be provided, in an a�ea which to other in nucJear phy�ics.
work has been going laboratory Hence the establishment At LORD SNOW: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of both those points.

Co­ operation second matter, also feel that this country tain the very strong position if we do not continue scale of basic research.

is in fact continuing on the of basic research, but we cannot main­ it now holds and increase our BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a time after 3.30 p.m., my noble will be making snitable friend Lord Mitchison a Statement Report.
on· the Milner Holland 189 Science and Technology [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill 190 equally on the same footing.

laboratories of NIRNS and are me for saying was next door to Har­ does not justify if they could not terms.

I hope the Laboratory and not to That was that the Ruther­ The noble Lord, Lord Snow, gave one reason why the provisions of this Bill, as amended, should apply to the Rutherford Daresbury.

ford Laboratory well and that fact would make recruit­ ment more difficult, have A.E.A.
pension noble Lord will forgive that this really sion to cut the staff of Daresbury of the the noble Lord thought staff at Daresbury being built, but, of course, of so.

A highly technical this kind cannot be built without expert staff being taken on to do the pre­ liminary and already 100 staff members, who are under the A.E.A.

pension the laboratory rise to 350. there was no because it is still scheme.

Perhaps a deci­ out A.E.A.

pension laboratory work of design and planning.


there are at Daresbury scheme.

In time, when is finished, the staff will that is not showed me the his Manuscript Amendment, why I did not.
The first was the noble Lord, Lord reasons that, although Snow, very courteously terms of I was not aware from what he said that he intended to propose the exclusion of the staff of the Daresbury Laboratory from the benefits frankly, the noble Lord aright, hear what he said and follow the matter up before I commented I doubted whether on it in detail.

of the scheme.
of the scheme.

Quite and I wanted to I had heard and gratitude to the noble v·ery grateful he had put on one other The second reason why I did not say anything on .the Report stage was tihat I was feeling Lord, Lord Snow, for the Amendment ,that the had put down, and I did not wish ,to mix up my ilianks to him for ilie Amendment forward, wi•th criticism point.

Tihe third reason was a personal one.


On Tuesday last J had the mis­ fortune I was unable to move my own Amend­ ment, and it was moved for me by the noble and learned Lord Viscount, Dilhorne.

of s-harne, tion to myself, was heard in the proceedings But I have now made a rapid recovery from ,this unusual essential put it firmly and I was o-vercome wHh feelings and not wi9hing J thought should put this forcibly.

to draw atten• that bhe less I to arrive in the Chamber laite.
and I feel it is and point, ,the better.

�hat I state, Under the decision announced by the 100 are en­ the A.E.A.

out of a total of 250 would be outside scheme.

If we allow for those the main instrument is scheme and 1,300 within-a very I want to empha­ arrangement.

noble Lord, Lord Snow, the existing will have A.E.A.
pension scheme terms and the rest would have to have another pension working at Harwell, 1,550, pension difficult sise that these two laboratories gaged in work which is precisely iden­ and employ the same tical in character, kind of staff.

The only difference is that at one laboratory the proton the electron a reason for justifying sion arrangement.

used in discussing ments is that it is desirable over as wide uniformity an area as possible, and, within reason, that is sense.
But surely it can be no sense to have a staff of 1,550 engaged in nuclear and to say that 1,300 of them may be of service on one set of conditions and 250 of them on another.

I can see no for that.

justification a separate One of the arguments these pension in two establishments accelerator-not, I think, pen­ arrange­ to have .

of conditions accelerator and at the other research I put it forward The is But I was for two reasons.

what in some countries history.


the )egisla,tive first concerns called ohe Member of your Lordships' House and it seems to wiho raised rthis matter.

,this me that if I allowed to pass into Bil-1 law without any protest about makin_g exclusion �his might be regarded, forming the enactment protest wisih rto make at a later date.
so to speak, as part of the legislative the Laboratory which I or other people might and might weaken of the Daresbury of any history and not to again, it is) (if decision to the Daresbury The second point is that I wish ,to urge ,che noble Lord, Lord Snow, to think about this arrangement stick to tihis decision tihart entrants the future Laboratory Statute Bill now before your Lordships-but I hope arrangement.
an administrative t!he noble Lord will be able ito say that I have used really do t!he arguments and provide good reason for further should be excluded, not by in, the ---' the position is covered by D4 Perhaps I owe your Lordships apology this matter for not having raised on the Report stage.

There were three an Vol.

264 191 Science and Tecltnology [LORDS] Bill 192 [Lord Bridges.]

arrangement, So far as I can see, tih.is of .the decision which on the Report stage.
ea1'1y consideration he announced Frankly, it seems to me that the decision is not a sensible reaohed and I do not think it would be regarded as acceptable.

Amendment is not based on any principle so far as I can inconvenient see, it will not benefit anybody.
I hope !having put that I may be forgiven for the point bluntly, my gra,ti,tude considerable already may be completed to the noble Lord for the whioh he has progress whioh I hope and it in no way lessens made -in this matter, ; and again, before Jong.

; it is administrMively very It was the first time, bury Laboratory.

I must admit, that I had ever heard of But are they not the second laboratory.

Institute?
Institute?

It the National both under as drawn con­ is true that the Schedule tains the word "may", and it may be argued that the word " may " is permis­ sive.

But there can be no doubt, I should have thought, debate showed that the wish of this House was that those employed Institute National come under the pension Atomic Energy should be entitled that the whole of the Authority.

scheme of the by the to It was in the course of Lodi Snow's 3.34 p.m. because of exactly differently put it.
If I may, I rise to my feet again from the way the noble his plea to the noble Lord, in the nature of an unholy led to some on his part ; and I hope will not think there is VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry if the efforts I made to assist the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, embarrassment your Lordships anything alliance to support Lord Snow.
I put this plea perhaps a little Lord, Lord Bridges, I would remind your Lordships what was the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, the Committee and the new employees present Institute of the National into Nuclear Science should enjoy the benefits administered Authority.

Amendment Lord Bridges, The Amendment particular of a particular to a category the National for this.
to any or the situation ; it was related working That was the issue, tabled by the noble Lord, made provision was not related scheme of the pension by the Atomic Energy Lord Bridges, stage.

It was that 1.he of employees Institute.


laboratory, laboratory of Research employees during be able to and the under admmistrative was going to be exercised at the time-that said-and je its sig­ I must it, that I feel frpm what and I certainly speech that he quite frankly I repeat that I did not apprecia nificance discretion between the two laboratories.
say, now that I appreciate a departure this represents understood, was generally which was that all what I understood, in this Iostitutd were to those employed be on the same pension sc�eme.

Tt odd if, at the end seems to me extremely there wi.1,1 be one of all this discussion, laboratory is going on where it will be p9ssible find people doing precisely jobs on different research to in which this nuclear\ terms of employment.
the same great battle; and I know that the noble Lo;rd, Lord Snow, has fought a at least 90 per cent.

he has won, I think, of it.

I ask him not to accept defeat with regard to the last 10 per cent., but to give us his assurance reconsider the Daresbury at least some hope that he witl be able to tell us in the near future that lhis which, after all, of discretion, exercise can affect only a small number of people will be reconsidered.
adversely, what he said with regard to Laboratory, that he will and give us We welcomed the efforts of the noble going slightly said, embodying Amendment in one respect This, on the face of it, appeared tory.
Then the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Snow, when he put down the Manuscript what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and, indeed, further, quite satisfac Lord Snow, in explaining said-and appreciate -that a distinction as an exercise Rutherford I am afraid that I did not its significance was going to be drawn of discretion and the Dares- the matter, Laboratory at the time between the 3.39 p.m. LORD SNOW: My Lords, I am sorry on Tuesday.
if I was guilty of courtesy noble and learned horne, had actually read parts of my speech before I made it.

unintentibnal I thought dis­ that the the relevant Viscount, Lord Dil­ V1scouNT DILHORNE: No, LORD SNOW: I am sorry.

� thought that he bad.

V1scouNT DILHORNE: Quite frankly, if I had read it then, with the and Technology [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill 193 Science distinc.tion, what it meant.

But, in fact, I did not see it.

I should not have known decision.

LORD SNOW: This point does not e of the Bill.


It was to announce an admini­ The Bill is permissive, affect the substanc dil honest attempt strative but this is an administrative am really appointed Laboratory Research normal Science I can well understand Lord Bridges, wishing tude on record.

I am afraid will be recruited Council the noble Lord, to have his atti­ sorry that noble Lords are dis­ that the staff of the Daresbury that I cannot add anything 1 decision.

terms.
terms.

under the to undertake 194 research not connected with we heard from the Authority necessarily directly atomic energy.

As noble Lord just now, in answer to my question of the principal Atomic · Energy Authority working-- on de-salting, I think this is one _on which the subjects will be LORD SNOW: Are now working.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: workers the assurances In the same way, Likewise, of the condition it was thought handsomely we do in this whole the although None the -and are now working, Bill has not yet been passed.

less, I think we should welcome this, in another although place that these extensions of the powers of the A.E.A.

might draw skilled away from industry.

I feel that we must respect which the Government have given us in this matter.

there are going to be anomalies.


We have tried to deal with all the con­ Lord Dilhorne, whatever and most willingly, the Ruther­ arguments about There the scientists useful to what I said on the Report stage.

As the noble and learned Viscount, remarked, matter, That is a necessary whole operation.

anomalies with these sideration open to us.

We have tried for a long time and at considerable if I may say so, of man­ expenditure, hours.

We accepted, the special ford Laboratory.


are working within touching and it is of the Harwell scientists, that they should work on the reasonable was a point that was same terms.

This constantly upon us in the con­ ferences -scientists we most willingly to special Daresbury, concluded and we therefore -and on the Report stage I reported this as an administrative decision-that the scientists from their colleagues in other guished establishments controlled Research Council.
under Clause 5(l)(b), we on this side, I think quite rightly, had some fears that under the present the furthering results of scientific a further degree industries concerned.

we accept the assurance Secretary that is not the Government's in view of the fact that the especially wording in this part of Clause 5 is indeed very close to the Department tific and Industrial We hoQe, therefore, might, perhaps, argument does not apply had they been proposed Government, wrong purpose under the present Government.
that we had, with many people as I say, and others-and, it.
But this accepted of Scien­ Act, 1956. that words which there should not be distin­ of the application will not be used for the of State in another not have been in the again by the Science has dealt with However, distance Research given by the pressed suspect by the previous Government of the research might lead to of nationalisation place that intention, by your Lord-­ 3.42 p.m. My improved THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I might say a few words about this Bill.
I think it has Lords, perhaps generally been greatly 3, even if ships in regard to Schedule the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is not issue.

quite happy on this specific Of of con­ course, place points tention 4 and 5.

Clause 4, as your Lordships extends the functions Energy Authority in another arose under Clauses know, of the Atomic and permits the I do 3 is concerned, In so far as Schedule I do not think I need say any more.

My noble and learned friend this point.


Much as we may sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, not feel that we on this side of the House can a,t this raither late stage go any fur­ gone in sup­ ther than we have already porting him.

we sup­ And, of course, non-partisan ported him in an entirely this question spirit.

We did not consider to be of NrRNS employees of the pensions If in any sense a Party political matter.
in your Lordships' to raise Party political we could easily have done so under as.

Clause 5.

But we did not.

Indeed, House we had wished in this Bill, issues 195 Milner Holland Report on [ LORDS] London Ho11si11g 196 [The Earl of Bessborough.]

given entirely of ,the noble Lord, Lord just as we welcomed I say, we accept the assurances of State.
by the Secretary of the the Amendments We supported on noble Lord, Lord Bridges, their own merits, the Amendment met our points, Snow, which has largely even if the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is not yet completely events, there might nationalisation.

on the Cross Benches our noble friends that it was better that those employed in the National Energy Authority a similar work so closely we were not suggesting be any question happy.
At all here that of hidden should benefit from pension scheme, since they We merely agreed with and the Atomic Institute together.

stage, During the Committee I said that the whole problem was who should keep in step with whom.

It seemed to the and to Viscount, noble and learned more important that to be clearly myself, should of the Institute the employees keep more in step with the Atomic Energy Authority, haps with industry, be uniformalised within the Civil Service.
learned Viscount ments which weighed most heavily this respect, now.

in them and I need not repeat The noble and adduced all the argu­ the universities, and even per­ than that they should (if I may coin a word) it in a cbmpletely v-e11y glad to which was 1i1ltimately for I know that he was at this matter with aq.

entirely Lord Dilhorne, looting fresh mind and judging < impar tial and even, might I say, judicial manner.
We were therefore see the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lotd Snow, and accepted in and fe.el rthait: it will now be actepted another Opposition, serva:tive similar place to the satisfacrion of the and particularly Member who first prbposed this House.

'we hope one Con­ a Amendment.

in We now accept this Bill as it stands.

in its applidation.
in its applidation.

I still complicat�d by the It is, of course, than one, faot that ,two Ministries, rather are now involved hope, however, ,that the n.oble L?rd, Lord Bowden, who is responsible for the Science Lord, Lord Snow, who is concerned the Aitomic Energy Authority will remain two, shall I say, heavenly twins (or, might twins) and that say, Siamese I perhaps not permit themselv!

;!s they will separated.


and the noble Researoh Council, w�th to be On Question, Bill read 3\ with the to and returned and passed, Amendments, the Commons.

MILNER HOLLAND REPORT ON LONDON HOUSING benefit-wise, and straightforward: staff had been I must say that the more I Lord Snow, agreed, complex matter, As the noble Lord, this was an eX!trernely although looked at i,t the less complex I thought of the matter is it to be.
The principle really quite simple should we, as the noble Lord, Lord said, drag down the new staff Sherfield, in NIRNS to a lower level, than that .to which existing accustomed?

phatically Government, have come to agree with us.

But this was a matter of principle that scientists I believe interested.

imporitant principle, throughout scientists nise that we fought this battle in their interests.
I am certain in which we believe the country are it to be a very and I hope that will recog­ Britain Our answer to that was em­ " No", and I am glad that the that the noble Lord, Lord was right to press his Amend­ Bridges, ments.

I felt so even more strongly when I listened throughout after perhaps some weeks, 3.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMJtNTARY My Lords, I sh9uld like, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHIS0N): with your Lordships' make a Statement similar my right honourable of Housing and Local Government place in answer just made to a Question Milner Holland about the Repo[i of the Committee.

permi�sion, to ohe which in another the Minister friend has to As the House is already aware, the I Commit­ to-day.
Copies in the Printed Paper Report of the Milner Holland tee has been published are available Office.

The Report sets out tine results investigatipn of a thorough-going housing situation reference with particular ing and to the relations landlords a preliminary the Report is a document By setting importance.

in Greater London, to rented hous­ between an.d their tenants.
of great social a Pynetrating it is clear that reading private Even on of the to my noble and learned friend, 198 to the better the Committee the background (Scotland) [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill of an illuminat- of a mass .of statistical and have made Report in a vacuum, as it were, without of what was contained within, say, the next [ort.night or soon thereafter?-because It seems that i t would be a pi:ty to debate this under-a knowledge of the effects of housing short-the Rent Bill.
With that knowledge, believe and useful debate.

197 Education and at times deeply moving account printed against ing analysis other material, a major contribution standing age in the metropolis.

The forthcoming tain the Government's lation on part of the field covered in the the agreement the Committee.

Report on other aspects of housing the thanks which I offered on behalf policy will be studied in consultation concerned.
by legislation brought I q.m the Government of when sure, too, that the question I believe we should have a debate, which for legis-LORD MITCHISON: by sure that everyone by the Government with the local authorities or otherwise, as soon as practicable.
will be is wanted on both sides of the House , is one for discussion of that is asked me is whether My Lords, I am in the House welcomes we could have a more interesting con- proposals the usuai therefore, for further action, of noble Lords opposite The only question, The suggestions to the Committee.

Rent Bill will c.hannels.


Proposals forward through I think it is I am glad to take this opportunity •the Government's to have that debate before or after thanks to better for the care and speed the appearance of the Rent Bill.

Clearly, in of in l expressing the Committee with which they have prepared sented their Report.

the usual channels.

that this is importance.


that it was But perhaps my personal to express you like, tbe Government's to discuss, our ideas O!l the very and pre-I cannot tell within a day or two when the Rent Bill will appear.

I think that this, too, is a matter for discussion through I may be allowed view-if -that it is better to exchange valuable we turn to new legislation in_ it.

_If.
_If.

I may put it rather crudely, thmk It 1s a very great deal to take in one debate both long and extremely proposals legislation.

useful Report and also the in this Report before that there will an extremely be in the coming material about what is I should and other to form and view I LORD HASTINGS : My Lords, I thank the State­ of great social I can say truthfully the noble Lord for repeating place.
I can say ment made in another at once that we agree entirely a document Indeed, always the belief friend Sir Keith Joseph and those of us with him that it would be associated of ouitstanding importance.

like, of course, the same time noble friends with the expression Milner Holland and his Committee the care and speed with which they have prepared to associate myself and at my colleagues on this side of the House of thanks to Si; for this Report.
of my right honourable LORD WADE: My Lords, may I add been that have already to the observations made, and ask the noble Lord to convey � which is felt for the very the appreciatio hard work which has been put into this Report by Sir Milner Holland colleagues.

extremely effects ?f housing shortage metropohs, benefit to us in the debates LORD MITCHISON: and his It has produced some on the in the and I think it will be of great My Lords, I am which follow.

sure the Committee for that expression Benches.


Liberal will be most grateful of thanks from the valuable information I would turn to that sentence in the proposals for by the which refers to the Rent Bill that it is the wish of the the Government's on part of the field covered Statement and says that it "V.:ill contain leg1slat_1on Committee."

I understand Government to have a debate on this House.
This �eport in your Lordships' document IS, of course, a voluminous some 450 pages in length, and we on this side should like to have sufficient time to read and thoroughly before our debate, and I believe be a matter for discussion usual channels.

the through that will digest this Report of However, I should like just to ask the Order).

noble Lord this one question : Can he tell to be the Rent Bill is likely us whether House resumed : Bill reported ; Report received.
amendment without EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) House in Committee BILL (accordino "' to 199 Rivers (Prevention of [ LORDS] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 200 RIVERS (PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) OF BILL POLLUTION) 3.56 p.m. Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

itself Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.-(Lord Hughes.)

Motion agreed to.

On Question, House in Committee accordingly.

codes in the two countries, for whom this Bill may well as ehr0urage­ two different to remain so.
Boards, is.

after all.

their instructions, take thi� change of wording ment, if n,:,t instruction, line than is required counterparts, aggrieved their protests later to the Secretary necessarily more than is intended law as between to take a firmer of their English line.

All those will, ip making of State, be un­ and may well read into this change of or a different by a condition to the board, and perhaps the two countries.

confused [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

consent impose".
consent impose".

who may well of effiuent] and because for certain and industry "reasonably Clause 1 [River probably concerned purification : discharges LORD CRAIGTON moved, in sub­ (3), to leave out " think fit " and Again.

local authorities, spend some £50 million over the next ten authority's more, are years, about the also considerably use of the word "reasonable".

reasons, I am unaware that the wording any difficulty, the noble Lord will accept these Amend­ ments.
I appreciate the change made by the Government to make an I improve­ laudable attempt ment, but for the reasons I have given the risks of confusion ing are great, any at all, is marginal far too marginal tion of similar by the use of different section The noble insert Lord said : For the convenience of your Lordships, this I should like to discuss Nos.

2, 4 Amendment and 5.

We seek by this series of Amend­ ments to bring this Bill into line with the English Act, 1961.
Very briefly, in England the authority sent subject may "reasonably the authority to such conditions.

ably impose, is to grant consent not as they may reason­ but, as they may think fit".

impose".

In Scotland subject that in this is a the point is that may grant con­ as they to such conditions Rivers (Prevention I think and I hope that with Amendments of Pollution) and.

in my view, of the English Act has caused to justify For these words.
iE respect the interpreta­ powers in the two1 countries and misunderstand­ while the improvement, I mentioned the figure of £50 million n it is appro­ and says: It is quite a " thought Committee made a teport to be spending, to act reasonably.
"Where an appeal is made as aforesaid, of State which was1 in effect, one matter of which I h�ve given and in this connec­ because the of State may allow or dismiss the I do not base my opposition to this that " may be prefer­ fit ", simply used, of phrase " think fit " on the grounds something " reasonable able to something because a last resort State in Gause 6(2).
That last resort appeal is couched in words that make it of State has an clear that the Secretary obligation short clause, as the amount locrl authorities would possibly tion I must raise here, priate, the noble Lord notice.
On October there is, whichever phrase is 12, 1964, the Scottish River Pollutio appeal to the Secretary Advisory the Secretary information essential background urgency clean and extent of Scotland's river problems, that a £50 million over the next ten years should be by the Secretary announced that is the size of the local authority then I am advised problem, costs may well be about £75 dustrial perhaps £25 million and farming costs 1(4) of the Rivers million.
(Prevention Act, 1951, the Secretary of State is obliged both Houses any such report which, in his opinion, is likely public Secretary appeal, any such consent or notice, such new terms as he may think fit, and in the case of an appeal in relation to an appli­ cation may deal with it as if it were an appli­ cation to him in the first instance."

So, whichever I should like to insert Bill, it seems clear that on appeal the outcome will be the same.

I ask the noble Lord.


if I am right on this, why change from the wording in the English What is happening confused Just after the report was presented of State, and that recommended programme ?

Industrialists are with and worried and are likely, words are used, the words to the Secretary or may vary or revoke any terms of to be of general of Pollution) or the words in the Under Section of spending interest.

to lay before th;it the in­ of State.

If this Bill was or may impose on the Act?

201 Rivers (.
201 Rivers (.

"'reventio11 of [ 11 MARCH 1965} Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 202 " Acceptance of these recommendations expenditure of but additional that a nation enjoying per annum by local authorities would involve £2·4 million during the decade.

The Committee conceive increasing standard higher standards facilities, sary expenditure-a of a toilet month."
a high and and calling for of social and :r,ecreational to meet the neces­ sum less than the cost roll per head of ,the population would be unwilling of living, cannot per I must ask the noble Lord, even at ; secondly, the extraordinary the Government these recommendations this late hour, whether accept I ask him to explain delay in the fulfilment obligation and available this House and presumably place, it ; and thirdly, please accept move.
of the desirability at the time we should have had would the noble Lord my Amendment?

which resulted of a Statutory in !important being denied the other information than just in this Bill, I beg to for place, was on Feb­ interest.

both Houses.

but it seems plain that to go through This is such a report of public That report of October 12, 1964, ·was laid before both Houses on March 4, 1965.
It is not for me to comment on what happens in another while they should have had, and indeed could have had, this report available all stages of this Bill, it was available for none of them.

In your Lordships' House the Second Reading ruary 25, and I must ask the noble Lord why this report was made available February days after Second Reading.
been no more than courtesy noble friends, who had many speeches to make and much interest have this background matter is more important the consideration " reasonable " or « think fit " ; on every asnect of this Bill one should take into account the nature and size of the prob­ lem of which we now, for the first time, have some advice.

25 or before that, but six It would have to let my information.
The in of of October 12, 1964, to us, not on I am not going to read this report, the sort the problem that is in it.

The report of Scottish preven­ and it is addressed to of State.

The Advisory but I should tell your Lordships of information explains tion of pollution, the Secretary Committee say they have consulted the river pollution authorities.
They go on to give the various categories of work to be done and how much should be spent, and then they recommend that a capital of £50 million new and improved should be put in hand.

They comment: expenditure on the provision of sewage purification works programme all "We stress that this estimate is realistic and certainly minimum sum required not excessive.

Indeed to meet current needs."


it is the They go on to say, for the reasons they give: new and improved of State- also, the adoption of a works and that you"- "We recommend, ten years' plan to provide purification that is, the Secretary " should publicly announce and see that it is carried mend, too, that those local whom you have details, discharging their functions be stimulated sewage ,purification Finally they say: to provide adequate works".
who are remiss in in this field should and efficient this programme out.

We recom­ authorities, of Amendment Page 2, line 3, leave out (" think fit") and moved- insert (" reasonably ton.)

impose ").--{Lord Craig­ LORD BALERNO: I should like to " ex­ Lord Craigton for sewage purification, an extreme We have to remember that will be dealing that the word " reasonable in this Bill, as it was support my noble friend in his desire should be retained in the former Act.
The deliberate clusion of the word surely has some significance, and the substitution of the words " think fit" puts a greater onus on the inspector from whom may well develop officialdom.
these inspectors variety ing trouble intensity may themselves reasonably difficult it is most important that the inspect ors who carry out this work should be in­ structed man­ ner, and the deletion of the word " reasonable " from the Biill seems to me to put too much authority shoulders of persons not the best fitted to carry it out.

whose effluent is caus­ of the and they un­ on the who are perhaps to do so in a reasonable become somewhat and who are unaware of these regulations, to deal with.
I think of farmers with a LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I would also support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on the ground that the y impose" for substitutio " thinks fit" really strengthens the authority boards.

And I speak as a member of one river largely n of " reasonabl of the purification 203 Rivers (Prevention of [ LORDS] Pollution) (S�tland) Bill 204 of State has unrestricted [Lord Stratheden and Campbell.]

im­ they I support reasonable LORD HUGHES: I n board. "
Think fit " is what I think the fears expressed and they impose " Reasonably purificatio goes on in their heads, those conditions.

pose " gives a very strong implication that the matter has been carefully sidered is a really grounds, con­ it unless and is not put forward case.

On those the Amendment.

am sorry I cannot because the Bill at all.


In accept the Amendments, would not improve the first place, by noble Lords that the change of words would cause concern to industry , or will prove to be ground­ groundless less.

I am certain that industry itself has no cause to worry about this change.
When this particula considere able Member there, prominent part in the consideration Opposition, the side saw fit to observe sider that in this matter indnstry the slightest that the Member concerned described there learned be placed on the interpretation is even greater.

that he did not con­ had need to fear.


When I add would be and the value to Member", perhaps of words d in another place an honour­ who took a very r Amendment was as the "honourable of Her Majesty's are on May I say just briefly why the wording the because places greater It relMes to the fact that in ,the Bill which fits in with of ,the Council on was changed?
there is now incorporaited appeail procedure the requirement:s as it may appear ; and, strange Tribunals to noble Lords who have expressed view that " reasonable" restrictiions or greaite upon a board than "think fit", in fact when the Secre­ it is 1•he reverse, tary of State has to consider in terms of the old procedure tihing into account is ,whether hav,e been reasonable The Secretary position of saying, this is a good decision, decision that is not my business.
although I ,thiuk that it was unreasonable".

as ,the appeal is against reasonableness tary of State has really :tittle of State may be in the " I do not think !hat an appeal the onJy to take or not the board in their decision.

is wrong.

Therefore.

·only the .tihe of the decision, Secre­ autihority.

that you have arrived which he really your decision is entitled or ,the nght I cannot say.

at.

But But in terms of the appeal procedure which we are now putting in,to the Bill.
or the refusal else for1 them, as that has been made by the and he can revoke them, the Secretary power to examine on behalf of tihe the whole of the nature of ,the appellant decisions, or rrhe consents, of consent river purification board, accept ,t!hem, amend them, something or substitute he may think fit.

I would remind your Lordships seeks to a1ter ,the decision tary of State to deal with the matter as contrary fit.
So ,that, he thinks may appear, machinery in fact, a grea,ter than existed Secretary whole matter on appeal.

and the use of these words is, safeguard in the previous A.ct.

The of State is able to open up the ,to what of tihe appeals the inclusion that none of the Amendments fair industry of tihe Secre­ of their reason�, should In case we get too far a.yay from in 1951, to be incon­ of Sta�e.
From operation to be a flood of the decision rto the Secretary at these appeals, that there is no bureau­ I reality in looking to believe should not like your Lordships of this for one moment that the result legislation is going appeals the time the first Aot was passe4, up to date, there has been only one in the whole of Scot­ appeal launched land against of a board, a clear ,indication cracy-ridden going on on the part of these boards.
One would not if I may be permi,tted think, sistent, to expect that it is reasonable that boards which now have tb account for their decisions to the Secretary State by stating become a body who are 10 suddenly have no real regard for ,the1 interests of the appellants.

am unable to accept these Amendments the interests which would act against a�d would and of agriculture, industry not in any way help the boards to carry out their task.
·If I may proceed other point I am a little the language matter, 12. that the Report was dated October I would remind your Lordship� that the �5.
so that Election the Report, pre­ sumably 14, would be received Ministers Craigton, expect even the previous to act on a £50 million of whom the noble Lprd, Lord was one ; but one could not raised, at the strength which the noble Lord dated and delivered not later than Octooer 13 or after all, he mentioned For these reasons, was held on October which he used in this by, Scottish surprised from ,that to the because, of I of Admipistration matter the day r responsibility 205 Rivers (Prevention of ( 11 MARCH 1965 ] Pollutio11) (Scotland) Bill 206 So we can forgive before the Election.
them if they did not rush into print on they as perhaps this matter as quickly during the did on some other subjects previous year.

But that Ministers ; and this, I am Sub-Committee was under discussion was tabled.

discussions with for almost a year is not the only part of the story.
In fact, there was a rep011t of an a year before, advisory in May, 1963, about the need for addi­ tional expenditure, informed, Scottish before the formal report with There were considerable as ito what should go into Ministers the report.

The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, may the Ministers taking cussions.

between the Committee Secretary 1964.

It was then decided report--1 because fact been receiving for a period of almost a year-shoul submitted 10 the Secretary 1 of the 1951 Act.
; and this was the first report of State under Section emphasise the Secretary reports and the then of State himself was in May, well have been one of part in those dis­ In fact, the last meeting of State had in " formal report that a formal d be ", in discussions The Sub-Committee were asked to edit may me earlier on this-that to the Secretary was that the report, and it was decided-this some noble Lords who were it signed by all members.
The dated although to a report for submission of State, interest questioning should be result October 12, 1964, was not submitted the Secretary month.

Although the previous in fact see it in its final one may suspect discussion, what was going to be in it ; so he may well have been one of the compilers although it.
of State until the following it is dated October 12, of State did not form, although of all this his signature that, because Secretary would not be on he had a hand in formulating to your Lord­ I would suggest delay at all in deciding in deciding would obviously Therefore, ships that in fact there has been no to unreasonable to because table this report, do so the Ministers prefer to be in a position fairly going to take on it� I can say that within of State only a few days the Secretary of the re­ will have given an indication to this report.
action of Ministers the action which they were quickly to indicate place, or not it is earlier, Finally, it earlier.
was not tabled on the report, whether rivers to consider and whether I do not think because the just because this Bill and another Surely, House, or when one is placed before it is to be considered on were to be created because is this in any way) that we sought even greater there is the least impropriety report we were discussing place was discussing when a Bill is placed before your Lord­ ships' another its merits as to whether there is need for legislation, are polluted that they should be kept clean necessary or made clean.
It would be all wrong (and if the impression I am it would be quite erroneous, sure the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, not suggesting should have than there are in the Bill if noble Lords had known there was a suggested expen­ diture of £50 million-or, this might well be a costly because to do we should have sought less powers, so that it would not be possible the £50 million.

involved of the machinery Either it is right that we should make it possible or it is not right.
not whether matters the expenditure £50 million if one aggregates those who would be involved.

for our rivers to be clean, then it If it is right, at the end of the day to the consideration which is necessary.
to spend Either way the amount or even more of all is going to be £20 million, the expenditure or £125 million, is irrelevant worse, that powers thing In regard to Ministers, one would not of a first report of this have blamed even an Administration which had been in office for thirteen time to consider years if they took a little the implications kind, even though they had been dis­ it, off and on, for a year ; and if cussing they took a little or not the report was to be published.
therefore, New Ministers, be entitled a little more, latitude to at least the same, if not on this subject.

must obviously time to consider whether Having said that, I hope noble Lords the main purpose will not have forgotten of my being on my feet at this moment.
It is to invite them to accept what I of the cliange have said : that the purpose of words in the clause makes it better for those who are to be the possible of instructions subjects and that to go back to the 1951 consent, form of wording would not be in the interests clean rivers.

of agriculture of industry, or refusals or of of LORD CRAIGTON : I am grateful the noble Lord for his reply, because to he [LORDS] Pollution) 207 Rivers (Prevention [Lord Craigton.]

of required from me.


He gave to the Gov­ He did not give had very short notice of this report the background history which he said was available ernment in November.

He us a date, and I will not press him.

a little time said that Ministers Of course that the report.

to consider is so, but at this time the Bill was going place.
I through put it to the noble Lord that it might to have been wiser for the Government say," We have not considered this report, but this is information available Whether of time to consider and February to the Houses of Parliament".
or not that is so, they had plenty November it between which should be in another its stages (Scotland) ago that in regard to local Bill 208 n in a. stream, which would iin a short time would from the I understand heavy degree of pollutio the amount of expenditure have to be incurred be heavy indeed.

report to which my noble frietid a few minutes autlhority should tion ,is that the raite of expenditure be ait £5 million a year.
Presumably, the expenditure will have to be spaced over .the period of ten years-I from ·the noble Lord receive that tihe same consideration to industry, be s.paced over that period.

will be given will and that iits expenditure expenditure the recommenda­ an assurance should like to alluded discourtesy to me why there than March 4.
25, rather I do not think the noble Lord's ex­ planation has satisfied should be this apparent your Lordships, after the Second Reading important that this Bill covers something have to be done anyway, something or £50 million, the Bill at many stages, been a better available.

to wait just six days this to produce report.

I agree that will but, whether is going to cost £150 million this might have covered and it might have Bill had this report been perspective difference place.
He ob­ the and whether, there was not much On the matter of the Amendment, noble Lord quoted my honourable learned friend in another served that the two sides on this point.

I between wonder, if the Houses of again, Parliament was involved, the same view.

ment.

I am grateful for his clear for the change, much welcomed get on the record.

draw the Amendment.
draw the Amendment.

had known how much money they would have taken I do not press this Amend­ which I am sure will be and which we want to explanation I beg leave to with­ to the noble Lord of the reason Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 4.24 p.m. On Question, stand part of the Bill?

Whether Clause 1 shall to incur If industry were to be expeot�d expenditure boards.
", so to speak, be will give an assurance " perfectionist in the eady part of the period1 it would in any case, to achieve be diffi.cu1t, the programmes laid down within tihe itimes by the river purification Apart from ,tJbat, there would be a !feeling of terms that harsher in industry unfairness being applied and conditions were to to the local them than were being applied So I would ask 1the noble authorirties.
Lord whether -and I am sure that be can give it­ that the purification by gradua1ly is appropriate.

cases it will be necessary complete ask that they will proceed turning the screw and by possibly wirth the maHer firm by firm, r�ther than by trying �re made, as soon as the applications the degree of purification which they hope to achieve.

myself clear and that the noble Lord will be able to give that assurance.
m certain to1 install a but I plant, new purification by gradually turning the screw fhere this Admittedly, to secure in the early stages, boards will proceed I hope that I have made dealing over a It w�mld be a impossibility LORD HUGHES: I have no hesitation the noble Lord th�t the pro­ to expect industry overnight, that would be I say this wit�out ip any _way in assuring cess must be gradual.

physical or local authorities month, or over a year, •to bring about all the improvements necessary.
implying would be undertaken I am not absolutely certain extent to which I can, with propriety, quote what my right �on<?ura�le friend said in reply to a question ill this respect place ; but_ if I only to-day in another do a centain amount of paraphrasmg I cannot go far wrong.

What be said in the rate at which ejXpend1ture on the nublic side.

:about the LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a on tihe working (1), everybody, it, will have ,to apply for the of this clause?
as I question Under subsection understand right to discharge were into a stream.

Clearly, to everybody made art tha,t time applying of a wherever there was gross pollution ,trade or sewage effluent if conditions 209 Rivers (Prevention of [ 11 MARCH 1965] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 210 would be increased This is not a Bill to cover the whole and my Amend­ in ment is intended to cover only the It on Second Reading that reply would not have been unacceptable to the noble Lord.
In fact, the indica-control of this subject, tion was that the level of investment sewage purification as soon as is practicable, to ;the fact tihat rthe practicability Committee's taken mto account current said in effect: If there is contamination able friend there will be an offence under the Bill, reappraisal I hope that will make him happy, as I so there is no need for any special think it ought -to.
by underground by my right honour-in reply the noble Lord, of the there was danger of a stream being con­ water ; and ,in the Government's of expendiiture having regard was suggested scope of river purification.

would be taminated recommendations and priorities.

Lord Hughes, narrower Gause 1 agreed to.

Oauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

present no powers to add any tell-tale but the board have at provision.

answer.
answer.

a contamination, But this is not the whole The board would have to prove 4.30 p.m. LORD CRAIGTON moved, after the following Clause 3, to insert clause: new Control of seepage " .-(1) Where any trade or sewage is discharged into pipe, shaft or quarry the river 5,000 gallons, effluent, the volume of which in any day exceeds any well, borehole, purification shall have power but shall not be bound to add substances to such discharges for the purpose ing whether such discharge offence under this Act.
authority or liquids of ascertain­ an is causing (2)Where in relation to such discharge the effluent into are of the opinion authority river purification that seepage of such discharged a stream may give rise to an offence under this Act or that an offence has been com­ mitted, they shall require the discharge period specified of this Act and of the principal apply and the river purification grant or refuse consent to such conditions."
Act shall authority may or grant consent the person making (within a to apply for consent subject by them) and the provisions Irrigation The noble Lorcl said: This is an and dangers of the volume being created in the Spray if any, of drawing holes in the ground.

for of fresh water, by the elsewhere Amendment about We had difficulty Bill about the danger, too much water out of holes in the ground to the detriment of flow in a stream, and we did nothing about it in that Bill.
I could foresee difficulties the drawer-up putter-down effluent, without any stream being affected.

time may come, especially hibitions ment of the day must consider control of water, whether it goes into or whether it comes out of holes in the ground-in fact, the control of any­ thing that goes into and comes out of holes in the ground.

It seems clear to me that the after the pro­ of this Bill, when the Govern­ the of noxious underground.

breakthrough at source, coming from.


The board might substances and without such a device it might be very difficult to prove where the contaminated water was actually know of the discharge They might fear a serious or seepage that might not occur for months, or even years, which, once started, might continue even years after the source of discharge had been found and stopped.

Board, under this Bill, until the proven seepage started.
could do nothing had actually for months or But the The dischargers guidance might have been helped them to My Amendment as coming within that one can make it on tile Amendment itself, s the board to try to find out th�re is an_ offence or a danger by the skilled of the board and they might welcome official consent' in a case where the dischargers were unsure whether the discharge would lead to• con­ tamination of a stream.
authorise wh�ther of 1t ; and 1f there 1s, empowers treat such a discharge their powers of consent.

Commenting I do not believe obligatory on an authority test, as with a large volume of fluid this might be possible only by using radio­ active tell-tales that might themselves dangerous.

But they should have powers to do whatever is practicable.
I have not put this in the Amendment, but it is for consideration dischargers-and limited be required the board that they were making a discharge, and as it were, to be found out.
It is admit­ tedly breaking new ground to have power to stop or control that has not yet done any harm, but this is where, as I have explained, my Amendment is to the large dischargers-should to do a tell-tale whether the large a discharge the greatest risk may well to advise not wait, be 211 Rivers (Prevention of [Lord Craigton.]

lie.

Of course, if the person putting effluent in is stopped of the risk which has not yet happened, there is always the appeal procedure to the Sec­ retary of State.
because the Bill 212 (Scotland) if they were to con­ effluent into a river, [ LORDS J Poll/Ilion) placed on industry tinue to discharge is that they might look for other and apparently this.

Tipping or a disused a very minor expenditure as against ture in other directions.

be that this is a problem grow very much greater.

ways of disposing of it down a disused coal pit quarry might invblve only on !transport, expendi­ cheaper in has moved the river, pressure (Lord Craigton.)
the said new clause.­ concerned conditions takes place.

In fact, if they themselves These substances to be, a danger to proper a very considerable LORD STRATHEDEN AND So it may well which could There has been considerable on some of us to move an Amendment to enable all boreholes to be controlled under this Bill.

For the reasons I have given I do not think this would be the right thing to do.
But I do believe­ and my Amendment seeks to express this -that we must in the public interest control in this Bill any boreholes that are, or are likely river purification.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

Amendment moved- After Clause 3, insert par­ were satisfied, able to follow the tha� this was ,being back to its source, way in whic� .it could and could seek Might I just point out briefly tha:t, of efflueht in this into a river, there the operatiqns of the board would >to act in the matter, so far as the disposal way results in a seepage is an offence within Bill.

T1he river purification have authori-ty tioularly even without seepage the only ,possible have reached upon it.
But, as I •to ,impose say, there is little e:,cperience.

So far as I know, there is only one case of the kind at the moment.

I do not kno.w if we can go so far as to say that it ha� made a seepage into the Raver Oyde, but the authori-ty about this at the moment is the Clyde River Purification Board.

The attempt matter is a laudable mine-workings wrong for me at this stage •to accept the Amendment, the solution difficultri.es this Bill.
to deal with the one, but it 'would be CAMPBELL: My noble friend this Amendment very clearly and cogently, and has covered every aspect of it.

I was also going to raise the points which he raised.

which can be put in to indicate whether there is any seepage should be added before the actual pollution any person or firm, wishing charge into abandoned and suchlike, approval, are within the area of the purification board.
That goes part of the way of the English but it does not go nearly Act, which says that it shall not be law­ ful for any discharge nature to be put into any hole in the ground, as my noble friend it.

I think this is a very important addition to the Bill, and I hope that the Govern­ ment will give very serious to the inclusion something put down by my noble friend.

at the Report stage of on the lines of the Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton.
we cannot a9-opt the in this matter, as very •powers in this matter arose they were �art of the Water Bill.

I •would remjnd your that this is a Bill tQ prevent and it is at leas·t has indicated, English precedent comprehensive there because Resources Lordships the pollution conceivable, if not certain, there will be effluent put down quarry­ holes or disused at any time have any effeot wµatsoever on rivers noble Lord for the Amendment land.
To seek to control he has tabled, and about which he and in a measure intended I have already would be dishonest.

discussion.

need will develop, ment with the anxieties I have no doubt that Parliament will pressed about this problem, consider, and, if so advised, enact, legis­ has not yet arisen lation to control dumpin·g in quarries, great extent.
boreholes, it may be, in at least a possible consequence Scotland considerable expenditure which done for England LORD HUGHES : I am grateful to the which in it.he same way as ha·s been and Wales.
But we must accept that had quite considerable although it to any Water Resources Act, 1963, I am very much in agree­ should ask for prior that those workings might be worse than the the difficulties of consideration them, therefore, and if that happens of the might be of an offensive of doing nothing that eventually ,pits, whatever co1lieries any.where in Scot­ in Scotland described It may be that the or streams to control of rivers, so far as that provided because which are ex­ which will not First, rivers about it in to dis­ 213 Rivers (Prevention of [ 11 MARCH 1965 ] Pollution) (Scotlana) Bill 214 that or not in excess of i,tself, or materials, Government are very danger (periharps, •to it.
They believe them to quantities In fact, the Amendment if it is going to take months per day.

You do not trace, place would stream.

This to determine whether is not without conld be very of course, The quantities but •how we could deal was first if we this in two years' ,time, I come to the aspect of being able to to help an put in liquids authority a dumping in one particular cause seepage to a particular question difficulties.

considerable.
considerable.

limits 5,000 gallons particularly to do, by ,tipping in just a bucket of dye.

In fact it might involve the addi­ tion of very large quantites indeed before they had any effect.

Thus the result might be that the authority contriving of their own streams the process, plies of water which were being used somewhere for domestic purposes.

The users of these supplies, I suggest, would take a rather dim view if they suddenly found that they were getting yellow or red water.
Her Majesty's sympa,thetic there is a possj,ble were discussing we might be forced to say that there is a certain danger), with it in the time since this raised, quite frankly, pos,ition to say.

I am grateful to ,the noble Lord for having tabled 1ili..i.s Amendment.

I can assure the Com­ mittee that the matter is being very carefu:Ily examined, not just from 1Jhe legal point of view ,biit and the scientific it ,is possible down at the next stage, ,then I shall be very happy to do so.
If that ,is not possible, opportunity why Her Majesty's found it impossibJe would be to make themselves particularly if, in to affect sup­ at :the next stage to say just Government have to do anything.
I should like to conclude there will perhaps be an for an Amendment from the .teohnical they happened of view ; and if I am not in a on ,uhis item polluters to be put points green, is the possibility par­ strata, arriving very fairly the presence The most likely into the use of radio­ But there is worse than that as a pos­ sibility.
material to be used to determine of seep­ age would be tracer elements, and as soon as one gets active materials there tha,t one would create greater fear and alarm through having these going in many directions in underground and eventually in streams, ticularly when, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has, I think, the periods involved They may be months ; they might be a year.
In order to be effective, have to use radioactive would have a half-life to enable them still to be functioning at the expiry of that time.

If, in fact, they were wrong, and the materials reached the streams than was anticipated, proved ,their of having radioactive their rivers before they had ceased to be a possible danger.

one would materials which at least long enough then in for a very considerable period very much faster they would have point, but at the expense may be very long.
substances stat�d, I hope I ,have �hown that the solution is not an easy one.

It may be that it will not be ,possible into this Bill which would come petentJy within the Title of the Bill.
But com­ ,to put something or because, that this matter will now be kept under whether in the Bill, ,t-he by saying vhat it has been most important for the publ,ic interest should be ventilated, not anything is included whofo subject close examination, more comprehensive subject than is poss•ible become necessary, ment will unde1take that ,the noble Lords win find it possible, on the assurances to withdraw and legislation or.

this iu nhis Bill should Govern­ it.


I therefore hope which I have given, the Amendment.

so that if further Her Majesty's was not acceptable, it:1hat a solution, He as and we both if we can find LORD CRAIGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his ,reception.

and I knew t1hat my Amendment, drafted, realise one, is not easy.

I agree with l1im that we should try to find one.

One point I wouild put to him is thi·s.


This Amend­ ment, if he can draw one up--and he will have every assistance from myse1f and my noble friends-will affect .the industrialist.

We want to protect the industrialists controls, but I know that the industrialist does not want to commit any offence to heaUh.

In that spirit, I have much pleasure asking leave to withdraw ment.

in the Amend­ from vexatious Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 4 to 7 agreed ,to.


215 Rivers (Prevelltion Clause 8 [Application of of Act to tidal [LORDS] Pol/Wion) (Scotland) Biil 21-6 waters]: 4.46 p.m. LORD CRAIGTON moved to add to (4): subsection " In performing Act or the said section waters (including River Purification regard- any functions under this 28 in relation to tidal all controlled waters) a Authority shall have special my words, to consider Lord, even if lie cannot this matter now and Report stage.
he will decide I ask the noble accept between carefully If he will do this, I believe to put down, in words that suit Scottish conditions, I know he knows Scotland, move.

that the sort of Amendment I want, ahd which wants, too.

I beg to I think, Amendment moved- Page 9, line 3, at end insert the said words.

-(Lord Craigton.)
-(Lord Craigton.)

(a) to the interests (b)to the factors of sea fisheries arising and from the tidal dilution to of the due to dispersal nature of the waters and, in particular, additional effluent by tidal action, direction special The noble Lord said : As I said in and the varying and any other of flow and salinity of those waters."
properties LORD HUGHES: I am sol'fy that I appear to be unreceptive this �fternoon, but I cannot accept this Ari;lendment, either, because of reasons, excellent stick closely for a variety the Amendment I will follow covers a variety the noble Lord's to what I have written.
and, of reasons; example on this occ1sion and An Amendment differing only in that Amendment, of boards to a matter in the area of their their ,on which their whole are based, and by this I seek to add words that and not least towards offences under s regarding Waters Acts, which the debate on a previous this Bill will be taken by the boards as an instruction operations Amendment draw the attention of great importance jurisdiction, responsib ilitie the Oiil in navigable are referred Such an Amendment precedented.
Similar tions are included (Estuaries these were re-enacted vention there is a kindred instmction, the same lines, Act, 1963. in the Rivers (Pre­ Act, 1961 ; and much on as mine is well general to in a later Amendment.
in the Water Resources in the Clean Rivers and Tidal Waters) of Pollution) Act, 1960; instruc­ to " fisheries and Tidal Waters) in the Clean Rivers Act, 1960, from the Federa­ who ;.vere con­ and to tidal (controlled) waters " and not " sea " was debated in and negatived place on December 1v.

Para­ was in­ it referred .fisheries another graph (b) of the Amendment cluded originally (Estuaries following representations tion of British Industries, cerned that control discharges would result applied waters.
and will increasingly near tidal waters to charge large or difficult The Amendment being in the same standards to these waters as 10 inland Many large industries have to �e, set up enable them to dis­ over new oµtlets liave been, effluents; is an for the many safeguard in England, authorities in controlled the Bill envisages and this Amendment for my There are two good reasons from pre­ apart altogether to is not apprfpriate as regards (a), sea paragraph: for our river purification unlike they should not have a duty authorities functions almost to the problem of tidal Scotland fisheries, authorities, have no fisheries or tidal or inland waters.
As river purification that may be concerned.

functions complex technological issues imposed to sea fisheries.

consistent.

members with fisheries purification will be concerned does not prejudice over which authorities Amendment, cedent.

First, a new approach waters, important interests Secondly, are involved, and the boards should be sure of the scope of the issues which they should concern themselves.
My wording but I hope the noble Lord will not tum this Amend­ ment down, if he is going to turn it down.

without further The simple point is that words such as I wish inserted.

to the conditions boards, fn this, our Scottish such words at all.

I feel this is wrong.

disquiet, It is causing Paragraph to the factors of the waters does, however, under thy Bill and purification the 1951 Act.
The words of the Amend­ ment are innocuous, on them to have spec,al quite in­ of State appoints interests to river boards and these members regard the tidal nature affect river (b) on having specjal arising from are in the English 1961 Act.

and which are suitable to see that pollution fish life in tpe waters have jufisdiction.

consideration.
consideration.

but if read strictly have no fisheries unnecessary authorities The Secretary may be faulty, of the English This is really Bill, there are no rivers regard with and ; to im­ the condi­ Bill 218 special because (Preve11tio11 of [ J 1 than they would such as the upper Industries.
there is a need for of the the nature ; I mean that our river purifica­ in considering polluted waters, of the Clyde, should have by the Federa­ On the other from large electricity those at and Cockenzie­ 217 Rfrcrs they could tion authorities, tions to be imposed on discharges heavily reaches regard to these waters and therefore conditions pose stricter by the result not envisaged normally-a movers or, I am certain, tion of British hand, discharges generating stations-such as Kincardine Hunterston, would not merit such strict would be appropriate polluted.
waters.

to the provisions as to in1pose authorities " they may think fit ".

The strict answer to the Amendment river purification be left to exercise always to a right of appeal to the Secre­ tary of State, Amendment unnecessary.

MARCH 1965] l'u/1111:"011) {Scot/1111d) noble Lord's reply.

My Amendment does not arise from 1the fears of industry I feel it arises a general direction on board's duties.

I quoted precedents will not do so again.

This is not an unusual thing.


The boards are made up of a great many people who much to do with Acts of Parliament.

noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, had a similar Amendment ago in your Lordships' a good thing that there should be a general direction.

the noble Lord would say that Amendment was badly drafted-as said when this matter was raised I think, place.

But the reply he gave in another was not the one I wanted.
I wanted him to agree that some general direc­ tion as is in the English that I was expecting my was, We are back, therefore, in the Bill empowering to mine in a Bill some years House.

It seems authorities their judgment, subject that the and therefore, as being conditions or more We may have to press the matter as in narrower that our should better at the next stage.

The noble Act is necessary.


should be resisted such conditions is, therefore, friend, the do not have place, The I would remind the Committee must be in up rivers as they exist, and the cleanest to have clean rivers in the whole world but with by which we could live and with reasonable From has nothing of the con­ of that what I said on the Second Reading: the desire taken in regard to other circumstances.
that we should be indulging I repeat the heights of folly if we finished with the cleanest tidal waters no industry enjoy them.

The boards and the Secre­ tary of State, as noble Lords would wish, must apply these things regard to all the circumstances.

that point of view, industry to fear from the operation ditions the Committee I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Drum­ albyn, tha,t a catastro overnight.
that we must proceed regard to all the circumstances matter of time, we must also proceed with similar in ·r-egard what is done in any particular river or any particular lar area of tital water.

I hope there­ fore thait the noble Lord will not feel that he is leM:ing anyone down ; but that he is, on the contrary helping if he allows the Bill to remain as it is.
this is not a matter where phic change can take place having reasonably, in the stream or any particu­ of the assurance If, therefore, and I would remind it is accepted discretion further them, to very nearly accepted further Lord said that his honourable Joint Under-Secretary in another turned it down ; but if be will read the debate carefully he will see that his friend honourable it, or so he said, and made it appear that if it were differently worded he would it.
I ask leave to with­ have accepted draw the Amendment, but I warn the noble Lord that if be cannot say he is prepared to think of the right form of words, then occasion.

we must try again on a later Amendmeut, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

and proceedings for certain Clause 9 [Penalties offences]: On Question, stand part of ,the Bill?

Whether Clause 9 shall LORD CRAIGTON: I have not put 1 of Cukoss, to this clause.

of my noble whose is so much of these matters than my own.
I rise to keep the down any Amendments feel deeply the absence friend Lord Colv,ille understanding greater door ajar for him should he wish to raise concerning any matters later date.

On Second Reading the noble Viscount the position cases where a mistake occurred, offences occurred due their control.
outside expressed of potential concern about offenders and especially this clause at a those whose in or acoident had LORD CRAIGTON: I am not as satis­ fied as I nearly always am with the to circumstances He wondered 219 Rivers of (Pl'evention [LORDS] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 220 [Lord Craigton.]

is involved­ no consent an exceptionally whether they are properly dealt with in this Bill.
Another point that troubles me is what, under ,the Bill, is the posi­ tion of an industrialist who commits an offence where for example, storm washing contaminated off a roof and into the river ; or con­ tamination In such a case, the Bill as drafted place an unwarrantable means who have no alternative chargers water, of disposal except into controlled yet have used their best endeavours to pollution.

minimise out a fire.


seems to burden upon dis­ caused by putting or prevent heavy substances boards indicates if I were to say that the record when this point was I think perhaps it would be LORD HUGHES: I do not think I can add very much to what was said on the last occasion discussed.
sufficient of the river purification that they do not seek to do things just for the sake of complying with the letter of the law, but that the whole adminis­ tration of the boards has been a matter would call -if not of what everybody " sweet reasonableness," at least not of that much controversy.
I am certain com­ anyone who had not deliberately mitted an offence, or permitted the offence to be committed lessness was completely was something avoided-would it should be proved, astonishment, that matter then I will communicate further with the noble Lord.

But no more from me then perhaps mittee will accept it, if the noble Lord, further Lord Craigton, at.

the next stage, that satisfaction does exist.


through care­ is to say, and the result or negligence-that if be hears the Com­ he could not have I am wrong in this to my complete does nothing have nothing innocent, to fear.

If Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause IO [Samples of effluents]: because they refer to the same I would refer the Committee gether, snbject.

to the opening of which the new subsections It says: subsection of Clause 10, are a part.
"In any legal proceedings it shall be pre­ is shown, that any ... froPJ the land could take a sumed, until the contrary sample of effluent taken at an inspection is a sample of what was passing or premises to those waters."

The problem is this.

As the Bill now the inspector stands, and could then tell t�e <;>wner sample, or occupier of the land that b,e did so.

it would be impos­ As the Bill stands, of land-or the sible for the occupier show I that the master of a vessel-to In a fair satnple.
sample taken was not fact, there would be only the word of the inspector and it would be impossible the contrary.

Inspectors are only human beings.

that the sample was taken, to prove to .

In or his representative, pre­ it came were being when in fact he thinking one can conceive circumstances, set of premises.
to en­ are intended of land or a master certain of several effluents from different mises coming out quite close to each other, and if all these effluents it migllt well happen that a inspected, sample would be taken by the inspector, in all good faith, from one set of premises, it came from another These Amendments sure that an occupier of a vessel, is warned that a sample is about to be taken, so that he can ensure that the froni his pre­ sample is a sample taken mises, his land or his ship.
It might be said that by giving him forewa�ning a sample is being taken, he will adjust the effluent, but I suggest (2A) of subsection protection, cation board thought of land or master of a vessel tricks to cover him at a later date.

I beg to move.

of a purifi­ that an occupier was playing with him, I think there is sufficient (6) gives reasonable and if an inspector that paragraph that Amendment Page 11, line 29, leave out ("forthwith").­ moved- 4.59 p.m. LORD BALERNO had given Notice of (Lord Balerno.)
to the proposed in Sec­ to be inserted several Amendments new subsections tion 19 of the principal being in the new subsection leave out "forthwith".

Lord said: I beg leave to speak to Nos.

7, 8, 9 and 10 to- Amendments Act, the first The noble (2)(a) to Lordships I noticed, slightest the noble Lord has raised a little compared ence.

He has admitted to reject these Am�ndments.


if I may say so without the that of giving offence, the fnspectors refer­ with bis previous that' they are intention LoRD HUGHES: I would [ask your of [ 11 MARCH 1965] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 222 221 Rivers (Prevention human beings.

Previously, he was pre­ pared to accord them only the status of bureaucrats, language, thing at least sub-human.
would seem to connote which, in modern some­ wrong, in the nature would do something of things there must be a time when and if there is not a normal discharge, is not to know that a the discharger sample has been taken, how is he to know that it has not been taken at some time when the discharge was abnormal?

whom we are now discussing.


I gave anticipated The noble Lord himself must have doubt about these Amend­ he correctly rather than from to break the law; but had a little ments, because the objection to them.

We must accept that in the majority of cases people who are doing things which they ought not lack to do will be doing them from of knowledge a deli­ berate intention there will always be a number of people who will think that there is something clever in evading are accepted fellow citizens.
who are most likely the conditions charge of their effluent, is likely or when the inspectors to be available, the tide may more speedily evidence.

imposed upon the dis­ at times when it they may get away with it; are not expected to seek to infringe or when the state of by their more law-abiding These are the people disperse himself LORD HUGHES: I think the best answer to ,that is the information earlier the Amend­ , when discussing In a period of ment about inspectors.
twelve years there has been only one appeal against of the the decisions boards.

As the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, out, what the boards will do must necessarily arise from the advice of their officers-the inspectors a period of Tf they have got through twelve years satisfactorily, I think that it is going beyond the bounds of possi­ bility going to start to do their jobs in a way which would produce false results.
to expect that they are suddenly pointed the restrictions which After all, if a sample had been taken the The effect of this Amendment and the Amendments be to make it your Lordships of a prosecution, would neces­ very much easier to " fiddle " the arrange­ subsequent sarily for infringers ments.

I would remind that the taking of a sample is not the end of the matter.

If the sample is to be the subject the clause goes on to lay down the pro­ cedure which must be followed.
The whom a charge is laid will man against a part of the sample, receive appro­ priately sealed.

If we do what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, do, it will be virtually impossib secute successfully and the people most likely ceeded against Without any hesitation must ask your Lordships these Amendments, a horse and cart through are the Jess culpable.

whatsoever, not to accept which would drive the worst offenders, to be pro­ asks us to le to pro­ the Bill.
I and the that it could have been taken a part of tha,t from his own and there was a prosecution, discharger had received sample and was satisfied knowledge only at an exceptional sample was not at all typical he was discharging, difficult for him to satisfy he was being unfairly haps by producing taken at varying inspector's a court that dealt with-per­ his own samples times to show that the sample was exceptional.
and the boards will time, so that the of what The inspectors it would not be alleged is likely to They will not be in the position, only in cases where it that someone is doing wish to proceed is so certain wrong that a conviction result.

sometimes men, of wanting to " make a certain score " over a definite the boards have not proceeded way in the past, and there is no reason why they should wish to proceed other than in the best interests fication.

Obviously in this of river puri­ period.


could LORD CRAIGTON: If the noble Lord does not accept this Amendment, he tell me one thing?

What protection is there for a discharger spector taking at a time of intermittent at a time when the discharge tionally heavy?
Though I would not sug­ gest for a moment that an inspector discharge, is excep­ a sample at low water, or an in­ against or that I would remind your Lordships the boards must have the co-operation and the of those who are discharging, themselves best way of depriving and agri­ from industry co-ope.ration even .

:ulture is to create the suspicion, if only in one instance.

that they have Because, in sharp practices.


indulged of of against traffic police­ 223 Rivers (Prevention of [ LORDS] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 224 have some difference the man who takes the sample and the man who analyses between it.

Pollution can be of various kinds.

It e of a ; pollution extre t may, indeed, effluent as it emerges value as food fqr the fish.
silage can vary from the poisonous up the sea e to what may be a purely vegetable ollution and the vegetable pollution be of positive For instance, from the silo looks the most disgusting type of effiuent, and repulsive in fact, quite harmless, ciently proportions the water and, to human refreshment.

nuance on an analysis made, I think one should be c�reful that the persons of the effluent should be proprrly fied persons.
There peing such whicp can be by the burn in proper making tlie analyses consequently, is beneficial beneficial I beg to move.

to wild life in and when suffi­ who are diluted but it is, quali­ [Lord Hughes.]

might be has suggested to do what the noble Lord, course, Lord Craigton, done would be either gross neglect, which one would not expect from the inspectors trained ; and I am certain practice Lord would not wish to make any such allegation.

we are entitled of the boards and their inspectors.
we have, or sharp that the noble I think that on ,this matter to rely on the good sense showing the LORD BALERNO: I thank the noble himself and then pro­ of the land for the occupier thereby in subseotion Lord for his answer.

I admit it had not occurred to me that it would be possible to take samples duce them in court, contrary, as stated the clause.

That certainly enoe.


I should like to say to the noble Lord that when I made some animadver­ I did not include sions on the inspectors, all the inspectors occas,ional their probity, highest intelligence, inspectors.

Amendment.

and perhaps not their I referred (1) of makes a diff­ I beg leave to withdraw to all the the When I reforred ; I just referred inspector.

to an to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment Page 12, line 11, after (" kind ") insert moved- the said words.-(Lord Balemo.)
LORD BALERNO moved, in subsec­ 6(b), after" whateve•r kind" to insert tion " made by a qualified noble Lord said: Amendment " an analysis a reference ' analysed accordingly."

is that, as stated shall be construed to any test of whatever • and ' analyst analyst The point of this �n the Bill, as including ' shall be construed ".

The kind, and 11-ccept this the reasons.


It is not necessary LORD HUGHES : I cannot Amendment, but I do not think either, the noble Lord will be unhappy when I explain to say that there should be a qualified analyst, because 1953, (Qualifications) made under the powers in Seqtion 10 of the 1951 Act, prescribes thel qualifica­ tiOJ'.

!,S of a river inspector as of the Roil'al Institute " corporate membership of Chemistry and of the Institute Purification the River Inspectors (Scotland) Order, of Sewage ".
I doubt arp qualified the person taking River purification boards have labora­ and their inspectors tories, officers.

Therefore, the sample is qualified.

whether your Lordships it necessary as the lawyers doubt, I shall add that the coµrts not accept a sample of evidence of tp.e analyst.
satisfied I think, the noble about the Lord has had apprehensions of samples which taking of the competence in those circumstances, for me to say this, but, say, for the av idance of would unless would find are not justified.

In the report of the Second Reading misprint debate there was a slight Hansard, and what I gave as an illus­ in of an analysis, as an analysis, could put his hand in the was that the would be construed I think it would be import· or what could be under the terms of the Act.
tration construed inspector effluent and put it to his mouth and as taste it, and that an analysis Accordingly, ant to have after the word " kind " the words" made by a qualified the scientific do not specify or the degrees he should have.

That, I think, should take who I understand sidered the sample, get into the situaition the judge in as an analyst, because is unnecessary.

should not take is likely to be con­ I analyst".


qualifications Whait I feel we care of is that the inspector, in that way you of his being also LORD BALERNO: Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has ltiie advan­ tage of me in having a more extensive I1 beg leave knowledge to withdraw of the position.

the Amendment.

• I the case.

One must surely Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

225 Rivers (Prevention of [ 11 MARCH 1965] Pollution) forgotten.

the discharge 226 Under these Conven-.


of oil int(' large (Scotland) Bill areas of sea from ships is prohibited.

The best of this Bill is perhaps by reminding your Lordships LORD HUGHES: This is one occasion pletely this point in the Second of 100 miles round the coasts passing because amount tions, in con-Britain to ,t is extended rha,t the noble Marquess, Lord that the prohibited on Which I must take a certain I am doing somethring of glory, from w:hat was said on the Com-relevance arising mittee stage.
Your Lordships will expressed recollect Lobhian, raised Reading debate.

This clause, wilih Section 19 of the 1951 Act, hibition junction empowers river purification au,thorities take samples vessel.

It is questionable, land in this context whether having regard ,to other clauses some other exceptions premises, in the Bill (for 2(2), 3, et cetera) premises.

t:hat :bhe Amendment was suggested the "occupier for ithe reason, 'however, Section refer to effluent passing from vessel and not from its occupier.
to move.

example, which refer to land or Article that both if it is done in certain for the safety by �he noble Marquess, of the land or premises", 19 of the Act and the clause instance, will notice is an International ,however, includes the land or preventing 1(3), not think I need deal.
Your Lords•hips oil within Clauses charge does not refer, as we have subscribed-provides IV of the Convention-and Convention this to which in terms to that it shall not be an offence to dis­ these zones from a ship for of the ship, for damage to ship or cargo, for circumstances: from any land or date three years after the acceptance I beg the saving of life or-and I think this zone includes and Irelapd.
applied a depth of Great Originally this pro­ only to tankers, but to non-tankers as from a of the Second Convention which will fall next month, April 11, 1965.

There ·are with which I do in this country for Amendment Page 12, line 12, after (" accordingly ") moved- insert to land includes Hughes.)

a (" , and any reference reference ").-(Lord Amendment to premises' On Question, Clause 10, as amended, Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

agreed to.

agreed to.


Clause 15 [Interpretation and con­ struction]: 5.19 p.m. section VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after sub­ : (3), to rinsert " ( ) Nothing in section I of this Act as tidal waters by section to tidal waters by section applied to Act or in section applied shall apply to discharges containing visions 1955 and 1963."
22 of the principal 29 thereof of oil or mixtures to the pro­ Waters Acts oil which are subject of the Oil in Navigable 8 of this Act as the discharge is of some importance-if of an or the result is purely accidental accident, immediate that the master takes to put it right.

precautions provided Effect was given to this Convention by Convention.

year's the machinery Waters Acts, 1955 the Oil in Navigable and 1963, which deal in tum with the These Acts previous provide Section the Convention.
implementing the defences 4(1) of the Act incorporates and it is an laid out in the Convention, interesting to ships only.

The Oil in Navigable Waters Acts cover discharges installations, to discharges inter­ these special shore installations, if I may so call them, national defences, apply only to ships.
but although both from ships and from from shore the Act applies point that these qefences apply said: This Amend­ The noble Viscount with a point on Second to two International of Pollution of the Coventions in connection during the debate The United Kingdom is a ment arises that I raised Reading.
signatory tions for the Prevention the Sea by Oil-namelv, of 1954 and 1962, the· second of which merely amended interest in this, because it up I was surprised a signatory Convention, of the final act of the 1962 a fact which I had com- the master of a ship oil in tidal waters to which (and those are laid down it appears that discharging the Bill applies in the Schedule) prosecution it becomes an Act.
But in this Bill, the defences of course, 'nation consequence on Second Reading, a foreign knowledge the subject the Convention Lordships ship, coming here with full of the international and of the position under provided could be, as the first.
I have a special also under this Bill when for, and the I mentioned (and I can assure your could be subject that the masters when I looked that the master of to find that I was ally are not agreed inter­ Conven­ law on to of ships are Under the Bill we are now considering, 227 Rivers (Prevention of [LORDS] Pollution) (Scotland) .flill 228 to be fouled indiscriminately.
of indiscriminate because he suggested might arise as to the legis­ under which to prnsecute, the oil came from of the Minister, that con.fusion lation, not known whether a ship or from a shore instaUation.

seems to me that if that is not known, there is no possibility of bringing prosecution in any case.

During the discussion, there if it was It a I thought a lot of what I h9pe I may The rules under loose talk.

I think of the estuaries.


was rather call, without offence, that the Under-Secretary him.self made point in the comment that there is little trying if we allow our to clean our rivers estuaries There is no auestion fouling the oil pollution respects stronger would be applied are not only higher Acts, but there is one ooint which, I suggest, Nobody goes about polluting purpose.
lution is an accident the Oil in Navigable as a result is pollution it would remain an offence unless the master took immediate to remedy the defect.

Acts are in some than the rules which by this Bill.

There under those penalties or a mishap.

Waters Act, if there and proper steps Under importance.
is of considerable the seas on cause of pol­ The most likely of a� accident, on Clause about the position I am advised 22 of the principa We had a short discussion 9 of this Bill a few moments ago and, so far as I could make out, some doubt was expressed under this Bill in the event of an accidental discharge.
Section I think is the operative section, used are tha( anyone who i:;auses or knowingly to the penalties words, it seems to me, would make him if the Jis­ absolutely free of prosecution So in those charge was accidental.

the position, circumstances if one had under the Oil in Navigable a prosecution Wiaters tliat under l A,.ct, which the words is subject Act, would be strengthened.

of the Act.
of the Act.

Those pollution permits things to learn of this sort ; but they are re­ [Viscount could find himself as part of their training, of the law with which they Simon.]

well acquainted with they are not lawyers, quired, the elements are concerned) prosecuted give him the internationally defence.

I think he would be very rightly resentful, plaint, own Government, very rightly resentful.
It seems to me, in view of the inter­ under an Act which did not and that, if he made a com­ as he doubtless they also would be would, to his agreed in another place, and Waters Act similar which we have obligations apply.
This matter was rejected, but waters should be undertaken that prosecutions that we ought to make quite of masters of of oil in of discharge national undertaken, certain ships in respect territorial under the Oil in Navigable where these defences was fully discussed an Amendment put down studied another the arguments Amendment I think, by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would represent accept the Amendment That policy.
a change in Government may or may not be a statement but it does not seem to me to be an argument.

in that I find adduced against the very thin.


The first and, to the one I have I have the debates very carefully place, the principal and I must say place was that to in another argument adduced of fact, There was then a great deal of talk that the areas of was challenged in the two Acts were where no prosecutions about the possibility legislation covered leave not the same, and that this might a loophole could take place.
I think I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary on this point but did not return to it, and I have been unable to discover that there can be any areas in which neither the oil pollution would apply.

Then it is said that to do what was suggested an anomaly between discharges shore installations concede ships.

I readily The anomaly is already lution explained, of the internationally and shore installations anomaly already exists.

on this was perhaps agreed defences are not.


So that A further a slip on the part would create of oil from from that that is so.
in the oil pol­ ships are given the benefit and discharges as I have already Acts nor this Bill Acts because, gloss At the end of our discussion on Second the noble Lord was good enough which had been the place that, because made this in Scotland v,ould give the Lord Advocate fiscal for all to the Crown to be taken by Reading, to repeat an assurance given in another legal procedure possible, instructions such cases to be reported Office and for the decision Government Statutes to procurators prosecutions under which would more appro• of the two proceed.
in the case of It seems io me that, 229 Rivers (Prevention priately quite clearly if we ships, are to fulfil our international undertaking there is only one Act under which the prosecution ; there is only could proceed one Act that is appropriate.

of [ 11 MARCH 1965] Pollution) (Scotland) special defences foreign masters in British to their British technical issue are comparatively ternational implications dangerous; Majesty's Amendment.

to waters but not The counterparts.


of the point at narrow; the in­ are wide and and I would urge Her Government to accept the the noble Lord there are should be available I do not know whether implications Bill 230 circumstances that we in which he considers to prosecute if there are, it appears in certain will be able to tell us whether any circumstances that it would be appropriate the master of a ship under this Bill.
It there are such seems to me that either cases-and are contemplating our obligations under the not fulfilling international else there are not such cases ; and if there are not such cases, I would urge on the noble Lord that he should accept this Amendment and make the position instead of relying instructions.

his reply tell us on which leg he is standing.

to move.
to move.

the noble Lord will be I hope that in the course of agreement-or clear in the Bill, able to I beg Amendment moved- Page 14, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.-(Viscou111 Simon.)

of Government's The Book on the Statute one iota when whatsoever withdrawing obligations.

LORD HUGHES: Both noble Lords who have spoken to the Amendment their case fairly and have stated accurately as they see it ; but it is not just as simple as they have suggested.
May I first of all say to your Lordships that there is no question Her Majesty's from international 1955 Act remains and will not be affected this Bill becomes mind your Lordships which was given in another which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, stated, it might be quite clear, be we.11 if I repeated Lord Advocate authorised honourable use these words : " I propose here.

So that I think it would The that assurance.

my right of the assurance place and to give an instruction friend in another an Act.
I would re­ I repeated place to fiscal that all cases of alleged to pro­ con­ on administrative LORD GEDDES: May I, too, declare of a by my noble friend for tanker operations.
I do not arguments to repeat the detailed in the subject matter of this in that I am a director respon­ company with particular an interest Amendment curators shipping travention Acts and the Rivers sibility Acts in respect propose vessels be reported should so clearly presented for consideration Lord Simon, but there is one point of object certain basic principle should be appropriate emphasised briefly.
The ship owners of the world have learned slowly and pain­ fully to discipline themselves series by the contracting These disciplines domestic are of the utmost importance in the ordinary of the world.

conventions, on the basis of of the seaborne trade of international legislation.

which I feel ratified pursuit parties code."

under a When I gave that assurance the noble by his successor?
Lord Simon, said that that e that what one Lord Advocate was Viscount, Lord all very well so far as it went but Advocates changed, and had we any assuranc did would be followed I can add further to the assurance, on the procedure Department, trative remains irrespective unless and until other instructions issued by another instruction has been issued it part of the standing in the Lord Advocate's of the holder of the.

Office, that when such an adminis­ instructions Lord Advocate.
are Having passed the Oil in Navigable defences to the masters Waters Acts of 1955 and 1963, we gave interests our word to the shipping of the world that certain would be of any ship, available whether foreign or British.

If by unilateral domestic that undertaking dangerously unilateral whether from these or any other con­ ventions.
withdrawals Clearly, action we withdraw we leave ourselves exposed to similar in overseas it is unthinkable ports that The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked me, in gellt:ing, right to I ,thought, the he�t of the matter, I could whether would a case where proceedings indicate be taken under this Bill when it became an Act, rather than under the 1955 Act.

of the Oil in Navigable Waters n of Pollution) (Preventio of discharges of oil from to the Crown Office by Crown Counsel.
The would be to make the proceeded under of the instruction that prosecutions 231 Rivers (Prevention of [ LORDS l Po/111/ion) (Scotland) Bill 232 would ·s,imple in another or deliber­ [Lord Hughes.]

oil discharges place, The reason is a par­ one.

There is a duty under this BiH rather Waters In so far as ships accidentally oil, I cannot think of a aitely discharge case in whlch ,the Lord Advocate elect to prosecute than under the Oil in Navigable Aots.
That having been said, your Lord­ ships may say, "Well, why not accept the Amendment?"

ticularly placed upon the boards to see that rivers and tidal waters are as clean as they can be made.

In order that they may do so they must have an interest in the matter, form of pollution not come within the board's whatever that they have no responsibility for seeing that oil pollution plane, they have no standing ma,tter.
[has been for excepting considered anc1-not once before but twice in the time of the previous Government, as a result of public inquiries into the Firth!

of Forth and Solway Tidal Waters Orders; and the Secretary of State-the Secretary of the present cases decided that the 1951 A.ct should of oil from ships.

apply also to discharges Ships, therefore, to the pro­ visions Act, and without whatever, the decisiori.s need for reversing taken by the then Secretary of State in both of these Orders.
The ti.nit of them was taken in 1960, and the 1second in 1963.

So there has been consideration of this subject -in 1960, 1963, and again in 1965. and if we take one particular and say ,that this does are subject of both the 1951 Act and the 1955 predecessor both of State-in and I submit that there or incident is no over a period of years jurisdiction, does not take difficulty already in the limit on indictment.
flippant ?r foreign in the 1955 Act repoi:;ting to fear from the note into what is dis­ of a very serious fiscal for his action.

have been reminded in a most invidious of this Bill when i becomes individuals or other We would then be back that if there were to be a I can assure noble Lords that ship­ whether of British have nothing your subject, by the Lord Simon, that the under the 1955 Act I are much owners, vessels, operation an Act.
In fact, if I might introduce a slightly cussion Lordships noble Viscount, penalties more severe than they are under this is £500.
Bill, where the maximum penalty If I remember rightly, the fine is £1,000 on summary �onviction and I think without If we leave it to our reputati01 imagine the legal authorities just as anxious penalty so that there in International proceed under this admission either weakness to persuade Amendment 1, I should lwould be the maximum than the other way round, is every inducerhent, your Lordships is not necessary.

LORD CRAIGTON: I have listened the 1955 Act.


I hope that of what is regarded But if we take the Amend­ would be, as I have it would rest on a harbour the matter to the pro­ This, I sug­ would place har­ that I I would remind your Lordships said on Second Reading debate that in is a rna,titer for the Scotland prosecution Crown authorities ; it does not lie in the hands of private auvhor1ties.
ment, the position said, thait this body, interested only in having clean rivers and tidal waters, would be removed from having any locus in the matter.

in the position prosecution, authority curator gest to your Lordsihips, bour underitakings position.

They would, in fact, be invited to 1be ,the party responsible for initiating prosecutions against their own customers.
I do not say that a harbour authority would not do ,this in appropriate cases, it would be quite unjustified because on my part -to suggest authori­ that harbour ties would not undertake cause irt was an unpleasant which might, at ,the end of the day, prove to be an unprofitable one ; but we ought not to place them in the positio to make any such ohoice when there is a completely undertake stances, jective made as clean as possible the Amendment.
and I to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, am grateful and to body a,ble to the noble Viscount, In these circum­ moving this Amendment.

n our ob­ we should be neglecting thi k the captain to have the rivers and tidal waters if be commits an offence in British waters, if we accepted can be expected Law on what a pretation Scottish of this House in March, 1965.

Even if for his explanation, for Lord Simon, But I do not This is not a new point.
I would that the case of International Minister would be the final argument the duty be­ one and one remind your Lordships inter­ to rely for Britain's disinterested of, say, a Polish ship, told a Committee or a national a national ,this aotion.

to collect strength n of having rather that the both as ., Law and in r�venue, to 233 Rivers (Prevention of [ 11 MARCH 1965 ] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 234 small Amendment desirable?
of the 1951 Act is captain decide under which Act to ; and, furthermore, the Lord would advise-though he could successor to do likewise.

had a copy of Hansard, the Polish he would learn that the Lord Advocate would himself prosecute Advocate not instruct-his The noble Lord's explanation acceptable visiting foreign pected to understand niceties?

may be for our countrymen, but can nationals really be ex­ these Scottish 5.44 p.m. legal firms.

River solution.

I do not seek to make fun of this.


I offer what may be a realistic I realise that we and other nationals are subject to the international code on oil on land and sea.

On land, the discharge offence will be nearly all by our own nationals or locally-owned pollution from land up country will be better policed, board have some direct relation therefore, sider the Bill makes sense, and I think sense.

what the noble Lord said makes I do not think the Amendment is as help­ ful as it might be.
I appreciate that we can safeguard ourselves against from ships of undesirable and of course this Bill, which is our domestic if the responsibility.

In I con­ code, covers this possibility.

if that is the word, to land offences, trade effluents, discharge be­ the purpose in fact the question LORD HUGHES: I should like to In the mis­ of the assurance that anything inten­ of answer the noble Lord's points.

first place, I think he completely understands I gave.
I did not anticipate I said as to the Lord Advocate's tions would lead to either the edition Hansard which contains the Second Reading debate or to-day's edition coming an international best because so far as the master of a Polish vessel or a home vessel If matters proceed as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, would wish them to proceed and as I expect is prosecuted the 1955 Act.

"Why not say so?"

I am afraid not been listening to me.


I said the reason for putting in this provision was so that the board may have a standing in the matter.

he will be prosecuted under The noble Lord says, he has them to proceed, is concerned.

if the captain will not arise seller, LORD CRAIGTON: That is exactly waters go 100 miles my point.

Navigable out to sea.


The river purification boards should have regard to land installations or ships attached see the sense of them going all over the harbour looking oil when the captain is on his way off.

to land, but I cannot discharging has left the shore and at vessels or where they float, in this respect, ships should be the same in to know where they of oil from ships will as well as home ships.
But discharge come from foreign The present international code is ade­ quate for our ships, but foreign are surely entitled stand, and that condition every water they might visit.

I believe the right place to draw the line is be­ tween land and water.

The noble Viscount's shore installations.


I suggest to noble Lords that at Report stage we should so amend this Bill as to exclude under the Oil in Navigable committed by vessels floating not tied or connected If we do this, I suggest the best of both worlds and the Bill will seem sense to the Polish captain.

from it offences Waters Act free and by pipe to the land.
that we shall get Amendment includes There is one small point which I think on The Bill seeks to control of trade effluents from ships, and which was raised place but not the should be raised the Report stage in another answered.

discharge but the principal effluents as something any premises.

whether ships are premises from Could the noble Lord say Act defines trade discharged or whether a LORD HUGHES: But the noble Lord They would have · to do with the River Tay up to it is tidal.
Jf the Amend­ would go further.

nothing Perth because ment is .accepted, small vessels come within the purview proceeding only comparatively up would of the boards.

further it is practically I come back to my point.

The master British e that he would be prose­ whether or foreign, only if he is to be prosecuted.

of a vessel, is concerned If he is to be prosecuted, inconceivabl cuted other than under the 1955 Act.
The reason for giving the board a purview of the matter is so that they may exercise their functions in securing that rivers are clean, and from that point of view, and that point of view only, they are required to have a locus.
must have weighed with the previous Secretary make this in 1960 and 1963, and while I know of State when he declined sort of exception in two Orders This was a matter which to 235 Rivers (Prevention of [ LORDS] Pollution) (Scotland) Bill 236 Con­ Conv_en­ from I do not feel that with the Intematibnal concerned vention, and the International tion does not cover discharges shore installations.
I should detain the Committee any longer on this matter, except the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether he would be willing to have a little further now and the Report stage.

Would the noble Lord consider discussion on the subjebt between that?

to ask [Lord Hughes.]

at position.


friend and the same thing at different for what I have he has an even that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, least has a high regard to say in these matters, higher regard for what his right hon­ ourable friend has to say in them ; so when his right honourable I are saying times, he is placed in an exceedingly difficult because both of us in "the drink" time.

I suggest whether whatever to take this matter out of the Bill.
As I have said, the two Orders which were made in 1960 and 1963 have operated satisfac­ whatever, torily there is no reason to expect that their application Bill will provide he must toss at the same that the shipowner, by this result.
or at home, has nothing to all the areas covered to gain from seeking any different any incident foreign without and LORD HUGHES: Withm�t unduly it would be discourteous the hopes of the noble Viscount matter, raising in thi,s of me if I did not undertake at the matter still any compromise both purposes-clean rivers and no dubiety at all on the part of shipowners.

to s¢e whether to achieve further, is possible to look I VISCOUNT SIMON: I am greatly to the noble Lord, and I beg the Amenl:iment.
by leave, withdrawn.

obliged leave to withdraw Amen9!

)1ent, Clause 15 agreed to.

Remaining Schedule clauses I agreed to.

agreed to.
Schedule 2 {Seaward limi�s of con­ trolled waters]: VISCOUNT SIMON: I have listened : the detection except in one respect he made a very good case for will have to be under­ authority would agree that the line may be somewhere else­ of the discovery, with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, and 1 thought his argument, that is, that in cases of oil pollution in tidal waters-I dividing broadly the pollution, , because taken by the harbour I do not think the river pollution board to detect dis­ will be in any position charges Cer­ tainly I can say-speaking experience, Scottish experience-th Authority for the River Thames, felt inhibited charging ., for we have an overall are customers to the people responsibility the cleanliness maintaining Nevertheless, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said.
from a ship in the harbour.

not with at the Port of London the pollution and we have never from prosecuting here for of the river.

but with English merely because authority is itself living for dis­ the dischargers 5.52 p.m.

I should like him to consider, if it that the noble Lord, Lord made.
He is quite right, in saying tha,t my Amendment is possible, between now and the Report stage, the sort of compromise suggestion Craigton, course, would have covered of oil discharges from shore installations waters saying that almost entirely I was really my argument from ships.
I was ; and he is quite right also in I addressed to discharges doing so because of into tidal LORD CRAIGTON moved to leave out place The reference without discussion to " A line drawn across Bay from the reference Craigevan Bay and Stonehave� Garron Point ... to Downie �oint ... ".

The noble Lord said: My n<l)ble friend Lord Stonehaven that he cannot regrets be here to speak to this Amendment.

When this Bill first came to an9ther the words we seek to omit w'ere not in the Bill.
Stonehaven Bay was not mentioned.

to it was added in Committee, explanation.

I am advised in the Bill without prior consultation D4velopment between the Scottish and Kincardinf Department County Council, to the without prior opportunity to make repr�sentations, County Council and without for the any opportunity appropriate Council this is most undemocratic.

In all my Office I have experience never heard of land or water affected being included legislation or That was bad enough.
But that this area was included the matty.r.

Surely, by without with the Scottish of the County to consider committee prior nothing of Home and (Scotland) Bill 238 (Prevention with the local authority and .that there is no on this coast.

They 237 Rivers consultation concerned.

of [ 11 MARCH 1965] Pollution) p1c1ons in this matter.
If it is impos­ as :i.11 sible for the Bay to be polluted, I do not would indicate, these arguments know why there should be any worry ; because are not going to the authority do anything is a need for unless there action.

and So that if the place is clean, is going to remain clean, will be done.
But if it is excepted-and it is the only area of tidal water which is excepted -a possible inducement whereby there would be an incentive it is the one place where go there because it would be easy to have pollution.

That, is not the final answer, of course, because of as the noble Lord said, the Secretary But State could add this area afterwards.

I would say that it might be a case, if you like, of bolting door after the horse has gone.
I am advised In this case I am advised that there are strong local views.

They object on grounds of expense.

They object on the ground that tests show that the tidal flow will carry any effiuent well clear of Stone­ haven Bay.

They object on the ground that this coast erodes, possibility of deposit object on the ground that the Medical Officer of the Department Health in Scotland the Scottish Development knew of these things objections.
five years there bas been no complaint sewage matter, evidence a high degree and that there is.

already be increased of dilution I am told that the use of comminuters.

it would be impracticable, for many good to site sewage works in the reasons, Borough of Stonehaven Cowie; and finally, County Council's is proceeded to carry out considerable effluent before putting at all.
from and an engineer Department no treatment it into the sewers with it would be necessary I am told that over the last or the village of any washed-up that no different which could development that if and when the and have raised could be created sewerage the stable by of or of to in not So that if there what has been done on other we have certainly proce­ in this case from dure has been adopted of the same kind.
in others that adopted Bay has received Stonehaven no less than others, favourable be­ treatment cause in fact none of the authorities were in this matter.

consulted is any offence in this matter, following occasions, a wholesale has objected.

fact that they are listed.

aware of the fact that they were not con­ I would sug­ sulted.

gest to your Lordships, comes not from but from Lord Stone­ the local authority, haven, who may have imagined inclusion stage inflicted authority an injustice with the Bay.
The only objection, They are all aware of the of Stonehaven Bay at this late concerned on the local They are also fashion.

done it in No other authority that the But the fact is that Stone­ One point which remains -to be answered is that this reference did not appear in the Bill at the beginning ; it explanation, came in without and it falls to me to make an explanation of the I myself can appear in a fault-and pure white sheet, as it was not my responsibility.
haven Bay was not in at the beginning for the simple reason that, whether or through missed.

the beginning out, and when it was discovered it had been accidentally put in.

There was nothing than that.


The authority now in the same position It ought to have been in from it was omitted, more sinister are therefore as they would ; it was accidentally some other cause, left that in typing a line was unnecessarily of the local a�thori­ it was surely In view of these strongly held high­ opinions, handed to include so this area without much as a "by your leave " or " thank you ".
If the noble Lord values as I did, the co-operation ties, his right course is to accept my Amendment, with t�ose concerned.

Then, sidered to do so, after discussion, be can add this area to the scope of the Bill, as the Secretary to do under Clause 8 of the Bill.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

of State has power if it is con­ proper, to start discussions Amendment moved- Page 16, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.­ (Lord Craigton..) LORD HUGHES: If it is as impos• Stonehave sible to pollute n Bay as the of the authority representations I gather that in fact the indicate-and are those of the Stone­ representations haven Town Council-- would LORD CRAIGTON: I should make it quite clear that the representations those of my noble friend.
are LORD HUGHES: Well, let us not pro­ has sus- ceed along those lines-one 239 Administration vf Justice [ LORDS] Bill [H.L.]

240 [Lord Hughes.]

BILL [H.L] 1 Order of the Day for the con�ideration read, of Commons Amendments the same consideration 6.0 p.m. if the thing ADMINISTRA TlON OF JUSTICE They have been and they have to no injustice, exaotly have been in at the outset had been done properly.
subjected received as all the rest, in that they have not been notified they are in exactly as everybody relation is as great as mine in relation omission, than I have in the matter.

; so that at the end of the day to present and future the same position THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD in else.

If their innocence pollution Office has a white sheet: it LORD CRAIGTON: Nobody in to this they have no more to fear GARDINER): My Lords, I beg!

to move that the Commons Amendment!s be now considered.
In so moving, I should like to ask your Lordships' some of these Amendments example, purely drafting the Scottish gest, could usefully is a collective I propose noble Lord must also take responsibility.

then Amendments I am horrified to learn that these things 15, 16, 17 and 18 together should be done without with your Lordships' the local authorities.

together Amendments 19 to 34, all of known that they were in the Bill, they which are simply additions to the might have objected.
Schedule of obsolete to be my noble friend would wish me to I beg to move.

repealed.

divide the Committee on this issue, and I beg leave to withdraw agreement to move togyther.

For Nos.

1 Ito 11 are and, I sug­ be taken together.

; 'llld, again permissiop, Mm·ed, That the Commons Amend­ responsibility, then to take Amendment 12; 13 and 14 together; consultation If Stonehaven But I do not think enactments Amendments Amendments with had to take and the the Amendment.

withdrawn.
withdrawn.

by leave, Amendment, Schedule 2 agreed ,to.

Schedule of sections 22, 24 and 28 of the principal Act]: 3 [Modifications LORD HUGHES: This is a drafting Amendment.

It is merely to insert the word " of".

I should think it is a typo­ graphical the word "of" the sentence I beg to move.

does not make sense.

Without error.

Amendment Page 17, line 20, after (" words ") insert moved- (" of ").-{Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ments be now considered.-(The Chancellor.)


On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord COMMONS AMENDMENTS [The references are to Bill [59] as "(irst printed Clause for the House of Commons] 1, page 2, line 23, leavr.
out from , to (" whether ") in line 211 and insert beginning (" any way in which he thinks fit ") the investment to") line 24, leave out (" for of") and insert (1 ' in relation with a cause or matter 4, page 4, line 12, at end insert in a case in which it is made in Clause (" except connection tively defined by section Court of Judicature proceeding virtue in a district 84 of that Act ") of section (as respec­ 225 of the Supreme (Consolidation) Act 1925) established by registry LORD BALERNO: In view of Lord explanation should not be reintroduced Hugbes's ableness into this Bill, I think fit not to move the last two Amendments as to why reason­ (" and, in the said excepted effected in relation the Lord Chancellor the Treasury.")
to that registry in my name.

line 14, at end insert ca�e, shall be with the concurrence by ruJes made by of in such manner as may oe prescribed Schedule 3 agreed ,to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported.

with Amendments.
Clause 7, page 7, line 39, leave out (" short­ term ") and insert (" short-or lon,:-term 9, page 10, line 4, leave 1out (" short­ Clause ") term ") and insert (" short-or long-term") line 12, leave out (" a or short-term") and insert ( other than deposit a Jong-term") deposit account or short-term other than a long term "� line 33, le�ve out (" a ") and ,insert (" an deposit") line 43, leave out (" a and insert (" an ") 241 Administration of lctstice [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill [H.L.J 242 ("Rules") to end of line 45 and insert account) than a long-term investment ") (" (other line 44, leave out from (" the") and insert (" any ").
Page 11, line 2, leave out first · COMMONS AMENDMENTS Clause 20, page 16, line 30, leave out (" two hundred and fifty") and insert hundred") (" three line 36, leave out (" £250 ") and insert (" £300 ").

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My 1 If Amendments.

wish to raise any Lords, as I have said, Amendments to 11 are all drafting any of your Lordships points I shall be happy to deal with them, but subject I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree thereto, with the Commons in the said Amend­ ments.-(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My that the limit, in respect may remember given by the Govern­ place in Committee.
of which a to make thus implement­ Lords, these are linked Amendments which raise from £250 to £300 the limit of indebtedness county court has jurisdiction an administration order, ing an undertaking ment in another Your Lordships original Its equivalent £230, and when the Bill Lordships would be about right.

In another it was felt that a higher figure would be better, and It was thought £500 were discussed.

that, in the circumstances, £300, which was the figure ultimately agreed in another promise move.
many years ago, was £50.

to-day is something like was with your it was felt that £250 place place, was a reasonable between com­ those views.

I beg to figures of £300, £400 and earlier Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend­ ments.-(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.


COMMONS AMENDMENT Clause 22, page 18, line 27, at end insert­ (" ( ) References 26 to in the said section the goods of the execution the purposes to England and Wales, include anything seized in execution.")
to else of his that may lawfully be of the application of that section references for debtor shall, THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My of which is to resolve Lords, this is purely a drafting Amend­ ment, the object possible of Clause 22(1) to the seizure tion of money or negotiable beg to move.

doubt about the applicability I interests.

in execu­ a Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend­ ment.-(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.


COMMONS AMENDMENT After Clause 24, insert the following new clause- Amelioration Chancellor's of conditions Legal Visitor qualifying LortJ for pension (" ,-(1) Section 128 of the Supreme Court of Judicature relates to the peo�;nris (Consolidation) of certain Act 1925 (which officers) shall, E On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT Clause 19', page 16, line 20, at end insert­ (" ( ) Where money that has been recovered, in subsection or agreed to be paid, or ordered or adjudged above, or has, in subsection as mentioned (l)(a) after payment into court, been accepted mentioned above, is in court at the.

commencement is not subject subsection not under disability that person upon an application's being made in that behalf to the court.")
thereto is it shall be paid out to (l)(b) of this Act, then if it and the person entitled to be dealt with under that as THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My still under 21. children to widows· your Lordships relates in terms that a Lords, this Amendment damages.
It provides widow with money in court at the time the Act comes into force is to be entitled to payment out on application if there are no dependant stage in another During the Committee place there was argument as to whether or not the Bill as it then stood would have that effect.

I do not think I need trouble with the argu­ ments.

There had been a case in 1952, and it was argued that the effect of that case might be to raise some doubt on the point.
Accordingly, adds to Clause 19 a new subsection which such a widow (if she expressly entitles is not herself under a disability, as being, for example, an infant or of unsound mind) to obtain her money on applica­ tion.

A consequential required Amendment beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree to Clause 3 I. I the Amendment is with the Commons in the said Amend­ ment.-(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vol.

264 243 Administration of Justice [ LORDS] Bill [H.L.]
244 of a person, to the retirement of the new subse9tion the addition in its application Clause 19.

Since there is a,t present after the commencement power to control office of Lord Chancellor's Ireland, Northern effect as if, in subsection prohibits liament ance to an officer under the age of seventy­ legislafaon corresponding upon a medical two years unless he retires provision certificate words ' fifteen years ' there were substituted (2).

the words ' ten years '.


of this Act, from the Legal Visitor, have (which allow­ the Northern Irish Par­ in any would not need to include analogous 10 <the new subsection the grant of a superannuation or has served fifteen years), (2) to no damages in widows' to qause 19 a (I )(c) thereof for the So far ars Amendment ,this states cerned, ,that No.
18 is con­ (2)Any increase attributable to the fore­ in the sums which, under 118(2) of the said Act of 1925 or sec­ going subsection section tion 25(2) of the Administration Act 1950, are payable (Pensions) by Parliament provided moneys so provided.")

shall be paid out of out of moneys of Justice perma­ to reduce in the fifties on pension.
has to be a barrister experience, of considerable when he is tra­ He has a great deal of The Lord Chancel­ the Lord Chan­ to retire which enables Legal Visitor THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My this is an Amendment Lords, from fifteen •to ten years the period of service cellor's turely lor's Legal Visitor or solicitor and is usually appointed.

velling relies make 1,500 visits the course of a year, and may normally travel 65 he may be feeling retire, and wishes to to do so with pension the age of 70.
T•he object ment is to enable a proportionate at 65 with I beg to move.

pension.

Moved, That his House doth agree He may have to to mental patients in 16,000 miles.

By the time he is of that be unable to ,do.

The Court of Protection on his reports.

until he reaches him to retire the strain but may of the Amend­ Marye.

(" 2 c. 3. insert­ Will.

with the Commons in the said Amend­ ment.-(The Lord Chancellor.)
of the principal " In the application and of this Act to Scotland, ment into the Supreme Court strued as references Court of Session."

It is a question tish provisions.

to consignation in the of adaptability of Scot­ I beg to move.

Act to pay• references sHall be con­ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend­ ments.-(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreel:I to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS Schedule 2, Page 35, line 31, at begin­ ning insert- (" 31 Eliz.

I.
I.

The Forcible The words ' coste c. 11.

Entry Act 1588. and ' wherever 0¢:curring.

21 Jas.

I.

The Statute of Monopolies.

4, the In section words ' and in dP,uble coste '.

Section 8. ")

line 3,t, at end & The Distress 5.

Ren t A c t 1689.

In section 3, the words 'and costs of suite '.

for 8 & 9 Will.3.

The Bank of c. 20.

England Act 1696.

4, the In �ection ,vo r d s 'to­ gether cps ts of suite '.

with full Section 46.")


line 34, at end (" 13 Anne The Presenta- c. 13. tion of Bene­ fices Act 1713.

In �ection 4, the words from that ' ' �rovided onwards."}

36, at end line (" 10 Geo.

3 · The Parliamen- Section ") c.50.

tary Privilege Act 1770. page 36, line 25, at end 1 5.

On Question, Motion agreed to.


COMMONS AMENDMENTS Clause 30, page 21, line 37, at end insert (" and if subsection (2) were omitted ") column 2, leave out Schedule I, page 33, lines 2 to 6 and insert- insert- in subsection 1 shall have effect with the sub­ (" Section (1), for the words • order stitution, the payment into Court' (in both places where they occur), into the Supreme.
Court' and with the sub­ for subsection stitution, subsection :- of the words • order the payment (3), of the following insert- ' (3) In the application of the principal references Aet and of this Act to Scotland, to payment into the Supreme Court shall as references be construed '.")

in the Court of Session THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these two Amendments Northern Ireland and to Scotland.

Amendment No.

17 is consequential to consignation relate (" 41 Geo.

3.

(U.K.) c. insert- on to 63.


The House of In section 2, the C om m o ns (Clergy Dis­ qualification) Act 1801. wprds ' with full costs of suit '.

245 Administration of Justice [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill [H.L.]

246 line 23, at end 41 Geo.

3.

T h e Pu b 1 i c (U.K.) c. Notaries Act 79.

1801.

52 Geo.

3.

The House of c.11.

C o m m o n s (Offices) Act 1812.

The Seditious Act Meetings 1817.

C.19.

57 Geo.

3.

16, the In section full words ' with costs of suit '.
In section 2, the words 'the master of the rolls'.

In s ection 30, the w o r d s fro m •and the plain­ tiff' to ' expen- ces '.")

insert- (" 29 & 30 The Hop (Pre- Vict.

c. 37. ven t i o n o f Frauds) Act 1866.

15, the In section w o r ds from •and any plain­ tiff' onwards.")

line 25, at end insert- & (" 34 35 The Courts of The whole Act.")

Viet.

c. 57.

Justice (Addi­ line 30, at end 2, insert- (" 9 Geo.

4.

1 The Nautical c.66.


Almanac k words 'with the In section I insert- & (" 39 Act 1828. costs of suit'.")

35, 40 I The Appellate Viet.

c. 59.

Jurisdiction Act 1876. tion al Site) Act 1871.

31, line at end line at end insert- (" 1 & 2 The Small Tene- Vict.

c. 74. ments Re- covery Act 1838.

6, the In section words 'with costs of suit'.")

line 41, at end insert- 7 (" 6 & Viet.

c. 86.

& 7 8 V iet.

C.22.

47, The London Hackney Car­ riag e s A c t 1843.

The Gold and Silver 1844.


Act Wares the In section words from 'and if a ver­ dict' onwards.

13, the In section words from ' and if a ver­ dict' o n­ wards.")

page 37, line 41, column 3, leave out (" Section 127 ") and insert (" Sections 127, 213, 217, 219 and 220 ") 38, 11, page line at end insert- (" 47 & 48 The Yorkshire Viet.

c. 54.

Registries 1884.

Act In section 25, the words ' or Ire­ land ' and the w o r ds from 'and the su­ perior' to 'J us­ tice.'

") 35, line at end 38, the Section 36.


In section 37, the words from the g to beginnin ' have effect '.

In section words from ' or after any agree­ ment ' to ' into effect', In section 40, the words from the beginning 'under this Act'.

In section 49, the words from the to beginning ' have effect '. ")

to 8, insert- & 21 (" 20 The Matrimon- l Act Viet.

c. 85. ial Causes 1 1857.

The whole Act.")

page 39, line at end insert- (" 57 & 58 The Commis-Section 1(3).")

Viet.
Viet.

c. 23. s i o n e r s o f line 19, at end Works Act 1894.

T h e M a t r i ­ The whole Act.

insert- (" 27 & 28 44.

Viet.

c. 27 &28Vict.

c. 114. monial Causes Act 1864.

The Improve­ of Land Act 1864.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My 22. my Section 23, the In section words ' and the mode in whlch such costs shall be settled taxed', the words ' in the discretion of the Court or judge who shall hear s uc h applica tion' and the words ' the said costs shall.'")
I remarked, when t!his before your Lord­ Lords, I believe Bil:J. was previously ships' House, what an extraordinary amount of statutory deadwood had already ,been found, and if tion is right we found some more on Third Reading which had not been found before.

Another place appears to have been equally diligent and it:hese Amend­ ments, Nos.

19 to 34, refor to further obsolete advantage accordingly beg to move that this House dorh agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
and we are taking I of ,the Bill ,to repeal them.

provisions, recollec­ or Vol.

264 E2 247 Registration of Births, [ LORDS] Deaths and Marriages Bill 248 Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in ,the said Amend­ ments.-(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

is that in the first liny we have While perm1ss1ve I have no doubt of State wiM rfor ,tJhe purpose that of my noble friend Lord Burden.
The first replaced the word "shaN " with "may ", will commend itself to a ohange which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton.

this makes the provision rather ,than mandatory, at all that the Secretary make regulations due consultation parties.

have widened the scope of .the Amend­ ment to make it clear that aU r�gistration staff are included my noble frjend's not officers and ·servants prov/ded local registra-tion 7(9) were included.
If this Amendment ; it was not clear from 'fVhether Amendment by a under Clause wit:h the interested 1is that we The second difference is agreed to, I authority after or iw.hat any wishes, certain forecast to exclude of course, made under it will contain.

in accordance with your Lord­ and staff, but, as I indicated st<tge, at the Committee cannot, regulations However, it covers both fuU-time ships' to your part-time it may Lordships or persons be necessary classes of person.
I hope your Lord­ ships will not press me on t�is matter, of the compensation as the details fully scheme will have to be disci;issed s and association wi�h the local authority can with NALGO before the regulations will, of Any regulations be prepared.

course, and your Lordships of expressing the appropriate be mbjeot to annulment time.

I beg to move.

will thus have an opportunity or disaipprova1 approval at REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
6.11 p.m. Report of Amendments to Order).
(according received Clause 7 [Senior trars and other staff]: regis­ and district subsec­ LORD HUGHES moved, after tion 10, to insert: " ( ) (a) The Secretary of State may by regu­ authority, to or in respect or deemed to be holding under this section of compensation to such excep­ in the as may be specified provide for the payment by a local subject lations registration tions or conditions regulations, of any person holding an appointment officer or servant (9)of this section ment or loss or diminution which is attributable con­ tained in this Act or in a scheme under the last foregoing done in pur­ suance of this Act or of any such scheme.
may be made under to different provided who suffers loss of employ­ regulations in relation (b)Different this subsection of persons.

to any provision of emoluments or anything section classes or any under subsection (c} Regulations made under this subsection provision as to the manner in may include to whom any claim which and the persons for compensation by virtue of this subsection is to be made, and for the determination all questions under the regulations.
arising of this subsection (d)Regulations made under shall be made by statutory shall be subject to annulment a resolution which instrument of in pursuance of either House of Parliament."

Amendment Page 5, line 42. at end insert moved- the said sub­ section.-(Lord Hughes.)
produce The noble Lord said: My Lords, at stage I expressed a compensation results the Committee doubts whether with the three the consultations local authority associations on the pro­ clause posal to introduce could possibly while the House.
I Bill was in your Lordships' am very glad to say that none of the has demurred from the associations proposal, trans­ and I am thus able to late the assurance Lordships now before the House is very largely the same as that put down by my noble friend from the noble Lords opposite.

into fact.
into fact.

The Amendment which drew support which I gave your Lord Burden, There are really only two points of and between this Amendment difference on behalf of NALGO, LORD CRAIG TON: My Lords, I need only to say "Thank you", on behalf of my noble friends, and on beha1f of those for whom they speak, for ,the form of words whioh the noble Lord has put do,wn and for his diligence important and speed in solving this rproblem.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


Clause 8 [Registration LORD CRAIG TON: My Lords, after offices]: debate on this point in Com­ our spirited I need now only thank the noble mittee, Lord for suggesting to me that I should try again by putting down my Amendment in a slightly form of w0rds which the noble Lord gave me.

I beg to move.

different 249 Solicitors [ 11 MARCH 1965) Bill [H.L.)
250 moved- Clause 3 [Amendment of section 4 of Amendment insert Page 6, line 33, after ("stating") which can conveniently (", in characters be read by the public,").-(Lord Craigton.)

principal Act] : LORD HUGHES: My Lords, you will stage I recollect to fight this one found it very difficult very hard, and I have succumbed.

that at the Committee On Question, Clause 53 '[Regulations]: Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES : My Lords, this is an have accepted.


which is consequential on the Amendment which your Amendment compensation Lordships are now to be two sets of regulations possible, to "made under " under this Act ".

I beg to move.

to amend this than this section" rather it is necessary Because there Amendment moved- Page 30, line 4, leave out (" under this Act") (" made under this section ").­ and insert (Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL [II.L.]


6.17 p.m. Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.--(Lord Tangley.)

itself THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COM­ MITTEES: There is one slight in the next Amendment.

It should read: misprint " Page 2, line 34, leave out the first (' for ') and insert (' of ')."

LORD TANGLEY: I am much obliged for that correction.

The Amendment itself was design ed to remedy a misprint, both cases.
I hope we have now got it right and that the Amendment may be accepted.

I beg to move.

and I apologise for Amendment Page 2, line 34, leave out the first (" for") moved- and insert (" of ").-(Lord Tangley.)

I had not detected V1scouNT as " solicitors DILHORNE: I must say that when I read this Amendment I sus­ nected there had been a slight gram­ that the matical slip.

Bi!,l as drafted defined a class of solicitors over­ for certain which would be a very seas solicitors", odd conjunction.
I am glad that the mistake has On Question, Clause 3, as amended, 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clauses been put right.

Amendment agreed to.

agreed to.

Clause 6 [Amendment Principal Act]: of sec,tion 12 of On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

6.20 p.m. [The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2 [Amendment of section 3 of principal Act] : LORD TANGLEY: This Amendment 3(2) of the Solicitors relates to a matter of pure drafting.
Clause 2(2) of the Bill is the equivalent of Section 1957, and I am satisfied into of the Act of 1957 is now imported the Bill already.

subsection (2)of Clause 2 is not necessary.

to move.

that that section Therefore Act, I beg Amendment Page 2, line 28, leave out subsection moved- (2).­ (Lord Tangley.)

On Question, Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Vol.


264 clerk to of the House to the fact that by examination more than two years' under the modern system for an articled LORD T ANGLEY: I should like the permission, with in dealing Committee's Amendment No.

2, to refer also to Nos.

3, 4, 5 and 6.

They all deal with the same matter.

When I was introducing this Bill on Second Reading I drew the attention it is possible, of education, become qualified with little solicitor practical experience.
I think with the approval ships, that the Law Society have the right, to a man receiving to attach certificate conditions that during that period he should not to practise necessarily on his as to own.

Some doubt was expressed whether than that and would authorise the· Law certificate to refuse a practising Society years, a practising the clause in fact went further of your Lord­ ought to for the first three And I suggested, making it quite plain be entitled as a E3 Bill [H.L.]
252 251 Solicitors [LORDS] [Lord Tangley.]

doubtful of this clause makes the in those circumstances.

Indeed, about that myself.

altogether I was a little The redrafting situation quite plain, the clause into exactly I wished it to be in when I was explain­ ing it to your Lordships No.

2. to move Amendment and, I think, puts before.


I beg the position that Amendment moved- practising since free of conditions for the first time or has not held certificate is applying a practising the date of his admission.

for ( ) Where a solicitor 1 issued to hi · on that shall not, in the case where sub­ (a)a certificate.
certificate- applies ( ) of thjs section has effec� by reason free of conditions application section only of his not having held a practising tificate admission, binding beyond three years after the date on which the first practising certificate had effect; cer­ since the date of his be made subject upon him in respect to any conditions of any period issued to him Page 4, line 30, leave out (" subsection ")--(Lord Tangley.)

") and insert (" section V1scouNT DILHORNE: I think the doubt was raised by me.
I am grateful ( ) has effect by virtue to the noble Lord for now putting the stances (j) position beyond all doubt.

or {k) of rnbsection as are mentioned only of such circum­ (g), in paragraph (1) of this section and (b)in a case in which the said subsection THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure that it was not I who in fact raised the objection, On Question, but I am equally Amendment agreed to.

grateful.

LORD T ANGLEY: This Amendment is consequential.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved- Tangley.)


Page 4, line 31, leave out (" 1) On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TANGLEY: This Amendment, also, is consequential.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved- in ques­ appropriate the order or judgmept shall not refuse tti-e applica­ an appeal has been made to the court against tion, the Society tion before the determination unless in the opinion of the Society ceedings protracted to be successful.
( ) Where a practising certificate been unduly or a+e unlikely on that appeal have by the appellant of that appeal free of con­ the pro­ by the Society under subsection to in felation to a solicitor is issued ditions ( ) of this section whom that (a), particular (k) in paragraph (d), (e), (!
), such as are mentioned circumstances (h), (j) or (b), (c), (l) of this section, the said of subsection have effect ( ) shall not thereafter to that solicitor by virt9e of those ").-(Lord subsection in relation circumstances.'

On Question.

Amendment Tangley.)

ag eed to.

").-(Lord subsection has effect by virtue of and inser't Page 4, line 34, leave out (" subsection On Question, (3) ") agreed to.

Amendment ("the provisions ").-(Lord Ta11gley.)

LORD T ANGLEY: This is a further Amendment.


I beg to consequential move.

LORD TANGLEY: Again, this Amend- I beg to move.

ment is consequential.
Amendment moved- 5, Amendment moved- 5, Page (" ' ( ) line 40, at end insert- Subject as aforesaid, the applicant unless the Society or the Master of the orders, give to the Society not shall, Rolls otherwise less than six weeks before his application a practising to apply discretion- for notice of his intenti on may in its and the Society certificate therefor, (a) grant or refuse the application (b)decide to issue a certificate to the ; or subject applicant as the Society fit, to such terms think may in its discretion and conditions decides and where the Society tificate to conditons, subject thinks fit, postpone the issue of the certificate pending and determ the hearing appeal under subsection ing section.
to issue a cer­ it may, if it i nation of any (2) of the next follow­ (a) (b) (Lord Tangley.)

Page On Question, line 41, leave out subse6tion Amendment (2).- ag eed to.

Clause 6. as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

6.24 p.rn.
LoRD T ANGLEY moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following money on clients' Interest new clause " .-(1) Rules made under section 292 of the principal requiring prescribed a solicitor, by the rules, either- in such cases as may be Act shall make prQvision for to keep on deposit in a separate account at a bank for the benefit of the client for or on account or a client; money received of ( ) The Society tion by a solicitor a case where has effect by reason only that the applicant applica­ shall not refuse an in certificate for a practising (2) of this subsection subsection to make good to the client 1out of the own money a sum equivalent to if !accrued which would have had been so kept on solicitor's the interest the money so received deposit.
253 Solicitors [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill [H.l.
to any other remedy) that any question arising under the (2)The cases in which a solicitor with rules made to act in accordance among may be defined, this section may be by reference required pursuant to other things, any sum received is or is likely to be retained such rules !JlaY include a client (without to require rules in relation ferred to and determined (3)Except as provided prejudice to the amount of or the period for which it or both; and provision for enabling to the client's money be re­ by the Society.
by rules made pur­ shall not be by virtue to account of the relation a solicitor between suant to this section, liable and client received by the solicitor at a bank being moneys received or on account y. generall (4)Nothing in this section, or in rules made to this section, of his clients to any client pursuant shall- or held for for interest on moneys deposited solicitor (a)affect any arrangement in writing, and his made between a solicitor of the clients' whenever client as to the application money or interest thereon ; or (b)apply to money received by a solicitor bei□g money subject the solicitor The noble Lord said: This is an is a trustee."
to a trust of which exists will recall advantage from him other and a soli­ in its Judicial the full know­ make of his client, which I feel I of substance Your to the Committee.

Amendment must justify Lordships that on Second Reading I drew attention to the effect of a decision House, of your Lordships' sitting in the capacity, case of Brown v. Commissioners of a tax That case was Inland Revenue.
but it case coming from Scotland, that a fiduciary affirmed the principle relationship solicitor between client and that, in consequence, citor may not, without ledge and free assent any pecuniary than proper charges The particular it applied in the hands of a solicitor citor puts on deposit sequence, held that solicitors clients must account for any such interest.

plain I want to make it abundantly comple>tely that decision.
on the desire or on the part that the and absolutely There is not the slightest part of the Law Society, of the profession, to repeal in that case.

On the contrary, it is the foundation that this particular fiduciary ship exists indeed, Society's Vol.

264 of a solicitor relation­ ; and should be maintained of the Law point of the case is that to clients' which the soli­ the whole structure · supervision Your Lordships to their solicitors' accepts this principle earns interest.
of the practice profession the decision and, if necessary, and which, in con­ money l to to 254 rests upon The Amendment of the profession discipline that foundation.

which I am asking the Committee to agree is designed, case but, in fact, in some respects, put additional tors and to define the proper way in which the principle be applied obligations not to repeal this upon solici­ in certain As it stands to-day, of the case should instances.
is that the position moneys clients' to put them in a or sums which are who receives apart from There is no obligation to put clients' or to earn interest banking account, on the solicitor of this case relates too small a solicitor is under obligation separa-te his own moneys.

whatever moneys on deposit, upon them.

If he does, then he must account in the prac­ for it.
The difficulty tical application sums which are themselves to be put on deposit, held for too short a period to justify their being put on deposit.

will have, in his clients' per­ haps, a large number of sums of £1 or 1 Os.

in respect collected, payments have been collected.
mittee will agree that it would be ridi­ culous to suppose any possibility on deposit should be accounted for or in respect under a separation I think the Com­ that there could be of that money being put interest which to -the client.
that of rents or small debts Then there is the other extreme, of maintenance A solicitor and earning account, order which to put upon deposit A typical practice, is in a instance where a large are matters of sums which are large enough in them­ to be justifiably selves but which are being held for too short a period.

conveyancing 'number of conveyancing always going on-the buying and sell­ ing of houses of £5,000 or £6,000 in value.
will have these sums coming in and he will be paying them out again within a few days.

So there in this matter are two elements, that have to be taken into account: the size of the amount and ,the period over which it will be wanted.

The solicitor really, Now the problem arises in this way.
by reason cannot properly Although these sums, whether of their amount or by reason of the period, put on deposit, prudently clients' safely this money on deposit account put a fifth, a fourth, to look at the sum total of his or a third of and say, "I think I could be or reasonably it is possible for a solicitor for a particular E4 and disbursements.

what, if any, earned would be One can remem­ in practice of applying as absolute.

[Lord Tangley.]

shall we say, to the 10s.

the upon it ".


the in Brown's case is that it is 255 Solicitors [ LORDS] Bill [H.L.]

256 of those factprs, I am period of time, and earn interest will agree, can be The difficulty decision quite impossible to calculate part of that interest attributable, £1 and the 5s.-the I have been referring.

impracticable to do the arithmetic to work it out in that way.

I explained I think, that difficulty, to your Lordships on Second Reading.

months.
months.

Neither sure the Committee regarded ber cases where the sum wou�d be less than £500, where it would be �ay £450, but would be available for Clearly, deposit.

for three or four a million ought to be on weeks.

That clearly I offei; is this.

deposit.

The solution Above the limit of £500 or two months there should be an absolute to put the money on deposit.
to limits where it was put the money on deposit fair and right for the solicitor to do so in the is to comply with the full principle of there case in those circumstances, that money ought to ije put on of cases of One can conceive pounds, held small sums to which It is really there should be an obligation if a solicitor si!f months.

Therefore, of the client.


interests Below those and obligation The means whereby it is pr6posed to if you approve it, carry that principle, into effect is by means of tbis new clause with rules that I am moving, coupled would mp.ke under which the Law Society the clause.

as the Committee will see, is mandatory It says: Society.

the solicitor loses " Rules made under Section The clause, upon the Law nothing is earned, nothing and amount of interest.

at all.
at all.

In gains the client loses the solicitor strictly Brown's is only one thing he can do ; that is, not to put the money on deposit that case absolutely a certain The only party who gains is the bank, who will have the money on current out paying any interest the Committee this thing in practice the client and the bank gains, intention this very right and proper principle Brown's case.

account at all.
account at all.

I am sure will agree that, to work in such a way that not the was certainly of this House when laying down in gets nothing, with­ that What is the remedy I am proposing I am suggesting money shall It is a account.

in the right and proper for this situation?

where it is fair to the client, be put upou deposit legal obligation, case where it is fair to the client, to put That is a new the money on deposit.

it goes far legal obligation, because beyond what was by the Brown case.
I propose that if the solicitor money on deposit should have done so then he shall still be bound to account amount of interest earned if he had put that money on deposit.

required further does not put the for the to the client that would have been in a case where he to provide I referred : the just now to two factors in coming to a conclusion as the Broadly in fairness to the client, amount and the period.

Each of those is relevant to whether, money should or should not be put on deposit.
might be done if it was said that it would be unnecessary deposit if the sum was less than £500 or the period over which it was held was less than, shall we say, eight weeks or two to put the money on or to account speaking, rough justice for the interest 29 o; the prin­ fa requiring make provision in such cases as may be prescribed cipal Act shall a solicitor, by the rules ... " et cetera.
So the Law Society it ; and I am authorised to give an absolute Society they will make such a rule an� bring it into force simultaneously into force of this Bill, if and when it becomes an Act.

has to do by the Law assurance with the coming that in giving will agree that is pecessary, of elasticity to give the Law I think the Committee some form of rule procedure what I have said, a because, from is essentia\ measure effect to fairness in this way.
Jt did not seem to me to be right that I should ask the Committee Society this power without ascertaining means they would use to exercise this power and without your that to bringing I invited notice.

Lordships' Therefore, to draft a rule and to the Law Society Rolls for submit it to the Master of the (if I may use his provisional approval 1 that colloquial expression) seemed to me right that the Committee should be in a position bined effect of the clause and of the rule.
to judge the com­ bf!cause it what That rule has been drafted apd it pro­ that if the two limits, £500 virtually, vides, and two months, be absolute liability are exceeded, there shall to put the money on 257.

Solicitors ( I l MARCH 1965 ] Bili [H.L.)

258 to the client.

even under those problem which arose for members of the solicitors' profession in the light of the on the Brown case.

I would con­ decision the the noble Lord and, indeed, gratulate now put for the proposals Law Society there.
There are forward, which, for my own part, I fully support.

as to Second, the solicitor in the a new sanction and to pay interest for that.

There is the one that the court has Law Society may be asked to give a certificate that it should be done, there is an obligation deposit If, on the other hand, it is reasonable and fair to the client, limits, equally three sanctions first and obvious the last word in these matters.
we are providing rule that the by the client whether in not accounting ting his money on deposit.

probably the accountant's calling going to move an Amendment call it a " report has to produce before he can get a practising report must certify have been complied will be one of the accounts rules and will fall within the ambit of the accountant's was right or wrong or not put­ for interest Lastly, and of all, there is certificate-I that the accounts with.

This new rule " though I am later to inspection.


I am glad to say that the Law Society to my invitation it a " certificate most important certificate.

"-which the solicitor am still rules That accountant's to my : that is, to is sitting to approve such a of the rule that they the Master of the Rolls to make.

I am glad to they submitted responded draft the substance are prepared say also that it to the Master of the Rolls ; and I am even �ore gl�d to say that, according mformat10n, would be prepared rule.
But as I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, me, he will no doubt be able to tell us v.:hetb_er am not sure his mmd.

The last thing-I whether I said this before-is that we are not proposing clause be retrospective.

spective profession best they can the situations find themselves Brown case to the date that this Bill becomes an Act and, as I hope, comes into force.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

that this We do not like retro­ and we are leaving from the date of the legislation I am right in which they the as should here beside or wrong in reading to sort out for themselves Amendment Afte.r Clause 7 insert moved- (Lord Tang/ey.)

the said new clause.­ LORD SILKIN : I should like also it may But I want· to the procedure making rules which the noble Lord on the the compromise, I should to mem­ on mem­ and which, as for a legal obligation What J Amendment.
on the to congratulate clear way in which he has explained this ra..ther complicated want to say has no bearing merits of the proposal.

I think the Law Society are doing the right thing ; and I consider if I may so call it, is fair and reasonable.

think it would commend itself bers of my profession.

enter a caveat about the way in which this is being done.
I realise that be rather late in the day to complain about the rules procedure, of an organisation provide bers of the profession the noble Lord explained, certain penalties of these rules.

From time us, I, especially, learned Viscount plain�d growmg practice means of regulations have to be approved, r�jected tion.

But, at least, pu�lished, tumty of expressing a Negative Nevertheless, factory, but possibly of the increasing tion and the inevitable Bills that come before us.
Resolu­ these regulations are has an oppor­ its views either Resolution.
as unsatis­ in view inevitable of and the noble and himself have com­ in the event of a breach to time all about delegated of passing the l;gislation: by legislation or a Positive it is regarded by means of a Negative and Parliament of lecrisla­ complexity length ot' the or which can be under an Act which lay down by But this is a further step-the makincr I am sure none of by anybody except three noble of rules which do not have to b� approved and learned Lords-the Lord Chan­ cellor, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice.
them will take my words as castincr any reflection upon them in any capacity whatever.

or any other body the power to make such rules, on the iffect the profession general requiring their approval But to give the Law Society and, incidentally, public as well, without even by members of the which are binding are grateful VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sure to the noble of what at rather a complicated the Committee Lord for his clear exposition first sight appears proposal.
posals I am also sure that the pro­ could solve the difficult put forward consideration.

259 Solicitors [LORDS]· [Lord Silkin.]

seems to me a very consider­ profession, able extension gated legislation.

of the doctrine of dele­ .that this is an undesirable any I realise this evening very careful that I am a Jittle by rules.

It is not my and that it would be worth But I think .that the when we ought to look to put forward I think that t-his is a matter late in the about this procedure.
day in complaining It was in the 1957 Solicitors Act and, so far as I know, it might have been in earlier legislation.

tim� has arrived at w:hat we are doing and, if possible, call a halt to this increasing trend of legislation province alternative.
wh�ch requires All I want to do is to point out to the Committee practice while looking see whether which would give the people concerned -that means, the genera:1 members of the profession-the tunity of approving definitely increasing want to repeat that so far as the actual proposed objection irrelevant.

going to affect a large number of people, in respect imposed with penalties ought to have breach, them.

the opportunity of approving LORD DENNING: May I say bow rules are concerned, I see no to them.
But that is quite These are rules which are these rules and an end to this of putting by rule.

I trend of legislation into the whole question any alternative and those affected can be found, public oppor­ and the of a to tord Silkin.

with the view by my noble friend much I sympathise expressed It happens that ,the only person who has to approve these rules is the Master of Lord Chancellor the Rolls.

The and the are excused tJhe Lord Chief Justice in this case.
The sub­ responsibility of the original stantive section the rules on accounts as regards Act says, : " Any such rules shall not come into until they have been approved ckbrokers l and, I may At all events, who have in their Bill [H.L.]

260 in the new rules -the by in law and -equity ettled principles Brown's so far case are to be followed as possible.
over What has happened tibe years is that solicitors, say, other people such as sto and estate agents, hands large amounts of clien s' money and who put them into currenf where there is no interest, responsible those moneys into deposit were held responsible That has always been the position and equity, this has not 'been so.
I may say that many counsel, the hands of solicitors a long time before they received them, have thought to the interest hav� not been but if they put when their .fees have been in to anyone, they account about what has happened on the fees.

but in point of practice for the interest.

in law and it ihas been account, This rule goes further than Brown's is r<esponsible safeguard.

case and it has to be encouraged.


not only wheQ he puts ; if he ought to have and has not for the interest, 1 a great from of the position case.

It says that a solicitor for the interest money on deposit put the money on deposit done so, he is responsible too.
That is a big advance strengthening Brown's There is this additional If the amount is over £500 and is to be held for more than two months, case the solicitor for the interest that there is the overriding ness to the client, on deposit deposit, interest.

pr1nciples.

the Rolls will be pleased them.

This rule is rto come into operation a:t the same time as the exempting section.
So I would support whether or ought to have been on that he must account for the As the rules follow out those has to be r�sponsible Apart from rule, in fair­ the money is of to approve I am sure that all Masters this Amendment.

to the clie11t.

th6n in any by in ,t,his proposed have given careful THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill should be taken operation the Master of the Rolls."

It was originally that even that sanction away ; but that is going to be amended.
This is a special Master of tbe Rolls, not just the interests that are concerned, but also the interests of clients.

ged to see I have been privile the proposed rules and, as Master of the Rolls, satisfied interests I should like to say that I am that they fairly of clients.

Government tion to the practical have been occasioned profession ships' Commissioners.

It was not very easy to see what would be the right method of solving those difficulties would be both practical clients.
ment careful ment accept it.

They feel that this is a But, having given this Amend­ thel Govern­ by the decision House in Brown v. Inlan4 responsibility of the here it is because of the Law Society so that they and fair to consideration, of your Lord­ protect Revenue the considera­ difficulties which to the solicitors' 262 Nos.

9 No.
9 No.

8, Amendments This battery of Amend- them is Solicitors [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill [H.L] 261 right and proper method by which those Amendment, difficulties to a solici­ a document might suggest or decreased.

to the Law Society can get a practising to sooth the conscie�ce one is apt to be told that that either Lordships Where tor, and a solicitor but of course and increase might be solved.

to 15 inclusive.
to 15 inclusive.

I have some sympathy with ments, if I may so describe s be increased tion to make changes limit or the period of time have to produce has to produce the before he certificate.

the repose of the account­ your is, as I reminded just now, that accountants · examined is that we cannot have it both books have been Rules, Account feel that if it Solicitors' to make elude such a rule as we have been of that kind document time.
The accountant's document the point raised by my noble designed entirely friend Lord Silkin, this is just the sort of case in ants.

The position which experience the monetary should legisla is necessary, there is no Parliamentary difficulty ways.

The Government were for the Law Society these rules on their own, there might be cussing some question in that such period.

interest rules require, and will continue of the noble and learned investigations the approval Lord the Master of the Rolls.
For those tant in forming reasons, This means, of course, that should be ce1tified and that one will Amendment.

we will also accept it in another place.

report upon an opinion.

And if opinion and fact are mixed, they think that " report their document, rather Far be it from me to worry the accoun­ their LORD AIREDALE: May I humbly for one small This new clause the Government accept the Thei accountants say that onJyl facts to require, There are certain factors a matter of opinion.
dis­ have in the last Amendment, The must state that the and that the about it; but the public been complied ,, is the right way to describe in those the accoun­ with during the relevant is fully safeguarded or to disturb which will in­ which involve put forward a suggestion drafting improvement?

being mandatory, as the noble and learned should have thought would have begun by saying, stands, Lord, Lord Tangley, that subsection Far be it from with an accountant told us, I <tauts' consciences repose.
quarrel matter of wording.

lent mood give this point to the accountants if it takes ten hope your Lordships that benevolent to the Amendments.

state of mind and agree I beg to move.

I am in a benevo­ and I want to to do' it.

I will join me in a lawyer ,to on a mere in this matter, Amendments " The cases in which a solicitor " The cases in which a solicitor quired but rather to act .

.

. "

not as it may be re­ shall be even (2) .

to act .

.

. "
to act .

.

. "

required I may be quite wrong about this, but if I am right there will be the opportunity at the next stage of the Bill to make this small drafting Amendment.

LORD T ANGLEY: I think I should last point.

I am obliged noble Lord for raising the word " may " is correct deal with that it, but I to _the believe in the context.

why this is so if the noble Lord wishes me to, but I am satisfied that " may " is the right word to use in this connection.
I will explain On Question, Amendment Clause 8 [Amendment of section 30 of agreed to.

principal 6.51 p.m. Act] : Amendment Page 6, line 21, leave out(" certificate") moved- and insert (" report ").-(Lord Tangley.

Amendment ) agreed to.

On Question, LORD TANGLEY: Amendments Nos.

9, 10 and 11 are consequential ments.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

Amendments Page 6, line 22, leave out (" certificate moved- Amend­ ") and insert (" report ") line 25, leave out ("certificate") and insert (" report ") line 29, leave out ("certificate ") and Insert (" report On Question, LORD TANGLEY: This is a conse­ ").-(Lord Amendments agreed to.

Tangley.)

than "certificate".

LORD T ANGLEY moved, in the pro­ (1) of Section 30 " certi­ Act to leave out The noble "report".
posed new subsection of the principal ficate" and insert Lord said: I would ask the permission of the Committee to take with this Amendment.

quential .

Page 6, line 30, leave out subsection msert: I beg to move­ (2) and (" ( ) In section for the word ' certificate stituted 30(2)(c) the word • report•.
of the principal ' there shall be sub- Act, · 263 Solicitors [LORDS] 30(3) of the principal ( ) In section (a) after paragraph the following inserted Act:- Clause 11 [Control (a) there shall be ments and moneys in the control of clients' docu- or of certain solicitors]: paragraph- possession to be contained report in accordance Bill [H.L.]

264 •(aa) the information in an accountant's with subsection (b)in paragraph ; • and (1) of this section (b), for the word • certi- '.
")-(Lord ficate ' there shall be substituted the word 'report agreed to.

On Question, LoRD T ANGLEY: This, too, is a Tangley.)

Amendment consequential move.

Amendment.

I beg to LORD TANGLEY: This is another drafting Amendment.

same point as I raised on Amendment No.

16, about a solicitor acting as a trustee.

It is exactly I beg to move.

who is also the moved- Amendment Page 7, line 42, leave out (" with any") and to the Tangley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


insert (" any matter which relates ration of a ").-(Lord administ Page 6, line 34, at end insert- ("( ) For the words 'accountant's certifi­ they occur in section cate' wherever principal words 'accountant's Tangley.)

report 30 of the '.

"HLord Act there shall be substituted the Amendment On Question, Clause 8 as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

.

agreed to. '


LORD TANGLEY: This also is a and in this con­ Amendment, I would refer also to Amend­ drafting nection ment No.

20.

The Law Society are entitle copies graph (i), and the provision also to paragraph d under the clause to receive of certain should apply (ii).

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

documents under para­ Clause 10 [Solicitors guilty of undue delay in certain matters]: LORD TANGLEY: Thjs Amendment powers, are taking and it has been represented to act in certain The Law as I explained cases to is a pure matter of drafting.

Society on Second Reading, of delay, me that it was not clear under this clause, as drafted, be exercised acting they could be pursued as a trustee.

acting Amendment is to make that clear.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

only when a solicitor was or whether purely as a solicitor, when he was also of this The object whether those powers could moved- Amendment Page 8, line 11, leave out from (" sub­ ") to ("or") in line 12 and insert (" or to in para­ section to any sum of money referred graph (ii) of this subsection Tangley.)

").-(Lord On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD T ANGLEY: This is a con­ Amendment.

sequential I beg to move.


Amendment Page 8, line 12, after (" matter moved- ") insert (" or sum of money, as the case may be,").-(Lord Tangley.)

On Question, Clause 11, as amended, Amendment agreed to.

agreed to.

Amendment moved- Page 7, line l, leave out (" with any") and to the Tangley.)

to.
to.

agreed insert (" any matter which relates administration Amendment On Question, LORD T ANGLEY: Tbjs Amendment of a ").-(Lord Clause 12 [Control of deceased circum­ in certain solicitor's stances]: practice Under was asked to undertake with regard to redirection He has represented Bill the Post­ General.

to the Postmaster in the original relates the clause master General duties certain to of postal packets.

him that we are asking the Law Society to do more than he has power to do.
The object relieve says he cannot is to of this Amendment him of an obligation which he I beg to move.

undertake.

moved- Amendment Page 7, line 14, leave out (" paragraph 7 ") (" paragraphs 7 and 8 ").-(Lord and insert Tangley.)

LORD TANGLEY: Under Schedule 1, cases, d to take are entitle of documents is to make it clear in certain or from his The object of representative.
the Law Society possession either from a solicitor personal this Amendment that if an order has been made against dies that and the solicitor a solicitor order shall continue in force against need to representative personal against the apply for a new order I would refer personail representative.

also to Amendment consequential upon this.

I beg to move.

No.

22, which is without his On Question, Clause 10, as amended, Amendment agreed to.

agreed to.
agreed to.

265 Solicitors [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill [R.L] moved- 266 Act.

I Amendment Page 8, lioe 31, after (" aod ") iosert (" shall contioue to apply ").-{Lord Tangley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TANGLEY: This is a conse­ quential Amendment.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

dealt with under the Judicature am glad to say that conversations have taken place between and the Senior Probate the Senior Probate Registrar pared to issue a Practice Direction the Judicature solve the problem and the powers it contains th' Law Society Registrar, and is pre­ under we believe, and make this clause unnecessary.

Act which will, Amendment Page 8, line 32, after (" apply") insert moved- as the case may be,").--{Lord (" or applied, Tang/ey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


LORD TANGLEY: This Amendment to remedy a purely gram­ slip.

The phrase " personal is designed matical representatives "the personal to move.

to be " ought clearly representatives ".

I beg THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the I felt bound to this clause reasons noble Lord will remember, to take some objection Second Reading, for then gave and need not now repeat.
am happy to know that other arrange­ ments have been made which will enable the noble Lord to withdraw on which I I On Question, Clause 14 disagreed the clause.

to.

Amendment Page 8, line 33, after (" words ·') insert moved- (" the ").-{Lord Tangley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Order under paragraph I to principal Act to be an of Schedule act of bankruptcy]: Whether On Question, Clause 15 shall 7 Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

be agreed to?
be agreed to?

Clause 13 [On death of solicitor practising deal with banking accounts Society to of practice] : on his own account LORD TANGLEY: This Amendment and might in practice.

lo remove some words which are now superfluous proposes I believe cause some difficulty a very technical it if any of your Lordships feels desirable I can assure nical point.

it to spend any time on it, but a tech­ you that it is purely I beg to move.

point.
point.

I will explain It is Amendment Page 8, lioe 44, leave out from ("Society") moved- to ('' to") in line 45.--{Lord Tangley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

to The effect of in the interests I also mentioned bank account The President entirely to treat a freezing LoRD TANGLEY: ln this case also I am going to ask your Lordships leave out the clause.

this on Second Reading.

the clause would have been to enable the Law Society, order of of clients, as an act of a solicitor's bankruptcy.
of the Board to the fact that of Trade drew attention there is no other act of bankruptcy where there has been a debt-and unpaid debt at that-and bankruptcy going far beyond the ordinary happening to allow this particular practice to be an act of bankruptcy.

The Law this, and I am have considered Society to the view that we have let inclined swing too far against the the balance instance.

There­ in this particular solicitor fore I would ask leave for this clause of the Bill.
to be left out On Question, except an that it would be Clause 15 disagreed to.

Oause 16 [Power to make grants out of Compensation circumstances]: Fund in additional Clause 14 [Administration where no grant solicitor of practice of deceased for] : applied 7.0 p.m. be agreed to?

On Question , Whether Clause 14 shall Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

LORD T ANGLEY: My Lords, I am LORD TANGLEY: This is really a to leave out this When I mentioned asking your Lordships clause.
on Second Reading, ships that the Senior Probate believed clause was designed The original drafting Amendment.

32 of the as drafted, Solicitors drafted, draftsmen, as I explained to give full effect to the clause it on Second Reading.

that the object which this Act, 1957.

It bas been re­ to fulfil could be I told your Lord­ Registrar on Section the matter relied clause, with the aid of very distinguished We 267 Solicitors [ LORDS] Bill [H.L.]
26ls Power to make grants out of Compensation which may affect the making [Lord Tangley.]

that in this form it is more certain believe jn its effect.

to refer also to Amendmeut which is consequential ment.

I beg to move.

jf I may.

No.

26, on this Amend­ I should like.
Amendment Leave out Clause 16 and insert the moved- following new clause- Fund in cases of hardship (" .-(I) Where the Council on a complaint a solicitor against as a solicitor, being made to the Society that he has failed to account are satisfied for money due to a person in connection or in connection his practice any trust of which he is a trustee, that person has suffered or is likely hardship Society section, called a ' hards afte,r out of the Compensation under section may, subject make to that person a grant (here• h ip grant') Fund maintained 32 of the principal Act.
with with and that to suffer of the failure, the of this to the provisions in consequence in this section (2) The Society shall not make a hardship grant unless- (a)it has given to the solicitor (except in a case where he has died) at least eight days' notice in writing explanation the complaint of the state of affairs to which him relates, requiring of him an and against (b)the solicitor a suf­ that the money will be to comply with with it but and have has failed or he has complied the notice, the Council are of the opinion, so notified the solicitor his explanation ficient assurance accounted (3)A hardship time.
for within a reasonable does not constitute grant may be made whether had a practising by giving to the matters and notwith­ or not the solicitor in force at the time of any act or default him which is relevant rise to his failure to that act or standing has died or had his name default removed from or struck off the roll, or has from suspended ceased to practise practice.
to account, that subsequently the solicitor or been certificate (4)A hardship grant may be made either or subject to the conditions determines and if the Society unconditionally of this subsection, and, when making that it shall be so subject the grant, gives to the person receiving grant notice in writing the following is to say,- of its determination, shall have effect, that provisions the (a) the Society shall to the amount of the grant be subrogated to any rights and of any of that person remedies failure matters giving to account, and rise to the solicitor's in respect (b)that person shall have no right under or or other legal proceedings in respect to receive of those bankruptcy otherwise matters solicitor reimbursed any sum out of the assets of the until the Society has been the full amount of the grant, is made or to the solicitor event of his death, insolvency to his personal ability, tive or any other person having authority administer in the oi, other dis­ references his estate.
include.

to representa· may make rules with respect in giving to be followec:!

and of this section, 2 to the principal (5)The Council to the procedure effect to the provisions of Schedule rules as to the furnishing to be eligible person appearing grant ; and for the purposes into any matters or refusal or any committee and authorised their functions cise of any such functions, oaths.
of a hardship appointed grant, the Council by the Council by them to exer5ise any of or to assist them in the exer­ may administer of particulars Act, including by a for' a hardship of inquiring (6)In this section the expressions 'trust' and ' trustee section as in ' have the same meanings 29 of the principal Act.
(7)At the end of paragraph 7(d) of Schedule Fund to be applied Act (which enables the 2 to the principal Compensation grants under section shall be added the words ' or of any hardship grant which the Society may make under section in making 32 of that Act) there 16 of the Solicitors Act shall be (8)The provisions 1965 '.

of this section to, and not derogate of section supplemental provisions (which enables grants Compensation dishonesty).

")-(Lord Tangley.)
")-(Lord Tangley.)

Amendment from, the 32 of the principal Act to be made out of the On Question, Fund in the case of a solicitor's agreed to.

to principal Act]: LORD T ANGLEY: This ls a con­ I beg t9 move.

Amendment.

sequential Amendment Page IO, line 43, leave out from ("under") in line 44 and insert (" section moved- to ("of'') 16(4) ").-(Lord Tangley.)

to.
to.

agreed matter, Amendment of the exist­ against the but it is ryally tion, rndemnified On Question, LORD TANGLEY: This is not quite a very servants provisions drafting formal.

It relates Fund.

The Society's are, under various ing legisla of acting consequences of the Law Society.

but there seems to be the Com­ some little pensation Fund indemnity.

was the intention, makes it clear.

Amendment Page IO, line 44, at end insert (" and the shall be inserted I beg to move.
moved- would bear any such There is no doubt that that doubt as to whether itself following paragraph sub-paragraph 7(a) of that Schedule:- after under the orders and this Amendment to the Co1t1pensation and agents in writing, that Clause 17 [Amendment of Schedule 2 and in paragraphs references to the person to whom the grant (a) and (b) of this subsection ' (def) for payment of all costs and damages or agents by the Society, its servants incurred 269 by virtue this Act '.
").-(Lord On Question, Solicitors [ 11 MARCH 1965] Bill [H.L.]

270 1 to Schedule I to 1 [Substituted Act]: principal agreed to.

LORD T ANGLEY : In speaking Tangley.)

Amendment 16 of Schedule of paragraph Schedule Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Amendment of section 46 Act]: of principal LORD TANGLEY moved to leave out packet.

many lawyers is not here-for and very serious to may I also refer to No.

30?
30?

This raises the question as to That is a happy noble Lord, Lord this Amendment, Amendment ancient what is a postal hunting ground-the Conesford, in many fields.

We had included Bill our own definition packets, telegrams, but we was the better thought part of valour and that we had better fall back on the sanctified definition Section 1953.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

Amendment moved- Page 17, line 17, leave out from (" fit") to of postal et cetera, 87(1) of the Post Office Act, that discretion letters, in this of Tangley.)

Amendment agreed to.

LORD TANGLEY: This Amendment is consequential.

I beg to move.

line 17, after (" packets ") insert by section ").-(Lord 87(1) of the Post Tangley.)

Amendment agreed to.

of course, desirable the temporary (1).

The noble Lord said: to agree to the proceedings notwithstanding of one member of the Committee.
subsection to the quomm This is a clause relating of the Disciplinary Committee.

On to your Lord­ Second Reading I explained of the parties ships that in the interests to enable the it was thought con• parties tinuing absence The quorum, had an opportunity matter at some length learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, he has persuaded this provision.

because Society, in this clause venience Chancellor did on Second Reading this could cause embarras is three.
I have this of discussing with the noble and and for the con­ But the Lord to me, as he to the House, that there is nothing there is nothing Amendment Page 17, (" (as defined Office Act 1953) I do that with some regret, for the profession, has represented me that I ought to drop of the parties.

: it is entirely On Question, On Question, for the Law (" postal ").-(Lord sment.
moved- proceedings that when you are con­ which may lead to He has also made the point, which I think is a very cogent one, if I may say so with respect, ducting the ruin of a solicitor, to have three of his judges there all the time.

It is too serious to less than three.

I have weighed up all these representations, and, with some regret of these arguments, drop this proposal.

but none the less feeling I propose I beg to move.


the force that we a matter to be left he ought at least Amendment moved- Page 12, line 2, leave out subsection (!

).­ (Lord Tang/ey.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am to the noble Lord for having grateful met the points I raised on the Second Reading debate.

On Question.

Clause 20, as amended, Amendment agreed to.

agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 31 agreed to.


He has drawn our attention to duties we are putting certain LoRD T ANGLEY: This Amendment is also for 'the benefit of the Postmaster General.

the fact that upon him.

In this case, he finds that he can undertake he ought to be paid for doing them, which is quite right.

ment provides.

these duties buit thinks That is what this Amend­ I beg to move.
Amendment moved- Page 17, line 23, at end insert- (" ( ) Where such an order is made under sub-paragraph shall pay to the Postmaster charges : - and payable ( ) of this paragraph General (if any) as would have been charged the Society the like (i)in respect of an application or instruc­ the time specified of the person to whom they are to sent or delivered in the case of a per­ tions by the addressee, of his place of business, for manent change the re-direction packets of postal or delivery to which the order relates to him at the address be re-directed, order, and during (ii)in respect transmission in accordance had been re-directed or instruc­ accordance tions as aforesaid.
"}-(Lord On Question, or re­ postal packet of any individual if the packet or re-transmitted in with such application under the in the order, of the re-direction agreed to.

with the order, Amendment Tangley.)

271 Solicitors [LORDS] Bill [H.L.]

272 LORD T ANGLEY: With your Lord­ is a simple matter of drafting.

I should like to take Nos.

32, 33 and 36 together, ships' permission, Amendments as they raise the same principle.

We really to omit paragraph 17.


We are proposing 99 of the now that Section are satisfied covers the Judicature Act, 1925, already point, provision so there is no need to make special in this Bill.

I beg ,to move.

It Schedule Schedules 1, as amended, 2 and 3 agreed to.

agre¢d to.

·Schedule repealed]: 4 [Provisions of principal Act LORD TANGLEY: This Ambndment that all rules should require of the Master of the R91ls, and This is the �atter to provides approval not only some.
Master of the Rolls himself re­ which the it makes all rules ferred just now, and and cop.sent subject the Master of the Rolls.

I beg to move.

to the approval of Amendment Page 17, line 27, leave out (" paragraphs moved-- 17 and 18") and insert (Lord Tangley.)

("paragraph 17").­ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD T ANGLEY: This Amendment is consequential.

I beg to move.

Amendment Page 20, line 29, leave out from (" sub­ moved- ; ") to (" sections ") in line 30--(Lord section Tangley.)
On Question, Amendment agr�ed to.

LORD T ANGLEY: I have .to apologise Amendment Page 17, line 28, leave out (" they affect") moved- and insert (" it affccts").-(Lord Amendment Tangley.)

agreed to.

On Quest·ion, LORD T ANGLEY: This Amendment Atten­ is purely a matter of drafting.

tion has been drawn to �he fact that firms as well as individual solicitors have we ought to refer to clients.

firms' clients the reference individual as well as " his " clients­ there is, of course, to an I beg to move.
Therefore, solicitor.

T,he clause was not included ; it is a hang­ was a clause in an early for the next Amendment over.

There draft of this Bill to which this was appended.

in the Bill as I introduced very sorry to say we overlooked these words were still there.

It is a disgraceful but these words relate the Bill, and, therefore, vermiform to move.

to have tb make, to nothing it, and I am that confession be removed.
I ask that this appendix else in I beg Amendment Page 17, line 32, after third (" his ") insert moved- Amendment Page 20, line 31, leave out from (" sub­ moved- (" or his firm's ").-(Lord On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Tangley.)

section Tangley.)

; ") to (" in ") in line 3�.-(Lord On Question, Sc·hedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD T ANGLEY: This Amendment deals with a similar notice that procedural for a firm no· less than for an md1v1dual solicitor.

point.
point.

It provides may be _ne�e�sary I beg to move.

Amendment Page 18, line 15, after (" solicitor moved- ") insert (" or his firm ").-(Lord On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Tangley.)

LORD T ANGLEY: This Amendment is consequentiail..

I beg to move.

Amendment Page 19, line 11, leave out paragraph moved- 11.­ (Lord Tangley.)
J n the Title : LORD TANGLEY: This Ambndment to provide to ,the Long Title is designed accommodation of putting out of Brown's moved- Amendment Line 11, after (" solicitors with regard (if that is the right way the new Clause 7 arising case.

I beg to move.

; ") insert (" to to interest on it) for make provision clients' money ;").-(Lord Tangley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

as amended, agreed Title, to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with On Question, Amendment agreeo to.

Amendments.
Amendments.

273 National Assiswnce [ 11 MARCH 1965 J Bill [H.L.]

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE 7.15 p.m. BILL [H.L.]

Report of Amendments to Order).

(according received Clause I: National Asista,ice legal.
Board may join in certain �m So'edings 274 suggested, than I had originally latitude so that if some case came to the atten­ Board Assistance tion of the National be desirable where they thought in the public interest and in the interests of the other plaintiff be joined with the other plaintiff in the action, they could be joined.
that they should it would In any case, the Amendment serves Board may Assistance (hereinafter called " the whose pur­ in any proceedings whose purpose, 1.-(1) The National join with any plaintiff other plaintiff '-) pose, or part of or obtaining the equivalent Board thinks itself were not brought, plaintiff.
likely, of any sum or sums of money of which or of part of which the to have to pay to the other what are the main purposes to emphasise of the Bill-I am sure that the noble Lady will agree-that maintenance wife under a maintenance order, support affiliation of the illegitimate order.

I beg to move.
I beg to move.

or divorced or the of the deserted is, to deal with child under an if such proceedings is the recovery (3) It shall be the duty of any court in which any proceedings subsection proceedings to in the foregoing bring such have been initiated to mentioned the notice of the Board.

Amendment Page I, ·Jine 7, leave out (" recovery the said new words.­ moved- or obtaining") and insert (Lord Drumalbyn.)
(5) In any case in which such a direction in the last preceding as is subsection is mentioned in force, the Board tiff such sums as are ordered to be paid to the Board, whether are actually payments by the judgment or not such made to the Board.

may pay to the other plain­ LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in sub­ or (1), to leave out " recovery section obtaini " obtaining recovery".

ng" and to insert: by periodic payments or the The noble Lord said: My Lords, this the purpose Amendment.

and affiliation or damages.


I cannot more than a drafting is little At an earlier stage I moved an Amend­ ment to limit the scope of the Bill rto payments.
maintenance could be excluded in par­ What I thought ticular of were proceedings which was to obtain a lump sum by way of compensation say with certainty I am now moving will achieve but it at least will suggest anyone reading this clause that it is concerned at least mainly, periodic payments and the recovery weekly payments already made National which the court says should have been paid by the defendant either to the National Assistance plaintiff.

that the Amendment that 9bject.
to to interpret or with cases which involve Board, or of amounts Board or to the other very strongly Assistance and seeking wholly, by the of It may be that the Amendment leaves more latitude Assistance the noble Lady would prefer Board, and I gathered that more than that to the National rather BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord and I discussed stage and this matter on the Committee I congratulate at a form him at arriving of words which I think is quite clear to They mean that the pay­ most people.
ment should be made, not in a lump fashion.

sum but in a periodic Of course, that the noble Lord will recall 1 gave certain mittee stage and on Second Reading, and I think if we put these words in and then leave it to the discretion the Board the Bill will have been improved.

I should like to accept the Amendment.

illustrations at Com­ of On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN: Mv Lords, this is really and is consequential.

part of the same ·Amendment I beg to move.


Amendment moved- Page 1, line 11, at end insert (" or which the Board has already paid to the other plaintiff ").-(Lord Drumal byn.)

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My stage The noble stems from we had in Committee Lords, again this Amendment discussion and on Second Reading.

Lord was a little lest a woman might be compelled with the Board although she was reluct­ ant to do so.
This makes it quite clear that she will not have to join with the Board unless she is perfectly to do so.

I beg to move.

I think, apprehensive, to join willing Bill [H.L.]

(b) where the payments paid shall not exceed the sums which 276 ordeted by the Court to be_ paid to the Board I exceed the amounts which �h!?
B_oard would have paid with the m accordance to the other plamttff Act 1948 hitd no such National Assistance order been made, the payments made by the Board for any period during whirh the sums ordered b)' the Court to be paid are not actually the Board would have paid had no such order been made · ' .....

,.,....
,.,....

(c) where the sums ordered to be paid are paid irregularly tently, •first to the recouprnent by the Board in the absence payments ordered to the Board and shall pay the balance the other plaintiff such instalments Board, expedient plain tiff."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we at the earlier discussion in such manner and in of the as are, in the opinion of the other in the interests of pay � by the Court o be made the Board shall apply by the Court such payments ents made of he periodic to br intermit­ [LORDS] 275 National Assistance moved- Amendment Page 1, line 11, at end insert (" provided may be brought under that no joint proceedings this subsection other plaintiff without the consent of the ").-(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful ting in this Amendment.

to the noble Lady for put­ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to leave out subsection instead: (3) and to insert " ( ) Upon the initiation of any such pro­ in the foregoing are brought to bring it shall be the duty of the court as are mentioned ceedings subsection, in which the proceedings them to the notice of the Board".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I agreed by the think it was generally House that, in order to protect the woman, at least so that she might claim that it is desirable at an earlier the Board should be instructed that This Amend­ proceedings were pending.

ment serves to emphasise the need to bring the Board into the picture initial at the stage •Of a case.

I beg to move.

stage, Amendment Page 1, line 26, leave out subsection moved- (3) and insert the said subsection.-(Baroness Summerskill.)
less that the and the from the defendant if those sums were nof received.
on ; and secondly, to preserve: stage had some of the Bill as to the circumstances in which the Board should pass on money received amount which they should pay: the other plaintiff The purpose of this Amendment-I think it is self-explanatory-is Bo.ard shall not pay the co-plfintiff than they receive from the defendant which was the point the noble Barones; wanted to insist point I was anxious Board should not pay the co-plaintiff more than the National defendant make a larger (this was a point the noble Baroness brought fendant gether from time to time, l�nd then pays what he should have pair., or part the Board of what he should have paid, may pass on the money in wha,tever way they think to be in the interest of the co-plaintiff, iQ.
a lump sum.

I beg to move.

they are entitled Assistance is due to make and where the de­ to my attention), or misses alto­ pays irregularly, Act where the fails to not necessarily paymerh.

Thirdly that the periodic to do under the LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I again thank the noble Baroness fying this intention.

for clari­ agreed to.

On Question, BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Amendment Lords, I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack approve the wording move.

change: more legalistic.


will it makes I beg to of this little Amendment moved- ") and Page 2, line 2, leave out (" judgment (" court ").-(Baro/less Summerskill.)

insert On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.21 p.m. LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in sub­ (5), to leave out all words after section " may " and to insert " make payments or.

not the sums ordered paid to them are actually that- to the other plaintiff, whether by the Court to be paid ; so however instead: (a.)
taking one week with another the Board shall not less than the payments the Board; pay to the other plaintiff actually made to Amendment Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("may") to moved- end of line 10 and insert (Lord Drumalbyn.)

the said new words.­ My at BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: to arrive as the noble Lord No.

9·.

But Lords, I have endeavoured the same conclusion has by drafting � agree that.
he has include� important not be allowed than the National pomt : that the Board shall to pa:y anything more T rate.

I Assistance Amendment a very to compromise Assistance [ 11 MARCH 1965 ] that I was quite on what we 277 National said on Second Reading prepared might can the third prong of his ment, and if I accept drafting · pleased in Amendment to accept this Amendment.

Amend­ at that, my attempt 9 will fall.

I am land- LORD DRUMAL13YN:· My Lords, I am very grateful agreed to.
On Question, My BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: to the noble Baroness.

Amendment Lords, this is a drafting beg to move.

Amendment.

I Bill [H.L.]

278 Application to Scotland (" .
In the application of this Act to Scot­ (a)For the word •plaintiff• there shall which word 'pursuer' proceedings any party initiating be substituted the shall include in any court in Scotland; (b)for the reference to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1950 there shall be substituted a reference 1938 and 1964; to the Divorce (Scotland) Acts (c)for the reference to the Matrimonial Proceedings there shall be substituted Maintenance Act 1960 Courts) (Magistrates' to the a reference Orders Act 1950 ; (d)for the reference to the Guardianship moved- Amendment Page 2, line 8, leave out (" judgment (" court ").-(Baroness Amendment ") and Summerskill.)
agreed to.

On Question, insert of Infants be substituted of Children Acts 1885 and 1925 there shall to the Custody a reference Act 1939 ; and (Scotland) (e)for the reference to the Affiliation BARONESS SUMMERS.KILL: Lords, in view of the fact that I have No.

6, I will not accepted Amendment Nos.

8 and 9 in my move Amendments No.

10. n-ame.

I beg to move Amendment My Amendment Page 2, line 11, leave out subsection moved- (6).­ (Baroness Summerskill.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


persons Clause 2 [Payments for children : BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: fully employed] My of Act 1957 there shall be sub­ to the Illegitimate a reference (Scotland) Act 1930.

")-(Barones.r Proceedings stituted Children Swnmerskill.)

LORD DRUMALBYN: I thank the for following noble Baroness this out.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to think that Scot­ tish women also would benefit from this Bill.

On Question, agreed to.


BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Amendment Lords, .this is a drafting beg to move.

Amendment.

I Lords, this is beg to move.

a drafting Amendment.

I Amend,ment moved- After Clause 2 insert the following new moved- Amendment Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("for") end to line 23 and insert • money' ").-(Baroness (" all the words after Summerski/1.)

Amendment agreed to.


On Question, to BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My clause- Interpretation (" .-(1) In this Act, 'plaintiff• includes a party proceeding petition, or counter-claim.

by action, summons, (2)Any reference in this Act to any other a reference includes enactment ment as amended by any other Act, whether passed before or after the �ommencement Summerskill.)

this Act.
this Act.

")-(Baroness to that enact­ of Lords, this again meets the suggestion that we should apply it to Scotland On Question, as the noble Lord said.

I beg to move.

also, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment After Clause 2, insert the following moved- new clause- The House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes o'clock.

past seven