§ (1) The Defence of the Realm Regulations mentioned in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act shall, subject to the limitations, qualifications and modifications specified in the third column of that Schedule, continue in force until the thirty-first day of August nineteen hundred and twenty, and as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:
§ Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to revoke in whole or in part any of the Regulations so continued as soon as it appears to him that consistently with the national interest any such Regulation can he so revoked.
§ (2) If after the termination of the present War any person is guilty of an offence under any Regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, for the time being in force, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine, and the Court may in any case order that any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed be forfeited:
§ Provided that—
- (a) a prosecution for any such offence shall not in England and Ireland be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General for England or Ireland, as the case may be, or by an officer of the police, or by a person acting in each case under a special authority from the Government Department concerned; and
- (b) in Ireland the court of summary jurisdiction, when hearing and determining an information or complaint in respect of any such offence shall, in the Dublin metropolitan police district, be constituted of one of the divisional justices of that district, and elsewhere he constituted of a resident magistrate sitting alone or with one or more other resident magistrates, and the court of quarter sessions when hearing and deter an appeal against a conviction of a court of summary jurisdiction for any such offence shall be constituted of the recorder or county court judge sitting alone.
§ (3) The Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, shall continue in force so long as any Order made by the Food Controller under the powers continued by this Act regulating the price of any goods continues in force.
§ (4) If immediately before the passing of this Act a proclamation suspending the operation of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act, 1915, in respect of any area is in force, then, as respects that area, all the Defence of the Realm Regulations then in force shall, subject to the power of His Majesty in Council by Order to revoke any of such Regulations, continue in force until the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the present war, subject, as respects any Regulations modified by the Second Schedule to this Act, to the modifications therein contained, save so far as those modifications limit the operation of the Regulations, and those Regulations as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act; and in that area offences against the said Regulations shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, continue to be triable and punishable in like manner as if the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and the Acts amending that Act continued in force, except that where any such offence is tried by a Court of summary jurisdiction or, on appeal, by a Court of Quarter Sessions, the Court shall be constituted as hereinbefore provided:
§ Provided that, if the said proclamation is revoked before the expiration of the said twelve months, this Section shall, as from the date of the revocation, apply in respect of the area in question in like manner as it applies in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNI beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the words "hereinbefore provided," to insert the words:
Provided also that no such Regulation as so continued shall have greater validity than it had before the time when but for this Act it would have expired.These words were inserted on the Motion of the Attorney-General for England in an earlier Sub-section of the Bill, with the view to ensuring that no additional validity should be given to any Regulations which might have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act. Certain of these Regulations which have been challenged in the Courts have been found to be ultra vires, inasmuch as the words in the Bill say that they shall have force as if so enacted. It was felt that additional validity might be given if these words went in without a proviso. It is far more important that these words should be inserted at the end of this Sub-section, because, whereas before we were only dealing with Orders as set out 1535 in the Schedule, in this Sub-section we are dealing with the whole body of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which are to be continued for Ireland. It is, therefore, far more important here that we should say that they are invested with no additional validity in the passing of this Bill. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very graciously consented to accept this Amendment, and I, therefore, will not further take up the time of the House.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock)I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for having moved this Amendment. I think it is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the intention embodied in the Amendment made by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General on the last occasion the Bill was before the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Captain BOWYERI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4) to insert the following Sub-section:
(5) Whether or not there is contained in any Regulations so continued provisions for the manner in which, or the principle on which, the price of articles requisitioned or the compensation for acts done under the Regulations is to be assessed, no person shall be deprived of any remedy whatsoever, whether by petition of right, action, or other proceeding either against the Crown or any other person in respect of any direct and substantial loss suffered by such person by reason of the provisions of any such Regulation.The object of this Amendment is to preserve to the individual the rights of the subject. Last week there was put into the Bill words to provide that the Regulations continued by this Act should not have validity greater than they have had heretofore. In Committee upstairs, I moved an Amendment in the same terms as this, and the right hon. Gentleman then in charge of the Bill told me it was entirely unnecessary. I would like to put forward the view now that these words are essentially necessary to maintain for the subject his full rights, and that they are necessary also by implication because, by implication, under the Regulations to which I will call attention in a moment, he is in danger of losing his rights. The words put into the Bill last week did not go far enough in that they only affected the validity of the Regulations continued. The Defence 1536 of the Realm Regulations were war-time measures. As the War was on the subject gave up frankly and with goodwill many of the liberties which now that peace has come he can claim should be restored in full to him. As this is peace-time I submit that if the Government see fit to continue war-time measures, they ought only to do so if they are prepared to give back to the subject all his rights as an individual.If I may for a moment refer to Regulation 2B, which is a Regulation dealing with power to take possession of war material, food, forage and stores, I should like to read the following words:
The price to be paid in respect thereof shall in default of agreement he determined by the tribunal by which claim for compensation under these regulations are, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary, determined.I suppose that refers to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission. By implication the words I have just read make forfeit from the subject his right to take his case into the ordinary Courts of the land. When he comes before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, he may, of grace, get something for having gone there by way of compensation, but he cannot go and claim as a right to have his case heard, and to have his compensation assessed. Let me turn to Regulation 5A, in which much the same set of circumstances arise. This is a Regulation giving power to take control and maintenance of the highways and to ensure that the highway authority shall, in certain cases, pay a proportion of the rates to keep up the roads. The following words occur:In default of agreement as to the amount to be recovered in any case, that amount shall be determined by the Road Stone Control Committee, whose decision shall he final.That, I submit, is another definite case whore a war-time tribunal is set up, and where it ought not to be that in peacetime that tribunal should be the only tribunal whose decision is final, and before which claims can be heard and assessed. Finally, I would submit that the words of the Amendment can do no harm, and must do good in that they safeguard the rights of the individual. As war-time has now ended, and peacetime is here, this House, I submit, should guard very jealously these rights of the subject.
§ Major GLYNI beg to second the Amendment. It seems at this time necessary to bring these things forward, since we want to remove, as far as possible, all Government control over the liberties of the individual. I support this Amendment because I feel that these words can do no harm, and they will ensure the liberty of the subject.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKThis is not the first time we have had an opportunity of discussing this matter. For reasons I gave before, and perhaps for other reasons which are more cogent, I am able to accept the Amendment.
§ Captain BOWYERIf I may for a moment interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I would like to remind him that this is the first time I have had an answer. In committee upstairs I did not get an answer to my Amendment. This is the first time I have had an answer, either from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Attorney-General who was then in charge.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKIf I have appeared in Committee to be in any way discourteous in this matter I apologise. I confess, however, that my own recollection was that on the six or seven days on which we were at it I thought the proceedings were harmonious, and so far as lay in my power I endeavoured always to be courteous. I am sorry I should have acted discourteously to the hon. and gallant Member, and I am a little surprised to hear it, because I do not remember any occasion on which I did not attempt to give him an answer.
§ Captain BOWYERIt was the Attorney-General.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am sorry to hear that it is my right hon. and learned Friend who is accused of being discourteous. I will now explain why I am now unable to accept this Amendment. We are continuing certain Regulations until the 31st August next and no longer. By an amendment which was accepted by the Attorney-General the House inserted a clause in the Bill which under the Regulations have such a validity as they possess at the present time and no greater. I must also ask that they shall be given no less validity. The importance of maintaining Regulations 2B and 5A as they stand is not because the matters that have 1538 to be dealt with are questions which come forward after the War, but they are matters which arise out of the cost of the War, and although put in now, belong to a period antecedent to that which the hon. and gallant Member refers to as the time when the largest body of persons were perfectly content to meet the Government in the difficulties which then prevailed.
There is one other ground on which we cannot accept this proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend may remember that it was in the case of the Newcastle Breweries that Mr. Justice Salter decided that Regulation 2B was invalid. That case will be taken to a higher court, because it concerns a great number of claims and a very considerable sum of money, and I am not able to agree that any modification should be made in that Regulation. The fact that it has been held to be invalid in the first instance makes it necessary to go to a court of appeal, but one must keep open the possibilities of the Regulation being declared valid. A modification will be introduced by this Amendment, and for the particular period which is covered by this Bill 2B as it stands may be taken as meaning onee thing, whereas antecedently it meant another. I urge that the Regulations should stand as they are without any greater validity being given to them, but for the intervening period I ask the House to leave the Regulations untouched, and proceed on the basis that this Bill is one to continue certain expiring Regulations for a few months more. For these reasons I cannot accept an Amendment which modifies the terms of these Regulations for a particular period.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYAs I understand the law and the Rule 2B as it stood, the only remedy a subject had was by appearing before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and now those rights are absolutely taken away Regulation 2 B applies to taking possession of any raw material, food, forage and stores of any description. For some reason or other it is sought to extend these powers until the War has ended. I was not aware that the extension of this Regulation was only until the 31st August, but now I understand the Government are applying for an extension to that date when there is no War. One of the reasons given for this course is that it is quite 1539 doubtful and still sub judice whether Regulation 2B is not ultra vires and dead. I understand that one learned judge, Mr. Justice Salter, has decided that it is dead. Therefore we are now asking the House to perpetuate something which in War was a great hardship, and which is very likely unlawful, and we are asked to continue it. I think the reply of the Solicitor-General is extremely unsatisfactory, and I shall vote against this proposal.
§ Captain W. BENNThe Solicitor-General is mistaken in supposing that there was any Debate in the Committee upstairs on this point. I see, on reference to the Report, that although the hon. and gallant Member moved this Amendment and gave reasons, it was negatived without any reply at all being given. The Committee Stage was passed formally, and there was the fullest understanding that we should have a proper discussion on Report. The point is that Regulation 2B says that the Food Ministry may have power to requisition food, and it lays down that in determining the price regard need not be had to the market price. This seems to inflict an injustice in this respect. Now that the War is over, new Orders may be made by the Food Ministry requisitioning stores, and they may determine the price without regard to the market value, although no extreme emergency exists, and the subject has no right of appeal except the special right provided in the Regulation. I do not think we should rob people of their ordinary rights in this way. There is no emergency, and if new Orders are made there is no reason why the person whose goods are requisitioned should not have an appeal in the ordinary way.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI will explain why Regulation 2B had that portion inserted which is now complained of. Wherever a Government department requisitioned goods it was found that the fact that the Government had requisitioned them necessarily caused prices to rise, and when the Government requisitioned goods, if they paid the market price they created an artificial price by the fact that the Government was the purchaser and very often the largest purchaser, and to safeguard the public that second portion was put in, namely, that regard need 1540 not be had to the market price, and other factors were to be considered. That was in the interests of economy, because in particular cases of which illustrations could be given, but which I prefer to say nothing about at present, because the new class of case is under appeal, it was found necessary to safeguard the public purse against the enhanced prices that the Government department caused in the market.
§ Colonel ASHLEYThe last remarks made by the Solicitor-General do not seem to answer the case. I quite understand the argument when he says that during the War, in a great emergency, when the Government had to requisition huge blocks of goods, like the whole of a hay crop in the United Kingdom, as they did for two or three years, if the market price was assessed against the nation, then the nation might have had to pay too big a sum. What is the position now? I suppose the Solicitor-General does not imagine that the Government need to commandeer the whole of the hay crop for 1920 or the output of the woollen factories this year, and therefore his argument docs not apply to peace conditions as it did to war conditions. If that is so, why should we not allow the subject to have the benefit of the good old Liberal principle of getting the market price, provided that he is riot imposing an intolerable burden upon the community? I presume this power would only be exercised in very rare instances, and I ask the Solicitor-General to allow this to be assessed at the market price and not on war conditions.
§ Colonel PENRY WILLIAMSI hope the House will support this Amendment This is the first time that statutory effect has been given to this principle.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKThe hon. and gallant Member will remember that all the Amendments introduced last time were to the effect that the validity given to this Regulation would be no more than it had in its old form, and statutory effect is not given.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSIf we were to pass this Bill without this Amendment, I do not think the right of the subject would be prejudiced in the law court. If the Court Of Appeal in the House of Lords upheld the Government Would this Act have any effect upon similar cases in the future?
§ Sir E. POLLOCKWe have put in a proviso, "provided also that no regulation as so continued shall have greater validity than it had before the time when but for this Act it would have expired." We have by these very words only increased the length of time during which the Regulation is in force, but we have not added to its validity. The very purpose of this proposal is not to give any greater validity to these Regulations than they had before. Therefore, if the decision in the case of the Newcastle Breweries is upheld in the Courts, the position of the subject will remain exactly as it was and no question can arise, nor can it be said that we have by this Bill modified or given greater validity to the Regulations under the Act, which will expire on the 31st August.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI was glad to hear the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General, but it really does not explain his opposition, or justify that opposition, to the Amendment. I think it is a most reasonable proposal and he has shown that it is most reasonable. I should like to call the attention of the House to the statement he has just made that this Act will come to an end on the 31st August this year. Is that so? The Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act may run a long time after the 31st August if the ratification of peace with Turkey and Bulgaria does not occur before that date. In that case the original Act will run until we get these ratifications, and this Bill, so far as Schedule 3 is concerned, will never come into operation at all. Therefore, I believe, we have no limit to the continuance of those Regulations, and I think it is inaccurate to say that this Act is only in force until the 31st August this year. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will give us an assurance that these Regulations are coming to an end on the 31st August, whatever happens.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am always ready to offer information, as far as I can, with the leave of the House. What I said was that this Bill we are dealing with relates to the 31st August this year. What we ask the House to say by this Bill is that the Regulations in the Third Schedule, which we are dealing with, shall continue in force until the 31st August, 1920. So far as this Bill goes, it asks for no more than that validity shall be given to the Regulations until the 31st August.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSWill the learned Solicitor-General explain what will happen if we do not get the ratification of the Treaties by that time?
Major BARNESAn hon. Member has said that this Bill is in accordance with Liberal principles, but I am inclined to regard this matter from a different point of view. So far as I understood him, the Solicitor-General held out a bait, which may be more or less tempting, that we should accept his proposal and should resist this Amendment. I can assure him that the effect would be seriously to interfere with the liberties of the subject. He says people might raise the price of an estate which was going into the market if the Government were going to buy it, and therefore we should continue these proposals in order that the State might get it more cheaply, or get certain commodities more cheaply than if we had not these Regulations. That argument is one which at various times has carried a considerable amount of force on this side of the House. But what we are asked to do to-day is to barter away something even more important than the possibility of safeguarding the public purse, and that is the power to safeguard the liberties and rights of private individuals in the country. In the present position of the country I do not think it is necessary that the State should have these powers to requisition commodities under the Defence of the Realm Act. In such cases people who make claims are to come for compensation before the Commission for Losses under that Act. They had to receive compensation, not for any loss of profits, but for any actual, substantial monetary loss which was due to the action of the Government. That was established as an expedient during the War. I do not say that the operation of these war Regulations has not met with general assent. But some of those who came up to make claims have not been satisfied. During the War there was a feeling that in the exceptional circumstances, in which there might be a considerable shortage of commodities, it might have been possible for sums of money to be extorted, if I may use the word, from the State on account of the action of the State in making purchases. That was the position so far as the war period was concerned, and I think that very little exception was taken to the Act. But what we ask to-day is an explanation of 1543 why these Regulations should be continued in operation when the circumstances are much changed, and really do not warrant their continuance. The War is over, and the conditions that obtained during the War to a very large extent have gone also. The Armistice has been signed and Peace has been signed with Germany. It is something like fourteen months since the fighting ceased, and we are asked to consent to this Bill, which continues the expedients which were thought necessary during the war period. Now that the circumstances of the War has disappeared, we ought to safeguard, perhaps, the most valuable
§ right that any individual possesses in this country, the right of access to the courts. In many respects such access is the supreme safeguard of the subject, and even when this House has been unable to redress grievances, the courts have proved effective for that purpose. We ought to take into view the general feeling, not only on these Benches, but on the opposite Benches, that no case has been made out for the continuance of these Regulations, and therefore the Solicitor-General should accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 242.
1545| Division No. 16.] | AYES. | [4.55 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Pearce, Sir William |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hayday, Arthur | Redmond, Captain William Archer |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hinds, John | Robertson, John |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hirst, G. H. | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Holmes, J. Stanley | Sexton, James |
| Briant, Frank | Irving, Dan | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bromfield, William | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kenyon, Barnet | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cairns, John | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Tootill, Robert |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Waterson, A. E. |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Morrison, Hugh | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Myers, Thomas | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Captain Bowyer and Colonel Penry Williams. |
| Gretton, Colonel John | O'Connor, Thomas P. | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Breese, Major Charles E. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Bridgeman, William Clive | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Briggs, Harold | Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A. | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Brown, Captain D. C. | Dawes, James Arthur |
| Atkey, A. R. | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Denison-Pender, John C. |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Dixon, Captain Herbert |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Dockrell, Sir Maurice |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Burden, Colonel Rowland | Donald, Thompson |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Duncannon, Viscount |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Butcher, Sir John George | Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | Campbell, J. D. G. | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Casey, T. W. | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Bennett, Thomas Jewell | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H H. Spender | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Clough, Robert | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue |
| Bigland, Alfred | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Forestier-Walker, L. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Forrest, Walter |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Cohen, Major J. Brune | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Cope, Major Wm. | Gange, E. Stanley |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Courthope, Major George L. | Gardiner, James |
| Berwick, Major G. O. | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South) | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) | Goff, Sir R. Park |
| Gould, James C. | Lyon, Laurance | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Grant, James A. | M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | M'Guffin, Samuel | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Rodger, A. K. |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Macmaster, Donald | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Griggs, Sir Peter | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Macquisten, F. A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Hallwood, Augustine | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Mallalieu, F. W. | Seager, Sir William |
| Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Haslam, Lewis | Mason, Robert | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Matthews, David | Shaw, William T, (Forfar) |
| Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Moles, Thomas | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Morison, Thomas Brash | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.) | Morris, Richard | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Stevens, Marshall |
| Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington) | Mosley, Oswald | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Mount, William Arthur | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Murchison, C. K. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Hudson, R. M. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Taylor, J. |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Neal, Arthur | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Hurst, Major Gerald B. | Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Jephcott, A. R. | O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Jesson, C. | Parker, James | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Johnstone, Joseph | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Wason, John Cathcart |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Perkins, Walter Frank | Whitla, Sir William |
| Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W. | Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Prescott, Major W. H. | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Pulley, Charles Thornton | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Purchase, H. G. | Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Lister, Sir J. Ashton | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Lonsdale, James Rolston | Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Lorden, John William | Remnant, Colonel Sir James F. | Younger, Sir George |
| Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Rendall, Athelstan | |
| Lynn, R. J. | Renwick, George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest. |
| FIRST SCHEDULE. | ||
| Enactment. | Nature and Extent of Limitation. | Nature and Extent of Extension. |
| (1) Special Constables Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 61). | Limited to special constables appointed during the present War. | To extend to special constables appointed during a period of one year after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1 (1) after the words "during the present War" there were inserted the words "or a period of "twelve months after the "termination thereof." |
| (2) The Courts Emergency-Powers Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 78), and the enactments to be read or construed as one with that Act, viz., the Courts Emergency | Limited to the continuance of the present War and a period of six months thereafter. | To continue for a period of twelve months after the termination of the present War as if in S. 2 (4) for the words "six months" there were substituted the words "twelve months." |
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSI beg to move to leave out paragraph (1).
This paragraph deals with the appointment of Special Constables. Previously to the War, under Section 196 of the Municipal Corporations Act, provision was made for the appointment of Special Constables in October, every year, who could be called upon to serve on any occasion when the police force of a borough might be insufficient to maintain law and order. But during the period of the War, on account of the large number of constables called to the colours, provision was made under the War Emergency Laws Act enabling the Mayor of a borough to appoint Special Constables at any time in case any disturbance or riots occurred. While we think that that was absolutely essential during the War, we hold it to be unnecessary to have this power operative in times of peace, and, therefore, I move the omission of this particular paragraph, which extends this provision to Special Constables appointed during the period of one year after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1 after the words "during the present War" there were inserted the words "or a period of 12 months after the termination of the War." I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that in Committee he met us very fairly. Both the right hon. baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and myself tested him a lot, and I hope he will meet us in regard to this particular amendment.
§ Captain W. BENNI had given notice of an Amendment which was to be moved prior to this Amendment, but, as my hon. Friend was called upon, I did not interrupt him, thinking it might be discourteous. May I have permission to lay before the House the Amendment which I desire to move?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was out of place. It should have come on the sub-section which deals with the authority for continuing these powers.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird)I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. There is nothing compulsory about the provisions, brought in during the War, governing the appointment of special constables, but it 1552 is considered wise to have these reserve forces continued, so that in the event of assistance being required for the maintenance of order it shall not be necessary to have recourse to the military. As is well known, the numbers of the police force are small, and, although they may suffice for the maintenance of law and order in ordinary circumstances, yet in the event of there being any great disturbance, it is obviously undesirable that it should be necessary to rely on the military to reinforce the police, and in order, therefore, to maintain this reserve, the Government ask the House to sanction the continuance for one year of the present arrangement, especially as there is very little prospect, so far as we can see, of time being available in the present session to enable us to invite the House to pass permanent legislation. This is a temporary measure, and the duties which are performed by special constables are such as all law-abiding citizens are always ready to perform. It is the business of the Government to provide that there shall be the requisite forces for carrying out these duties. May I refer to an Order-in Council, issued in accordance with the Act, in which the duties of special constables are clearly laid down. Therein power is given to nominate and appoint special constables under the Special Constables Act, 1831, when turmoil or riot is apprehended. The House will agree that it is rather late in the day to appoint special constables under such conditions. They ought to be appointed before such a state of affairs arises. The next Section says that special constables shall be appointed to preserve the public peace, for the protection of the inhabitants, and for the security of property in the police area in which the Justices may appoint them. It is clear that these are duties which every law-abiding citizen admits ought to be performed in the interests of enabling people to lead peaceable lives. The whole force is voluntary; there is no compulsion whatever connected with it. The members of the force are under the control of the chief officers of police, and act as an organised body in aid of the regular police, compensation being payable to special constables injured in the execution of their duty or to the dependants of special constables who may be killed while on duty. This is not a very big question—it is an innovation intro- 1553 duced during the War. But it is obviously necessary to ask the House for permanent legislation. We would have done so had there been any reasonable prospects of time being available for such a measure as this, but there is no such prospect, and therefore I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI understand the main reason for the rejection of this Amendment is that the Government are afraid that they will not be able to find time to introduce legislation to put this on a permanent basis. Surely it is early in the Session to make such a statement as that. One might have expected it in June or July, but not in the second week of a Session, and certainly the intimation does not carry any conviction to my mind of the reasonableness of the suggestion; neither does it justify, so far as I can see, the continuing in peace conditions of so serious a change in our system.
§ Major BAIRDFor one year.
§ Sir D. MACLEANWe are living under peace conditions now, and the reason why my hon. Friends and myself are examining these proposals of the Government contained in this Bill is not with any idea of obstructing the business of the House, but because we think this is the proper opportunity for making it as clear as we can that the people of the country are very anxious that none of these powers should be continued except where an overwhelming case is made for their continuance. I am going to suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that in this respect he might meet us. His main reason is, apparently, that the Government are afraid that they will not be able to find time for permanent legislation. I do not think that is a sufficiently strong reason, and unless we get some much better one we shall be compelled to carry our protest to the Division Lobby.
§ Captain REDMONDIt is really intensely amusing to an Irish Member to hear a speech like that which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird). He says this proposal to extend the time for the provision of special constables is necessary in order that we shall not have to have recourse to the military. What are the conditions in Ireland at present? Are we having re- 1554 course to the military, and if there is a necessity for the continuance of these offensive D.O.K.A. Regulations at all in Ireland, surely this one, at any rate, need not be continued when we are having recourse to the military already there? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean to suggest that if this portion of the Schedule is passed in regard to Ireland—and I suppose this refers to Ireland as much and for as long as any other portion of the Bill—the military will not be used? Because, if that is the contention, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that if the provision to extend the period for the existence of special constables is put into effect in regard to Ireland and that the military will not be brought into operation in the future as they have in the past, then certainly I will support him, and not the mover and seconder of the Amendment. But, unfortunately, I find it very hard to believe, great and kind as the intentions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself may be, that these are the intentions of the Government to which he belongs. I very much fear that their intentions in this regard are not to abolish military rule in Ireland and substitute a police control, but rather to continue the present iniquitous system of martial law against the will and the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people. That being so, I shall support the Amendment. Before a Division, however, the Government might clear up the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Amendment could not be accepted by the Government because the provision to extend the period for the special constables is in order to avoid having recourse to the military. I challenge him. Does that apply to Ireland? If it does, let him say so, and I certainly will support him and the Government, and not the mover and seconder of the Amendment.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKThe answer to hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is definitely, Yes, it does apply to Ireland, and, therefore, this Statute, if continued, would be applied to Ireland. But I rather thought he cared very little whether it was continued or not, for I rather gathered from his statement that, although it might apply to Ireland, they had a somewhat different system in vogue there under which not special constables were used, but other resources of law and 1555 order of which he had some criticism to offer,
§ Captain REDMONDWhat the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird) said was that the object of this Schedule was in order not to make it necessary to have recourse to the military. What I want to know is, does that apply to Ireland?
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI think my hon. and gallant Friend was thinking more of England and Scotland than of Ireland. Apparently at present it has but little application to Ireland, and so I turn to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). I gather that it is not so much that objection is taken that these powers ought under no circumstances ever to exist, but it is rather a difference about questions of method. I think probably there would be general agreement if in so far as you could use what might be called civil powers in cases of riot, tumult or disturbance, it would always be wise so far as you possibly can to rely upon civil force and avoid the use of the military.
§ Captain REDMONDIn England, but not in Ireland.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his punctuation of my observation. Therefore we approach this matter from the point of view that if and when a new Statute is passed it might be a perfectly-reasonable thing, subject to proper debate, for powers to be taken to amend the Act of 1831 and to give power to the authorities to ask for special constables, not when the tumult, riot and disturbance has taken place, but at a time when it may seem opportune to have special powers in reserve. Now it is said, and not at all unfairly, you are asking to continue a measure which was passed during the War at a time when you cannot say that the necessities of the War need its continuance. That is a perfectly fair criticism, but the main point is that on the general proposition the Act of 1831 should be amended. I should probably find general agreement in the House and also on the fact that experience of special constables during the War has shown that we have a reserve force which 1556 may, in many instances, be very useful indeed, and not only from the point of preventing any riot or tumult or disturbance, but actually being very responsible, and at the same time economical and useful guardians of order. "Now," says the hon. and gallant Gentleman, "you must not pass this legislation at present or by this means. You ought to have a new Bill. You ought to bring in a Home Office Bill, and pass it before 31st August instead of asking for this power." The King's Speech adumbrated a very long list of measures, and the criticisms I saw in the Press, and in most other places, was that the work which had been sketched out was beyond the powers of Parliament. It would never be able to pass so much legislation. Therefore it is really agreed that in the programme suggested Parliamentary time has been fully mortgaged. Under these circumstances I say without the least shame that here in February it is quite unlikely that time would be found to pass a special Act. More than that, is it really very necessary, on a matter on which probably we should find general agreement, that we should when we have got this method of continuing these powers ask that a fresh Bill should be introduced and added to the burden which is already laid upon Parliament during the Session? It is because of the difficulty we see in the possibility of getting an Act through that we take what, after all, is a very short time on an afternoon when we have a Bill which can embrace these powers that we ask to be given them on the ground that they are powers which should not arouse great controversy and which would probably be granted if a different method had been adopted. I desire in every possible way to meet the sense of the House, but on this particular matter I ask it to continue these powers to special constables until an opportunity occurs for further legislation.
Major BARNESI think the powers which are asked for by the Government must form part of the gradual disillusionment which is coming over the House, and the country generally, as to what is to be the result of the War. We heard yesterday that one of the chief results of the War which was to end war is that we are going to have a larger Army. We hear to-day that the net result is that we want a larger 1557 police force. When we got these powers during the War, it was not with the idea of enlarging the police force. The reason was that great numbers of the constables were leaving the force, and these men were necessary to keep the force up to its original numbers. But now the force is back to its original strength, and these men are a very substantial increase to the police force of the country. I understand the Government does not ask for this as an increase in the police force. They do not say the conditions of the country are such as to necessitate an increase in the police force. The ground upon which they asked for it, as put forward by the Solicitor-General, would be a very excellent ground if one could really believe it was a genuine reason for asking for the force, and that is that the men are being asked for to supersede the use of the military. Was ever a more preposterous argument ever put before this House? Consider for a moment what are the circumstances that occasion the use of the military, and consider how the military are employed. When are they used? Under circumstances of the most extreme passion, when the feelings of the populace are so aroused that there is very imminent peril, which can only be staved off by recourse to the most drastic measures, and we are asked to believe that a body of men such as the special constables would be used on an occasion of that kind. Have they the training? Have they the arms? It is obvious that the reason which has been advanced by the Solicitor-General cannot be the reason for which these men are required.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKMore than once the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, "Men are required." We are not asking to create an actual force, but to have continued power to create it, which is a different thing. If the force had to be created, money would have to be voted by Parliament.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSAnd we say they are unnecessary.
Major BARNESI do not quite gather the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I take it the Government is not really occupying the time of the 1558 House with bringing forward a proposal to create something which is merely on paper. What they are expecting to get from this measure when it is passed is something substantial and something to be used. These men are to take the place of soldiers. The suggestion is that they are going to get a body of paper men who are to be valuable in times of extreme tumult and riot and to take the place of the military. I suggest that we have not had the real reasons put before us. I have not been a Member of this House long, but I have been a Member long enough to know that it is very seldom that the reasons which are put forward for a measure are the real reasons, and that the reasons put forward for resisting an Amendment are not the real reasons. The Solicitor-General knows very well that there is a very strong feeling in the country against the continuance of these powers under these conditions. Amongst the great body of workers there is feeling that there is no necessity for the continuance of these powers, and there is a very strong suspicion that they are being retained for purposes and contingencies which ought never to arise if proper treatment is given. What has been found in regard to the Military Service Act that was brought in last year? It has not been needed. The Bill for compulsory service has not been required, because during the year a Voluntary Army has been got together without the exercise of conscription in any shape or form. Therefore, the Government incurred all the odium of passing that measure without getting any benefit from it. The Government is repeating that mistake in asking for the continuance of these powers. Their action is arousing suspicion which will do no good to them, but will only stir up ill-feeling, and they are risking that in order to secure something which will be of no real assistance to them. This proposition of the Government is not of real importance, and I hope they will give way and drop it from the Bill.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 60.
1561| Division No. 17.] | AYES. | [5.33 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Forestier-Walker, L. | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Forrest, Walter | Martin, Captain A. E. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Mason, Robert |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Gardiner, James | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Gardner, Ernest | Morison, Thomas Brash |
| Atkey, A. R. | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke) | Morrison, Hugh |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Morrison-Bell, Major A. E. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gilbert, James Daniel | Mosley, Oswald |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Glyn, Major Ralph | Mount, William Arthur |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Murchison, C. K. |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Gould, James C. | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Grant, James A. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Green, Albert (Derby) | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Neal, Arthur |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Greig, Colonel James William | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Gretton, Colonel John | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Griggs, Sir Peter | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Bennett, Thomas Jewell | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hallwood, Augustine | Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Parker, James |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Pearce, Sir William |
| Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland | Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Haslam, Lewis | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Borwick, Major G. O | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Brassey, Major H. L. C. | Hills, Major John Waller | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hinds, John | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Briggs, Harold | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A. | Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.) | Pulley, Charles Thornton |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A (Midlothian) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington) | Rae, H. Norman |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Reid, D. D. |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Hudson, R. M. | Remnant, Colonel Sir James F. |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Renwick, George |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hurd, Percy A. | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Hurst, Major Gerald B. | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Casey, T. W. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Jephcott, A. R. | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Jesson, C. | Rodger, A. K. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Kellaway, Frederick George | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Clough, Robert | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) | Seager, Sir William |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunet | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Cope, Major Wm. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Smithers, Sir Alfred W. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lonsdale, James Rolston | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Lorden, John William | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Denison-Pender, John C. | Lort-Williams, J. | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Dixon, Captain, Herbert | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Stevens, Marshall |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Stewart, Gershom |
| Donald, Thompson | Lyon, Laurance | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Duncannon, Viscount | M'Guffin, Samuel | Taylor, J. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E (Lanark) | Macmaster, Donald | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Elveden, Viscount | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Macquisten, F. A. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Ward-Jackson, Major C. L. |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. | Mallalieu, F. W. | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Wheler, Major Granville C. H. | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Whitla, Sir William | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson | Wilton, Lieut.-Cot. M. J. (Richmond) | |
| Wild, Sir Ernest Edward | Woolcock, William James U. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward | Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hartshorn, Vernon | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnes, Major H, (Newcastle, E.) | Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Hirst, G. H. | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Holmes, J. Stanley | Spoor, B. C. |
| Briant, Frank | Irving, Dan | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Bromfield, William | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kenyon, Barnet | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cairns, John | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cape, Thomas | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Tootill, Robert |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Myers, Thomas | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | O'Connor, Thomas P. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Redmond, Captain William Archer | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Rendall, Athelstan | |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Robertson, John | Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. George Thorne. |
§ Major M'KENZIE WOODI beg to move to leave out paragraph (2).
My objection to this is not directed so much at the substance of the Acts referred to in the paragraphs. The only effect of the acceptance of my Amendment would be that this part of the Schedule would drop out altogether, and that the Acts mentioned would come to an end on the dates specified in the several Acts. They would all come to an end six months after the end of the War. We are entitled to ask why it is that it is considered necessary that these Acts should continue for a period of twelve months after the War and not for six months after the War as was originally intended. On the Second Beading of this Bill last year the Leader of the House told us that ratification of the War Treaties would not come until the second or third month of this year. Now we have come to that period so that we may take it that the Government last year were under the impression that it would be sufficient if they had a period of 12 months from the present date. Obviously ratification of the Peace Treaties cannot come for at least six months, so we may assume that the Government consider that 12 months from to-day would suit them. Why are they not going to take the same period now which last year they thought sufficient? Have the Government changed their mind, and, if so, why?
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of explaining why these Acts are continuing. As I understand he took no exception to the substance of these Acts, and I do not think that anyone would who understood what they are for. They are groups of Courts of Emergency Powers Acts. The original was the Courts Emergency Powers Act, which was passed on the 31st day of August, 1914, just on the outbreak of the War. Those Acts have been amended as has been found necessary to give wider scope to the original Act. The object was to safeguard the interests of certain persons, particularly those in the poorer section of the community, who might find themselves placed in serious financial difficulties owing to the outbreak of war. There were many people who found that their accustomed sources of subsistence did not produce so readily as before, and we passed a moritorium and so on. Throughout the course of the War it was found that many persons were suffering inconvenience owing to the War. We are asking that these Acts should be continued for a period of 12 months after the termination of the present War.
The powers that are given are these: that before execution should be levied by writ of fi-fa upon the goods of persons, before there should be any levy of distress, or bankruptcy, proceedings should be taken, application should be made to the Court, so as to give an opportunity to the debtor to place before the Court 1563 circumstances out of or occasioned by the War which had placed him in an unfortunate position, and make him unable to fulfil the contract or other obligations which he has undertaken. I do not think it can be said yet that we have got back to a normal position. There are many persons, especially persons of small means, who still find that if not the main current of the War, at any rate the disturbances created by the War are still operating on them; and in those cases we do not give them an absolute right not to pay their debts, but we say that an application should be made to the Court so that if there are any facts which indicate that they ought to be dealt with on more generous lines, the Court may have an opportunity of deciding not to exercise its full power, but to mitigate the difficulty in which defendant debtors find themselves placed. I am certain that the general sense of the House would be in favour of continuing those powers. It would be a great hardship to many poor persons to withdraw them.
On the question of a change of mind of the Government, I have not been able to ascertain exactly what the position taken then was. What I am concerned with is the reason why we ask these powers to be continued. Suppose the War is legally terminated in the course of this year, then the question whether or not these powers should be continued or whether any legislation should be brought in, founded on the experience of these Acts will have to be considered in the course of the next Session, the Session of 1921. We therefore ask for these powers to be continued for a year after the legal termination of the War in order that abundant opportunity may be given to this House to consider the question of these powers, and, if the House determines upon it, making some of these powers a permanent part of our legislation, and if we take twelve months the matter may be dealt with more deliberately. I am not asking here for the powers for the executive or for a Government department. I am pleading for those who have suffered, and who are still suffering, from the War that they should have an opportunity of being dealt with leniently when justice is being determined.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI take this opportunity Of asking the right hon. Gentleman 1564 whether he has made provision for bringing to the notice of debtors and others the fact that these Acts are coming to an end. I have recently been sitting on a Committee of inquiry into Industrial Assurance and find that the effect of these Acts has been that premiums falling due during the course of the War on policies then in existence have been postponed, except in so far as they have been voluntarily paid. The result is that when these Acts come to an end, and premiums have accumulated and become due in a lump sum, poor policy holders will find it impossible to pay and unless something is done there will be a great deal of suffering and a great many people will be deprived of the benefit of the money which they had previously paid. In the case of the foreclosures of a mortgage being held up, as has happened in a great many cases, by the provisions of these Acts, as soon as the Acts come to an end, the mortgagee will be called upon to find a large sum of money to save his property. I have not the least doubt that other obligations have been mounting up, and when the Acts come to an end the position will be so oppressive as to be unbearable to particular debtors. I therefore ask the Government to take some steps to investigate the cases of debts which are likely to accumulate in that way, and also to make provision that there shall be plenty of notice of liability to pay so that people concerned may take steps to be able to do so.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. A. SHAWI beg to move in paragraph 4, column 3, to leave out the words
by reason of matters arising out of that war.The Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Acts, as I understand, gives, in the case of trustees engaged in War service abroad as members of the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of the Crown, power to persons appointed by power of attorney to sign on behalf of the absent trustees, and it is proposed to extend this arrangement for a period of 12 months after the termination of the present War. The effect of the Amendment will be that service abroad in any of the capacities mentioned will be considered sufficient to empower a co-trustee to sign on behalf of the absent trustee without having to satisfy himself as to the extent to which the absence arises out of the War.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to second the Amendment.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for moving this Amendment, which I am quite ready to accept. I think that he has put his finger on a matter which might have prevented the carrying on of this Statute, as I am asking the House to do, of little avail. The fact is that under the Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Acts we give power to a trustee who is detained abroad, "by reason of matters arising out of that war," to give a power of attorney to a trustee or somebody else to carry out the trusts in his absence. That is very necessary and very useful. It is right to take out these words in order that we may give an unqualified and definite proof to a trustee acting under a power of attorney.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. E. CECILI beg to move in paragraph 4, column 3, to leave out the words "St. John Ambulance Association," and to insert instead thereof the words "Order of St. John."
This is merely a formal Amendment, and I move it as Secretary-General of the Order of St. John. I wish to put in the proper description and to leave out a wrong description. The St. John Ambulance Association is merely a part of the work of the Order of St. John as a whole. Many of the men who have served overseas in the St. John Ambulance Brigade were not under the St. John Ambulance Association at all, but were under the Order of St. John.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am very glad to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI beg to move, in paragraph 5, column 3, to leave out the words
To extend to persons dying during a period of twelve months after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1, after the word 'in consequence of the pro-sent War' there were inserted the words 'or during a period of twelve months after the termination thereof.'
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI am very glad that the Government have seen their way to accept this Amendment, which stands also in the name of another hon. Member 1566 and myself, as does an Amendment further on the Paper. Apparently, the Government and the learned Attorney-General have adopted this Amendment, and I congratulate them. I should like them to continue that process a little bit further, and, while I do hot want to show any sort of affection for the Defence of the Realm Bill, such as I was accused of by the learned Attorney-General—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)This is an Amendment to leave out certain words. We must not debate other proposals which come later on, until we get to them.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSI was trying to extract from the Government the reason why they had altered their policy, and why they now propose to accept our Amendment. When we were in Committee on this Bill, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty made a great point of this clause, and in the Official Report of the second day's proceedings, on page 82, there will be found in his speech a statement that
Cases will occur for some time yet, and unless we get these words inserted there will be naval events not covered by a civil agreement. It will be wholly in the interests of the individual, and I am sure the Committee will agree to it.Some of us did not quite believe it when we were told it, and apparently the Government have come to the conclusion that our arguments against widening this provision of the Bill are justified. Cannot they carry that a little further and exclude a good many more of these useless provisions? I do not believe the learned Solicitor-General wishes to continue a great many of these Regulations. I believe the Government have been driven to them by the Departments concerned We are all agreed that this provision should go, though not agreed on the point that provisions which may contain some germs of right in them should go in with all the others and be retained. If these are to go, let them all go.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is a matter for discussion on another Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, in paragraph 6, column 3, to leave out the words
during twelve months after the termination of the War, as if in Section 2 (3) for 1567 the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'twelve months.'I move this in order that my hon. and learned Friend may give me the reason for continuing these Special Acts for a period of one year instead of for a period of six months as originally intended, right hon. Friend the
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI am very glad to give my right hon. Friend the explanation asked for. This is an Act under which where there was a duty to perform or
| SECOND SCHEDULE. | ||
| Regulations continued. | ||
| Number of Regulation. | Subject Matter. | Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made. |
| 1 | Ordinary avocations of life, &c., to be interfered with as little as possible. | |
| 2AB | Power to take possession of premises for purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour. | So far as relates to the Minister of Pensions if after due inquiry he is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained. |
| 2B | Power to requisition War material, stores, &c. | So far as relates to the powers of the Food Controller, and to flax. |
| 2BB | Power to vary terms of sub-contracts. | So far as relates to cases where certificates or Orders have at the passing of this Act been issued. |
| 2C | Power to take possession of and fell trees. | So far as relates to timber of which possession has been taken at the passing of this Act. |
| 2E | Power to regulate dealings in War material, stores, &c. | So far as relates to the powers of the Food Controller, and to flax and clinical thermometers. |
| 2F to 2J | Powers of the Food Controller. | |
| 2JJ | Power to regulate articles of commerce other than food. | So far as relates to coal (including anthracite and all other kinds of coal, coke, briquettes, and any other solid fuel of which coal or coke is a constituent), gas and electricity. |
| 2JJJ | Power to regulate the transport of goods by road. | As if in Subsection (1) the words "and thereby furthering the "successful prosecution of the "War or otherwise securing the "defence of the realm" were omitted. |
| 2O | Keeping of pigs. | Subsection (5), and, so far as relates to permissions granted and in force at the date of the passing of this Act, the remainder of the Regulation. |
| 5A | Power to take over control and maintenance of highways. | So far as relates to highways which have been damaged by Government use before the passing of this Act, and as if for the words "for the "purpose of securing the public "safety and the defence of the "realm," there were substituted the words "in the national "interests." |
§ power to be exercised under the Special Acts, and the time was limited, it was—
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment made: In paragraph 10, column 3, leave out the words
To extend the valuations due to be made during twelve months after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1 for the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'twelve months,' ".—[Sir E. Pollock.]
1569
| Number of Regulation. | Subject Matter. | Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made. |
| 6A | Power to exempt factories and workshops from provisions of Act of 1901. | So far as relates to Orders authorising, subject to the weekly limit of hours allowed by Act of 1901— |
| (a) employment of women and young persons in shifts (not being night shifts) averaging not more than eight hours; | ||
| (b) employment of women and young persons at special times in creameries and cheese-making works; | ||
| (c) night employment of male young persons over 17 years of age in wire-drawing; | ||
| (d) minor adjustments of times of starting and stopping work and of meal intervals. | ||
| 7B | Power to regulate traffic on railways. | Except paragraphs (b) to (j) of Subsection (1) and as if the words "with a view to the successful "prosecution of the War" were omitted. |
| 8DD | Power to issue motor drivers' licences to males between 16 and 17. | So far as relates to existing licences issued thereunder. |
| 9G | Power to control coal mines. | |
| 9GGG | Power to authorise the working of seams of coal in certain circumstances. | So far as relates to any seams with respect to which existing authorities have been issued. |
| 10B | Power to restrict hours in the evening during which business may be carried on. | |
| 11A | Power to restrict lighting with a view to increased supply of light and power for purpose of production. | As if the words "necessary for the "successful prosecution of the "War" were omitted. |
| 12D | Power to prohibit whistling and other noises. | |
| 14H | Restriction on the use of assumed names. | |
| 15C | Power to require particulars as to businesses. | So far as may be necessary in respect of any contract or requisition entered into or made during the War. |
| 17 | Suspension of restrictions on powers of making byelaws. | |
| 18A | Prohibition on communications with agents of foreign powers. | |
| 21A | Provision for the protection of homing pigeons. | Except paragraph (c). |
| 30A | Restriction on dealings in War material. | So far as is necessary to control the export of arms and ammunition. |
| 30E, 30EE, 30EEE | Provisions as to coinage and bullion. | |
| 30F | Restrictions on new capital issues. | Except Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), and (5). |
| 31 | Restriction on import and removal of arms, ammunition and explosives. | |
| 33 | Restriction on possession of explosives and highly inflammable liquids. | |
| 34 | Provisions as to the storage of petroleum and other highly inflammable liquids. | |
| 35A | Power to make rules for securing the safety of factories, &c. | So far as relates to factories in which dangerous operations in connection with the breaking-up of ammunition are carried on. |
| Number of Regulation. | Subject Matter. | Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made. |
| 37B | Duty of providing wireless telegraph apparatus on ships. | |
| 39BBB | Powers of shipping controller. | |
| 39C | Regulation of traffic at ports. | As if the words "whereby the "successful prosecution of the "War may be endangered" were omitted therefrom. |
| 39CC | Restrictions on power to purchase ships. | |
| 39DD | Powers of Shipping Controller. | |
| 39FF | ||
| 39G | Provisions as to registry of British ships. | |
| 40B | Restriction on the supply, preparation and use of cocaine and opium. | |
| 40BB | Purchase and distribution of drugs designed for the treatment of venereal disease. | As if the words "during the continuance of the War" were omitted therefrom. |
| 41 | Unauthorised use of uniform, badges, &c. | |
| 42A | Provisions against persons inducing members of the forces to contravene the King's Regulations, &c. | |
| 43A | Obstruction of members of the forces in the execution of their duties. | |
| 45 | Forgery personation, and other fraudulent offences. | |
| 45F | Provisions for securing discipline of the allied forces in the United Kingdom. | |
| 47, 48, and 48A. | General provisions as to offences | So for as relates to offences against Regulations continued by this Act. |
| 51 | Powers of search | As if, as respects Great Britain, for that Regulation the following Regulations were substituted:— |
| If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied on information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence against these Regulations has been or is about to be committed, he may grant a search warrant authorising any constable named in the warrant to enter at any time any premises or place named in the warrant, it necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and to seize anything found therein which is evidence of an offence against these Regulations having been or being about to be committed or with regard to or in connection with which he has reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence against these Regulations has been or is about to be committed. | ||
| Where the alleged offence is an offence under Regulation 18A and it appears to a superintendent of police or any person upon whom the powers of a superintendent of police are for the purposes of this Regulation conferred by a Secretary of State, or in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland, that the case is one of great emergency, and that in the interest of the State immediate action is |
| Number of Regulation. | Subject Matter. | Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made. |
| necessary, he may by a written order under his hand give to any constable the like authority as may be given by the warrant of a justice under this Regulation. | ||
| 55 | Powers of arrest | As if, as respects Great Britain, for that Regulation, the following Regulation was substituted:— |
| Any person who is found committing an offence, or who is reasonably suspected of having committed or being about to commit an offence under Regulation 18A may be arrested without warrant by a constable or by a person authorised for the purpose by a Secretary of State, or in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland. | ||
| 55B | Power to provide for co-operation of fire brigades. | Except so far as relates to air raids. |
| 59 | Saving of powers. | |
| 60 | Publication of orders, &c. | |
| 61 | Production of permits. | |
| 62 | Definitions | As if for the words "acting in naval "or military co-operation" there were substituted the words "which "have acted in naval or military "co-operation." |
| 63 | Citation and construction. | |
| 66 | Effect of revocation. | |
| NOTE.—For the purposes of this Schedule "existing" means existing and in force at the date of the passing of this Act. |
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI beg to move, to leave out the Regulation 2AB.
This has been fully discussed in the House to-day on a previous Amendment, and I do not want to go over the arguments again. But I would ask the Government once more whether the passing of this Regulation would not affect impending action in the court. I think it is essential that we should have the liberty of the subject to appeal to the law courts for compensation, and that nothing should be done by us here brutally or in ignorance to prejudice the right of the subject to proceed either by Petition of Right or in any other legal way.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to second the Amendment. We had considerable discussion upon this Regulation and I attach considerable importance to it. The Regulation gives power to the Government to take possession of premises for the purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour. We pointed out in Committee that a great deal of hardship would be caused by the powers granted 1574 to different departments of the Government to commandeer premises. The result was no doubt—I do not wish to blame the Government—that officials, in order to save themselves trouble, and with the knowledge that they could go in and turn a man out of his house or business or shop and take premises that were most convenient to themselves, did not trouble to find out whether they could get premises the owners of which would be only too glad to part with the possession of them. I think the Government met us to a certain extent, because they agreed to reserve these powers only to the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour. Why should the powers be reserved to those two particular Departments? We discussed it at length and eventually a kind of compromise was arrived at, which amounted to something like this: that, so far as related to the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour, the power should be used only if, after due inquiry, they were satisfied that premises could not otherwise be reasonably obtained. What does that mean? It means that the 1575 Ministry of Pensions, whose staff is increasing largely every day—it is now made up of between 20,000 and 30,000 people—have the right to go down and take anyone's house or office and to take possession of it, provided the Minister says that, in his opinion, other premises could not reasonably be obtained. At the present time, with all the various offices which have been vacated, and the offices which should be vacated very soon by Government Departments, surely there must be premises which could be taken without having these compulsory powers. It was all very well during the War that powers of this sort should be granted, but now it would do no harm if the Ministry of Pensions, before they took new offices, had to take a little trouble to find out whether or not premises could be obtained without exercising these powers. In ordinary circumstances we should have thought that peace would have been established long before this. It is a mere fiction to say that the War is not ended because peace is not ratified. The War has been ended for a long time. Under the circumstances I think we ought to insist upon this provision being omitted.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir J. Craig)I would like to point out to the mover and seconder of this Amendment that there is no Department of the State in regard to which it could be said more truly than of the Ministry of Pensions that the War is not yet over. It must be borne in mind that from the signing of the Armistice nearly all the other Government Departments were able to relax their efforts, while, to a certain extent, the Ministry of Pensions only began really to feel the full weight of the War. Let me remind the House there are now behind us the demobilisation of some 3,700,000 odd from the Army, and a very large number of whom will be on the Ministry of Pensions. So far from being able to curtail our activities, we are at this moment at the very top of the wave. Several considerations have made it more necessary than ever to continue this section. In the pre-Armistice days a large number of the local committees throughout the country had the advantage, of a town hall or some other municipal building in order to carry out the work of the Ministry. Lately it has been impossible 1576 to ask the municipalities to continue that courtesy, and in many cases we have had to seek for buildings elsewhere. We have been most generously treated by the municipalities in the past, and I am not complaining, and I think it is only natural that with the resumption of ordinary normal life the municipalities should require the whole of their own buildings, and that they should ask us to be good enough to find quarters elsewhere. Not only are local committees asking for accommodation, but, owing to the system which was, I think, unanimously approved by the House, that we should have decentralisation of pensions, it became necessary to establish, in the large provincial towns, regions. Therefore, it is necessary to requisition housing accommodation. It ought also to be borne in mind that when we requisition buildings in the Provinces we will be able to curtail the accommodation in London as time goes on and to close up various large premises that we have taken in London, and in that way some of the criticisms in regard to the larger buildings in London will be met by the action we are taking in asking the House to continue this Order.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf it is necessary for the municipalities owing to the termination of the war to resume possession of their buildings, why should not private people demand the same privilege?
§ Sir J. CRAIGOf course, but I hope that the House will recognise that there is a great responsibility on the Ministry of Pensions, and that in all circumstances these heroes who fought for us should have the first consideration in the question of taking premises. We endeavour in all cases to take only empty premises, and in many cases these Orders are only brought into force in order to suit the landlord as well as the tenant, because there may be some clause in the lease which prevents a private house being used for office purposes. When my right hon. Friend says that private owners should get their premises back we are only too glad to do so, but still we must insist that in all circumstances the position of the men concerned should be the first consideration. There are only some 80 premises occupied under these conditions, and of those 30 were bequeathed to us by other Departments, such as the National Service Department. Taking 1577 them all round, it is not a large problem, but this power is necessary in the meantime. It is extremely difficult to get buildings erected rapidly, and our pensioners must be met promptly week after week, and the business is a very large one at the present time. Although our end is the same as that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and of the right hon. Baronet, namely, that we should get back to normal conditions as soon as possible, yet we must ask the House for some little time longer at all events for this power. We are bound to get premises to carry out the work, and the regions will require staffs, I anticipate, of between three to five hundred, according to their size. It is not easy to find the very accommodation one would like, and that is another reason why we must continue under these conditions. I feel quite sure there is no part of the measures which it is proposed to continue of the Defence of the Realm Acts which will appeal to the country more than that concerning pensions. It is essential that we should be undisturbed until we have discharged the onerous duties laid upon us, and I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment, and that my right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw it
§ Sir D. MACLEANI rather gathered from some of the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that the powers he seeks to continue have something to do with providing houses for heroes to live in. Regulation 2AB is not for the purpose of providing houses for disabled men. It provides that it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Works to take possession of any land, including buildings, for the Ministry of Pensions which that Ministry may certify to be required for the purpose of accommodating the staff of the Ministry or of otherwise carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Acts of 1915. Those words are sui generis and mean the clerical administrative side of the Ministry of Pensions. I am sure everybody agrees that of all the Government Departments the Ministry of Pensions is the one we least desire to be the means, however unwittingly, of causing any obstruction to in their work. While holding that view, it is our duty to see how far we can accommodate the desires of the Executive to the general public position, in these times of at any rate improving peace. What is the 1578 general records of the Government Departments in connection with taking property for administrative purposes? As far as I know the Ministry of Pensions has not been any more careful in their administration than other Departments have been. The House of Commons is entitled to know what the position at present is before it gives the Executive the powers they are now seeking. I think I can appeal to the knowledge of the House, as well as to our own observations, as to the carelessness with which many premises have been taken by many Departments, and the complete absence of any idea of economy as to when they should be given up. There are many premises all over the country which are available to-day for any extension of the work on the Ministry of Pensions. What about the premises which have already been taken because the powers sought here is to take fresh premises. While we are indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation which he has given us, he has not, to my mind, given us a sufficiently thorough account of their stewardship in this matter. Can he give us details with regard to the premises which they at present occupy and the premises which they seek to occupy? That is the sort of information the House is entitled to ask for.
§ Sir J. CRAIGMay I say, we take no buildings without the concurrence and sanction of the Office of Works, and it is only when the Office of Works assure us that there are no other available premises in any particular place that we inspect them and if, on inspection, we find they are suitable then, and then only, are they taken. We are economising in every possible direction. Building is very slow. We cannot wait to negotiate privately for a place when we see a chance of getting some place suitable for our purpose. I wish to emphasises the fact that this matter is done in conjunction with the Office of Works. My right hon. Friend may be quite assured that there is no one more anxious than the Minister of Pensions and myself to economise in every possible way. At the moment we are pressed with a large number of cases of demobilised soldiers and sailors, and we do not wish to disturb at this time, or for a number of months to come, the gigantic task we have undertaken.
§ Sir D. MACLEANDoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if these powers 1579 are not granted that they will not be able to carry on in the existing buildings? Would he give us some information as to how many new premises they require, and the extent of the demands which he thinks his Department will have to make within the course of the next three months? When do they anticipate that the high water mark of their demands will be reached?
§ Sir J. CRAIGNow.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThat being the case, why are these new powers sought? I should have thought that the existing powers which they exercise are ample for the demands which are likely to be made upon them. There is another point about which I suppose we will hear more when the Ministry of Pensions is seeking permanent quarters. We hope that there will be a diminishing return of the number of persons to be dealt with, but it will probably be many years before there is any very appreciable difference. That is the sort of information which I am suggesting to my hon. and gallant Friend he might give the House. Now may I turn to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour? Why is there not some qualification in column 3 of the Schedule applying to him as well as a qualification applying to the Minister of Pensions? The words applying to the Minister of Pensions are:
So far as relates to the Minister of Pensions, if after due inquiry he is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.That seems to be a very proper qualification to put in, and if it is good for the Minister of Pensions, why is not the same qualification introduced for the Minister of Labour?Coming back to the general point, I would say in conclusion that we were bound to grant these powers, and we gladly granted them, during the War. We had, of course, to continue thorn after the War, but the Armistice is more than 18 months old, and it is the duty of the House most carefully to examine these proposals of the Executive to seek new powers. When the case is made, by all means give them the power, especially for such a purpose as that of the Ministry of Pensions, but I would suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends who are in charge of this Bill that they do not treat 1580 the House quite so cavalierly with regard to information which is sought. I do not say this in any hostile sense, but do treat the Opposition as asking very seriously for information and as endeavouring, however limited their resources may be, to discharge a public duty. It is our duty to investigate as carefully as we can these very large powers which the Executive is seeking, and I need not assure my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite that, however it may be misunderstood anywhere, we are going to discharge our duty to the very best of our ability on each point that seems to us to require that discharge of our duty. Now I would ask from both the Ministers who are in charge of this matter that they should give the very fullest information in their power to the House with regard to the very large demands they are making on us.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne)I am sure no one in the House could ever complain of the spirit in which my right hon. Friend puts his queries upon these great financial questions. It is not only his right to extract information upon these topics, but it is also his duty, and I recognise that on my own shoulders lies the burden of giving an adequate explanation to the House as to why we should seek to continue these powers. The House also, in my view, would be neglecting its duty if it failed to ascertain what these precise reasons are for continuing powers which we all recognise as being strange and in some senses burdensome after the War is over. I am certain that, on the other hand, the House will recognise that we are now in a position which in many respects is far more difficult than during the period of war, and in particular the duties which fall upon my Department are far greater, more burdensome, and more difficult now than they ever were at any period of the War. My Department is concerned in this particular question because of the fact that there are certain duties which we have taken over from the Ministry of Pensions. The explanation which my right hon. Friend sought at the end of his speech as to why the Ministry of Labour was not put under a similar qualification to that which applies to the Ministry of Pensions really arises out of this fact. An error was made in not including the Ministry of Labour with the Ministry of Pensions 1581 in the third column of the Schedule, with the result that I am compelled to move an Amendment, which is on the Paper, in order to bring the Ministry of Labour into the third column, and to make the same qualification apply to the Ministry of Labour as to the Ministry of Pensions. I think that will satisfy my right hon. Friend upon that particular part of his speech.
With regard to the merits of this question, as I have said, the Ministry of Labour has taken over certain duties from the Ministry of Pensions, and the greatest of these is the training of disabled soldiers. That, I am certain, the House recognises as one of the duties which, above all, must be discharged by the country at the present time. We had a Debate in this House only a few nights ago which showed how keenly the conscience of the nation is stirred upon this question, and it is imperative upon us that we should discharge our duty and that we should ask the House of Commons to give us the necessary powers for that purpose. How do we stand to-day? The House must have learned frequently during Question time—and I confess it with great regret—that we are not nearly abreast of the necessary provision of training facilities for the disabled men. There are many disabled men to-day wanting training for whom we can provide no works and no equipment. Our greatest difficulty in that regard is in obtaining the premises and the equipment quickly enough. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have done everything in my power to perform my duties without any recourse to the power which we have under the Defence of the Realm Acts of acquiring necessary premises. But he, from his professional experience, I am sure, knows what an extraordinarily difficult thing it is by private bargain to get the premises you want. The delays are interminable; you negotiate about this, that, and the other condition; you spend endless time discussing margins of prices: and after months of delay of that kind you ultimately are unable to obtain the land and premises which you require.
We cannot afford that delay. We have been going through a period of great difficulty in the last year, owing to the circumstances which I have described, and, although, as I say, I only in very unusual circumstances apply the power of the Defence of the Realm Acts, nevertheless, 1582 unless I keep that power, I am certain that my actions will be impeded at every turn, and I have come regretfully to the conclusion that, although in some cases it will add to the cost which will ultimately have to be paid for some of these premises, the urgency of the situation is such that we must be able to acquire these premises without delay, and that it will be necessary for us to take over the land and equipment we require through the powers of the Defence of the Realm Acts, and leave the compensations to be settled afterwards under the arrangements which are provided for compulsory acquisition. I can give the House the most complete and sincere assurance that I would not be here to ask for the continuation of these powers if I could do without them, but I have been regretfully compelled to come to the conclusion that if we are to do our duty by the men, who are in themselves the anxiety of the whole country, and rightly so, to-day, we shall have to ask the House to grant us these powers. I can also give the assurance that they will never be used, if I can help it, except in circumstances where they are absolutely required.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI would appeal to the movers of the Amendment to withdraw it. I have been a consistent opponent of this Bill, but I think to every rule there is an exception, and I think this is the exception, in the case of the pensions of the ex-service men and the training of the disabled. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us very frankly that he will not have to use these powers in many cases. The powers only go on till the 31st August this year, or to the ratification of peace, whichever is the later date, and unless he gets these premises I can say from personal experience that he will not be able to provide the training for the disabled men. Therefore I think we ought to make an exception in this case. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench (Sir D. Maclean) said, "Why not continue the premises you have got up and down the country at present?" But those premises very often will not do, because they are not in the right locality. The Ministry of Pensions has made a complete new scheme, so that there shall be no delay in assessing and in paying up pensions to the disabled men. They have had to fix upon a central town in a 1583 certain area, where they must have their office, and very often their present offices do not fit in that particular area. I am sure this House would be the first to blame the Ministry of Pensions if they did not pay out the pensions up to date, and therefore I think both these Departments have made out a good case for a short continuation of the extraordinary powers given to them during the War.
§ Mr. T. SHAWI want to support the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. There is no economy whatever in trying to do work in inadequate premises, and it is better that a Government Department should have power to get in premises quickly than that it should have to work from hand to mouth badly housed, inadequately fitted, and consequently unable to do its work in the best possible way. I have had sufficient experience, at any rate, of one Government Department, to find that whenever a Government Department requires adequate housing, it meets with all the opposition possible from pretty nearly every section of the community, and I am rather inclined to think that if the balance could be struck, lack of accommodation has led to more wasteful expenditure than over-accommodation which has been secured by any Government Department. I am all in favour of the Government Departments having the power to get really adequate accommodation, believing that the pressure of public opinion alone will prevent a Government Department from being too extravagant, at any rate, in the provision of accommodation.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHMy hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir J. Craig) has certainly made the most effective case in defence of the proposal now before the House, but I do not think it was conclusive. Nobody would desire to stand in the way of the Minister of Pensions in the very responsible duties entrusted to him, and nobody would like to impede in any way the very good work for the amelioration of the lot of the ex-soldier. Similarly, so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, we are all sympathetic with everything he can do for dealing with the invalided soldiers. I do not think that that sympathy exactly meets the point. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite says it is necessary to confer this power because the premises they at present occupy are in many cases most unsuitable.
§ Colonel ASHLEYNo; they are not in localities in which they ought to be so as to fit into the present scheme.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHThat makes my point still stronger. Why were those premises commandeered originally if totally unsuitable for the purpose? This was done under the commandeering system before. Premises have been taken up and down the country. If anyone walks through the streets of London in which premises were commandeered, he will recognise in many cases that premises were taken which were totally unsuitable, while more suitable premises immediately in the neighbourhood were not accepted. I can give instances, for example, in Kingsway, where premises were commandeered and thousands of tenants turned out, whilst vacant premises were on the other side of the street. That has been going on all over the country, I do not doubt, but that is not an argument for conferring power on any Government Department to go on blundering again. The hon. and gallant Baronet who represents the Ministry of Pensions says that the pressure at the Ministry is at high-water mark. I suppose we can take it that the pressure at the Ministry of Labour is also at high-water mark.
§ Sir R. HORNEThe pressure is high, and we cannot get premises quickly enough.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHSo far as the Ministry of Pensions are concerned, no doubt the pressure is now at its highest, and they are able under present circumstances to accommodate all the staff. I think the Ministry of Labour is able to accommodate all their staff, not quite so luxuriously as some would like, but still able to accommodate them all. It would have been interesting if the House had been given a list of all premises held by these two Departments throughout the country, and I think the House would have been staggered at the amount of accommodation they have already, and which they propose to take powers to increase. There is another point on which I should like to hear a word from the Solicitor-General, and that is as to the manner in which the Crown is going to deal with the tenants whose property is commandeered. The House is familiar with the attitude which has been 1585 taken by the Government up to the present. There was the Canon Brewery case, for example, and also the De Keyser Hotel case. The Crown took up the extraordinary attitude that when they commandeered any property of the subject, that subject is not to be entitled to seek the protection of the King's Courts. Is that going to be done now under the powers we are going to confer? We have never really had an opportunity in this House of fully discussing the seriousness and the gravity of the attitude taken by the Government on the subject of compensation to tenants whose property was commandeered, but now that we are asked to renew these powers, it is not only the right but the duty of this House to require an undertaking from the Crown that such an impudent demand will never be made again in the Courts of the country. What was the attitude? A man's property is commandeered. He claims compensation, and the Crown says the subject has no right to compensation as against the King, and that he has no right to go to the King's Courts for compensation. That was audaciously argued for the Crown, and then they said, "Your remedy is to go before the Defence of the Realm Losses, Commission, and the amount to be awarded you there will be decided upon principles which guide that Commission in assessing compensation."
That was an extraordinary attitude to take up, because everyone who knows the Defence of the. Realm Losses Commission knows that they have no legal principle to work upon. It is rule of thumb all the time as to what compensation will be given. But they went further. Any man whose property was commandeered had to sign a declaration when going before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission that he had no right to compensation at anyone's hands and that he placed himself entirely in the hands of this Commission for such ex gratia compensation they might think fit to make. That is not a fair and an honest way to treat any man whose property is taken from him, and it is not an attitude which should be adopted by any Government. I hope the House will make it perfectly clear to the Government that it is not an attitude which will be approved or condoned by this House. I think I am not asking very much in requesting the Solicitor-General to give an undertaking that such a claim will never again be put forward by the 1586 Crown in the Courts of this country under this Act. The Crown actually carried the case to the House of Lords. Had they not been dealing with rich men a case could not have been carried there. A weak man would have been crushed entirely before that by the cost of the litigation. In the commandeering under this Bill as now extended, we may be dealing with men who cannot afford to carry a case to the House of Lords, and therefore I think it is a reasonable demand to make that the Solicitor-General should tell us now, frankly, that we have reached the end of this system of the Crown trying to deny to any subject of the King the right to seek the protection of the King's Courts.
§ Mr. HOHLERI oppose this extension. I have heard no good reason, in my judgment, to justify it. The Minister of Pensions has admitted they have reached their high water mark. I should have thought it was rather on the ebb than otherwise. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I well remember when the Estimates were given last year we were provided with some interesting figures as to the number of widows who had re-married, and no doubt when we reach the Estimates this year it will be found that a great number of persons now in receipt of pensions have fallen out by the way. The demobilisation of the Army is practically at an end, and there are very few cases, if any, which now exist for a call for a pension. We have had grave complaints in regard to Government departments having taken property and refusing to vacate it. This provision is not restricted to vacant property. The Minister of Labour has not indicated what is the character of the premises he proposes to take. He tells us vaguely they are to be used for the purpose of training demobilised men. Is he going to take private houses, shops, or what? Surely the Government have endless works throughout the country, derelict at the present time, where this training could go on. Look at Rich-borough; look at Slough, and a number of other places they have got!
I want further to emphasise this point. If they are going to take premises which are inadequate, is it fair in reference to the rest of the community? One of my right hon. Friends who spoke said that building did not progress rapidly. Everyone is agreed about that, but we know meanwhile that the difficulty of getting 1587 house accommodation for the community is enormous. There are cases in the county courts every week in which orders are made and people cannot get accommodation, and yet these Ministries are seeking powers to take premises which will throw out more people, when they know accommodation elsewhere does not exist at the present time. I am very strongly opposed to this extension, and to the growing expenditure. I am satisfied that the Ministry of Pensions could carry on, and if an appeal were made to local authorities they would willingly, as hitherto, lend their public buildings for this purpose. I believe that, rather than have the disadvantage inflicted upon them of having more people thrown out of their houses and unable to get rooms elsewhere, the local authorities would willingly do anything they could to meet this emergency. All that we are asked is, blindly, without any concrete cases given, to confer these powers. It has now leaked out that they have houses at present, but they have some new scheme under which they are going to organise in one particular centre or one particular street. That would involve displacement of people carrying on business. Why do not the Departments carry on until times get easier.
My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to an important point—the question of compensation. I have no hesitation in saying that the Crown have not dealt fairly with people who have been dispossessed. I see the Solicitor-General there. I think I am right, but so far as I am aware, though the Crown have taken the De Keyser's Hotel case to the House of Lords, it is there suspended, and has been suspended for months, and no decision can be got. There was a case earlier that went up during the War, and it was settled, so that there was nothing reported, though it is known in the profession. What have the Government been doing meanwhile in regard to this question of compensation? At least on one occasion they introduced in a Bill in this House a Clause which would absolutely have destroyed the effect of the Court's decision in the De Keyser case, and what I fear is that they will slip in, in some unguarded moment, a Clause getting rid of the right of compensation as decided in the Court of Appeal in the Cannon 1588 Brewery case. I am entirely opposed to this power, and if there is a Division, I shall certainly vote against it. Either of these Ministers is to have these powers, and,
so far as relates to the Minister of Pensions, if after due enquiry he is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.So he just walks down the street and sees a shop or a private house he thinks would suit him, and then goes to the Ministry and writes to make inquiries. The man may say he wants so and so, or will not be dispossessed on any terms, as it is his livelihood or his house, but the Minister says, "I want these particular premises" and, satisfied they "cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained," the man is put out by the Ministry, and it cannot be tested in a Court of Law. I think the Clause has no justification, and personally, if my hon. Friends do not divide against it, I certainly shall.
§ 7.0 P.M.
Mr. T. THOMSONI am quite sure no one in the House wishes in any way to delay the activities of the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Pensions. On the other hand, there is a difference of opinion as to the means whereby these powers should be granted for getting the facilities which they think they require. Why they should be treated differently from other Departments of the Government which require compulsorily to take property, land, and so on, I fail to see. The House and the country during the War have already shown their very great disgust of the continuance of the arbitrary powers necessarily taken during the War. The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture both required special powers in order to serve their people, while those Ministers are now making the excuse in this matter, that is to say, the discharged soldier. Both of these Departments required special powers, and got them, the one for housing the soldier and the other for settling him on the land. They came to the House last Session, brought in an ordinary measure, which passed and gave them these other powers. Why should not the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions receive power in the same way by an ordinary measure instead of seeking to continue these Regulations? If they had taken time by the forelock, as the Ministry of Health did in relation to the 1589 Housing and Town Planning Bill, and also as in the powers given under the Land Acquisition Bill, have gone about the matter in a more regular way. They would have avoided these discussions and proposals, which are against the public opinion of the country. This opinion is against the taking of arbitrary powers which are given under D.O.R.A. Therefore, I hope we shall see that the powers obtained under the ordinary and common law last Session are extended to these Departments, rather than they should be given special powers under D.O.R.A.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKA somewhat serious statement has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hohler), which I desire to take the first opportunity of refuting. I do not quite know on what ground he made it, but he suggested—if I caught his words aright—that steps had been taken to defer the hearing of the De Keyser case in the interest of the Executive. I desire to say that that is absolutely without foundation—absolutely!
§ Mr. HOHLERMy point was that the case, in the ordinary course, would have been heard in the House of Lords long since, and it has not been heard. That is all I say.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKLet us understand what it does mean. It would have been heard in the ordinary course, but it has not. For some reason or another, somehow, some way, intervention has been made to prevent it being heard. What is the suggestion? What is the inference which hon. Members are asked to draw? Am I very far wrong in suggesting that the only inference, if inference at all, that is to be drawn is the inference which I thought was suggested to the House, namely, that in some way the Law Officers of the Crown, or some person who is responsible for the handling of the case, was responsible for having this trial delayed? The House will judge if I am wrong. I do not want in the least to draw a sinister inference. But the words fell from a responsible Member of the House. But whatever be the inference that should be drawn, let me say there has been no step taken of any sort, kind, or description to delay the hearing of the case. On the contrary, we have been very anxious that it should be heard. There have been many reasons why we 1590 hoped it might have been heard before we adjourned at Christmas. We have been very anxious indeed it should have been heard, but the House of Lords arranges its own business in its own way. I am glad to think, so far as my information goes, it is likely to be heard this very next week.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYHas the hon. and learned Gentleman any reply to what was asked by my hon. and learned Friend about the future of these cases?
§ Sir E. POLLOCKObviously I can give no answer to my hon. and learned Friend. He was good enough to tell me yesterday that he was going to ask me about these matters. I looked forward to listening to his speech, and listened to it with pleasure. But, as he will quite well know, he put the number of questions incapable of answer.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHHear, hear, incapable!
§ Sir E. POLLOCKIt would be absolutely wrong for me to say anything on the De Keyser case. My hon. and learned Friend, who is a member of the English Bar, knows perfectly well it would be irregular and improper to say a single word as to giving an undertaking that a different course will be pursued. Obviously, that is an undertaking which no discreet or sensible person could or would give. I must decline to give it. In regard to the Cannon Brewery case, that depended upon quite different circumstances, and of quite a different order from the De Keyser case. But the hon. and learned Gentleman who put forward these matters knows that quite well. In regard to the Newcastle Brewery case, as I have already stated, an appeal will be entered in that case from the judgment of Mr. Justice Salter. This also is a case on which I can offer no information. We are asking, I may add, for these Regulations to be continued, and in doing so we are not asking for any increased validity. We are simply asking that they should remain as they are until 31st August.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThis is a very important matter. I am not a lawyer. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the De Keyser case, but, according to the statement put forward by a couple of hon. Members, I understand that the activities are in regard to 1591 the disabled soldier. Is it a fact—and this is rather important—that under these powers any building can be seized by the Crown and the people asked to go, and the subject has no redress in a court of law? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I certainly hope then we will go to a Division. I hope that no such power will be given to the Crown under the present circumstances. It is tyranny!
§ Captain W. BENNOne would not desire the Solicitor-General to enter into the merits of cases before the courts. That is quite understood. But, as I understand my hon. Friend, he merely cited these cases as evidence of what may be the effect of these Sections of the Act. I myself think that a noticeable feature of this Debate has been the tendency of the Government, and the Government supporters, to claim that these are powers already exercised by the Government Departments, quite irrespective of the War. My hon. Friend said the Government Departments ought to have this power. All I will say on that is this; While it is extremely desirable a Government Department could be properly housed, it is extremely undesirable that they should be empowered because they are Government Departments to turn people out of houses they may happen to want. That is the point. We understand the genesis of a good deal of this Bill. Government Departments are very loath to relax or to let go the powers that they have acquired during the War. Probably this Section, and a good deal of the Bill, simply consisted of a collection of memoranda of the Government Departments of the powers which they did not want to let go if they could possibly help it. So they are embodied generally in the Bill without any rhyme or reason. Some of these powers have been moved right out without any explanation during the passage of this Bill. The right hon. Gentle man the Member for Peebles asked Ministers this question: "What about all these premises that are held now by the Shipping Controller, the Coal Controller, and all the other controls, and by ad hoc War emergency administrations?" Surely there is sufficient accommodation owing to the demobilisation of these Departments taking place for the activities of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions. I must say that we ought 1592 not to allow the matter to turn so as to make it appear, when we are opposing these arbitrary powers being granted to the Government Departments, that that opposition extends to the beneficent work of the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Pensions. We think it is a question of a little better organisation by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not believe that we shall be hampering their work. The Minister for Labour says we shall. He is taking power because we are in fact discussing the Amendment, which he puts forward under D.O.B.A. for the purpose of carrying into effect, to the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915. I understand from what he said that that accommodation is urgently required; is that so?
§ Sir R. HORNEindicated assent.
§ Captain W. BENNUnder that Act in connection with the work devolving on the right hon. Gentleman from the Ministry of Pensions. But he is not taking power to take buildings at all. That is the curious thing! If hon. Members will read the Amendment they will see it only gives the Minister compulsory power to secure "land." There is no word about "houses." What, then, becomes of the argument that if we do not permit him to take land we are somehow preventing him getting buildings? I have had no legal training, and I may be wrong; but I have read the Amendment. It appears to me that the argument that we are hampering the work falls to the ground. The point of substance raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Down is, after all, a very serious point. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had been accepted earlier in the day there would not have been so much objection to these powers, because we should have known that if we had premises taken away in this arbitrary manner, those concerned would have had the right, which all subjects ought to have, of appealing to the courts for proper compensation. The Government did not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In consequence, in a time of peace, the Government is asking to be allowed to commandeer new premises, and the people who may be turned out, to the detriment of their business, are not to get anything but an arbitrary ex gratia compensation 1593 which the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission may happen to grant.
There is another point. How long are these powers to continue? We have never had that cleared up. Are they continued to August 31st, or when? Supposing negotiations with the Turks go on indefinitely, and the Government care to take advantage of the letter of the law as to the legal termination of the war, and not to declare by Order in Council that the war is over until the last ratification has been exchanged between the last belligerents, which might very well be Venezuela and Bulgaria? Supposing, I say, the Government care to take advantage of that. These premises may be occupied for 18 months. I suggest that what has been put so well by my hon. Friends are points of substance, which really do demand a more serious reply on the part of the Government.
§ Captain BOWYERI wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. In his wisdom he has refused my Amendment, and I do not see any other course, now that the general principle has been refused, than to object to the exercise of any arbitrary powers which may have been necessary in the war which infringe upon the rights of the subject. If these powers are necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman not give his loyal supporters a full explanation as to how long these powers are to go on. I want to know,
§ must they end on the 31st August, and can they, in no circumstances, go beyond that date? Why is it that a subject, as regards compensation, is not allowed to have his ordinary remedy in the ordinary courts of the land?
Major BARNESThe House has the strongest possible desire to help the Ministry of Pensions, but there is the most intense dislike to any continuance of this commandeering of buildings. If hon. Members will reflect for a moment I think they will see that the best way to help the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Labour in this matter is by refusing to give them this extension. They have powers at the present time to take all the buildings they require, and if we give them this extension it simply means we are giving them more time for them to delay the exercise of their present powers. We want to see these Government Departments getting a move on, and if we refuse this extension then they will bring their schemes to immediate fruition. I am sure every hon. Member is anxious to see Government Departments move in this matter, and we can do nothing better to expedite their work and to give them an impetus than to refuse this extension.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 85.
1595| Division No. 18.] | AYES. | [7.19 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Brassey, Major H. L. C. | Denison-Pender, John C. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Breese, Major Charles E. | Dixon, Captain Herbert |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Donald, Thompson |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Brittain, Sir Harry | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Britton, G. B. | Duncannon, Viscount |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Bruton, Sir James | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Falcon, Captain Michael |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campbell, J. D. G. | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. |
| Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick) | Carr, W. Theodore | Foreman, Henry |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Forestier-Walker, L. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Forrest, Walter |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar | Clough, Robert | Gardner, Ernest |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Coats, Sir Stuart | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Bigland, Alfred | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Goff, Sir R. Park |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gould, James C. |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Courthope, Major George L. | Grant, James A. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) |
| Berwick, Major G. O. | Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South) | Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) | Green, Albert (Derby) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | Griggs, Sir Peter |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Dawes, James Arthur | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Hallwood, Augustine | Macquisten, F. A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Manville, Edward | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange) |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Martin, Captain A. E. | Seager, Sir William |
| Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Mason, Robert | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford) | Matthews, David | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Higham, Charles Frederick | Mitchell, William Lane | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Moles, Thomas | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Hinds, John | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Hood, Joseph | Morison, Thomas Brash | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.) | Morrison Bell, Major A. C. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Mosley, Oswald | Stevens, Marshall |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Mount, William Arthur | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Murchison, C. K. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Neal, Arthur | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Hurst, Major Gerald B. | Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward | Ward-Jackson, Major C. L. |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Oman, Charles William C. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Jesson, C. | O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Parker, James | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Pearce, Sir William | Whitla, Sir William |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Perkins, Walter Frank | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Prescott, Major W. H. | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Pulley, Charles Thornton | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Purchase, H. G. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Lonsdale, James Rolston | Ramsden, G. T. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lorden, John William | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Lort-Williams, J. | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple) | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato |
| Loseby, Captain C. E. | Remnant, Colonel Sir James F. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. | Renwick, George | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Younger, Sir George |
| Macmaster, Donald | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Rodger, A. K. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Glanville, Harold James | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | O'Connor, Thomas P. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Hanna, George Boyle | Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W. |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hartshorn, Vernon | Rae, H. Norman |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hirst, G. H. | Redmond, Captain William Archer |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Robertson, John |
| Briant, Frank | Irving, Dan | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Briggs, Harold | Johnstone, Joseph | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sexton, James |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kiley, James D. | Smithers, Sir Alfred w. |
| Cairns, John | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Taylor, J. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Casey, T. W. | Lloyd, George Butler | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Lunn, William | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Cope, Major Wm. | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Mallalieu, F. W. | Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Myers, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Colonel Penry Williams and Sir F. Banbury. |
§ Sir R. HORNEI beg to move, in Regulation 2 AB, to leave out the words "the Minister of Pensions if after due inquiry he" and to insert instead thereof the words
the power of taking possession of land certified to be required for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c., Act, 1915: Provided that such power shall not be exercised unless after due inquiry the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Pensions (as the case may be).I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain W. Benn) that Regulation 2AB deals with the very question which he raised, and describes the land as including the buildings thereon. Therefore, what this Amendment does is to make it perfectly clear that the Minister of Labour is to have the same power as the Minister of Pensions in acquiring land with the buildings thereon, and he is also to have the same qualifications which apply to the Minister of Pensions. I do not think I need say anything more in explaining this Amendment, because it is simply to carry out the object of the Schedule.
§ Captain W. BENNI am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It certainly came as a surprise to me, owing to my ignorance of the law, that when we read in an Amendment the word "land" it means premises and buildings. I suppose that those more familiar with the law than I am understood, but this is a warning to us in reading Amendments, that words which appear or may appear harmless, really may have an implication wider and larger, and this should put us on our guard in watching Government Amendments. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General would answer my question as to what is the duration of this power to take premises. Is it until August 31st, or the end of the War? Supposing it is the end of the War, if by an Order in Council may, under the Termination of the War Definition Act, that comes after the 31st August, do these powers persist until that date, or have we in the part of the Bill that has been passed definitely stated a term, namely 31st August next?
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSOn a point of Order, Mr. SPEAKER. Might I call your attention to the fact that this Amendment is intended to be added to column 3. At the head of column 3 I notice the words: "Limitations, qualifications and 1598 modifications subject to which extension is made." I submit that the effect of the addition by the Ministry of Labour of the words, "The power of taking possession of land," qualifies the Regulation, and that it applies to land only and not to buildings.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a legal matter, and not for me.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI shall be very glad if I can to give an explanation to the hon. and gallant Member (Capt. W. Benn.) We are dealing with a Bill which has already expressed in definite terms, in Clause 2, that the Regulation mentioned in the first column of the Second Schedule of this Act shall, subject to the limitations, qualifications, and modifications specified in the third column of that Schedule, continue in force until the 31st day of August, 1920, and that is all. This Bill—and hon. Members who heard me say this before will forgive me for saying it again—is concerned to continue the Regulations under it until the 31st August, 1920. There are in existence, under the Defence of the Realm Act, powers which will depend upon the time when peace is legally declared. Those powers are not dealt with in this Bill; they exist entirely outside, and it would be out of order to deal with them in this Bill. This Bill deals with the Regulations only, and continues them until August 31st, and no more.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment speaks of: "The power of taking possession of land certified to be required for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Acts, &c., 1915." I understand, or propose to understand, that "land" means buildings as well as land.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKGeneral Regulations.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have here the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, but I cannot find out anything about land in it at all. It is all about the appointment of Local or District Committees, who shall decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, or child or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance, and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the 1599 regulations subject to which it was graned, become forfeited. They have also to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto, and all sorts of things like that. The effect of the Act is to set up a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, which is to have 27 members. There are also a variety of other people who are to deal with all those things, to administer funds and make grants in specific cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment. If this is where the land comes in, there is nothing here about it, and I should like to know what it is they are really going to do. Are they going to give the Ministry of Labour power to acquire land to do all sorts of things? I served on the Committee on National Expenditure, and I found that, of all the Ministerial Departments dealing with buildings, the Ministry of Labour was far and away the worst. They took over all sorts of absurd buildings; they would not take an office in a back street, but they must have it in a front street; and all that sort of thing. Therefore, I think we must be very careful before we extend this provision, and we must really know what is intended by putting in the word "land" and not "building."
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI shall be very glad to answer the right hon. Baronet if I can. But I always speak with hesitation when I answer him because I remember it is on record that before a Committee he claimed on some occasion, and the House was grateful to him for claiming, to act as third Law Officer, and I always have a little doubt in replying.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat was not quite so. All I said was that, as there were no Law Officers present on one occasion, I had endeavoured to supply the want.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKWell, if the right hon. Baronet is able to supply the want of the Law Officers and yet cannot answer these questions for himself with all his parliamentary knowledge and experience and acuteness, I have some hesitation in venturing to offer a solution. However, the best I can do is this. The point is that we are endeavouring to continue, if the House will allow us to do so, this 1600 Regulation, 2AB, which says that it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Works to take possession of any land, including buildings thereon. So the very Regulation itself gives power to the Department of the Government which takes the buildings to take land, including buildings thereon, and that is the phrase used in the Regulation itself. Then my right hon. Friend says, "Yes, but why is it taken for the purpose of carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915?" and he very rightly points out that that Act is concerned with the administration of pensions and with widows' allowances, and so on. But with his kindly and critical mind, he would be the very last person to suggest that they should carry on those duties in the street. They must really have some house, some home, where they can discuss and deal adequately with these matters. So it is that those persons concerned in carrying out the duties thrust on them by the War Pensions Acts, go to the Department of the Government which is concerned to supply proper premises for these purposes—the Commissioner of Works—and say: "We must have some place to carry on our business." Thereupon the Commissioner of Works is empowered, under Regulation 2AB, for the purpose of providing adequate rooms and accommodation, to take land, and the buildings thereon, in order that the persons who have the duty of carrying out the responsibilities placed upon them by the Act may have somewhere to deal with those matters, and that those who are concerned in their proper administration may have some office where they can come to see them.
Major BARNESThe Solicitor-General is very patient and very lucid, and places the house under a very deep obligation in the way he makes clear a very complicated subject. I want to ask a question to clear up a point which is still doubtful in my mind. I rather gathered that under Regulation 2AB the Minister of Pensions is in a sort of preferential position as regards the Minister of Labour, as between paragraphs I and 2 of Regulation 2AB, and that the effect of the Amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour is to put the Ministry of Labour in as favourable a position as the Ministry of Pensions. I should like to know if that is so, and if at the present time there is this preferential advantage, what benefit 1601 the Ministry of Pensions has over the Ministry of Labour in enjoying the advantages of the War Pensions Act, which, I understand, the Minister of Labour now desires to secure for his Department.
§ Sir R. HORNEThere is no question of preference. The Ministry of Pensions has got to carry out the powers under this Act. One of the powers they originally had was to pay disabled soldiers, and for that they required premises. In May last year the duty of providing pensions for disabled soldiers was transferred to the Ministry of Labour, and that duty being laid on them, it was necessary that the Ministry of Labour should get powers to carry it out. In this Schedule the draughtsman made a mistake in the third column in omitting the Ministry of Labour, and it was necessary to amend it to give them the power required. It is not a question of preference, but it is only a matter of enabling them to carry out their duties.
§ Major M. WOODMay we have the opinion of the Government on the matter raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend just now? I quite understand that the word "land" legally includes buildings, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Regulation 2AB, he will see there that power is given to take possession of any land including buildings thereon. In the Amendment moved by the Minister of Labour the words used are "possession of land," and the words "including buildings thereon" are loft out. Now, is it not reasonable to assume that there is some object in leaving those words out from the Amendment? I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks about that point, because it may come up and have serious development later.
§ Sir R. HORNEI myself have no difficulty about this matter, but there is certainly great anxiety on the part of hon. Members about it, and if it will in any way appease their state of mind I should be delighted to put in, and I now move to do so, and to add after the word "land" the words "including buildings thereon" as in the original Regulations. Then I think everybody will be satisfied.
§ Amendment made to proposed Amendment, after the word "land" insert the 1602 words "including buildings thereon".—[Sir R. Horne.]
§ Words proposed, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI beg to move to leave out Regulation 2B.
By this Amendment we seek to remove Regulation 2B, which gives power to requisition war material and stores. I understand that this Regulation now is only to apply to flax and articles of food controlled by the Food Controller. With regard to flax, I followed very closely the arguments advanced by the hon. Member who, in Committee, represented the Board of Trade. So far as I could make out, there is a shortage in the crop of flax owing to the difficulty of importing that article from Russia. But it is not a very serious shortage, as the normal importation of flax is, I understand, about 18,000 tons, and this year it is expected the importation will reach 15,000 tons. The shortage, therefore, will only be about 3,000 tons. Flax is, of course, a very important article and I quite agree that the price of it should be kept within reason, but I am not at all sure that the continuation of this Regulation will keep the price down to a reasonable extent. The hon. Member who represented the Board of Trade told us in Committee that it had been agreed between the trade and the grower that it was necessary, in order to carry this out, to fix a guaranteed price. That could only be done under Regulations 2B and 2E, and he informed us that the price had been fixed to the satisfaction of everybody by agreement between the two sections of the trade concerned. I would, how over, respectfully suggest to the Department that it has not been fixed quite satisfactorily to everybody, for they appear to have forgotten the consumer entirely, and have allowed the grower and the buyer to fix a price which will give extravagant profits to both at the expense of the consumer. This is the effect on the consumer of Government control. The Government are interfering with the ordinary course of trade in a very bad manner, and the consequence is that the consumer suffers. If we are to have an opportunity on Regulations 2F and 2J to discuss the powers of food control I would press the right hon. Gentleman opposite to consider whether on those two Regulations we could not deal with the whole of 1603 the powers of the Food Controller. We want to know, in fact, what policy the Government is going to adopt with regard to the continuance of food control. Are we going to have it continued, or are we going to have de-control article by article; also, when an article has been de-controlled, are we going to have re-control of that article, to be followed again by de-control?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss that now. It should come up at a later stage.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSBut under our new Rules of Procedure I may not get an opportunity of discussing it. Can you promise, Sir, there will be such an opportunity?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must wait and see. It all depends on what progress is made.
§ Colonel WILLIAMSI will take your advice, and wait and see, and will therefore content myself by formally moving the Amendment.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIn the course of the discussion a few moments ago it was remarked that I had said I intended to ask information on various points to-day. I think I have been very modest as up to the present I have only spoken once and then on a very legitimate point. The point I am now going to take is also quite a substantial one, and it is not raised by me out of any mere desire to delay the progress of the business. On this question of flax I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is very important that the price of flax should be kept down to a reasonable figure. It is largely grown in my constituency, and I want to have some authoritative statement from the Government, before it gives increased powers with regard to commandeering flax, as to what their policy is to be. I do not know if I can be told anything to-night. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman now in charge of Food Control has ever seen a piece of Irish flax, and I do not believe that the Solicitor-General has ever even seen a piece of English flax. But I want to deal with the position of which I complain. You have taken control off English flax. You propose to continue your power to commandeer Irish flax. What is the 1604 effect of that? It means you are going to commandeer and control flax in Ireland while you leave it uncontrolled in England. I hope someone will tell us on what principle it is going to be worked. I quite agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that it is in the public interest that flax should be kept as cheap as possible, but I object to benefitting the English farmer at the cost of the Irish farmer, and I want to know on what basis you are going.
§ Mr. LYNNI wish briefly to associate myself with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, with whom I do not often find myself in agreement. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out that it was necessary to have flax at a low price. The result of control in Ireland has been that the acreage under flax last year decreased by 50,000. That is simply due to the dissatisfaction which control has created. It is most important that we should have a large supply of flax. In the past we have been largely dependent on Russia for it, and we do not know when we are going to get supplies from there again. We have, therefore, to look to ourselves to raise the flax necessary to keep the industry going. If you go on controlling flax, the Ulster farmer will cease growing it, and I will tell you why. The result of control is that the Ulster farmer to-day is only getting one third of the market value of his flax. It is being sold for £300 per ton in Ireland at the controlled price, whereas it runs up as high as £1,000 per ton elsewhere. Why should there be this differentiation as against the Ulster farmer who, after all, did magnificent service for you in the War, and produced the flax which provided you with linen for aeroplanes? On one occasion I put a supplementary question to the President of the Board of Trade as to whether it was intended to remove control for the present year, and the reply was distinctly that the control would be removed. If the President of the Board of Trade has made up his mind that the control is to be removed, why is this provision being put in this Schedule? We are not at war now, but if it is necessary to get flax in any emergency, you may be sure that the Ulster farmer will not leave you in the lurch, because there is no more loyal man in the whole Empire. He has always 1605 done his duty, and he will do it in future, but there is no reason why he should not have the full market value of his flax. Therefore, I protest most strongly against the control of flax being continued.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman)With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) that the difference in the amount of flax expected to be imported is only the difference as between 15,000 tons and 18,000 tons, I may state that the difference is really as between 15,000 and 80,000, the normal import being 80,000, and 15,000 tons being the quantity expected in the present season. Therefore the shortage will be very serious indeed. I fail to understand how it can be argued that the consumer will be any worse off because the crop is controlled. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for the Woodvale Division of Belfast (Mr. Lynn), I think I can explain the position. The growing of English flax was merely a small experiment carried out by the Board of Agriculture; the larger part of the growth is Irish flax. I may say at once that the control is not intended to be extended to flax grown during the present year. It only refers to the crop of 1919. If control were taken off now, and if the prices having been fixed and a considerable portion of the crop having been already sold at the guaranteed price, if we were to allow the remainder of the crop to be sold in the open market, it would be obviously unfair to those who kept their bargain with the Government and sold their crop at the price fixed, should we permit those who, from design or by accident, had some flax still on their hands, to reap the advantage of higher prices. That is the reason why it is sought to continue this control until 31st August, merely in order to dispose, on fair terms to all concerned, of the crop of 1919.
§ Major O'NEILLThis question affects a large number of my constituents who grow flax in the North of Ireland. It is satisfactory to farmers to know that their flax is not going to be controlled next year. But as far as one can see, the world price of flax will be very much higher in future than the present con- 1606 trolled price. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to look into a question which is leading to very great dissatisfaction, that is the question of the grading of this flax which is being sold under control. An understanding was arrived at last year between the Ulster farmers and the Flax Control Board, as the result of which the control price was raised by 10s. to a maximum of 45s. a stone and a minimum of 35s. a stone. The actual price paid depends upon the grade in which the flax is placed by the people who have to grade it for the markets. The farmers thought the understanding was that they would receive an average price of 40s. a stone for their flax, that is, half-way between the top and the bottom; but the grading is carried out in such a way that in a large number of cases the farmers feel aggrieved and consider that their flax has been graded too low. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see that that question is looked into and that the grading should be carried out properly, and that the Government does not take advantage of placing the flax in low grades in order to have to give a lower price than the flax is really worth.
Major BARNESI think friendly critics of the Government will not describe their attitude on the Bill as being unyielding when one compares the size of the Bill as introduced with its size at present. They have made very considerable concessions. Flax has had a sort of special treatment on this Bill. When it was brought before the Committee on 26th November last the provision related not only to flax but to every other article not being an article of food, and the Government made a very considerable concession at that time and withdrew all other articles not being articles of food with the exception of this article of flax. They adhered to that for reasons which were set out by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman). This Government does not, I think, even with regard to this Bill any more than a great many other Bills, base itself unconditionally and absolutely upon the thing as it stands. Events influence them in the action they take. I suggest that one or two things have transpired since November which may perhaps lead the Minister in charge of the Bill to feel that if he cannot accept the whole of the Amendment he might allow the part with regard to flax to be dropped. Here is what the 1607 hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman) said in November:
Owing to the great shortage of supplies of flax from Russia, it is not anticipated that more than 15,000 tons Trill come in this year.A very considerable change has occurred with regard to the attitude of the Government towards Russia since that time. I think the wildest imagination in November, 1919, would hardly have believed that we should be contemplating a policy of commercial intercourse with Russia. That, of course, is now an established thing, and it has received a very considerable advance by the terms read out by the Leader of the House, We may reasonably expect during the coining year a very considerable importation of flax from Russia. I suggest to the Minister in charge that that might be taken into account in meeting the views which have been expressed from both sides of the House in removing the control from flax.There is another matter upon which, perhaps, he will give us a little information before we leave this point. He said the duties of the Flax Control Board have not come to an end with the War. I do not know whether at the time when he was speaking the Flax Control Board or the Board of Trade had decided to part with the buildings and factories they had in their hands. I understand the Government expended very considerable sums of money, approaching to nearly £1,000,000, on taking land and erecting buildings for the purpose of carrying out some processes with regard to flax. Very proper measures were taken in connection with the War, but clearly the Flax Control Board or the Board of Trade has come to the conclusion that as far as that goes they need not go on with it any longer, because I asked the President of the Board of Trade the other day a question as to what had occurred in connection with the disposal of the flax-works, and I got to-day a very full reply, in which he tells me that the whole of them have been disposed of.
§ Mr. SPEAKERHow can this arise upon these Regulations?
Major BARNESI thought one of the reasons for keeping this control of flax was that the Flax Control Board had certain duties with regard to this material, and that part of their policy had been the spending of a great deal of money on land 1608 and buildings for carrying on processes in regard to flax, and as they had come to the decision that it is no longer necessary for them to do that, and had parted with the land and buildings, I thought that might be a reason which, had occurred between November and the present day for the change in their policy, and might be a reason for granting this concession. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain for what purpose this very large sum of money was incurred with regard to flax, and what led to the disposal of these works?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise on the Regulations. The question of the expenditure of money upon buildings in carrying on operations does not arise at all.
Major BARNESI take it that this Regulation has relationship to the policy of the Government with regard to this material, and as their policy must be regarded as a whole and a change in any part of it is likely to affect other parts, it seems to me that the very great change they have made in disposing of all this land and buildings might probably lead them to make a still further change and drop the whole of this measure of control. At all events, I shall be very grateful to the Solicitor-General if he can show reason why they should retain a portion of their policy of control over flax when they have abandoned what appears to me a very much larger and more important feature of their action with regard to it. I understand that the continuing of this control will affect the price of flax. Hon. Members have pointed out that in Ireland the farmers of Ulster are being placed at a disadvantage by the continuance of this control. They are being prevented from obtaining in the markets the price which otherwise they might obtain. It is important that the Government should clear itself from any suspicion of keeping on this control which will prejudice the farmers of Ulster and perhaps be an advantage to those persons who have taken over from the Government these great processes for flax production.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI thank the hon. Member (Major Barnes) for saying that we have endeavoured to meet hon. Members as far as we could. I can only repeat the answer which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Certain prices have been guaran- 1609 teed as to flax and certain persons have sold their flax under and in relation to those guarantees. It is quite impossible to take off the control of prices, because we should be doing an injustice to those who have already sold, and possibly we should be giving an opportunity to those who were free of control to get an advantage which has been denied to those who have sold so far. We are only asking for these Regulations to be continued so far as they relate to the powers of the Food Controllers and as to flax. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that there is at present a very severe shortage of flax. We may hope, in the course of time, that an increased quantity will come from Russia, but he would be an over-sanguine optimist who expected that before the 31st August, which is the date to which this Regulation is to be continued, the deficiency can be overcome. We discussed this matter in Committee and in the House a good deal, and I had hoped that the House would be good enough to give us this Amendment, so that we might begin the other Amendment when we start the consideration of the Bill another time. We might now settle the question either by a Division or by the withdrawal of the Amendment.
Mr. O'CONNORI would comply with the request of the Solicitor-General if he had accepted the suggestion which was thrown out in a friendly spirit by the hon. Member (Major Barnes). I do not think the Solicitor-General yet realises the very violent and vehement feeling there is on this feeling in Ulster.
§ It being a Quarter past eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.