I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is necessary for reasons which I will set out—namely, to enable the Government to accept the gift to the nation by Lord Stanhope of his magnificent estate at Chevening. The Stanhope family have occupied the house for seven generations, since the first earl was first Minister of George I. The present Lord Stanhope, who had been in his time Lord President, Minister of Education and First Lord of the Admiralty, has wished that his family house and estate shall be able to continue in the service of the nation. He has felt for some time that this fine creation represented something that ought not to be allowed to perish, something which had indeed an enhanced value among the pressures, the stresses and the haste of modern times, and that Chevening should continue to make a contribution to the values of civilisation.

Judging, perhaps rightly, that Ministers were among the greatest sufferers from these stresses and strains, in 1943 he informed the Prime Minister, then Mr. Winston Churchill, that he proposed to leave the estate and the house to the nation. The Prime Minister at once accepted what he described as "this princely gift". I wish now to thank Lord Stanhope on behalf of the nation, and I hope on behalf of the House, for his splendid generosity.

The house lies in a tract of land of great natural beauty, partly wooded and covering several thousand acres. It is spacious but not overwhelming and it is a building of unusual charm, the designs of which are attributed to Inigo Jones. It conveys an atmosphere of restfulness and peace. Successive generations have extended and improved the house and added to it and to its treasures, which include the most intimate pictures of Lord Chatham, who occupied the house in 1769, and of his sons the second Earl and the younger Pitt. There hangs the portrait of Lord Chesterfield by Gains-borough, and in the gallery leading to the library are letters and memories of many previous Prime Ministers. There is a letter of Lord Rosebery's written to the present owner's mother in 1911, in this very month of June, in which he has crossed out the address "Chevening" and written "Paradise". There is a poem by Disraeli, framed, which I can only describe as "rough". In the library are originals of Stanhope's life of Pitt and Mahon's history of England. One pictures Mr. Baldwin, who often visited Chevening, browsing among the volumes of literature and choosing apt quotations for the next week's debate.

Recently Lord Stanhope indicated that he would like to complete the arrangements necessary to put his offer into effect. Discussions revealed that legislation would be required, and the Bill was accordingly prepared. The Bill takes the form of validating a trust deed already signed and executed by Lord Stanhope. This deed in many of its provisions bears a strong resemblance to the Chequers Trust Deed, as amended by the Schedule to the Chequers Estate Act, 1958, which modified the original trust deed in some important particulars.

The deed which is set out here declares that the Chevening Estate, the house and its contents, and the Chevening Trust Fund, are held in the first instance, as long as Lord Stanhope is alive, upon trust to permit him to occupy and use the estate and house and to enjoy the income from the fund. The fund will consist of investments amounting to £250,000, the income from which will be added to rents from the estate and should meet all reasonable requirements.

After Lord Stanhope's death the deed permits the Prime Minister or his nominee to occupy, use and enjoy Chevening as a furnished country house. Provisions are included to cover the possibility of the trust for this second purpose failing, for example, if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should declare that Chevening is no longer wanted for the purpose. The Leader of the Opposition has been kept fully informed and has been consulted before we introduced the Bill.

The persons who will in due course be qualified to occupy Chevening are, in the first place, the Prime Minister of the day. He may, however, if he desires nominate instead anyone of his colleagues who is a Cabinet Minister. He may, alternatively, nominate certain members of the Royal Family, who are defined broadly as

"the widow or a direct descendant of King George VI or the spouse, widow or widower of such descendant."

At present, this broad definition includes Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen Mother, the Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Margaret, the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne.

It will be open to a future Prime Minister either to occupy Chevening or to put it at the disposal of certain other persons chosen from his own Cabinet colleagues or members of the Royal Family. The Prime Minister of the day can at any time terminate such a nomination, whether it was made by him or his predecessor and an occupant who ceases to be Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister, as the case may be, is no longer eligible for occupation. So, in certain circumstances, the trust in favour of the Prime Minister or his nominee would determine if, during a period of six continuous years, nobody occupied Chevening. The trust would, however, at once determine, that is to say come to an end, without the imposition of any waiting period if at any time both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition notified that this was their desire. In that case, the estate would be made available to the Canadian High Commissioner, failing him to the United States ambassador and, failing him, it would pass to the National Trust.

After Lord Stanhope's death the administration of the estate and the fund will come into the hands of a body of administrative trustees. This will consist of the Lord Privy Seal as chairman, two persons nominated by the Prime Minister, one by the Minister of Works and the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, with power to co-opt. This body will operate so long as the estate is held for the benefit of the Prime Minister or his nominee. The administrative trustees will have wide powers of management, including control over the investments of the trust fund. They will, however, be subject to certain restrictions. In particular, they cannot sell any land except with the approval of the Prime Minister and cannot under any circumstances sell the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the house.

So much for the background of this splendid offer. I now turn to the terms of the Bill itself. As I said, its purpose is two fold, first to validate a perpetual trust and, second, to give certain exemptions from taxation, in particular from Estate Duty, and, in due course, from Income Tax, without which even this great estate with its generous endowment would not be self-supporting.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the first of these aims. Subsection (1) is the main part of the Clause. It validates the trust deed in spite of the fact that it sets up a perpetual trust not being a charitable trust. Subsection (2) provides that the vesting deed shall be taken to comply with the requirements of the Settled Land Act, 1925. Subsection (3) protects a restriction imposed by clause 12 of the trust deed on the powers of the trustees to sell, lease, exchange or mortgage land. Subsection (4) refers to a complication which follows from the fact that during Lord Stanhope's lifetime Coutts Bank is the trustee of the settlement but that at his death responsibility for administration passes to the body of administrative trustees I have mentioned. That is the content of Clause 1.

Clause 2 carries out the second objective I mentioned; namely, it gives exemption from Estate Duty. Hon. Members will appreciate that on an estate of this size the rate of Estate Duty would be high and would make such inroads on the estate as very seriously to undermine its finances although it is very generously endowed. So, following the precedent of the Chequers Estate Act, 1917, it is proposed to give exemption from Estate Duty. It is also proposed, again on the precedent of the Chequers Estate Act, to exempt the trust from Income Tax except so long as Lord Stanhope is the beneficiary. In other words, Lord Stanhope will not escape Income Tax by reason of this Clause; it will operate only at his death. That may seem ungenerous, but the Exchequer considers it to be right.

With these explanations of the trust deed and of the import of the Bill, I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that this generous project is one to be welcomed without reserve. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House. We have rarely an opportunity, whether it be on a Friday or any other day, to join together in welcoming an addition to the nation's resources quite so remarkable as that which we have before us today, one endowed with every sort of historical precedent and a great deal of historical beauty. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in recommending to the House the Second Reading of the Bill.

I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, the character and purpose of which have been clearly explained by the Lord Privy Seal I should like also to express on behalf of the Opposition our most sincere thanks and appreciation to Lord Stanhope for this magnificent gift to the nation.

I have not myself had the pleasure of visiting Chevening yet. Lord Stanhope has, however, been kind enough to invite me to do so and I hope to do so before long. My information about the property, therefore, is secondhand, but there can be no doubt, as the Lord Privy Seal has made plain, that this is a most remarkable house and estate. The fact that the original house was built after a design of Inigo Jones, or so it is said, and built, in the main, in what we all agree was the best period of British architecture and contains some famous Gainsborough portraits and exquisite furniture, is, I think, known to everybody.

It has, also, some remarkable historical associations. The Lord Privy Seal referred to the fact that Lord Chatham and his wife occupied the house for a time and that Lord Chesterfield was closely associated with it, but we should not overlook the historical associations which members of the family of Stanhope themselves bring to us. The first Lord Stanhope was himself Prime Minister for a short time and the present Earl was Lord President of the Council, Minister of Education and, I think, First Lord of the Admiralty. It is worth recording, in expressing our thanks for this gift, that the family has already contributed intellectually to our history. The second earl, for instance, was described as the best mathematician of England in his day. He was apparently not allowed to pursue those studies very far, because Lord Chesterfield did not approve of mathematics for him.

The fourth earl was a famous historian, but the third earl must not be overlooked. He was brother-in-law to William Pitt, and the further Pitt moved to the Right the more the third Lord Stanhope moved to the left. After the French Revolution he became such an outspoken Republican that his views estranged him from Pitt and earned him the uncoroneted title of "citizen Stanhope." He was also an inventor and made notable contributions to the art of printing, in constructing calculating machines and, above all, in the design or invention of fire-preventing materials. In 1777, he had a two-storey wooden building erected at Chevening and invited a number of celebrated people, one of whom was John Wilkes, to occupy the upstairs room while the one below was burnt out. They are said to have sat through the experiment unconcerned, "enjoying the luxury of ice creams."

I understand that, despite his unusual interests, his children found the parsimony and peculiarities of the third Earl such that of all them eventually left the estate, including Lady Hester Stanhope, who went to the Lebanon as one of the first intrepid Englishwomen who went to live in that part of the world at that time. Both the character of the house and its historic associations are not in doubt.

I have only two small observations on the detail of the Bill. First, I am very glad that the trust deed does not allow any sale of land, except by permission of the Prime Minister. This means that, if there were to be such a sale, it would be possible to discuss it in the House of Commons and that would be, perhaps, an effective check. Secondly, without wishing to disappoint the Canadian High Commissioner or the American Ambassador, I hope that the time will not come when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition jointly agree to give up Chevening. I hope that Chevening will be retained for the nation and used for the purposes laid down in the trust deed. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal one or two questions arising from the Bill, but I wish to make it clear that I do so in no spirit of churlishness, nor do I detract one whit from the gracious compliments which have been paid to Lord Stanhope by the right hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

There is some concern in south-east London, in the area of my constituency, that certain generosities which have been shown to the people of London by Lord Stanhope in the past might be withdrawn by the terms of the Bill. Chevening has been an oasis for Londoners who themselves suffer the stresses, hastes and pressures of modern times to which the Lord Privy Seal referred. In the past Lord Stanhope has thrown his grounds open, particularly from June to September, for a small fee—not for his own benefit, as with the Dukeries, but for the purpose of charity. He has thrown the grounds open to Londoners so that they could go and spend a pleasant day there.

On the Ordnance Survey maps there are indications that the Pilgrims' Way crosses part of the grounds. There is a most beautiful path running from Knockholt through the grounds and used by some of my constituents. The path runs right through the grounds of Chevening and has given unalloyed pleasure to these people.

Will they suffer in future as a result of this Bill? Does it mean that after Lord Stanhope's death the occupation of the property will close the grounds to people who have enjoyed being able to use them? The Lord Privy Seal will remember that members of the Courtauld family took Eltham Palace on lease. They opened it to the public. They spent a great deal of money on improving it, but they did that at appropriate times so that it could be thrown open to the public. Dorney Wood is another example of an estate which in somewhat similar circumstances was so managed that public access on occasions was provided.

My constituents doubt very much whether, if ever the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition were in occupation of Chevening, walking along "Statesmen's Walk", taking each other gently by the arm and saying, "Enough is enough", they would welcome my constituents from Deptford, enjoying the pleasant summer, interfering with their walk and their talk. My constituents also feel that, if the property ultimately went into the possession of the Canadians or the Americans, there would be a higher security screen round the place than Lord Stanhope has thought necessary.

No one who lives in London and has to put up with the noise, the inconveniences, the hastes and pressures of London wants to see any part of an alleviation of this life denied to Londoners. It is, therefore, in that spirit, while commending the Bill, that I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether due consideration has been given to the enjoyment of this estate by Londoners and whether the privileges which have been given to them will continue.

I did not intend to address the House this morning, but as I am called upon, out of courtesy, at any rate, to reply to the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), I feel that a Minister should not come to the Dispatch Box without adding his word of tribute to the munificent generosity of Lord Stanhope in making this gift.

I can reply to the hon. Gentleman shortly in a way which I hope will set his fears at rest. The beneficiary during Lord Stanhope's lifetime is Lord Stanhope himself, although the trustees are Coutts & Co. I have certainly no reason to think that the benefits enjoyed by the people of the neighbourhood, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, through the generosity of Lord Stanhope will be in any way altered or impaired. On the contrary, I have every reason to think that they will continue.

After that, it is a matter for the administrative trustees, but the administrative trustees are presided over by the Lord Privy Seal, who is answerable in this House. My right hon. Friend or his successor will no doubt take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. So far as rights are concerned, they are preserved by the proviso to Clause 1 (1), which I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman has seen.

Having said that, it merely remains for me to say once more what a wonderful gift this is. I was fortunate enough to be asked by Lord Stanhope to see the house and grounds. It is a wonderful privilege to see the great works of art, the fascinating library and the very beautiful setting of this house. It can only be described, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he received the gift, as a most "princely gift" to the nation.

I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Of late years enemy bombing and planning legislation combined have disrupted the working of our law about rights of light. In March, 1957, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor appointed a Committee under Mr. Justice Harman, as he then was, to advise whether legislation was required to amend the law relating to rights of light. The Committee's Report was published on 14th July last year. The object of the Bill is to give effect to its recommendations, with some minor modifications.

Before I explain the Bill, the House will wish me to express our gratitude to Lord Justice Harman and his Committee for the excellence and expedition of their work. I think that the House will also wish to express its thanks to those bodies with expert knowledge in this field, who gave up time and took trouble to give evidence before the Committee, particularly the Law Society, the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Certain provisions of the Bill will be temporary in effect, and others permanent. The temporary provisions are contained in Clause 1, and I can, I think, quite shortly explain the need for them. As I understand it, in our law the owner of a building does not have a natural right to the light which flows over his neighbour's land to his windows or skylights but he can acquire such a right to light—a kind of negative easement—by grant or by agreement; or such a right can be established by long enjoyment—by prescription, as the lawyers say.

In theory it can be acquired by prescription at common law, in rare cases, on the basis of the doctrine of modern lost grant, and much more usually under the Prescription Act, 1832. The right once established can be protected either by an action for a declaration of the rights of the parties or an action restraining some threatened or actual obstruction. The relevant Section of the Prescription Act is conveniently set out in the Report in paragraph 9, and says, if I may venture to paraphase, that the right can be established by twenty years' uninterrupted enjoyment, save by consent, of the flow of light, but it also says that nothing less than a full year's break, after the victim has had notice of it, can count as an interruption.

The result is that enjoyment for nineteen years and one day creates an indefeasible right. In normal circumstances, that is quite long enough, because the owner of the servient land can protect himself by building or otherwise. However, the circumstances are now quite abnormal. In the first place, bombing has left flattened sites in our cities, or buildings with "bites" out of them—if I might use the phrase—reducing their opacity. It has all been quite haphazard as between owners affected.

Secondly, building has been prevented—before the war by anxieties, and during and after the war by shortages of labour and materials, and by statutory restrictions upon building which were not finally abolished until 1954.

Some remedy is now urgent because, as the House will recall, the worst of our bombings began in 1940—just nineteen years ago. So the position now is that the owners of buildings overlooking sites that are vacant through bombing or otherwise are entitled at law to restrain redevelopment of the sites, however reasonable, proper and desirable that redevelopment may be, and although the owner of the site has been prevented from building through no fault of his own.

The remedy suggested by the Committee, and adopted in this Bill, is a temporary extension of the twenty-year period of enjoyment to one of twenty-seven years to end at the end of 1962; that extended period to apply in a limited field only. It will apply to actions asserting the right to light brought between 14th July, 1958, the date of publication of the Report, and the end of 1962. But where the action has been brought before the passing of the Bill into law it will apply only if the action has not been finally disposed of.

Secondly, it will apply to actions brought after the end of 1962 in respect of an obstruction by reason of something done before the end of 1962. That is obviously necessary, because the defendant will have to be able to rely on the seven-year extension in such an action.

The result will be that anyone claiming a right to light before the end of 1962 will have to rely on uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty-seven years. The position will normally be the same where the claim is founded on the doctrine of modern lost grant as it is in relation to the Prescription Act, and will give the owner of the servient land until the end of 1962 to take the necessary steps to protect himself by building or otherwise.

I should say a word about the retrospective aspect of the legislation, as many, indeed most, hon. Members on both sides take the view that legislation should never be retrospective in effect unless there be wholly exceptional circumstances to justify it.

When Her Majesty's Government announced on 14th July, 1958, that they intended generally to accept the recommendations of the Committee, they then announced that they accepted the Committee's proposal that legislation should provide for the extended period to operate from the date of publication of the Report. That, the House will appreciate, is an absolute necessity, as otherwise the owner of the dominant building could wholly defeat the Bill before it became law by doing nothing more mysterious than bringing an action for a declaration that he had acquired the right by reason of twenty years uninterrupted enjoyment before the Bill became law. This provision, therefore, is absolutely necessary.

However, one is not out of trouble even then—one never is with retrospective legislation. If the flow of light enjoyed began in 1934, these provisions will allow rights of light enjoyed for upwards of nineteen years to be disturbed during the two and a half years to the end of 1962. Unhappily, of course, the owner of the dominant building may have spent money in the faith that he had a right to light, and some purchaser may have bought the land at a price that reflects the fact that it was supposed to have a right to light.

The Committee recognised the difficulties and said, in paragraph 36 of its Report:

"Nevertheless, it seems to us that exceptional factors justify the degree of interference with existing rights which our proposals entail."

The Committee goes on to set out its reasons for that, and I have no need to repeat them. We find those reasons compelling, and I submit to the House that the results, though unfortunate, ought, in the circumstances, to be accepted.

The principal permanent provisions are to be found in Clauses 2 and 3. In the past, in the ordinary way, the owner of the servient land who could not build or secure in writing the proposition that the enjoyment of light was with his consent, could protect himself against the acquisition of adverse rights over his land by putting up a screen to obstruct the access of light to his neighbour's building. A screen is rather a repulsive object. It is an unworthy use of labour and materials. It is, seemingly, a spiteful object in character, and, invariably, it is unsightly, so that planning permission should not really be given on aesthetic grounds to putting it up were it not for the fact that not to give permission means robbing an owner of his rights.

The ingenious remedy suggested by the Committee, and here adopted, is that, instead of a screen, we should have a notional screen taking the form of a statutory notice registered in the local register of land charges. The notice, once registered, will operate equally for the purpose of the 1832 Act and for a claim based on the doctrine of modern lost grant. After it has been registered for a year, it will constitute an interruption of the enjoyment and, accordingly, after a year's registration, claims based on long enjoyment under the Prescription Act will be rendered void.

The application must, of course, have safeguards to ensure that all those likely to be affected by the notice have notice of it, and it has, accordingly, to be accompanied by a certificate of the Lands Tribunal that adequate notice has been given to all such persons. In cases of exceptional urgency, a temporary notice may be registered for such period as the Lands Tribunal may specify, and such a temporary notice will cease to have effect at the end of the period unless it is kept alive by the lodgment of a further certificate.

The notice registered will operate as the equivalent of an interruption unless it is cancelled, lapses within a year, or is effectively challenged by action within a year; and the court in the action is given power to direct cancellation or such variation of the registration of the notice as may be appropriate.

Clause 4 is not based on any recommendation of the Committee. It represents an attempt to prevent the system of registration of notices being bypassed by agreement which would have the same effect but which would not require publicity or registration. Unhappily, representations that have reached the Government since the Bill left another place have satisfied us that this, in its working, would involve insufferable complexities for the registration authorities and the legal profession, and we shall—although I would not dream of inflicting myself on the House to argue it now—later invite the House to delete that Clause.

The remaining provisions may properly be described as ancillary and supplementary, and I need not give them special notice. I hope that this preface will suffice to entitle me to commend the Bill to the House as being good and necessary.

We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, and we are most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his helpful and lucid explanation of its provisions. I wish to join in the tribute paid to the Harman Committee. Occasionally, it happens that, by reason of the felicitous language used, a report of a Committee is not only instructive, but is also a pleasure to read. The Harman Committe's Report is an example of that.

We are at a point of time when, unless appropriate steps are taken, considerable numbers of rights of light will begin to be acquired over bombed sites. This results, as the learned Solicitor-General has said, from the time that has now elapsed since the war. Although twenty years is the period of prescription, there has to be a full year's interruption to defeat the acquisition of the easement. Therefore, for all practical purposes, nineteen years is the period with which we are concerned, and we are just about at the time when these rights will start to be acquired. Hence the urgency of the present Measure.

Of these rights affecting bombed sites, if they were acquired under existing law, it seems to me that two things can be said. First, one can say that in their inception they were adventitious, and it may be thought not desirable that rights initiated by circumstances of public emergency and hazard should be dealt with on the same plane as other rights.

Secondly, as I see it, the prospective servient owners, at least for part of the time since the war, will often have been handicapped by building restrictions and planning control in taking the steps necessary to prevent the acquisition of an easement by putting up buildings or screens. It therefore comes to this—although I must confess that I step warily when I go into Lincoln's Inn—that the acquisition of rights by uninterrupted enjoyment over a statutory period operates in a fair and orderly fashion only when, first, the rights are not initiated by circumstances of emergency and hazard and, secondly, when no exceptional obstacles are placed in the way of those who may legitimately desire to obstruct the acquisition of the right by, in this case, erecting buildings or putting up screens. It is for those reasons that the Bill is necessary.

The learned Solicitor-General referred to the retrospective effect that the Bill may have. It is true that it would seem that some hardship may be caused in a few cases. As he pointed out, extending the period to twenty-seven years will affect a case where rights started to accrue in, say, 1934. In such a case, the inception of the right would not have the characteristics to which I have referred. The prospective servient owner would have been, however, during the years of war and the period of post-war restrictions, obstructed in his opportunity of defeating the acquisition of the easement by building.

That would be the effect of the postwar restrictions which were imposed. It seems right, therefore, that he should get relief for that. Yet it is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that there may have been, since 1954. a sale of the lands affected at prices which were arrived at on the assumption that a right of light had been acquired by a neighbouring owner. This assumption might have had an effect upon the purchase price of either the dominant or the servient land if either of them had been in the market. However, although one recognises that there may be a difficulty there, I fully accept the view expressed that, bearing all the circumstances in mind, the method proposed for dealing with the problem as a whole is the correct method to adopt.

As was pointed out, the Bill, in addition to dealing with temporary factors created by the war, provides for certain permanent changes in the law. The acquisition of a right of light can in future be defeated, as I understand it, by the registration of a notice in the register of local land charges. This is really required, as I see it, because of the conflict that may occur between planning control and the freedom of owners to erect buildings or screens to prevent the acquisition by a neighbour of a right to light.

That raises an interesting point. The difficulty could, perhaps, have been overcome by an amendment of the 1947 Act, proposed either in 1947 or at a later date, providing that the erection of a screen was outside the definition of development in town planning law, if it could be shown that it was erected solely to defeat the acquisition of a right of this kind. I do not know whether that point occurred to anyone at the time, but it would have been one way of dealing with the difficulty. It is true, as has been said, that the screens in themselves will often be inherently unsightly objects and it may well be thought contrary to the long-term purposes of town planning legislation to make the kind of exception which I have suggested.

I would think that the Bill places a considerable responsibility upon the Lands Tribunal in its provisions dealing with the delivery and service of the necessary notices. Of course, although screens are unsightly things, they do have the advantage for this purpose that they keep constantly in the minds and in the vision of those affected what the true situation is. They serve a useful purpose in that respect, and it will be very important that the greatest care shall be taken to ensure that sufficient and adequate notices of registration are served upon all those who are interested.

In my consideration of the Bill, there has been at any time only one point upon which I have entertained any doubt on the merits, and that point is this. It might have been decided to deal with the whole matter by giving either to the High Court or to the county court—but preferably, I should have thought, to the High Court—a discretion to extend the prescriptive period in particular cases instead of treating the matter by increasing the statutory period. That would have enabled the courts, in such cases, to inquire into what had actually occurred—whether, in fact, efforts had been made to build which had been obstructed by building restrictions, or whether in certain cases applications had been made for planning permission and had been refused.

However, I am aware of the difficulties and objections which would have stood in the way of that treatment of the matter and I am fully satisfied that the method proposed is better, and I end as I began by saying that on this side of the House we welcome the Bill.

As a practising solicitor, I rise to endorse the point of view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) and also to say that it appears to me that this Measure is useful and, if anything, a little overdue.

I am talking now in a general sense, apart from the question of the emergency that has arisen. We find, in practice, a difficulty in tracing easements. It is not easy, when giving advice when a property is being purchased, to be able to ascertain exactly what the easements are when such easements are not regisered. I think that it will be very useful in future to have the easement of light registered, so that when an inquiry is being made with respect to the purchase of property, the people concerned with the purchase, as well as the vendor's lawyers, will be in a position to give a more exact understanding of the actual circumstances that exist with regard to the right of light.

Several years ago I had the difficult and unhappy experience of having to advise a client to erect a huge hoarding at the side of his premises so that there should not be an acquisition of light. It was ridiculous and it cost the man a considerable amount of money. It was an ugly thing between two plots. Nevertheless, to comply with the necessary requirement to prevent the adjoining landowner from obtaining a right of light, this had to be done.

In my view, the hardship could be overcome, and, as is evidently the intention here, will be overcome, by registering the particular easement, if there is an easement, and by taking the steps provided. I do not think that a person who has purchased land, say in the City of London, would have relied upon that land acquiring a right of light because of the time for prescription having run out. I am sure that if anyone bought a piece of land in the City, he would not have expected that he would he allowed to have that plot and to have a right of access to light to that plot because nobody else would build on the adjoining land. As the circumstances are, in consequence of the difficulties that prevail with regard to building, I can hardly believe that anyone who purchased would be done a grave injustice, if any in- justice at all, if he were now prevented from acquring a right of that light.

Therefore, from the point of view of the purchaser and the person who has purchased before—even though I am also seriously perturbed about any restrospective legislation, as everybody is—I do not think that, in the main, there is likely to be very much injustice done if the period is extended and the provisions of this Bill are put into effect. In the circumstances, I think that it will bring a considerable amount of benefit to all concerned in that it will place people in the position of knowing what actually does exit in the way of this easement, and, consequently, will give facilites for purchase and sale without the likelihood of any misunderstanding.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to reduce some of "the law's delay", at any rate so far as the Metropolis is concerned. It does that in Clauses 1 and 2 by increasing from 27 to 35 the maximum number of Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates who may be appointed. It empowers the Lord Chancellor to appoint acting Metropolitan magistrates if he thinks it expedient to avoid delays in the administration of justice.

While we are dealing with this subject of the Metropolitan magistrates' courts, we have also found it convenient to ask Parliament to deal with the powers of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District to hold land and buildings for the purpose of the probation system and his borrowing powers generally.

The necessity for Clauses 1 and 2 arises from the heavy pressure under which the Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates' courts have been working for many years, and increasingly in recent years. It is well known, and regrettable, that criminal offences of many kinds have increased and that these courts have borne their full share of the extra work involved.

If I may give some figures, in the twelve months ended 31st March, 1956, the total number of charges and summonses tried in these courts was 178,000. The figure for the twelve months ended 31st March this year was 223,000, an increase of 25 per cent. I should mention that roughly half of the offences tried in these courts are motoring offences and the increase in the amount of motoring is partly responsible for the increase in the work of the courts.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have been studying this situation closely in consultation with the Chief Magistrate. They are satisfied that everything is being done within the framework of the existing law to enable the courts to deal expeditiously with the increase in work, but the existing law fetters their opportunities a good deal.

As to accommodation, which is also relevant to this matter, I should mention that in the autumn a useful beginning will be made in providing additional court room when the premises at Marylebone, which have been occupied for some years by the County of London Sessions, will come into use as a magistrates' court, that is, when the old Newington Sessions Court, which was bomb damaged very badly in the war, has been rebuilt. We have proposals for further court room accommodation mainly by the extension of existing court buildings.

The lay justices of the County of London are giving valuable help at this time of pressure. The House will recollect that the lay justices come into the matter in two quite separate ways. First, they have their own jurisdiction, which is separate from that of the stipendiary magistrates. This is a jurisdiction for which they depend upon direction from the Home Secretary as to the particular matters with which they may deal.

At present, the matters which my right hon. Friend has authorised them to deal with are licensing and local authority prosecutions, for example, weights and measures prosecutions, prosecutions under the Public Health Act, rate enforcement, and certain prosecutions under the Housing Acts. Besides exercising that jurisdiction which is particularly their own, they are helping the stipendiary magistrates in several courts by taking some of the more routine cases which would, in the normal way, be dealt with by the stipendiaries.

Despite all that is being done to avoid delays, nevertheless, delays occur. In some types of case there is, all too frequently, a delay of many weeks between the date of the alleged offence and the hearing of the case. In other cases repeated adjournments have been found necessary. The objections to such delays are obvious even in minor cases, but where a defendant may be in custody, or where the issue in a case may be one which the parties very much wish to have decided without delay, the objections are much stronger. It is against this background that we put forward these proposals.

The present statutory maximum number of magistrates is 27. This number was fixed in 1839. It is true that the maximum number of 27 was never reached until 1928 and, after that, it fell again—it fell during the war, actually—reaching 27 again in 1954. But, of course, since 1954, as I have said, the work has greatly increased. Taking into account the other measures which are in hand, the intention is to appoint only two more full time stipendiaries at this time, but, while we are asking for these increased powers from Parliament, we think it wise to look ahead. Therefore, we suggest that the maximum number should be 35 instead of 27. I do not think that that number is necessarily excessive, bearing in mind that, while we hope for the best, we have to prepare for the worst.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is still intended to continue to use the services of the lay magistrates? If I may say so, they are a very valuable asset in this kind of work.

Yes, it is intended to continue to use them even though we wish to appoint two more stipendiaries fairly soon. So much for the increase in the number of whole-time stipendiaries.

Clause 2 of the Bill makes it possible for the Lord Chancellor to appoint temporary or acting stipendiary magistrates during periods of special pressure of work or other difficulty. At present, there is power to make such temporary appointments in the event of sickness or a vacancy, but there is no general power. We feel it right that the Lord Chancellor's discretion should not be fettered and his power to make temporary appointments should be general and unqualified in order to cover any possible contingency.

By subsection (3) of Clause 2, we seek to overcome a technical difficulty in the taking of the oath. The effect is that, when a temporary Metropolitan magistrate is appointed, it will be possible for him to take the oath before another stipendiary instead of having to go before a High Court judge to do so.

I come now to the powers of the Receiver dealt with in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. Clause 3 gives the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District power to hold land and buildings for the purpose of the probation system in the Metropolitan stipendiary court area. That area, although it has been varied from time to time in the past, is now coterminous with the London County Council area except that it excludes the northern part of the Borough of Hampstead.

The Receiver is appointed by the Crown, and he is responsible for providing and administering the land, buildings and equipment required not only for the Metropolitan Police Force, but also for all the Metropolitan magistrates' courts. It is his responsibility to arrange for the building or acquisition of police stations, police houses or other police buildings, and of magistrates' courts. He has many important functions. In particular, he has power, with the approval of my right hon. Friend, to issue precepts upon the appropriate local authorities to raise money for the police, for the courts and for the probation service within both the Metropolitan Police District and the Metropolitan stipendiary court area.

I apologise for having to go into certain technicalities, but I think that it is necessary in order to explain the real purpose of the Clause. Under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, my right hon. Friend is the probation authority for the Metropolitan stipendiary court area, and the probation expenses in that area are met on the direction of the Secretary of State. They are met out of the Metropolitan Police Fund. Clearly, the Receiver, who is the responsible officer for this fund, is the proper person to provide offices to enable the probation officers to carry on their work. Existing legislation, however, gives him no specific power to hold land or buildings for this purpose. In practice, this has been found to be a great impediment, Clause 3 will give the Receiver the same power to provide land and buildings for probation purposes as he has for police purposes and for the Metropolitan magistrates' courts.

Clause 4 deals with the Receiver's power to borrow for performing his various functions. This a power which he has had and has exercised for many years, and there is nothing new in principle in his having power to borrow money. The practice in the past has been to authorise him by special Act of Parliament to borrow up to a specific sum mentioned in the particular Act in question.

For example, in 1952, the Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Act authorised him to borrow £5 million for police purposes. Incidentally, he has, so far, borrowed about £3 million out of the £5 million authorised. He has, therefore, no immediate need for legislative sanction to borrow for police purposes, but the opportunity presented by the introduction of this Bill is being taken to deal with all his borrowing powers at the same time. He has no current authority to borrow money for the courts, though Parliament has, in the past, granted him such authority from time to time. He may need such power in the immediate future, because, as I was saying, certain extensions of court accommodation are to be made. Hence the necessity for this Clause.

The Metropolitan magistrates' courts buildings are mostly old and out of date. A considerable amount of rebuilding is necessary if the best interests of the administration of justice are to be served. It has not, in the past, been necessary for the Receiver to borrow for the probation system and he may not need it in the future, but one cannot tell. It seems prudent to make his power a general one while we are dealing with this matter. I hope that the House will take that view.

Naturally, the House will want to know the amount of borrowing which the Receiver will have to do in the foreseeable future under the powers we are giving him. This must depend to a considerable extent on the possible scale of capital investment in future years and it is. therefore, difficult to make anything like a precise forecast. A considerable amount of work on police stations, other police buildings, and, as I say, on Metropolitan magistrates' courts will require to be done. The Receiver will require the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury for each borrowing operation.

There is, therefore, that amount of control. In view of that, we have not thought it necessary to fix an overall limit to his borrowing by the terms of the Bill. I must disclose that what we propose in this respect is a departure from past practice, but we think that it is clearly justified. The Receiver will have borrowing powers very similar to those of local authorities and his exercise of those powers will be subject to Ministerial and Treasury control. Clause 5 is purely technical.

In conclusion, this is not a complicated Measure, but we think that it is a very important and useful one. The need for it is urgent, and I trust that the House will agree that it will promote greater efficiency in the administration of justice and, above all, will help to some extent to reduce "the law's delay".

We on this side of the House support the Bill. We are grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his account of its provisions.

It is true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the maximum number of Metropolitan magistrates now allowed is twenty-seven and that that maximum was imposed by legislation passed as long ago as 1839. We understand that the maximum number was reached in 1954. We learn from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the maximum had been previously reached, although there was an interim period when there were fewer than twenty-seven stipendiary magistrates. We all know that the amount of crime and the number of criminal charges has tended to increase in recent years. When that fact is considered and taken into account with the fact that the maximum was reached in 1954, we think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's case on the Bill is made out.

No doubt it was hoped that recent legislation would do something to relieve the pressure in magistrates' courts. I have in mind the important legislation which provided for pleas of guilty to be made through the post. When that is done in the case of minor offences there is no need, as we know, for oral evidence at the hearing, either from the prosecution or from the defence. Importance was attached to the recent changes in the law which made that possible, and, as I say, it was thought that they would considerably ease the pressure. I have no doubt that they have done so to some extent, but it is evident from what we are told that they have not done so sufficiently. We are satisfied, therefore, that this further increase in the number of Metropolitan magistrates is desirable.

As I understand it, the existing law gives to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District no specific power to hold land and buildings for probation purposes. We regard these purposes as of the first importance and we welcome the conferment of that power upon the Receiver.

Finally, I come to the matter of the Receiver's general power to borrow. I listened with close attention to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had to say. As I understand it, any action which the Receiver takes under that head in specific cases requires the approval of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and of the Treasury—today so formidably represented. I am sure that these vigilant watch-dogs of our economy and administration can be relied upon to ensure that nothing goes wrong arising out of this extension of power to borrow conferred upon the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. On those grounds also, therefore, we welcome the Bill.

I must express my regret that I was not able to be here when the Joint Under-Secretary of State began his speech. I want to raise only two points.

First, am I correct in supposing that the phrase

"the probation system within the metropolitan stipendiary court area"

in Clause 3 refers not only to probation of adults but of juveniles, although juveniles do not normally appear before stipendiary courts but before juvenile courts? Secondly, at Question Time I have raised with the Joint Under-Secretary the need for additional remand home provision in London, particularly for the more difficult boy juvenile offenders. I wonder whether the borrowing provisions in the Bill in connection with the probation system are likely to bring any nearer the day when that need will be met.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State was correct when he said that this is an important Measure. It is remarkable, when one looks at a short Bill like this one in printed form, how little it conveys the importance of the subject matter with which it deals from the point of view not only of an introduction of a new piece of legislation, but of the human interest with which the Bill is concerned. This is not merely a small piece of legislation which gives additional power for the appointment of a couple of magistrates or officials. It goes very much deeper. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for having introduced a Measure of this nature.

Let me deal, first, with the practical side of the administration of justice. So many people do not realise the terrific amount of work which passes through the hands of magistrates and the manner in which it often has to be rushed through. So many people do not appreciate the fact that a tremendous amount of unnecessary expenditure is incurred by litigants or by people brought before magistrates' courts, whether on the side of the prosecution or the defence, merely because there are not sufficient magistrates in the Metropolitan area. The Bill deals with the Metropolitan area only, but it is a start on which we might base any further action in other districts.

You, Mr. Speaker, will know, as anyone who has practised in the courts will know, that a tremendous amount of the time and energy of those who practise in the courts is wasted because one can never be sure when a case will be called. I have had the experience of having to attend eight adjournments in a Metropolitan magistrates' court with hearings of only a quarter of an hour or even less. My witnesses had to be there. The witnesses on the other side had to be present, as did counsel or solicitors. In consequence of the pressure of other cases which could be got through speedily, the case in question, which, altogether, should have taken a couple of hours, had to be adjourned as many as eight times.

That is a shocking state of affairs. It not only means that the people concerned with the case itself do not get justice sufficiently rapidly. It also means that there is an enormous waste of time. Often, people who can ill afford to come to the courts are compelled to leave their work and attend. A hundred and one consequences flow from delay in the hearing of cases. This is something which the Bill will go some way towards remedying. In view of the rise in crime, and particularly in motoring offences, however, it is impossible to prophesy how effective it will be.

Experiments are being tried in the Metropolitan area to give lay magistrates the possibility of dealing with cases. Perhaps I should declare an interest. It so happens—whether by accident or for some other reason, I do not know; perhaps it is because of merit—that my wife is one of the people who serve in these courts. I gather that the magistrates are getting through a considerable amount of the business because they are able to deal speedily with cases that are sent to them and because, in particular, they do not face the necessity of adjournment after adjournment because other charges or offences which can be dealt with rapidly are put in between the various hearings.

Splendid work is done by the lay magistrates. I was glad to hear that it was not intended to spend money on stipendiaries. I do not say that in any other than the best sense, because I have the highest regard for our stipendiaries. Sometimes, of course, there may be one who is difficult and people may not be too happy about them. They may not always be 100 per cent. but, by and large, they are a splendid set of men who are devoted to their work and who do their best to see that justice is performed. The lay magistrates perform an excellent job, too, in the assistance that they give in that regard.

So much for the obvious necessity for a Measure of this kind. If we did not spend this money, we would be doing a disservice to the country, not only from the standpoint of the expeditious and proper dealing with cases, but a disservice in that the Treasury would suffer more because of the various costs that are bound to be incurred by adjournments and delays, quite apart from people and their lawyers being put to a lot of unnecessary and vexatious expense and difficulty.

But there is something even more than that in the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary did not dwell very long on the provision concerning accommodation for the probation service. This is just as important as, if not more important than, the other provisions of the Bill. I do not know whether we in this House have been able to appreciate the probation service to the full. I do not claim that even we on this side, with all our good intentions, did everything that was necessary when we were in office. I have been dissatisfied for a considerable time and I know that many other people who understand the probation service have been dissatisfied, that it has not been given the fullest consideration that it should have had in the way of its servants, the probation officers. They are an excellent set of men and devoted servants of the people, but they find themselves frustrated because they have such an overload of cases that they are unable to move.

Two considerations arise concerning accommodation for the probation service. I am convinced that if it is given the fullest power to carry out the possibilities that it possesses the probation service would be most effective in clearing a large number of cases and preventing people from becoming inmates of prison. I go much further than that, however, and say that the probation service must be attended to in all its respects, because it is one of our most important social services. When one sees the manner and the places in which some of the probation officers have to work, one realises that the position is entirely different from what we should want it to be.

Not only is it necessary for the probation officer to have proper accommodation for himself and his staff. If we want an effective probation service the people who come within its purview must be made to understand that it is an important service. There must be the right kind of accommodation to impress the person who has to be guided to a better understanding of life and prevented from drifting into crime. I go so far as to say that hundreds of thousands of people, on their first appearance in court, are certainly not criminals in the sense in which people were regarded as criminals years ago.

It is out of keeping with the system that a person, particularly a child, should have to go into an overcrowded office to meet the probation officer by whom he or she has to be impressed. It is a silly and foolish arrangement to allow the premises or rooms to be of such a nature that the individual will not appreciate that the probation officer is somebody of importance. The probation officer is a person of importance in spite of his inadequate salary, which certainly should be raised.

A Bill like this will help to provide more suitable accommodation for probation officers and for the service generally. It will serve two useful purposes. One is to obtain the necessary accommodation for carrying on the practical side of the work and the other, which is of equal, if not greater, importance, is that it will give the opportunity for the probation officer to be in surroundings that will be sufficiently dignified to impress the individual who comes to him. The individual will feel that he is in the presence of somebody who can help him and who is regarded by those in authority as a person of importance.

Much more could be said, but I do not want to detain the House any longer. I would add only that one of the things which often amuses me is the manner in which, in this House and elsewhere, people speak about the legal profession. They really do not realise that the day to day work of the legal profession enables them to get an insight into what is actually happening, particularly in the administration of justice, an insight which nobody outside the profession, unless he happens to be in a profession which in some respects is perhaps not dissimilar, can possibly get.

I speak with some experience, for I have been in practice in the law about forty years now. I ask the House to forgive me if, from time to time, I intervene in matters of this sort, because I feel urged to do it, in the light of my experience, which is a little outside the ordinary experience of the majority of people. An occasion like this enables the Home Office, or whatever authority is concerned, to see how the situation reacts on those who work in the courts.

I should like to congratulate the Government on having introduced the Bill.

This Bill is, unfortunately, very necessary. The figures published in the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis tell us that the number of indictable offences has gone up from 95,000 in 1938 to 125,000 in 1957. If one looks at another table in the Commissioner's Report one sees that the number of convictions in the magistrates' courts have gone up from 36,000 in 1946 to 88,000 in 1957. All this, of course, means a very heavy additional load upon the machinery of the magistrates' courts in the London area.

It is true that the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1957, has done something to relieve the congestion, because it enables persons charged with certain summary offences to plead guilty without appearing court. That, to some extent, gets over one section of the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has referred in his speech, based upon his own personal experience in the magistrates' courts.

It is sometimes alleged that the number of motoring offences also adds very substantially to the pressure of work and the congestion in the magistrates' courts. The interesting fact about that, however, is that when one examines the figures one sees that the average number of motoring offences in the years imme- diately preceding the war, of prosecutions on summonses issued by the police, was about 112,000 and has gone up to 134,000 in 1957. So it is not so much the motoring offences which have caused delay and difficulty and congestion in the magistrates' courts.

Nevertheless, there is this very substantial rise in all forms of crime, and it is still going on. That not only imposes a heavy burden on the police, but also, of course, on the administration of justice. It is very important, in the kind of case with which a Metropolitan magistrate has to deal, that justice should be speedily meted out. I read the other day of a case in which a man was summoned for a motoring offence which took place last December, and he did not have his case dealt with until after a lapse of some six or seven months. That is surely a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. One of the characteristics of an efficient system of justice is that it shall be swift.

The work of the Metropolitan magistrates is added to by the fact that London is the capital city and that we have persons coming to it from all parts of the world, and that, for example, we have open spaces like Hyde Park where it is necessary that 538 prosecutions for indecent behaviour have to be dealt with every three months by the nearest magistrate's court. One does hope that this, which one may call an especially Metropolitan burden, will not continue for too long. It does not do very much good for the reputation of London. It is, of course, necessary to deal with this kind of problem, which affects London more than most other places, also quickly and efficiently.

The Bill gives the Lord Chancellor power to appoint acting Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. I hope that that is a power which will not be too freely resorted to. I am very firmly of the opinion that if judicial appointments have to be made they ought to be made on a permanent basis.

I am not very satisfied, for example, with the work of the Commissioners who have been appointed to deal with divorce cases, who spend a lot of time in moralising disquisitions, which are reported very well by the more sensational Sunday newspapers, which thus get over the restriction which is imposed upon the reporting of divorce proceedings. These—what I may call—amateur judges acting on a kind of temporary paid basis are not always very satisfactory.

I therefore hope that the Lord Chancellor, if he has to appoint, as he will have to, additional permanent Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates will not hold up the appointment of permanent magistrates by appointing acting magistrates. If there is a need to make these appointments, then the sooner they are made on a permanent basis the better it will be.

There are one or two other points to which I shall not refer because, perhaps, they can be more appropriately dealt with in Committee; one or two questions relating to Clause 3, which enables the Receiver to hold lands and buildings and provides for the resultant expenditure to be met from the Metropolitan Police Fund; matters on which I may, perhaps, raise questions in Committee. It is clear that as the expenditure has to be met partly out of the Exchequer and partly out of the rates the ratepayers of London also are entitled to have their views represented. This is a problem which has cropped up on more than one occasion. The jurisdiction of the police in London is different; the jurisdiction exercised by the local authorities is non-existent in London, whereas it does exist outside the Metropolitan area. Nevertheless, the Bill should go on the Statute Book as soon as possible. It will certainly help to make justice more swift.

I do not know whether, with the appointment of additional stipendiary magistrates, it will be possible for the authorities to consider an idea which I have had in mind for some time of holding magistrates' courts in the evening. There may be difficulties, with the shortage of stipendiary magistrates, in organising evening sessions, but it would help to reduce very considerably the inconvenience suffered by many people who have to attend magistrates' courts for the purpose of giving evidence and people generally who are not directly chargeable with offences but who have to lose a day or a half-day's wages to attend. Such persons ought to have their interests considered.

It may well be that by organising some system of magistrates' courts in the evenings, the hardship suffered by innocent people could be considerably reduced. It would certainly help to reduce, not the official costs of the case, but the costs that have to be incurred by ordinary people, sometimes in humble circumstances, who for some reason or other—certainly not because they are criminals—have to attend the hearing. I hope that that idea will be seriously considered. I think that it would make some contribution towards the speeding up of justice and the reduction of inconvenience to the general public.

I commend the Bill in the hope that it will help to improve the lives of people in London and help to restore the efficiency of the arrangements for the administration of justice. In that way, perhaps, the reputation of London, which has been criticised in certain quarters in recent weeks and months, may eventually be improved.

By leave of the House, I should like to answer briefly the points made in the debate.

I am grateful for the support given to the Bill and I am particularly glad that the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) demonstrated his faith in Treasury control, just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has demonstrated his interest in the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member referred to the effect of pleas of guilty being made by post. That does not reduce the number of cases which have to be heard by the courts and, although it saves time, it reduces only slightly the length of the many cases concerned. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked whether the probationary work of the juvenile courts was covered by the Receiver's powers relating to probation under the Bill. The answer is, "Yes". It is the one probation system for all the courts in London. The hon. Member also asked whether the Bill would enable provision to be made for remand homes. The answer is, "No". The Receiver is not responsible for providing remand homes, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has them very much in mind.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) reffered to the need for more accommodation for the probation service. I am glad to say that, well before the Bill was drafted, my right hon. Friend had made various provisions for the improvement of conditions for the probation service, and the Bill is necessary partly because of the dispositions which my right hon. Friend has been making.

The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asked whether consideration could be given to evening courts in London. Candidly, we have no such plan in mind. My only comment is that they might provide cleaner entertainment than is sometimes to be found in the evenings in London.

The subject which I wish to discuss briefly today is one of great importance to the industrial future and export trade of the country. In this period of expanding economy we have come to the point of no return, for we must go forward if we are to continue to expand and develop our markets and seek new ones wherever they are to be found. The necessity for greater trade promotions and participation in exhibitions and fairs abroad is a very obvious part of this effort to show what we can make and to find new customers.

There are various types of trade fairs the nature of which is not always realised by many small manufacturers who make up a very large proportion of the people who are the exporters from this country. We hear a great deal about large concerns and huge companies which can afford to do things in a big way. We do not hear so much about a large number of small firms who cannot do things individually and, somehow or other, must get their goods shown if they are to sell them abroad.

The question of arranging fairs, displays, and exhibitions is, on the whole. a rather untidy one at present. I know that a great deal has been done by the Government, and that the Board of Trade has offered many facilities, with great success in some cases. But, generally speaking, quite a number of firms are apparently not yet aware of the facilities available to them and they have not had the necessary encouragement nor the invitation to get out and get on with the job abroad. Too many of these firms are of the opinion that if they take part in an exhibition that is the end of it. They do not seem to realise that there is far more to it than choosing a fair and deciding to exhibit.

How do they find these things out? Is it done through trade associations, and are those associations as active as they might be? Do they do it through cooperation with other firms in the same industry or do they go it alone? In the "Survey of Export Trade Facilities" the report of the Working Party set up by the Federation of British Industries and published in April last, several paragraphs are devoted to this problem. A number of recommendations and statements are made in paragraphs 72 to 85 which are very relevant and are obviously the result of much study. Well-informed attention is drawn to the various types of fairs and the various categories of responsibility for showing, and showing well. It is not much use choosing to exhibit at a fair which will be attended by the public if one is not out to show to the public that one's firm is seeking buyers. There is not much point in going to a fair where there are trade buyers unless one is particularly anxious that they are the people one wants to attract to look at one's wares.

Then there are national and international fairs where prestige is the theme. What can be done to close the gap which there appears to be between the knowledge of what the Government can offer and the facilities which firms know about within their own industries? How can we get concerted effort to tackle the problem of showing the world what we make and how well we make it? Today it is more than ever important that people in other countries should know about this. They must see what we make. I am thinking not only of the public who in the end will be the customers but also of the buyers, who are the people who decide what the public will buy. In this context we have a great deal more to do. It is all very well to say that we make wonderful goods but it is no longer possible merely to say, "It is British; it is best". We must go out and sell our goods in a highly competitive market. We must show them in an attractive way and display them with enthusiasm. Also, the people in charge of the stands must believe in what they are doing.

We must get a "new look" into overseas sales promotions, exhibits and so on. We need a really determined effort on the part of this country, so that there will no longer be a point of no return but an automatic increase and expansion of our markets. We must create in countries where those markets exist the idea that we want to give them every opportunity to look at our goods, to show how good they are, to give them as wide a variety as possible so that they may make a choice to suit each of their customers.

Despite what the Minister may say, I am certain that many of the smaller firms are unaware of all the facilities available. It was wonderful to hear about what happened when the British Toy Manufacturers Association got together and the Board of Trade supported their effort in New York so thoroughly that they were able to make a really extended display. There was a really worth while show in New York and they were more than happy with the results, which I believe were very good indeed. I understand that the toy industry exports about £8 million worth of goods and that during the time of the display in New York the exhibitors met 6,000 trade buyers. In the first year, the Board of Trade was able to support the industry completely by taking the stand, by paying for the space and by giving the Association an opportunity to show what could be done when a number of small firms got together as an industry and went out to put British goods on the map.

This could be done, and should be done, more often. It should be done by many more industries which are unable, through individual firms, to bear the high expense of displays abroad. I am anxious to find out, therefore, if the smaller firms and industries have reasonable facilities for market research before they decide which fair to choose and whether it will be worth their while to choose that fair for a period of years. It is not really valuable, except in an international fair with prestige value, merely to have a display and then go away. The build-up before the fair, what happens during the period of display, and the follow-on afterwards, are all equally important. Many of our people who exhibit abroad seem to fail in one or other of those three aspects.

I believe that they do not always prepare themselves beforehand with knowledge of the needs and of the background against which they will be working. If the problem is too great they decide that they cannot afford to embark on this work and, instead, sell their goods through an agent. Of course, that is a useful and good way hut it will not increase sales as much as they might be increased.

We hear far too often of the paucity of British trade exhibits at various fairs. We seldom hear about the really good ones, of which there are a number. Indeed, I understand that a number of industries have been able to put their goods across at a number of first-class fairs. Those who have done this already should lead the way for those who have failed to make the grade as yet. I believe that one of the most successful has been the atomic exhibit at Hanover for three years, that participation in this by various firms is going on, and that over seventy firms are taking part in the exhibit through their organisation. I believe also that the textile manufacturers combined and that, as a result, during the fair at Frankfurt they had a successful display which the Board of Trade supported.

The paint I am trying to put across in the short time in which I shall delay the House this afternoon is that there is still too little known about the facilities available to people who wish to display their goods abroad. Once again, smaller firms do not seem to understand the value of all the existing ancillary services. They do not make full use of the information services or of the consulates and commercial attachés set up by this country for their benefit and for their use. I hope that the Minister will be amenable and will not think that I am trying in any sense to be negative when I say that I feel that a greater effort in publicity at home to the manufacturers is needed in this matter. I am sure that they are circularised through their trade associations, but many associations still feel that it is not up to them to do the pushing when it comes to export sales.

I feel strongly that we cannot afford to lose a single point in the export market game. We must keep going. We must gain every point and we must keep ahead all the time. Year after year more and more countries are taking up the industrial challenge, and we are up against it even in traditional markets where we expect things to be easy. So, when it comes to the question whether one will display or whether one will not, it is not a matter which can be shrugged off by the Government as not necessarily their financial responsibility. I understand that a fair is to take place in Johannesburg, where the British will have a pavilion and where the main theme will be textiles. That is excellent and is greatly needed, but are we fully represented in all the other trade centres and British pavilions where firms can rent space and be responsible for their own display and their own area but do not carry the overall financial cost?

In the country today there is a feeling that British trade should do more for itself. There is equally a feeling that it cannot do so unless the Government give a further lead—I believe, in many cases, it should be a further push. Therefore, I hope that something will be done to ensure that every person who can sell goods abroad is notified and encouraged, and that anything he can do in his own small way to get together with the other members of his industry will be made so attractive that he cannot afford to stay out of future promotions and exhibitions.

We have seen what has been done by determined effort in several industrial displays, such as that in Brussels, where there was an international trade fair, but these are not necessarily the only important displays. Equally important is the specialist fair. It is no use having one display. We must keep on displaying so that markets continue to improve. In countries where we are hoping to expand our trade we must display our goods with the utmost enthusiasm. I am not sure that all those who ought to know what is available to them are sufficiently notified. I hope very much that the gap will be bridged and that everyone in this country will be galvanised into action by a truly lively and enthusiastic push by the Board of Trade, which has done so much already.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) for raising this subject, which is one which, one way or another, occupies a great deal of my time and is certainly worthy of consideration by the House because of its possible implications as regards our export trade.

It is a field in which it is extremely easy to be an unconstructive critic—nothing is easier than telling other people how to spend their money. I entirely acquit my hon. Friend of being an unconstructive critic. She made some very helpful points. Points made directly to the Board of Trade will be noted, and I hope that her remarks will, somehow or other, reach the wider audience they deserve.

This is a field in which it is difficult to ensure that the right decision has been taken. On the one hand, one has to be sure that no suitable and fruitful opportunities are lost and, on the other, one has to be sure that money is not going to be spent unless it will produce worthwhile results. Having spent the money it is not always easy to judge whether the results have, in the event, been worth while.

There are two sides to this question. First, there is what the manufacturer or distributor should do, and, secondly, there is the problem of what is the right, useful and worthwhile scope of Government assistance.

Trade fairs are a Board of Trade concern, and where it is a question of Government assistance and expenditure I would like to begin by paying a warm tribute to the help and advice which the Board of Trade receives from the very distinguished men from industry who serve on our Exhibitions Advisory Committee of which I have the honour to be ex officio the Chairman. I count myself very fortunate in being able to rely on their advice, and I think it is noteworthy that so many busy businessmen are able and willing to spare the time to do this job for the public good.

Now, what are we really trying to do in these matters? We want to encourage the producers and the distributors of our goods to display them at those places where they will be seen by the likely buyers, whether they are trade buyers or, in some cases, the general public. We are more usually concerned with trade buyers.

There is a limit here to what the Government can or should do. In the main, the initiative and the responsibility must rest with industry. But the Government, I think, have a duty to give a certain lead, and this duty we at the Board of Trade fulfill in various ways. First, we collect information about all the various trade fairs overseas and publish information about it through either the Board of Trade Journal or the Special Register. Secondly, we sometimes put up official stands at those places where we think they will do most good—and this we do after taking the advice of the Advisory Committee to which I have referred. Sometimes we go further and we build British pavilions at overseas fairs where British contributors would otherwise have no suitable place in which to show off their wares.

The first of these pavilions was put for the Rand Trade Fair, in Johannesburg, and was opened this year by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Incidentally, I should like, in passing, to say that it won a gold medal for architectural merit, for which I am prepared to take a very small meed of credit, for I happened to have approved the design.

The second pavilion was put up at the Casabalanca Fair, in April, and I went out to the opening ceremony. We had put up the pavilion in that case because it had been urged on us to take this action by the very active local British business community, who did their part in return and filled the pavilion with a show of British goods. I look forward to a very good future for that exhibition and for the British pavilion there in the years to come.

That is one form of Government aid, but, again, I must emphasise that it is industry that is the judge of whether a particular trade fair—or, indeed, trade fairs in general—form the most useful opportunity for doing business. By "doing business" I do not necessarily mean the immediate sales. Fairs must very largely be looked upon as an exercise in public relations, the benefit of which will accrue only over the years.

There is no point or purpose in the Government spending money where industry by its reluctance to take space shows that it does not look on that particular fair as being worth while. That, incidentally, is an answer to a great many of the criticisms which have recently been made of failure to show in a particular place or places. Industry must be the judge and I think it is fair to say that it knows its job, which is how to sell its goods overseas.

The House will understand that in this context I am not talking about the international exhibitions such as that at Brussels last year. I am talking about trade fairs, and there are two specific types to which I want to draw attention. First, there is the all-British fair of which a very successful example has just closed at Lisbon. I am told that a good deal of business has already ensued at Lisbon, but that is not the only yard-stick by which to judge results. The results will ultimately come from the greater familiarity and intimacy which has arisen thereby between British industry and its customers abroad.

We owe an immense debt to the enterprise and energy of the F.B.I. in mounting these fairs and we have the highest hopes for their project in New York next year, to which, incidentally, the Board of Trade is making a substantial contribution in the shape of an official exhibit. Then, of course, there are hopes that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce will be able to put on a fair in Moscow the year after.

The other kind of fairs with which I am concerned are the specialised trade fairs which are becoming increasingly common although they are still mainly confined to the more advanced economies of Europe and America. We believe, and all my own past experience leads me to the same conclusion, that these are the fairs at which worthwhile business is most likely to be done. There are fewer inquisitive spectators, but more of the people who do the buying for a particular firm.

I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said—I agree very much with it—about the desirability of firms joining together to take part in these sort of fairs. She is quite right. There is a lot that can be done in this way by smaller firms who have not on their own the resources to show abroad. I also agree very much with the point she made about trade associations giving more definite advice to their members as to what exhibitions to encourage, but one does not want to be too rigid in these matters. However, I think that firms would welcome more guidance on these lines, and the recent F.B.I. Committee on Export Trade Facilities was in agreement. That Committee was under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil Weir, who is a very distinguished member of my Exhibitions Advisory Committee, and it also had as a member Sir Edward Herbert, another member of the Advisory Committee.

In this sphere of the specialist trade fairs we in the Board of Trade have been making some experiments along the lines to which my hon. Friend referred. We have been helping certain trade associations to bring groups of their members into these fairs. I emphasise groups because, of course, we cannot possibly see our way to subsidise individual firms. That would be a very slippery and dangerous path on which to embark. But by this technique and by working with trade associations we think that we have found a good way of helping firms to test out a new market under the easiest possible circumstances and of helping firms who have already been doing a limited amount of business in the market to see what they can do to expand it.

The case which my hon. Friend cited—toys—has been a very successful one. This experiment started in 1955 with scientific instruments. We have also helped leather, plastics, hosiery and knitwear, sports goods and one or two other industries at various fairs, and we have plans for forthcoming events, for men's and boys' wear at Cologne, in August, and plastics at Dusseldorf, in October. We are only too glad to entertain applications from trade associations for more of these ventures, and we will be as sympathetic in our approach as our resources allow.

My hon. Friend also said—how right she was—that fairs must not be regarded as isolated operations. They must be part of a sustained sales campaign which involves a number of other activities besides participation in fairs. Just to show in a trade fair without any supporting action is surely usually a waste of money. Before any firm goes to the expense of showing in a fair it ought to have a very clear idea of what it is trying to do. Is it looking for an agent? Does it want to see how its products compare with those of its competitors? Does it want to get its name known to the public? Is it seeking orders from trade buyers? Most important of all, perhaps, is the fair concerned the right one for its purpose? On all of these, and particularly on the last point, I believe the Board of Trade can give more help than it is sometimes called on to do at present.

Provision for £166,000 has been made in the Board of Trade Estimates for trade fairs and exhibitions in the current financial year. Of course, this is less than some countries spend, although it is rather difficult to make an exact comparison because the methods of organisation and the services provided vary so much from country to country. I certainly do not think that we are guilty of over-lavish spending, and it is in deciding the right priorities that the advice of the Advisory Committee has been so valuable.

It was a great encouragement to see that the Weir Committee—that is, the F.B.I. Committee about which we have been talking, said this:

"By and large, we consider that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in leaving the main responsibility with private industry in this matter and giving various kinds of practical assistance has much to commend it."

It also wanted the sum which we spend to be kept under constant review, and this is being and will be done; but in the main the Report gave its blessing to what we are doing now.

Nevertheless, there will always be some critics who will point to a fair where this country has gone unrepresented, or where its representation has been inadequate, and deplore the fact. It is much harder to be certain, let alone prove, that if we had taken part more trade in the short term and the long term would actually have resulted.

The law of diminishing returns applies with some force in this field, so that the main thing is that we should be satisfied that we are getting good results from what we are spending, and I can give the House a confident assurance to that effect.

I should like to congratulate the hon, Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) on having raised this most important subject of trade exhibitions. As a predecessor in office of the Minister, I join with him in paying tribute to the work which the Board of Trade does in promoting trade exhibitions and in giving industry every possible help.

My grievance is that the Board of Trade is not enabled to do as much as it would like to do. I believe that it was a great tragedy when the British Industries Fair was closed by the Government. I believe in the maxim that trade follows the flag, and merely to promote exhibitions on the basis of whether we shall get orders today or tomorrow is not good enough. I have seen many trade exhibitions in different parts of the world and have always found that such countries as the Soviet Union, and now China, spare no expense in exhibiting their goods and in promoting their wares, with the result that in the markets of the world they will shortly be the most formidable competitors. If we do not do more to help industry than we are doing at the moment we shall regret it. I am confident that if industry were asked, "Are you willing that we should promote an exhibition?", the answer would always be, "Yes."

The British Pavilion at the Brussels Exhibition was visited by people from all over the world, who said that it was one of the best exhibits there, and, indeed, one of the best exhibits ever shown at any trade exhibition. I should like to see this continue, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to persuade the Treasury to give the Board of Trade more money for promoting more trade exhibitions.