§ 2.11 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this is another quite short Bill of which I move the Second Reading. It is a Bill which has come to us from the Commons, after careful examination and debate, unaltered in any respect from the form in which it was introduced. Indeed, there was no Division at any stage in the other House and I do not suppose there will be any difference of opinion here. The matter arises in this way. Your Lordships will know that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, the first of which we introduced just as the war was breaking out, have in them always the principle that they shall not last for more than twelve months, and consequently the Act has from time to time been extended for a further year by Addresses moved by both Houses requesting this prolongation. As things now stand, the Emergency Powers Act will expire on the 24th August (it is mentioned in line 16 of page 1 of the Bill). I remember an earlier debate in which my noble friend Lord Reading took part, in which we discussed at some length and in detail how for Regulations could come to a complete stop the moment that the fighting with Germany was over and I then expressed on behalf 406 of the Government, and I repeat, my strong general agreement with my noble friend's main thesis, which was that we ought not to keep these things up a moment longer than we could help. But, in point of fact, some of the Regulations, as everyone recognizes, must be kept up for some time—for example, the Food Regulations or the Regulations about clothing; for otherwise, of course, as long as supplies are short you will have no means of securing what I may call a fair sharing out. No one disputes that that is so.
What, then, were we to do in this situation? If we were to let the Act drop next August we should be completely deprived of any power to regulate anything at all, and I think it will be admitted that that would be quite wrong. We have, I am glad to say, got rid of a very large number of these Defence Regulations already since the end of the fighting with Germany—I think altogether eighty-four of them. I particularly want to point out to my noble friends on the Opposition Benches that we have already got rid of the Regulations which in any way affect individual freedom. What are we to do? If we were to move now for an Address from both Houses of Parliament—and of course that would no doubt be carried—the result would be that the present apparatus would continue for at least a year, for there is no power under the Statute to get an extension by Address for less than twelve months at a time. We think, and I myself strongly think, that that is too long. We ought not to leave this thing without the chance of altering it so long as that. Therefore what we propose to do, and what the House of Commons have unanimously approved, is to extend the Emergency Powers Act for a further period of six months, which would give time for what has always been contemplated—for a very full and careful examination of the whole subject as soon as ever a new Parliament can deal with it. A Bill for that purpose, called the Supplies and Services (Transitional Provisions) Bill, has been introduced into the House of Commons but there has never been any debate upon it and there is no time, of course, for an extended examination of it.
The principles of the Bill, which we entirely stand by, and I am sure any Government which succeeds this one will stand by, are, first, that you should 407 devise better Parliamentary control over Regulations, and, secondly, that you should have the opportunity of a general examination of the remaining Defence Regulations to see which are really necessary and which are not. That cannot be done in the course of the few remaining days of this Parliament. As a result, the course which has been taken is not to put an automatic stop to all the Defence Regulations, which would be most injurious to the public interest, and which would mean that food and clothes would be at the mercy of those who could spend most, whereas they ought to be fairly distributed as long as supplies are short—not to do that, not to attempt to extend the Act by an Address by both Houses of Parliament, which would extend for twelve months, but to give an assurance, which I am authorized to give, that the first opportunity will be taken so far as this Government is concerned (and I am sure by any other Government in the new Parliament), to consider the whole circumstances, among other things to consider what are the proper measures to take to make Parliamentary control more complete over these Regulations. I really do not think that there is any proper area of dispute about it. I therefore do not spend any more time in explaining the matter, and beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
§ Moved, That the bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, may I ask the Lord Chancellor if he can give an assurance that in respect, of economic controls this Bill as it stands could not be challenged in the Courts?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is always a certain difficulty in a matter of this kind for an individual who sits on the Woolsack who may ultimately preside over legal proceedings in a matter of law. But I am advised, quite confidently, that the powers of challenge are not in any way either diminished or enlarged by this proposal. My impression strongly is—the matter has been again and again discussed—that the Judges will take the view that they are not concerned in carrying on the government of England, but that they are trying to apply justice, and justice according to law. It is for that reason, of course, that some of these cases which have been brought on appeal 408 to the higher tribunals have not succeeded. There is nothing in this proposal that would alter that situation at all, and I am quite confident that there is no danger by this Bill of creating an anomalous situation in which Regulations will have to be made which are contrary to law.
§ 2.20 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, the question which my noble friend Lord Addison asked has been answered by the Lord Chancellor and as I understood him the danger of challenge in the Courts is neither increased nor diminished by this Bill. I think that is the fair summary of the rather involved answer given by the noble and learned Viscount. In other words, it leaves matters as they are. It is not for me to discuss the legal side of these things—that was discussed in another place in a very interesting debate, which I read with great pleasure (I am only sorry I was not there) between my right honourable friend Sir Stafford Cripps and the present Attorney-General.
What is a fact, however, is that the Coalition Government, which has just given way to the present Caretaker Government, I presume with the advice and concurrence of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, decided that it was necessary to bring in a special Bill. That special Bill was introduced by my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison and is obtainable in the Vote Office, but according to the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor there is not time to take it before the Dissolution. This Bill dealt with the following among other matters: the Defence Regulations were to be carried on or extended for the purpose of providing
a sufficiency of [goods] essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution; the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as a result of war.Your Lordships will see that the important words here are "as a result of the war."Now when the present Defence Regulations were introduced in 1939, as those of your Lordships who were present know, 409 I and some of my noble friends had comments to make on them. Lord Temple-more, as always, explained them with great lucidity, and said they were for the prosecution of the war. I gather that the question of my noble friend Lord Addison is whether, for example, Regulations needed for the proper control of building materials for working-class cottages could be said to be necessary for the prosecution of the war now going on in the Pacific. That, I understand, is the legal conflict, about which I would be the last person to attempt to give any sort of opinion. The fact is, however, that the late Government, some distinguished ornaments of which are now in the present Government, including the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, did consider that this Bill introduced by Mr. Morrison was necessary, but it is not being proceeded with because we are told there is no time.
I am bound to say, much as I welcome the General Election which is five years overdue in this country and which I believe we should have had some time ago, and I have said so frequently, this whole question of control is so important and a proper settlement of it is so vitally necessary for the future arrangement's of the life of the people of this country—I know the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, opposite will be the very first to agree with that—that we should have postponed this General Election for the time necessary in order to get that Bill through. Without it we are going to have chaos at the end of six months and the new Bill, or some similar measure, will have to be rushed through then.
Now the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill—and I agree that a lot of legislation has been thrust upon us in these days and time is short—said that this is quite a short Bill; that there was no Division upon it in the House of Commons and that he did not expect any difference here. My Lords, this Bill affects the whole economic future of the country. There was a sharp difference of opinion in the House of Commons and there is a sharp difference of opinion here. I am profoundly disappointed that the Lord Privy Seal is not present. I had hoped that Lord Beaverbrook would introduce this Bill and explain what he considered would be the future policy of his friends, if they remain 410 in office, with regard to Controls. He would not have said this was a short Bill which would create no differences here, as the Lord Chancellor did. At any rate, he is a brave man. He is blunt and makes his points clearly. He would have come here and talked about the iniquity of all these Controls and Regulations and the wickedness of making women stand in queues to buy fish, etc., etc. We should have had something to chew on and should know where we were. Lord Beaver-brook is trying to have this Election fought on this very question, and he is succeeding, as I hope he will, and we will try our best to see that he does. Are we going to return at the end of the six months to the "pull-devil-pull-baker," "the-devil-take-the-hindmost" policy of free competition, a free hand for the entrepreneurs, a good time for the rich and a bad time for the poor, or are we going to continue the Regulations and Controls which even the Lord Chancellor admitted are required?
The Lord Chancellor referred to a very important speech by the Marquess of Reading a short time ago and said that he agreed that all these Regulations should go as soon as possible; that not a moment longer than necessary should they be kept in being, and that he thought a year was far too long. This is the first explanation we have had—we could not get it in the other place—as to why the six months' period has been chosen.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIf you will forgive me, you will find that the Home Secretary explained that if you proceeded by Address you would necessarily have to extend for twelve months and no less, and that is the reason why we should endeavour to adopt this course.
LORD STRABOLGIHe did not suggest that twelve months would be the end of all these Controls and Regulations.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNeither did I.
LORD STRABOLGIThe Lord Chancellor said he thought a year was too long. However, I do not make too much of that point. I have far more serious things to say than that, I can assure the noble Lord, and I shall be glad if he will address himself to them. The Lord Chancellor said that of course we cannot at this moment sweep away all these 411 Controls and Regulations because otherwise there would be difficulty about food and clothing. There are other important matters arising to which he did not refer. There is the question of furniture, which is tremendously important for the young people who are trying to set up house as the soldiers are demobilized, and so on. There is a tremendous shortage of furniture in the country and prices have rocketed. Is it suggested that that shortage can be got over in six months, with all our heavy commitments in the Pacific? Then there is the whole question of the building problems and the equally important control of building materials. The Lord Chancellor hopes, apparently, that in six months this will all be freed, and then the building materials will go to luxury flats, cinemas and the rest of it—he does not suggest this but this is what would happen—while the people who want houses, who have had their own houses destroyed or who have got married since the war, can whistle for them.
But there is something more which is equally important. There is the whole question of foreign exchanges. Does anyone in this House really suppose that in six months, or in twelve months for that matter, we can allow the exchanges to run wild? People cannot be allowed to export currency from this country or buy foreign currency as suits their immediate commercial interests without any control. I do not think there is the least chance of it. None of your Lordships would argue that for a moment. Then there is the important series of Regulations which deal with imports and exports. In theory, like others of my noble friends, I am in favour of free trade and I always have been, but it is impossible to allow free trade at the present time. There are shortages of certain primary and essential goods in this country, but there is a far worse shortage of certain of the goods and materials in countries abroad. If you allow free exports you get enterprising merchants buying up these goods and paying any price for them in order to get a vast profit on selling them in foreign countries where there is a worse shortage. That would go on to a tremendous extent for a short, hectic period. To think that you can allow a free export market in this country within six or even twelve months is grotesque. Nor 412 can we allow the import of all sorts of luxuries wholesale into this country.
We have therefore to have these special Regulations. If that is really, as I hope it will be, the issue on which this Election very largely is fought we all welcome it. We have a case to argue there in which we have the greatest confidence and in regard to which we have no doubt whatever of the judgment of the people when it is properly explained to them. Of course, with people who have been troubled by the necessary Regulations during the war to deal with shortages, who have had to stand in queues and to count out coupons, fill up forms and all that sort of thing, you can for five minutes gain their cheers and applause by saying" Sweep it all away; get rid of all this bureaucratic interference." But when you show them the real situation and make plain to them the awful results that will follow, I have no doubt whatever of the judgment of the population in this country.
The Lord Chancellor referred to the sweeping away of a large number of Regulations dealing with personal liberty, such as 18B and so on. That is of course true. We have done that. That was done by my tight honourable friend Mr. Morrison, who rescinded about 84, I believe. He of course got rid of those restrictions as soon as possible and as far as they can be got rid of we all welcome that; but it is a question of choosing between the basic needs of human beings and the limitation of the profits of enterprising merchants, who of course have a tremendous harvest to reap in the following months. If we have to choose between those profits and the necessities of life for our people then we must choose the interests of the life of the masses of our people in the most difficult years that are ahead. Not for six months or twelve months, but for two or three years, we shall have to watch the food market situation in this country and abroad; and the exchange situation of the world also. All your Lordships know that. We will have to continue these Controls, because the truth of the matter is we are like the man who had hold of the bear's tail. He had to hold on to it and he could not let go.
As a result of the economic events beginning with the economy exercised by the Nazis in Germany and the general 413 shortages that have resulted from the war these Controls have been forced upon the United Nations. In the United States they are just as rigidly controlled as we are. We cannot avoid that situation. I repeat that it really is not a real explanation of this Bill to say it is just a short Bill and that there will be no difference of opinion upon it. We think the original Bill, which I have ventured to describe to your Lordships, should have been considered and carried through Parliament; otherwise we should have continued the present Controls for twelve months. If it was found that twelve months was too long for certain Regulations, then you could have had a repeal Bill or other methods of getting rid of them. I do not know if my noble friends will invite your Lordships to divide on this Bill. We do not often have Divisions in this House; but if we do not have a Division I hope the Lord Chancellor and noble Lords opposite will realize that we consider this short Bill as raising very important questions a high policy on which we have opinions that differ very much from the opinions of the Party opposite.
§ 2.37 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, I share the regret of the noble Lord who has just sat down at the absence of the Lord Privy Seal. If Lord Beaverbrook had been here he could have given a reply to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi who has taken exception to his general advice on the subject of Controls. I am sure he would have given a very breezy speech which would have helped to blow away the odour of dissolution that now pervades the Chamber. In his absence I would address a few observations to your Lordships on this Bill. We had a debate a few weeks ago on the general subject of Controls opened by a very brilliant speech from my noble friend Lord Reading, in which the present system of war-time Controls was vigorously denounced and an early end of it was asked for. In fact, however, my noble friend Lord Reading, and indeed all of us, realize that the disappearance of these Controls, or some of them, must be gradual. It cannot all be done suddenly by a stroke of the pen. It is like a rope that is gradually wound up very taut upon a drum. If it is suddenly released, the rope may be allowed to slip off, and the effect may be very disastrous.
414 Undoubtedly, in the present economic condition of the country, with many commodities, foodstuffs for example, in short supply and with a rapidly expanding demand, if we were to abolish straightway the system of rationing and the control of food prices, those prices all would soar and the cost of living would rapidly rise. The working classes then would clamour, and rightly, for higher wages to meet that situation and we should have the old vicious spiral of prices and wages chasing one another. Meanwhile, those who were in a position to benefit from that situation would be able to make enormous profits, especially in those increasing number of industries which are in the hands of monopolies or of cartels. The principal effect of all this would be disastrous for our people. Similarly, with regard to the great programme of housing, if all Controls were straightway abolished building prices would immediately rise very greatly and we might find ourselves in the position that we were in at the end of the last war when my noble friend Lord Addison was in charge of the house building programme. He was then faced with a situation of that kind. On the one hand, there was the country clamouring for the immediate provision of houses and on the other hand prices rising to excessive levels so that when the time came, if I remember rightly, and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, he was compelled to provide ordinary working-class houses at a price approaching £2,000.
§ LORD ADDISONNo, not that much. The usual figure was £1,000 to £1,200 for a working-class house.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELPerhaps the figure I have quoted was a propaganda one. I was not at that time concerned for I was not "on in that act." The noble Lord says that the usual figure was £1000 or £1,200. Occasionally £1,200 was the amount that would have to be provided for a working-class house. That cannot be permitted. A Bill of this character is essential and I am sure your Lordships will rightly pass it. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi and those with whom he acts says this Bill is quite inadequate and that the Controls which are really necessary should be applied not only in the case of foodstuffs and building materials, but also to other matters to which he has referred. He says the 415 Government ought to have proceeded at once with the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill which had been introduced into the other House. If these powers are inadequate and if the Government are not acting with sufficient firmness, the responsibility will be theirs, and if the evil effects that he has described do in fact occur owing to this Bill being insufficient the Government, if they still survive, will speedily suffer, or if they do not survive their memory will be regarded with obloquy.
This is only a short-term Bill and, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said, probably any Government in the next Parliament would be ready to proceed with the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. That major Bill does include most necessary provisions, first, for a thorough review of all the war-time Regulations and the discarding of those that are not absolutely essential, and, secondly, the establishment, as the Lord Chancellor has said, of adequate Parliamentary powers to control the making of Regulations of this kind. At the moment of the outbreak of war both Houses of Parliament, in a single day, are compelled to give what is, in effect, a blank cheque to the Executive because the sphere is so vast and the urgency is so immediate that it is impossible to exercise any effective control; but if war-time Regulations have to survive for even a few months in the period of peace Parliament ought to resume its authority and survey with scrupulous care what has been done and provide for the closest scrutiny of any measures that are continued. This Bill will carry us on for a period of six months and I should think that within six months the major Bill should certainly be taken. Therefore I do not appreciate the reason for Lord Strabolgi's fears that these disasters will occur if, before Parliament is dissolved, this other major. Bill is not passed. Six months will take us to the end of the year and no doubt by the end of the year Parliamentary opportunities will be given to deal with the matter in a thorough fashion. My noble friends and myself support the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ 2.43 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, with considerable trepidation I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount 416 on the Woolsack a question arising from what the noble Viscount has just said. I was in the other House for a long time and I know that when it comes to competition to get things through the House of Commons it is often a very difficult business, but if this Bill called the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill is a good Bill, it is very hard to see what is the reason for not passing it now. That can easily be set at rest, if the noble and learned Viscount would reply to the very simple question I venture to ask. Can the Controls made possible under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill be legally imposed under the terms of the present Bill?
§ 2.44 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I should like to make a short reply to what has been said, and I will take first the question just addressed to me by the noble Viscount. The object of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, broadly speaking, is not so much to cut down powers as to re-define and reshape them in view of the problems that will arise immediately in the post-war period. The reason why the Bill is not proceeded with this Session will be quite apparent, I think, if I may so far detain your Lordships as to read the title of the Bill. Simple Bills are described in two or three lines, but may I read the title of this Bill since it is suggested that it might quite well be passed in the few remaining days of this Session?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI was referring to my noble friend Viscount Stansgate. The title of this Bill is a very long one. It is a Bill
to provide for the application of certain Defence Regulations for purposes connected with the maintenance, control and regulation of supplies and services besides the purposes for which Defence Regulations may be made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940 "—your Lordships will notice the words "besides the purposes"—and for the continuation of Defence Regulations so applied during a limited period notwithstanding the expiry of the said Acts; to make provision for securing more effective Parliamentary control over Defence Regulations and orders and other instruments made thereunder; to provide for applying during a limited period certain powers of the Minister of Supply for purposes similar to those for 417 which Defence Regulations may be applied and otherwise for amending those powers; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.I can assure my noble friend, speaking with complete candour, because I have had a good deal to do with preparing the Bill, that it is a Bill which will necessarily require most considerable and careful debate and that could not possibly be done in the few remaining days of this Session.If I may for a moment turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would say that though this is a non-elected House, listening to him I almost thought that rumours of an impending election must have reached the noble Lord. I am not complaining; I think it rather a good thing that we should have a slightly more active exchange of views than in ordinary times. The noble Lord said it would be necessary for those who take part in the campaign to place the matter properly before the people, and his speech gave an example of how he proposed to do it. I must therefore take the earliest opportunity, with great respect, of correcting him.
He seems to have got it into his head —I cannot imagine where from—that I was making a statement that there would be no need for any Regulations after six months. I never made such a statement. I think it extremely probable, and indeed that is the very object of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, that we shall have to continue—it nay be in some modified form—necessary Regulations for a longer time. It was still more amazing that the noble Lord thought it a good thing to complain that this Bill should only operate for six months when it ought to be for twelve months. That is a most striking example of the attitude of the noble Lord and of the Labour Party for whom he speaks. That seems to be that there should not be a taking off of Controls as soon as they become unnecessary, but that it should be provided as a minimum that they should be extended for another twelve months at the very least. The Government view is quite different. We could, quite easily, extend Regulations for twelve months now by getting an Address in both Houses of Parliament, but it seemed, and seems, to us a very unfair thing to do. It is much better that the Government coming in after the Election, whatever that Government 418 ment may be, should find they have not got a long period of time in which to use this old machinery as they like and must turn at once to the consideration of what are the proper amendments to make.
Like other Bills, this Bill is due to the co-operation of many people, and very good and friendly co-operation it was. I am grateful to Mr. Morrison for the part he took in it, but I am equally grateful to the present Attorney-General, who took an even greater part. There is no good, even on the eve of a General Election, in trying to label legislation as the production of one man.
LORD STRABOLGII did nothing of the kind. I said it was the work of the whole Coalition Cabinet and I specially mentioned Lord Woolton and himself.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI thought my noble friend singled out Mr. Morrison.
LORD STRABOLGII referred particularly to the part my noble friend Lord Woolton had played. I said that.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt was a joint effort. We will leave it at that. I think it was a very good example of cooperation under the great leader of the country. I wish there was more of it. By this Bill it will be possible for six months to maintain essential Regulations, and within that period, whoever is responsible in the next Parliament, there should be a review of the situation. This is a revision of Parliamentary control which, to my mind, is very essential and it ought not to be postponed any longer than is absolutely necessary. It is quite impossible to do the whole thing in the next few days, I am sorry to say, and therefore we are extending the authority which is necessary for a short time, and before that short time has elapsed I do not care what Government is in power, I am confident that it will have to enter into these questions which were proposed to be dealt with under the Bill which for the moment has had to be dropped. I am sorry to have had to detain the House by giving this explanation, but I should much regret if anyone on the Opposition side of the House were to remain under a misapprehension concerning it.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEBefore the noble and learned Viscount sits down would be mind answering the question which I put to him. I asked whether the 419 same Controls which were possible under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill could be lawfully imposed under the terms of this Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORSome of them certainly.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEYes, but can all of them?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would not like to say that. I do not know if the noble Viscount has closely examined the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, or even if he has got a copy, but there is in it, I think, some provisions which may be needed specially for the future. But I do not myself know of anything which cannot be done as far as the same powers go. I have been moved to add these observations because Lord Strabolgi seemed to think that nothing could be lawful after the war was over except something which is made for the purpose of the war. That is a common misunderstanding. The purposes which can be served by the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 included this: "for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community." I am advised, and believe, that there is no question at all that we could lawfully continue necessary Regulations under that.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
§ Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of May 29), Bill read 3a, and passed.