Commons Sitting of 18 December 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.—(King's Consent signified.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING

    Density, Poplar
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is the attitude of his Department to the complaints of the Poplar Borough Council that the L.C.C. is insisting on its adopting a rehousing density standard of 38.5 houses per acre; and whether it is the intention of his Department to allow such a deterioration of the housing density standards of the working class established by the Tudor Walters Committee during the first world war.
    The Minister of Town and Country-Planning (Mr.Silkin): I have received no complaint from the Poplar Borough Council on this matter, but inasmuch as it might come before me for formal determination, it would be improper for me to express any opinion upon it at the present time.
    Mr. McAllister: Would the Minister care to say a word on the second part of the Question?
    Mr. Silkin: I have said a word on the second part of the Question.
    Hon. Members: We could not hear.

    Sitting
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps have been taken with regard to the sites for the 679,000 permanent houses and the 114,000 temporary houses already approved in order to avoid the faults, conspicuous between the wars, of suburban sprawl and central congestion.
    Mr. Silkin: All housing sites, whether for permanent or temporary houses, are referred to the local planning authority and are examined by my regional planning officer who consults other Departments affected. By this means the major planning difficulties referred to in my hon. Friend's Question should be avoided.
    Mr. McAllister: Could we have a little more specification in the answer? Does the Minister not agree that the number of houses referred to, involving the rehousing of so many people, is a very considerable part of the ultimate rehousing problem? Therefore, this House surely has some right to know what specific steps are being taken to remedy suburban sprawl and congestion.
    Mr. Silkin: I can asure my hon. Friend that every one of these applications is most carefully examined by my regional planning officers, and approval is not given unless they are satisfied that the housing sites are in the right place.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Have these regional planning officers any density standard to which they should adhere, and if they have, do they adhere to it?
    Mr. Silkin: The question of density standard does not arise on the question of the approval of sites for housing. That arises later.
    Mrs. Mann: I am still awaiting a reply to my question.
    Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend always satisfied with the decisions of his regional planning officers?
    Mr. Silkin: I am nearly always satisfied, and when I am not, and the matter is drawn to my attention, there is no reason why the decision of a regional planning officer should not be reversed.
    Mr. Bossom: Have these regional planning officers all had a thorough training in the science and art of town planning?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir.

    Building Trade Workers (Women)
    Viscountess Davidsonasked the Minister of Works if, in view of the present housing crisis, he will consider the employment in the building industry of women who have learnt, during the war, many of the trades, such as carpentering, painting and electrical wiring, which are essential to the building of houses.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): Women may be employed in these occupations under the conditions laid down in the industrial agreements made in 1941 and 1942, respectively, by the National Joint Council for the Building Industry and by the National Joint Industrial Council for the Electrical Contracting Industry.
    Captain Crowder: Can the Minister say how many women are employed in this industry?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not without notice.

    Builders (Registration)
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Works how many persons who were in the building or civil engineering trades between May, 1939, and October, 1941, have been registered as builders during the present year; what are the principles on which committees deal with such registration; and whether, in view of the expansion of the building trade, arrangements will be made to ensure such applications for registration are not turned down in the case of qualified men unless the capacity of the builder's district is greatly in excess of the building work which is becoming available for them.
    Mr. Tomlinson: In the period from 1st January, 1945, to 12th December, 1945, 7,632 persons, who could show that they had carried on a building or civil engineering undertaking between 1st May, 1939, and 1st October, 1941, were registered. All such applicants are entitled to be registered as of right. In addition, 9,029 persons, of whom 4,613 were ex-Service-men, were registered under the discretionary powers conferred on me by Defence Regulation 56AB, and on the basis of recommendations made by the Indepen-
    1090
    dent Committee set up to advise me on this matter. Under the Regulation, such applications are granted if this is justified by local or general needs.

    Guttering and Spouting
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the difficulties of obtaining rainwater guttering and spouting of all types in North-West England; and what steps he intends to take to improve the supply in this district of high rainfall.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; there is a general shortage of supplies which are controlled by licence, and North-West England is getting its fair share. The increase of supplies depends in the main on additional recruitment of labour, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour, is taking all possible steps to increase the labour force.
    Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a spout in time saves nine?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will try.
    Mr. Turton: Are not some of these spoutings frozen in the builders' merchants' yards, and not allowed to be used?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not to my knowledge.

    Sheet Glass
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Works if he is aware of t he shortage in North-Eastern Scotland of sheet glass required in connection with house building; and if he will take immediate steps to increase the supply.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; there are heavy demands for sheet glass elsewhere, but arrangements have been made for additional supplies to Scotland.
    Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that the supply of sheet glass keeps pace with the commendably high target of house building which has been set for North East Scotland, particularly the city of Aberdeen?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. To the extent that it is possible, I am doing so.

    Chelsea
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Works for how long he expects to retain as offices the 22 houses in

    1091
    Chelsea, of the addresses of which he has previously been informed, and which are still being prepared for this purpose, with the result that valuable housing accommodation and labour are being wasted.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot accept the suggestion that accommodation and labour are being wasted, and I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave him on 12th December. I cannot say how long it will be necessary to retain these houses for office purposes.
    Commander Noble: Will the Minister give an assurance that the use of these premises and the employment of this labour are in the best interests of the housing problem?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will try to see that labour and all premises are used in the best interests of the housing problem.
    Commander Noble: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Works if he has considered the designs for a proposed additional temporary gallery at the south end of the present Chamber, submitted to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham and Sale (Colonel Erroll); and if, in view of the continuing heavy demand for tickets from members of the public, he will cause such a gallery to be built during the Christmas recess
  Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Works how many alternative schemes he has under consideration for increasing accommodation in the galleries in the Chamber; and which of these he is proposing to accept.
  Mr. Tomlinson: I have considered the scheme put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham. I am not aware of any other scheme; and I see no reason to alter my previous decision against a temporary gallery of the kind proposed.
  Mr. Driberg: Has my right hon. Friend seen, besides these designs, the queues of
  1092
  people, night after night, who are genuinely anxious to listen to the proceedings in this House?
  Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I have seen the queues of people, and if this Chamber were bigger, and a temporary gallery could be erected without any inconvenience to hon. Members, I would be delighted to have it.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House, at any rate, that in the plans which are ultimately sanctioned for the rebuilding of the House of Commons, there will be proper space for a reasonable number of visitors?
  Mr. Tomlinson: Those plans have already been before the House, and that aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration.

  CINEMA, MARBLE ARCH (REDECORATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Works how many man hours were devoted by painters, electricians, carpenters and other building trade workers to the recent special redecoration of the Odeon Cinema, Marble Arch.
  Major Wyattasked the Minister of Works why he has granted a licence for the structural work now proceeding at the Regal cinema, Marble Arch, in connection with the film "Caesar and Cleopatra."
  Mr. Tomlinson: No licence for this particular work has been issued, and I had already arranged for inquiries to be made into the circumstances in which it was undertaken.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Opencast Mining, Wentworth Woodhouse
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will ensure that opencast mining near Wentworth Woodhouse shall not damage the famous Georgian mansion; and whether he intends to restore the park by planting.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): It is intended that damage to the mansion will be avoided and that measures for restoration of the park will be undertaken in consultation with my

    1093
    right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning and with the local interests concerned.

    Transferred Workers
    Mr. Henry Whiteasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the discontent that exists amongst the men who were transferred to Shireoaks and Steetley Collieries from Whitwell Colliery, near Worksop, in 1942, 61 of whom are still at Shireoaks and 79 at Steetley Colliery; and if he is prepared to make some arrangements so that these men can work at the colliery near their homes, or have the opportunity to return to Whitwell before other miners from a distance are given employment at Whitwell Colliery.
    Mr. Shinwell: So far as is practicable, every endeavour is being made to meet the wishes of men desiring transfer to collieries near to their homes and this policy will be followed in respect of ex-Whitwell workers as and when suitable vacancies arise.
    Mr. White:Is the Minister aware that one of the factors is that the three collieries belong to one company? Further — [Hon. Members: "We cannot hear."] — may I ask whether he will watch the proceedings with a view to reporting later?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the special difficulties in this case, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will watch the matter closely and that as soon as I can, I will give him what information I have.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Shop Window Lighting
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, as he is unable to grant permission for the lighting of shop windows between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. for the whole week preceding Christmas, he will give permission for their lighting for 20th, 21st and 22nd December.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry I cannot meet the desire of the hon. Member, as the fuel position will not allow of this relaxation.
    Mr. De La Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we hope he will do something to lighten our darkness? Cannot he give us a ray of sunshine in 1946?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to lighten his darkness, that is another matter.
    Mr. De La Bère: Could we not have a ray of sunshine in 1946 to lighten our mental disequilibrium?
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is satisfied that the Regulations governing the lighting of shop windows are equitably administered throughout the country.
    Mr. Shinwell: Subject to staffing and other difficulties, every effort is being made to secure equitable and considerable administration of these restrictions,
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: How are the people in London—I am leaving entirely out of account the people in country districts— to see what is in the shops this Christmas time?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is ample lighting in the shops although not in the shop windows— but then there is not much in the shop windows.
    Mr. Wardasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will publish full details of the present Regulations regarding lighting in shop windows, in order that shopkeepers do not unknowingly infringe these Regulations and inadvertently lay themselves open to prosecution.
    Mr. Shinwell: The Regulations regarding lighting in shop windows have been published, and are contained in the Control of Fuel (No. 3) Order (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1942, No. 2510), and in particular Article 5 thereof, which restricts the use of lighting fittings and appliances which consume fuel for the purpose of advertisement in the course of any business.
    Colonel Erroll: Where may the ordinary, simple trader see these Regulations?
    Mr. Shinwell: They can be obtained from fuel overseers and local authorities, and at the worst they can be obtained from my Department.
    Mr. Wardasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that an inspector from the Midland area has recently been visiting shopkeepers in Worcester and ordering them, in a manner

    1095
    which has given offence, to extinguish the lights in their shop windows; and whether he will take steps to ensure that whenever it is necessary to draw the attention of shopkeepers to the lighting Regulations it is done in a civil and courteous manner.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have made inquiries but I am unable to find any confirmation of this complaint, in so far as my inspectors are concerned. On the contrary, although it was found necessary to issue warning letters in respect of shop window lighting at premises in High Street and Foregate Street, Worcester, one firm expressed appreciation of the considerate way in which the matter had been handled.
    Mr. Ward: Is the Minister aware that this inspector told a woman shopkeeper that anything she said would be taken down in evidence against her? Does he not consider that that was unnecessarily offensive?
    Mr. Shinwell:I would like to have particulars of the case referred to. The language the hon. Member uses is, in my experience, common form.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that it is offensive language?
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister arrange for that letter of appreciation to be put in the Library?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that letters of appreciation are the chief literary fare of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Tolley: Is the Minister aware that he gave me the same answer to a Question which I put down to him some time ago?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is nothing wrong with the same answer, if it is a good one.

    Coal Distribution
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many wholesale and retail distributors of coal there were in 1919 and 1945; and what was the cost per ton for distribution in 1919 and 1945.
    Mr. Shinwell: While reliable figures are not available, it was estimated in 1919 that there were 27,000 or 28,000 distributors, including small dealers. In 1945 there are probably not more than 10,000
    1096
    regular coal merchants providing an all-the-year-round service, and a slightly larger number of other dealers, many of whom handle a very small tonnage. In addition, there are approximately 500 wholesale railborne and seaborne distributors, some of whom also carry on retail distribution. In regard to costs of distribution, which vary widely in different parts of the country and with different merchants, I regret the information asked for is not available. Recent inquiries, however, covering a limited number of merchants, have indicated that distribution costs vary from 7s. 2d. to 22s. 4d. per ton.

    Gas Industry (Nationalisation)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the Government's proposals to nationalise the gas industry include monetary compensation to local authorities who have been providing gas in the areas under their control.
    Mr. Shinwell: There will be a scheme of compensation for local authorities in respect of their gas undertakings which are nationalised.
    Major Lloyd: Does the Minister propose to differentiate in any way between the compensation to the highly efficient local authorities who are supplying gas and the equally efficient independent companies who have been supplying gas for many years?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is another question, of course. The hon. and gallant Member asked me about the local authorities. If he puts a Question down about the companies I will endeavour to give him an answer.

    Domestic Consumers (Coal Deliveries)
    Major Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many inspectors are employed by his Department in watching deliveries of coal to domestic consumers.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no inspectors employed in watching deliveries of coal to domestic consumers. It is however part of the functions of fuel inspectors or enforcement officers employed by my Ministry and by local authorities under the provisions of the Fuel and Lighting Orders

    1097
    to make inquiry as to actual deliveries to domestic consumers where it is suspected that there has been a breach of the Regulations.

    Ministry (Staff)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many people are employed at the headquarters and in the regional offices of his Department, respectively; and what is the total cost by way of salaries and otherwise.
    Mr. Shinwell: The number of persons employed on 1st December was at headquarters offices 1,871 and at regional offices 6,563. The vast majority of those employed in the regions are engaged on opencast coal production and petrol rationing. The total cost is approximately £3 million per annum.
    Mr. Gammans: Have the figures gone up or down in the last three months?
    Mr. Shinwell: I suspect they have gone down, but perhaps not much.
    Mr. Grimston: Can the Minister say how many members of those staffs will become redundant with the abolition of petrol rationing?
    Mr. Shinwell: Quite a large number, and the sooner I can get rid of petrol rationing the sooner I can get rid of a lot of people.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: How much is the cost increased by questions of this kind?
    Major Lloyd: How many of these regional officers are old poachers turned gamekeepers?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will inquire about that.

    Sub-Tenants (Coal Supply)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what amount of coal is allowed for a single person inhabiting a bed-sitting room; and how this compares with that allowed for a person with a bedroom and a sitting room.
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no coal allowance for single persons. An occupier who lets parts of his premises is expected to provide fuel for the sub-tenant, but if his normal supply is inadequate he may apply to the local fuel overseer for additional quantities. Each case is dealt with on its merits.
    Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister satisfied that persons who, by reason of age or infirmity, have to spend nearly all their time in single rooms, are getting their proper supply of coal in these colder months?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would not care to say. I have a great deal of sympathy with single persons who are aged or infirm, and who have to rely on inadequate supplies of fuel. If there are any such cases, all they have to do is to apply to the local fuel overseer. They will find him very sympathetic.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Piecework
    Lieutenant William Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in discussions with employers' associations and trades unions on the wider acceptance of piecework, with a view to improving industrial production.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 20th November to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Colonel Erroll), a copy of which I am sending him.

    Vocational Training Scheme
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Labour what trades are covered by the Government Vocational Training Scheme.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the list of trades covered by the Government's Vocational Training Scheme is rather long, I will with permission circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that the number of trades covered by the scheme is very limited and that many ex-Servicemen desire training in trades not covered by it? Will he look into the matter again, and see whether he can make provision to extend the scope of the scheme?
    Mr. Isaacs: We are very anxious that the Government training service should be as helpful as possible, but I do not see that we can take up every individual case. If industries approach us we shall be very glad to meet them and to discuss the matter.
    Following is the list:

    Trades at present covered by the Government's Vocational Training Scheme.

    *Agriculture and Horticulture

    M &W

    Baking

    M &W

    Basket Making

    M

    Boot and Shoe Making (Handsewn)

    M

    *Boot and Shoe Repair

    M

    Building Trades—

    *Bricklaying

    M

    *Carpentry

    M

    Masons

    M

    *Painting and Decorating

    M

    Pavior and Flag Dresser

    M

    *Plastering

    M

    *Plumbing

    M

    Slating and Tiling

    M

    *Wood Machining

    M

    Civil Engineering—

    Blacksmiths

    M

    Pipe Jointing

    M

    Timberman

    M

    *Cinema Projectionist

    M

    Commercial and Clerical—

    *Clerks

    M &W

    *Shorthand Typists

    M &W

    Cotton Spinning

    M &W

    Forestry

    M

    Furniture Trades—

    *Cabinet Making

    M

    Upholstery

    M

    Wood Finishing

    M

    Wood Machinists

    M

    Glove Cutting

    M &W

    *Hairdressing

    M &W

    Leather Producing—

    Heavy Leather

    M

    Light Leather

    M

    Made Up Leather—

    *Light Leather Goods

    M &W

    Heavy Leather and Travel Goods

    M

    Musical Instruments—

    *Piano Manufacture

    M

    Neon Sign Making

    M &W

    Pottery

    M &W

    *Retail Distributive Trades

    M &W

    Saddlery and Harness Making

    M

    Tailoring—

    *Retail Bespoke

    M &W

    *Typewriter Repair

    M

    *Watch and Clock Repair

    M

    *Woollens (Scottish)

    M &W

    * Courses are in operation in these trades.

    Mr. S. Shephardasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of able-bodied ex-Servicemen now undergoing a vocational course in factories and workshops;
    (2) The number of able-bodied ex-Servicemen now undergoing vocational training courses in Government Training Centres.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of ex-Service-men in training with employers under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour on the 17th November was 204, of whom 42 were able-bodied. The number of ex-Service-men in training at training centres, includ
    1100
    ing technical colleges, on the same date was 3,765 of whom 1,485 were able-bodied. The numbers of the able-bodied in training are increasing rapidly as more facilities become available.
    Mr. Shephard: Is not the Minister aware that many employers are only too anxious to afford facilities for training ex-Service-men in factories and workshops, but that the figure he has given suggests that the offer has not been taken advantage of?
    Mr. Isaacs: The offer is being taken advantage of as rapidly as we can make the contacts. It is right that I should express appreciation of the very ready cooperation that many employers are giving us.
    Mr. Shephard: Does the Minister agree that the number is only 204?
    Lieutenant W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour why it is that Servicemen applying for E.V.T. training in the building trades are being rejected by his Department when the needs of the building industry are so pressing.
    Mr. Isaacs: My Department is not responsible for the Educational and Vocational Training Schemes provided for men in the Services. Men leaving the Services who are in need of training are eligible under the Vocational Training Scheme organised by my Department, and their applications are not rejected if they are adjudged suitable for the trade they wish to learn.
    Mr. Glanvilleasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for training centres for returned Servicemen to be established in the Consett area, as these facilities are at present almost nonexistent.
    Mr. Isaacs: There is already a training centre at Wallsend and new centres will be opened at Aycliffe, North Tyne, Spennymoor and Low Felling. These centres should adequately meet the needs of men in the Consett area.
    Mr. Glanville: Is the Minister aware that these proposed Centres are all miles away from the Consett area, and, in any case, can he say if they arc to be opened up in the immediate future and not at some dim and distant date?
    Mr. Isaacs: We are trying to put these centres in places which can be fairly easily

    1101
    reached from the surrounding districts, and not to build one in every separate town.

    Strikes (Causes)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Labour whether, when a strike occurs in any industry, he will have the origins investigated by the C.I.D., with a view to determining whether it has been incited by subversive influences; and whether there has been any breach of the law.
    Mr. Isaacs:I would not accept the view that strikes in general are due to subversive influences. The normal machinery for enforcement of the law is sufficient to deal with any illegal acts that may be committed, and no special action on my part is necessary to ensure that all proper cases are investigated.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern that many honest workmen are being unduly affected by sinister and possibly alien influences against their own interests?
    Mr. Isaacs:We should be very grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would let us have particulars of any such cases.
    Captain Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that the Labour Government believe in the industrial freedom of the worker, including the right to strike, and will resist bitterly any authoritarian proposals of this nature?

    Labour Supply Inspectors
    Mr. Medlandasked the Minister of Labour whether, before dispersing the 200 labour supply inspectors now declared redundant in his Department, he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade as to the possibility of their absorption in that Department for duty connected with his working parties to assist in the organisation of the building labour necessary for that industry.
    Mr. George Porterasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the redundancy of 200 highly trained technical officers in his Department, he will take steps to see that they are given proper consideration for any vacancies that occur in other Government Departments where their considerable experience will be of advantage to the nation; if he will agree that
    1102
    all such vacancies shall be circulated to the men concerned.
    Mr. Isaacs: I can give my hon. Friends a very ready assurance that every effort will be made to find posts for the labour supply inspectors who are to be discharged on redundancy. Any suitable posts in other branches of my Department, in other Government Departments and in industry will be brought to their notice.

    Labour Control
    Mr. Hulbertasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the Control of Engagement Order is now proving an effective measure for filling the demands for labour in the Government order of priority.
    Mr. Isaacs: The effectiveness of the Control of Engagement Order for filling priority demands for labour has progressively weakened with the increasing relaxation since VJ-Day in the use of the powers of direction. As the hon. Member will be aware, the scope of the Order is to be very considerably reduced as from 20th December, 1945, and steps will be taken to make it effective in respect of the classes to whom it still applies.
    Mr. Hulbert: May I ask what steps the Minister will take to make it effective?
    Mr. Isaacs: All steps that are permissible under the Act, including taking prosecutions, should it be necessary.
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Minister of Labour in what industries and services will men of ages 30 and under, who have been released from the Forces in Class A, become subject to the Essential Work Order or Control of Engagement Order after 20th December.
    Mr. Isaacs: The Essential Work Orders apply to men and women of all ages employed in firms which are scheduled under the Orders. About 150 industries and services are now covered by the Orders, but as I have already announced they are being reviewed. The Control of Engagement Order now applies only to men, up to and including age 30, and covers all classes of employment with a few exceptions of which the most important are employment in agriculture in England and Wales, managerial employment and most professional administrative and executive employments.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman direct his mind to the Question? Does he not follow that I am trying to ask him to what extent controls are going to apply to men who have left the Forces under Class A and are under 30?
    Mr. Isaacs: It depends on several circumstances, which it is difficult to explain fully; but I should be glad to have a word with the Noble Lord. It is a question whether they claim the right of reinstatement, whether they remain in the job they were doing and other factors of that kind, but men under the age of 30 who have no job to go to will be subject to direction.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Could we not have a comprehensive statement about their position before the Recess?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure about before the Recess, but I will make a full statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does that apply to men who find jobs for themselves before their leave is up?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, men who find jobs for themselves will be allowed to retain them.

    Rehabilitation Centres
    Mr. W. Adamsasked the Minister of Labour if the rehabilitation centre at Egham is a purely experimental venture; and whether it is his intention to establish other such centres in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and the question of establishing other similar centres is kept under continuous review in the light of experience at Egham.
    Captain Blackburn: In view of the tremendous success which this rehabilitation centre at Egham has been, will the Minister consider giving it further publicity; and will he also urgently consider the need for extending this centre?
    Mr. Isaacs: In regard to the second part of the question, I have already answered it and said that we will extend the experiment. On the question of publicity, I think sufficient public? attention has not been drawn to this excellent work and we will consider that suggestion.
    Captain Blackburn: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Service personnel (Civilian Employment)
    Mr. Cluseasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a statement about the position of men who were granted indefinite release from the Forces for employment in industry before the end of the war, and who are still in civilian employment.
    Major Conantasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make with regard to members of the Armed Forces on indefinite release to industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: Throughout the war certain members of the Forces have been released for an indefinite period to civilian employment of vital national importance. Such men were released before the Class B scheme was introduced and many of them are still in civilian employment. Their position is as follows:
    Men over the current call-up age, i.e., men born before 1st July, 1915, will not be recalled to the Forces except in the event of a further emergency. They will be in exactly the same position, so far as labour controls are concerned, as civilians of the same age and occupation.
    The position of men within the present call-up ages, i.e., men born on or after 1st July, 1915, will depend upon the date on which they would have been released from the Forces in Class A had they remained continuously in the Forces.
    If this date has not arrived they will be required to remain in the employment for which they were released. If they leave that employment, or if their services are no longer needed, they will be considered for recall to the Forces. If they are not wanted in the Forces they will be required to take other work of national importance for which they have the necessary qualifications. If the date has arrived they will not be recalled to the Forces, except in the event of a further emergency, and as regards civilian employment, will be in exactly the same position as other civilian workers.
    Men who were released from the Forces for civilian employment before the Government's release scheme came into operation on 18th June, 1945, are not entitled to any release leave payments under that Scheme. Payment of war gratuity,

    1105
    postwar credits in respect of "other ranks" service and overseas service grants will be made as soon as possible.
    Captain Crowder: As the emergency Regulations are still in force, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to "a further emergency "?
    Mr. Isaacs: What I think we are trying to guard against is the very unlikely possibility of something suddenly emerging which might need men to be recalled to the Forces.
    Major Conant: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those who have a written guarantee that their service with industry will count towards their current engagement, will as promised be released under the terms of Class A and not be subject to direction?
    Mr. Isaacs: Control and direction will still remain over those men who are within the age limit for service in the Forces, but perhaps if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the answer in detail, he might find the point dealt with.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I put a point about the Bevin boys and men who volunteered to work in the mines in accordance with appeals made by the Government? Will such men be relieved of any further call-up or direction when the category A release date of their group is reached?
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer relates to men whose industrial service has been given on release from military service for this purpose during the war.

    Building Workers
    Mr. William Adamsasked the Minister of Labour to what extent it is the practice when listing personnel for Group B block release for the building trade to ignore those Servicemen described as general foremen.
    Mr. Isaacs: Men described as general foremen are not ignored in the selection of men for release in Class B to the building industry. The Service records do not distinguish between general foremen and carpenters' foremen, and these two occupations are therefore combined for impartial selection in age and service order up to the number required.
    Mr. Adams: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to that matter, because the term "general foreman" is distinctly a building term and has a special meaning in that trade?
    Mr. Isaacs: We have to rely upon the descriptions as they are recorded in the Service books, but I will look into it and see what can be done.

    Mine Ballottees
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Minister of Labour whether he will agree that service in the coal mining industry as ballottees or volunteers, may count towards release under the age-plus-service release system for any men subsequently drafted into the Services.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-Eastern Derby (Mr. H. White) on 29th November, a copy of which I am sending him.

    Long-Service Men
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now give favourable consideration to the immediate release of all in the Forces who have served five years.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not at present in a position to add to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) on 6th November, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Austin: Is the Minister aware that that reply and a previous reply given to myself some time ago, were most unsatisfactory, and will he not reconsider the position, in the light of the fact that these young men in the Forces, who have spent so many years in the service of their country, are being prejudiced on their return to rehabilitation in industry when eventually demobilised?
    Mr. Isaacs: I would not agree that they are being prejudiced; neither am I going to agree to the scheme being prejudiced by any interference with it.

    Volunteers
    Flight-Lieutenant Parkinasked the Minister of Labour, if he will make it possible for men who, during the war, volunteered for the Army in advance of their call-up and so find themselves on a Regular engagement, to be released under Class

    1107
    B, or in any other way as individual specialists where their services are urgently needed in the national interest in their civilian occupations.
    Mr. Isaacs: Men who volunteered for the Army in advance of their call-up are not on regular engagements unless they elected to join the Regular Army. Regular soldiers are not eligible for release in Class B during their period of Colour service, but in selecting men for release in Class B no distinction is made between conscripts and volunteers on "duration" engagements.

    Articled Clerks
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the shortage of trained accountants at present existing, whether he will extend to articled clerks, whose training was interrupted by military service, the same facilities for Class B release as have been granted to university students whose courses were interrupted.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I regret I cannot agree to this extension of releases in Class B.
    Sir T. Moore: Could not the Minister say why there should be this discrimination against these young men?
    Mr. Isaacs: There is no discrimination; there would be discrimination against others should we vary the scheme.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the Minister bear in mind that, in some professions, this process of articled training takes the same place as a university course takes in other professions, and if, therefore, men are allowed to go back to the university courses, it amounts to discrimination if, in these cases, such as training for the law, where the articled course takes the place of a university course, the Minister does not allow it?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is rather a lengthy question, but, speaking from memory, I think there is some question of difference in deferment, and so on, before they are called up.

  REFUGEES (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Manning:asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is in a position to make a statement about
  1108
  the return to Germany, and the procedure to be adopted, of anti-Fascist refugees now in the United Kingdom.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. P. Freeman).
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been so many references back today that we do not know what it is all about, and can we have some enlightenment?
  Mr. Hynd: The terms of the answer referred to were:
  " I have made arrangements for a certain number of refugees who are asked for by name by the Control Commission in Germany and Austria to go back to their countries. I hope that it will be possible in the near future for larger numbers, particularly those who would assist in the reconstruction of their countries on democratic lines, to be repatriated, but the difficulties of accommodation, particularly in the British Zone of Germany, are very great and the trans port facilities are limited. Applications to return will have to be sifted in accordance with an order of priority and as soon as arrangements can be made to handle applications an announcement will be made. Meanwhile, no good purpose would be served by sending in applications to the Control Office for Germany and Austria or any other Government Department."
  Mr. Manning: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate what he means by the words "near future "?
  Mr. Hynd: As soon as the difficulties are cleared out of the way—as soon as practicable.
  Miss Rathbone: Is my hon. Friend aware that when these men go back to Germany and leave wives and children behind there is no way in which they can send money back to support their families, and will he go into the question of how to meet that difficulty?
  Mr. Hynd: That difficulty will be taken into consideration.

  GERMANY (POLES, REPATRIATION)
  Miss Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any Polish ex-Servicemen are being repatriated from Germany irrespective of whether they consent.
  Mr. Hynd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to her Question yesterday.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Nationalisation Proposals
    Mr. Gammansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money will be required to finance the nationalisation of those industries which the Government intends to take over; how he proposes to raise the money, and if, in particular, money raised through war savings campaigns will be used for this purpose.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No new money will necessarily be required to finance any of these operations. None is required, for example, in the case of the Bank of England. As regards other cases, I must ask the hon. Member to wait and see.
    Mr. Gammans: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of what amount of money will be required, or are the Government going to undertake this vast programme without having the faintest idea what it is going to cost?
    Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the terms of the Bank of England Bill, he will see that no new money is required, but that one piece of paper will be exchanged for another. It may be that that precedent will be followed in other cases.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) to his answer?
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Chancellor see that as little money as possible is paid out in this direction?

    Purchase Tax
    Major Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now had an opportunity to look into the matter of the hardship inflicted on those who have already paid the Purchase Tax on goods now exempted from it; and what decision he has reached.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay) on 6th
    1110
    November, of which I am sending him a copy.

    Exchange Control
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether licensed dealers in securities, in addition to bankers, brokers and solicitors, can now be authorised to stamp and sign declarations on the back of transfer deeds as required by the Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1939.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. As I told the House last week, I hope soon to introduce legislation on exchange control, and I cannot now anticipate its terms.

    United States Loan
    Mr. Footasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Dominion Governments and Governments of other sterling areas were consulted before His Majesty's Government gave their approval to the U.S. loan and was an approach by the whole of the sterling group to the U.S. Government considered.
    Mr. Dalton: The Dominion Governments were kept informed of the progress of negotiations, both through their representatives in Washington and through personal contacts in London. No such approach as my hon. Friend has in mind was ever suggested by any Government of the British Commonwealth or by any other member of the sterling group.
    Mr. Stokes:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether an offer of a credit for the supply of tin, rubber and other commodities, in return for a loan, was made to the U.S. Government before recommending acceptance of the loan recently approved;
    (2) whether the U.S. Government were asked for a direct commercial loan before His Majesty's Government agreed to the loan now agreed by this House.
    Mr. Dalton: I have nothing to add to what was said in last week's Debate.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither of these questions was answered in the Debate, and that at the end of the Debate, when they came to be put, my right hon. Friend himself was not here to answer them, and that is why I put these Questions on the Order Paper? If I put them down again, will my right hon. Friend answer them in January?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir
    Mr. Stokes: Why not?
    Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman furnish us with some reasons for refusing this information?
    Mr. Dalton: I think that if we start raking over the embers of old Debates a week after they have taken place, the Order Paper will be still more cluttered up with Questions than it is now.
    Mr. Stokes: How came it that it was confidently expected at one time that a grant-in-aid would be made if, in fact, neither of these things could be considered?
    Mr. De la Bère: Why should they not be considered?
    Mr. Foot: Could the right hon. Gentleman supply us with the parts of his speech, or of the speeches of his right hon. Friends, in which these questions were answered, so that we can discover whether in fact they were answered or not?
    Mr. Dalton: I repeat that we had a considerable Debate last week, and I think it would be wasting the time of the House to recapitulate it now.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that these questions have not yet been answered, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
  Mr. Paton:asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost-of-living index figures for 30th November, 1942, and 30th November, 1945, taking the comparable index figure for 31st August, 1939, as 100.
  Mr. Dalton: 129 on 1st December, 1942, and 131 on 1st November, 1945. The figure for 1st December, 1945, is not yet published.

  HANSARD (WEEKLY ISSUE)
  Mr. Naylorasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has any statement to make concerning the practicability of publishing a weekly issue of the OFFICIAL REPORT, HANSARD.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall):With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement at the end of Questions.
  Later—
  Mr. Hall: I have suggested to the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports of which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) is Chairman, that there should be a weekly issue of the Official Report in addition to the present daily issue. That Committee, I am pleased to say, has recommended the proposal to you, Mr. Speaker, and you have been good enough to approve it. The weekly edition will consist of the daily issues unaltered but stitched together in a distinctive cover. By closing the week with the Thursday issue, leaving the Friday issue for inclusion in the following week, it will be possible to have the weekly edition available in London on Friday and other parts of the country on Saturday. The price will be is. 6d. a week or approximately 3 ½d. per copy and there will be a subscription rate of £3 per annum post-free.
  It is hoped that publication in this new and cheaper form will not only be a convenience to hon. Members who now remit copies daily to their constituencies, but also to a growing number of libraries, clubs, institutions and persons who desire to follow our proceedings. I am hoping that unless there is some unexpected hitch it will be possible to make a start with the weekly edition when the House reassembles.
  Sir T. Moore: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if these weekly editions will be bound in cloth and boards, because otherwise they will not fulfil the purpose to which he referred at the end of his answer, that is, to be kept in libraries and institutions?
  Mr. Hall: We are considering now the form which the covers should take. However, I think I can say that we hope to make them semi-stiff, if not entirely stiff.
  Mr. Maxton: Will there be any index?
  Mr. Hall: Not at the moment. The difficulty about the index, of course, is that it could not be prepared in time to get the weekly edition out on the Friday, and we understand that people would prefer to have it on Friday rather than later with an index. There was a Question about an

  1113
  index which came earlier and perhaps 1 might say now, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that an index is now being prepared in manuscript and that about six copies of it, we hope, will be available week by week in the Library following our return after Christmas.
  Mr. Hulbert: May I ask the Financial Secretary, first, will these weekly editions be circulated free to hon. Members; secondly, what is a "distinctive" cover?
  Hon. Members: Red.
  Mr. Hall: I understand that every hon. Member is entitled to two copies, one for himself and one that he may, if he wishes, send to his Division. It is hoped that, instead of sending them off daily as they do now, and thus giving a certain amount of work in the Vote Office, hon. Members will be prepared to wait and send them once a week. With regard to the distinctive cover, what we hope to do, subject to Mr. Speaker's agreement, is to make the cover of the weekly edition something different from the plain white cover with its overprinting with which we are all familiar.

  TELEVISION (EXTENSION)
  Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Information what are his plans for making television available to the Scottish people at the same time as it is introduced in England.
  The Minister of Information (Mr. E. J. Williams): Plans for the extension of the Television Service from London to Scotland, to the Principality and to the Provinces will be considered by the Television Advisory Committee in consultation with the radio industry. A number of technical problems must be considered before decisions can be taken.
  Sir W. Darling: Can the Minister tell me whether it is the intention to establish the necessary engineering appliances in Scotland in connection with the proposed establishment of television?
  Mr. Williams: It is very difficult for me to answer that question. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would put it on the Order Paper.
  Major Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman really imply that a transfer of this television principle to the provinces is the same thing as applying it to Scotland?
  Mr. Williams: I think I mentioned Scotland specifically.
  Major Lloyd: No.
  Mr. Williams: Certainly.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

    " Today in Parliament "Talks
    Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Minister of Information whether he will consider issuing to the Press each day for publication the "Today in Parliament "talks, broadcast by the B.B.C. each evening.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: It is not for me to suggest how the Press should report proceedings in Parliament. Subject to suitable acknowledgement the B.B.C. would welcome publication of their "Today in Parliament" talks, but the Press have their own Parliamentary correspondents and none too much space.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the Minister aware that it is much more important to the Press to have more paper to print Parliament on than to have more Parliament to print on limited supplies of paper?
    Mr. Williams: I think I referred to that in my answer.
    Mr. De la Bèr: Why not do something about it?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot permit these constant interruptions.

    Government Broadcasts
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Information whether the B.B.C. is still obliged to broadcast everything any Government Department wishes to be made public.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Under the terms of the B.B.C.'s licence:
    " The Corporation shall whenever so requested by any Department of His Majesty's Government at the Corporation's own expense send from all or any of the broadcasting

    1115
    stations any announcement or other matter which such Department may require to be broadcast; provided that the Corporation when sending such matter may at its discretion announce that it is sent at the request of a named Department."
    Mr. Gammans: Does that answer mean that any Minister who wants to broadcast can automatically do so and that the B.B.C. have no power to refuse?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir, it does not mean that.

  BRITISH NEWSPAPERS, CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  Mr. Williamsonasked the Minister of Information if he is aware of the demand for British newspapers and periodicals in Czechoslovakia; that few British newspapers, books or periodicals are obtainable; and if he will take immediate steps to remedy this situation.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: A recent improvement in the air service has enabled me to increase the supply of newspapers to Czechoslovakia which now stands at 1,400 copies of daily and 1,000 of Sunday papers; the possibility of further increases is being pursued. So far, transport limitations have prevented the despatch of books and periodicals in quantity, but a few copies go to the Press Attache for special distribution.
  Mr. Williamson: Has there been any improvement during the last three months?
  Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, a reasonably substantial improvement.
  Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is this thirst for British literature in all the countries of liberated Europe, and that it is, not being met at the present time?
  Mr. Williams: I most heartily agree, but the problem is one of transport, and we are trying to face up to it.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that travellers who are returning now from Czechoslovakia say that Britain's point of view in Czechoslovakia is completely blotted out by comparison with American ideas, literature and newspapers?
  Mr. Williams: No, Sir, I do not accept that. Our Press Attaché has been home during the last week, and he does not confirm that statement.
  Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say if this is the last Question that the Minister of Information will ever answer in this House?

  SPRING ESTATE HOSTEL, COVENTRY
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for the postponement, for at least a month, of the transfer, scheduled for 17th December, of the residents of Spring Estate Hostel, Coventry, to other hostels, in view of the fact that when Spring Estate Hostel is handed over to the Coventry Corporation for housing purposes, many of the present residents will be eligible for continued residence, and that to uproot an established community a week before Christmas will cause personal hardship.
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. There is no need to retain this hostel for its present purposes, and if the Coventry Corporation are to take it over for housing purposes some interval would apparently be required for necessary structural alterations and for assembling the staff required. Moreover, the experience of those administering industrial hostels for transferred workers is that as many as possible of the residents go home for Christmas, and that when a move is imminent they would prefer to be settled in their new quarters before their holiday rather than after their return.
  Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the 600 residents who are left want to remain in the hostel at least until after Christmas?
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I am not aware of that.

  MILITARY SERVICE (STUDENTS)
  Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of Labour if he intends to proceed with the call-up this month of the engineering students at Glasgow University who are due to sit for their final examinations in March.
  Mr. Isaacs: Any engineering students at Glasgow University who have been recommended by the University Joint Recruiting Board to sit their final examinations in March will not be called up in the meantime.
  Major Cecil Poole: Will the Minister say if this also applies to other universities than Glasgow?
  Mr. Isaacs: My reply relates only to the Question on the Order Paper.
  Major Poole: Are we to understand that Glasgow has more preferential treatment than Birmingham or other universities?
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir;.1 have been asked a Question about Glasgow and I have answered it,
  Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Labour whether students of dye chemistry are allowed to complete their college training before being conscripted for military service; and whether he is considering an alteration in the time allowed to architectural students for the completion of their training.
  Mr. Isaacs: Students who, since October, 1944, have been granted deferment to take courses in chemistry at universities and university colleges, are allowed two years and nine months in which to complete their course, subject to making satisfactory progress. Students who hold scholarships at universities in architecture and who started in October this year may also take the full course.

  TOURISM (REPORT)
  Mr. Farthingasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been taken to publish the most recent Report of the Catering Wages Commission on Tourism.
  Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The report is being published, but I must make it clear that the recommendations which it contains and which cover a wide field are still under consideration by the Government Departments concerned. No decision has yet been taken on them.

  SCOTLAND

    National Library Fund
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the fund of money available before the war for the
    1118
    building of a Scottish national library amounted to at the beginning of the war; and how much it is now.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I presume that the hon. Member's Question refers to the bequest of £115,877 8s. 4d. made by the late Sir Alexander Grant towards the cost of a new building for the National Library of Scotland to be erected by His Majesty's Government. This bequest is administered by a private endowment trust and instalments are payable there from, on request by the Ministry of Works, simultaneously with payments not less in amount to be provided by the Government out of public funds, as the work proceeds. I am informed that the payments made by the trust up to September, 1945, amount to £24,408 4s. 9d. The balance in hand was at the beginning of the war £102,938 19s. 10d., and is now £91,469 3s.7d.
    Sir W. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me if he is in a position to state when the Government will agree to proceeding with the erection of this important national building?
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurance as to when this erection is likely to be completed. After all, the housing problem in Scotland cannot be neglected to allow this building to go up.

    Unfurnished Rooms (Evictions)
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of evictions of tenants of unfurnished rooms who are not within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Act; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I have no evidence of any general increase in the number of evictions from unfurnished rooms. I am informed, however, that the tenants of some furnished service flats in Glasgow have been warned that they may have to remove and that the Corporation, to whom the tenants appealed for help, have the case under consideration. The whole question of security of tenure will be considered in connection with the general review of the

    1119
    provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts but I can hold out no prospect of early legislation.

    Housing
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland the completion of houses is being delayed for lack of painters, because the contractors are using their men on private contracts; and if he will take steps to ensure that priority is given to housing.
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. The completion of some 200 temporary houses throughout Scotland, including about 14 in Edinburgh, has been delayed for lack of painters. Twenty painters have been transferred to the Edinburgh housing scheme, where the position is now satisfactory; and additional painters will be transferred as soon as possible to work on the temporary houses elsewhere. With regard to the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to a statement made on the 13th December by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, as to the use of the power of direction in the building industry.
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the indignation throughout the building industry in Scotland at the slow and insufficient releases of building labour from the Services under Class B; what representations he has made to the Service Ministers on this subject; and with what result.
    Mr. Buchanan: The rate of release under Class B of building labour in Scotland has been greatly accelerated, and I am circulating in the Official Report figures showing the monthly releases since June, 1945. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Service Departments are co-operating to the fullest of their ability.
    Major Lloyd: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the system of Class B releases in the building trade because, if so, he is the only person in Scotland who is satisfied?
    Mr. Buchanan: I was asked a Question about the rate of release. I am publishing a very detailed list showing each month separately, and it reveals a considerable improvement. Anybody who
    1120
    knows me, however, knows that I am never satisfied about anything, any more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden—
    The following are the figures referred to:

    To 20th July, 1945

    12

    20th July, 1945, to 20th August, 1945

    138

    20th August, 1945, to 20th September, 1945

    414

    20th September, 1945, to 20th October,1945

    775

    20th October, 1945, to 20th November, 1945

    1,551

    20th November, 1945, to 12th December, 1945 (22 days)

    1,338

    Total

    4,228

    Agricultural Education (Report)
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Report of the Committee on Agricultural Education in Scotland will be available.
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has received the Report of the Committee. It will be published as a Command Paper, and I hope that copies may be available to Members in the Vote Office before the Recess.
    Mr. Steele: Is my hon. Friend aware that this answer will give a great deal of satisfaction, as this Report has been eagerly awaited?

    Police Force, Glasgow
    Commander Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the need for an increase in the strength of the Police Force in Glasgow; and what steps he proposes to meet the situation.
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have already been made for the resumption of recruitment to the regular Police, and it is hoped that between 40 and 50 recruits from civilian sources and from men released from the Armed Forces on Class A terms will be taken on before the end of this month. Arrangements have also been made for obtaining new recruits direct from the Armed Forces. These will be released on Class B terms, and a recruiting mission of three chief constables, including one from Scotland, is about to set out for the Middle and Far East for the purpose of interviewing candidates

    1121
    who are serving too far away to be able to come to this country for interview. In addition, a special arrangement was instituted some time ago for the release on Class B terms, subject to military necessity, of policemen who are serving in the Armed Forces. One hundred and fifty-seven Glasgow officers have already returned to the Police Force under this arrangement, and I am consulting my right hon. Friends who are in charge of the Armed Services in the hope that they will find it possible to expedite the return of the remainder.

    Fishing Industry (Surplus Government Works)
    Sir B. Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has a list of piers, slips, boat repairing sheds, ice plants and other structures which have been erected by the Service Departments in Scotland and which might be of use to the fishing community; and whether he will see that these are not dismantled without consultation with the local authorities.
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. My Department has prepared a list of the works constructed on the Scottish coast which might be of use to the fishing community, and consultations are taking place with the Service Departments concerned with a view to ensuring that local authorities will be given an opportunity of acquiring any of these properties which become surplus to service requirements.

    Tuberculosis (Treatment)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Rankin:
    "99. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the inability which insured persons, suffering from tuberculosis and who are recommended for institutional treatment, have in obtaining such treatment; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the necessary additional sanatorium and hospital services will be provided."
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You have omitted Question 99.
    Mr. Speaker: I was told that No. 99 had been postponed.
    Mr. Rankin: No, Mr. Speaker; No. 100.
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the long waiting lists of the local authorities, who are responsible for the provision of institutional treatment for both insured and other persons suffering from tuberculosis. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard) on 20th November last, the shortage of nurses is the main difficulty, and in consultation with our colleagues we are actively engaged in trying to solve it.
    Commander Galbraith: Can the hon.. Gentleman say how many persons are now awaiting admission to sanatoria?
    Mr. Buchanan: The number of cases on the waiting list at 30th September was 1,703 for the whole of Scotland including fully 1,000 for Glasgow.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Dutch East Indies
    Mr. Williamsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the withdrawal of the 1st Battalion Sea-forth Highlanders from active service in Java in view of the heavy and exacting fighting experienced by these troops in the Burma campaign; and if he is satisfied that these troops could not be relieved by troops who have not suffered these hardships.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): I am afraid that the moves of units must depend on Army requirements. This fact does not, however, prejudice the repatriation of individuals. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State for War on 11th December to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower).

    Demobilisation
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War why men in Groups 26 to 29 in the 5th Surrey Regiment are to be sent to the M.E.F., in view of the fact that many of them will soon have to be brought back to this country for demobilisation.
    Mr. Bellenger: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the 57th Anti-Tank Regiment, R.A. (T.A.), which before 1938 was the 5th Battalion, East

    1123
    Surrey Regiment. This unit is in C.M.F. and is not under orders for M.E.F. If the Question relates to men now on leave in the United Kingdom, such men must return to their unit in the ordinary way, except those in Group 26, who are being ordered to remain here in view of the comparative imminence of their release.

  MALAYA (WOMEN'S RETURN)
  Sir B. Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for War if all the officers', officials' and civilians' wives who have been allowed to enter Malaya have been directed to engage in nursing, welfare or similar work; and when it is proposed to allow planters' wives to rejoin their husbands unconditionally.
  Mr. Bellenger: No women other than doctors, nurses, and relief workers, and those engaged in the local military administration, or in the Services, are permitted to return to Malaya. It will, however, be the policy of the administration to permit wives of residents to return to the country as soon as local conditions allow, and adequate transport facilities become available.

  WAR PENSIONS (GOVERNMENT REVIEW)
  Mr. Dobbie(by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding war pensions.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The Government have now completed their review of war pensions and have decided that a number of changes should be made. The improvements are set out in a White Paper, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office later this afternoon.
  Mr. Dobbie: May I ask the Minister if the White Paper will be the subject matter of discussion by the House before it is put into operation?
  Mr. Paling: The question of discussion and Debate is not one which I can answer. I should be directed to another quarter.
  Mr. Stephen: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be an opportunity given for discussion of the proposed changes in connection with pensions?
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I should have thought that it would have been better to see what the White Paper contains before raising the question of Debate.
  Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these changes will come into operation?
  Mr. Paling: Probably the first pay day in February.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): With the indulgence of the House, I wish to make a statement on the control of merchant shipping and certain related matters.
  The Government have decided that dry-cargo ships other than those employed in trooping or other direct military or naval service shall be released from requisition on the termination of voyages after 2nd March, 1946, when the present charters expire. But it will be necessary, in order to secure the best use of our limited shipping resources, to keep control, in a different form, over its employment. The Government desire to restore responsibility and initiative for the operation of shipping to the shipping industry to the fullest extent practicable in the circumstances envisaged after 2nd March, but must continue to ensure that sufficient tonnage is available to lift essential imports into this country and for other purposes necessary to our economy and security. The form of control will be appropriate to a transitional period and will be relaxed as circumstances permit. No new powers will be needed. The power to control voyages by licence already exists. The Government will reserve the right to exercise the power of requisition if circumstances should require and the necessary power will remain in being.
  The form of control proposed will call for full co-operation by the shipping industry with my Department, and I feel sure that this will be forthcoming in the difficult period of transition just as it has been during the war. As already announced tankers will be released from requisition as they complete their voyages after the end of this year. They will remain subject to control by licence thereafter. Passenger ships and other ships

  1125
  employed directly in military or naval service will remain under requisition so long as trooping and other military and naval requirements make this necessary. I also propose to adjust the terms on which Government owned ships will be offered to British shipowners. As soon as the details can be completed, the new scheme will replace that described in Command 6357.
  Sir Arthur Salter: Will the Minister say whether this new form of control of cargo ships will be of a positive or negative character? Will ships be directed to go into, say, the wheat trade of the North Atlantic?
  Mr. Barnes: It will be directive rather than negative.
  Major C. Poole: Can the Minister say, in view of the fact that there will still be large tonnages of Government traffic offering to the Middle and Far East for the maintenance of our Forces there, what steps it is proposed to provide to ensure that, with the abolition of full chartered ships, the Government are not called upon to pay very heavy charges for the carriage of these commodities?
  Mr. Barnes: It contains every safeguard. If the hon. and gallant Member will read the reply, he will find that all military and Service requirements are adequately catered for.
  Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister say whether the operation of the Merchant Navy Reserve Pool will be affected by this scheme?
  Mr. Barnes: No, Sir.
  Mr. Haworth: Can the Minister say what will be the position of coastwise shipping, in view of his statement?
  Mr. Barnes: That is covered by the general statement. The provisions I have indicated would apply.
  Mr. McAllister: Would the Minister tell the House how far the new control will provide for decent conditions for the Merchant Navy, both in coastwise and other ships, and will he see that the conditions conform to those laid down in the International Seafarers' Charter?
  Mr. Barnes: That hardly arises from the statement which I have made on general shipping policy. Those are matters which
  1126
  will be more adequately covered by the machinery of the National Maritime Board.
  Major Poole: Will the Minister say whether the monopoly largely enjoyed by Messrs. Hogg, Robinson and Capel Cure in respect of the handling of Government traffic by civil freight will continue to operate now?
  Mr. Barnes: I am not sure that any such form of monopoly as that to which the hon. and gallant Member refers will be affected by this. If he wishes to draw my attention to any particular form of control I shall be happy to investigate it.

  COASTAL AREAS (REHABILITATION)
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government would be prepared to consider making a statement before the Christmas Recess on the question of their plans for rehabilitation of the coastal areas; otherwise, there are many coastal resorts that will not be able to receive visitors during the coming summer.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I cannot answer that without notice.
  Mr. Taylor: I wish to give notice in order to see whether the Government would be prepared to make such a statement before the Recess.
  Mr. Morrison: It is no good the hon. Gentleman giving notice now and expecting an answer now. If he wants an answer, he must give notice for another day.
  Mr. Taylor: I said before the Recess.
  Mr. Morrison: Then there is no need to ask it now.
  Hon. Members: Why not?

  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION (BRITISH DELEGATION)
  Mr. H. Morrison: Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a statement with your permission, Mr. Speaker, indicating the delegates composing the United Kingdom Delegation to the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly

  1127
  of the United Nations Organisation. The delegates will be:
  The Prime Minister.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  The Minister of State.
  The Minister of Education.
  The Attorney-General.
  The associate delegates will be:
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  The Under-Secretary of State to the India Office.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Grimsby (Major Younger).

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—
  Bretton Woods Agreements Bill, without Amendment.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (RELEASE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.[No.46.]

BILLS PRESENTED
Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill,
" to facilitate the redistribution of functions between Ministers of the Crown, and the alteration of the style and title of such Ministers; and to make further provision with respect to the Minister of Food, the Minister of Labour and National Service, the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Isaacs, the Attorney General and Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

Education Bill,
" to amend and supplement the law relating to education, and to amend the law relating to the execution of the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 to 1919," presented by Miss Wilkinson; supported by Mr. Ede and Mr. Hardman; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) — [Mr. Herbert Morrison.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  New Clause. —(Supplementary provisions as to publication.)

  (1) Regulations made for the purposes of this Act shall make provision for the publication by His Majesty's Stationery Office of lists showing the date upon which every statutory instrument printed and sold by the King's printer of Acts of Parliament was first issued by that office; and in any legal proceedings a copy of any list so published purporting to bear the imprint of the King's printer shall be received in evidence as a true copy, and an entry therein shall be conclusive evidence of the date on which any statutory instrument was first issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office.

  1129

  (2)In any proceedings against any person for an offence consisting of a contravention of any such statutory instrument, it shall be a defence to prove that the instrument had not been issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office at the date of the alleged contravention unless it is proved that at that date reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the instrument to the notice of the public, or of persons likely to be affected by it, or of the person charged.

  (3) Save as there in otherwise expressly provided nothing in this Section shall affect any enactment or rule of law relating to the time at which any statutory instrument comes into operation. —"[The Solicitor-General]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.30 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Hon. Members will recollect that during the consideration of this Bill in Committee anxiety was expressed on the position in relation to the possibility of conviction under an instrument which had not been formally published. Reference was made to the case of Johnson and Sarjent, and hon. Members felt that, notwithstanding the dicta of the learned judge who decided that case, it was not made clear at what stage of the life of a statutory instrument it became possible for a citizen to be convicted of a contravention of its provisions. The primary object of this new Clause is to remove uncertainty in that respect.
  Hon. Members will see that the Clause is designed to work as follows: A list will be made showing when instruments have been issued. That is a term well understood by the King's printer. It is a term which indicates a moment which is easily capable of ascertainment. The Clause provides that in the event of a person being accused of a contravention of the instrument, if it appears that the alleged contravention took place before the date of issue, then the person accused shall have a good defence, but that defence shall be capable of rebuttal if the prosecuting authority shows that, notwithstanding that the offence was committed before the instrument was issued, reasonable steps had been taken to do one of three things—to bring the purport of the instrument to the notice of the public at large, to bring the purport of the instrument to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it, or to bring it to the notice of the person accused of the contravention.
  1130
  In commending this Clause to the House I desire to point out that one has to consider the position, both from the point of view of the person charged and also from the point of view of the Minister who makes the Regulation which creates the offence. From the point of view of the person charged, it is desirable that he should be given some protection and from the point of view of the Minister making the Order, and of the administration of the country generally, it is no less desirable that it should not be so impossible to prove the offence, as to constitute a real clog on the administration and prevent it effectively carrying out Regulations which it has to carry out. This Clause represents a very carefully considered attempt to draw the right dividing line.
  I ask hon. Member to consider the position of the ordinary citizen charged with an offence in relation to any ordinary Statute which creates an offence. Ordinarily a citizen does not read the Statute. The man in the street does not follow Parliamentary affairs closely, but he has a general idea in his mind that somewhere there is an enactment and he has to be careful. That is the state of mind of the ordinary individual. A motorcar driver, for instance, may not have read the Road Traffic Act, 1930, but he has a general sense, when doing particular things, that he must be careful because there are statutory provisions which limit his activities. The effect of this Clause is to reproduce, as nearly as possible, the same state of affairs in relation to Regulations made under Acts of Parliament as exist in regard to statutory enactments. That is the object of the Clause, and I submit to the House that the Clause does do that. It does place a citizen in the same position, as far as that reasonably can be done, in relation to statutory instruments creating offences, as he is already in relation to Acts of Parliament. If it does that I would ask the House to agree that it is entirely satisfactory.
  Hon. Members may ask why there should be three alternatives, why citizens should be put in three separate categories. That is unavoidable when one considers the multiplicity of statutory instruments and the different forms and kinds of statutory instruments. You may get a statutory instrument which affects the public at large. It will be easy for

  1131
  hon. Members to think of examples. Such a statutory instrument will be given out to the Press, it will be given to the B.B.C. and in that way it will be brought to the notice of the public at large. Any member of the public ought to be sufficiently alive to what is published in the daily Press to acquire cognisance of an instrument so publicised. There are other types of instalments which could not in a practical sense be publicised in that way. They are instruments which affect a particular class or trade or a particular set of interests.
  If you handed those out to the public Press you would find they were not of sufficient public interest to warrant editors publicising them in the newspapers, nor would they be broadcast. They would not be of sufficient general public interest to warrant their being inserted in extenso in the big daily newspapers, but that type of instrument would be circulated, possibly to the trade papers concerned with the particular interests affected. The Minister concerned would find it no good trying to publicise them as matters of general public interest, because they are not, but he might circularise them to the trade papers, knowing that, by so doing, he would have taken reasonable steps to bring them to the notice of the particular persons likely to be affected. I ask the House to say that it is not unreasonable to expect a person who falls into such a category to keep himself abreast of things which affect his interest. So the Minister is given that alternative.
  Then there is a further class of statutory instruments of even less general application, affecting only a particular market or a particular port. The third alternative is given to cater for that very limited class of instrument. In that case, if the notice is posted up in the place where a particular market is held, it will be likely to come to the notice of all who are affected, or if it is exhibited in the port it will be brought to the notice of the shippers using the port. Having made that explanation of how this Clause is designed to work, I submit that the Government have produced a reasonable, practical scheme which is fair to the individual, because it places him in the position in which he is today, roughly speaking, under a general Act of Parliament, and a scheme which will not unduly
  1132
  obstruct or clog the Administration in enforcing Orders which they have occasion to issue from time to time. I ask the House to say that this Clause does meet the point which was very anxiously discussed in Committee, and to say that it is a reasonable and proper compromise from the point of view of the Administration, and fair from the point of view of the subject.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman most sincerely for the effort he has made to meet the arguments put forward in Committee on this matter. I am bound to voice some criticism of this new Clause, but I hope he will not let that detract in any way from his sense of the sincerity of the thanks that I am now offering him for the great effort he made to meet the point raised. He referred to the rather elderly decision of Johnson and Sarjent. Will the uncertainty which still remains after that decision be cleared up when this new Clause becomes law? What is it we are trying to achieve? We are trying to ensure that no person should be convicted of a criminal offence and fined or imprisoned, without having an opportunity of knowing, before he committed the offence, that it was an offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, I hope, the discussion about the daffodil case when people travelling up from Penzance by train with flowers, found, when they arrived at Paddington, that it was an offence to have brought them and were fined, I think it was, at Marylebone police court.
  It was no answer to say that those people, if they had appealed, might have had the conviction quashed. We want the law to be certain and beyond doubt, and I submit that that is a proposition to which both sides of the House should give their support. When a Bill is introduced into Parliament a certain amount of publicity is attached to it. There are the reports in the Press of the Second Reading Debate, of the Committee stage and of Third Reading, and there is ample opportunity for the general public to obtain knowledge of the changes that are to be made in the law. How different it is with regard to a statutory instrument. It is important that a person should not be convicted of a criminal offence without it being shown that he had knowledge, that the line of conduct in which he was engaged had

  1133
  become an offence. I welcome this new Clause to the extent that it does afford some protection against the possibility of a man being convicted, who has erred through complete ignorance. As I understand the Clause, it provides that it shall be a defence to prove that the instrument was not issued at the time, unless it is also proved that at the date of the offence, reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the instrument to the notice of the public, or of the persons likely to be affected, or of the person charged.
  3.45 p.m.
  What is really meant by "reasonable steps" to bring the purport of the instrument to the notice of the public? I am a little doubtful how any prosecutor could set about that task in a criminal court. Even if it could be accomplished, what would be held to be a reasonable step? The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to listening to the B.B.C. I am glad to say that in this country, at present, it is not an offence not to listen, although one is surprised sometimes by the number of people who happen to have heard a few words on the wireless on a Saturday evening. Is one to be liable to be convicted of an offence against a statutory instrument through failing to listen to the B.B.C. —because one will be,??? it is held that it is reasonable to bring???to the notice of the public by announcing it at the end of some news item on some programme or other? It may be that as this Government progress and become more totalitarian in character, we shall have a statutory instrument making that an offence. So far as this matter is concerned I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the Government would expand this Clause a little more, because if it is intended that one broadcast referring to a statutory instrument shall suffice to defeat the defence that a man did not know of the regulation, then I do not think that this new Clause goes far enough. Again, what is meant by
  " reasonable steps … for the purpose of bringing the purport of the instrument to the notice of... persons likely to be affected by it "?
  How is that to be fulfilled? This matter should not be left so vague. I suggest that by including those words in the Clause the hon. and learned Gentleman has, in fact, departed substantially from the principle which I enunciated a few
  1134
  minutes ago, that is to say, what we on this side of the House tried to achieve in Committee, that no person should be convicted unless it could be shown that he had knowledge of the nature of the instrument.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Are we now dealing with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the proposed new Clause? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is now dealing with his own Amendment, which comes later rather than with the Clause.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am endeavouring to deal with the new Clause as it stands, in answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General which were mainly confined, if I may say so, to the last few lines of Subsection (2) of the new Clause. I am not endeavouring to anticipate the Amendment. I am covering the Clause as generally as I can. The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that by this new Clause, we must not unduly obstruct or clog the administration. I cannot believe it would do either, if it merely provided that a person must be informed of the nature of the instrument, before he could be convicted of an offence under the instrument. This new Clause does not affect the coming into operation of the instrument. The operation is there, and it is binding. The operation may take place before the instrument is issued. That we concede, but it will not affect the operation of the Clause if it is merely provided that an innocent man shall not be convicted. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider those points. May I conclude by thanking him again for the way in which and the extent to which he has met us, and ask him whether he cannot give us at this tim—with Christmas coming on—Complete satisfaction on this point?
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have never heard before that Christmas time was any better than any other time for imitating Oliver Twist in his more unreasonable mood. I, like the hon. Gentleman, wish to thank my hon. and learned Friend for this Clause. I think it fully and completely fulfils the promise which he made in Committee, and which he would have made on Second Reading if he had been allowed

  1135
  to meet the very reasonable objection then taken and after wards pressed in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman has done everything that any reasonable person could ask. What was asked for, and reasonably asked for? It was asked that a man should not be put in the position—as people had in the past, irrespective of decided cases to the contrary —of being convicted of offences when they neither knew they had committed an offence, nor had any reasonable means of knowing that such an offence was possible to them. That is what it is sought to prevent.
  This Clause, it seems to me, does prevent it. It provides, first, that it shall be a defence to prove that the Order was not issued at the time when the alleged offence was committed. It is not an absolute defence; it is a contingent defence, but it is a defence. That is the first part of the Clause. If it were left like that the Government would be put in great difficulty. They would never be able to operate an Order issued to meet an emergency. I take it that, in meeting an emergency, the Government would wish to be able to issue emergency Regulations, and at the same time to preserve the principle of the criminal law which we all want to preserve. It seems to me that they have dealt with the matter in such a way as to preserve, even when dealing with an emergency situation, the spirit of what it was intended to preserve; in other words, that it shall be a defence to say that the instrument had not been published, unless the Government have taken every reasonable step to give the alleged offender the means of knowledge.
  The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) feels that that should be defined. I think it is better that it should not be defined. To define in the Clause, what reasonable steps amount to, is to limit what reasonable steps are. As the Clause stands, it will be for the court to decide, in any particular case, whether the Government have taken such reasonable steps or not. As I understand the Clause, the defence having been raised, and the preliminary provision having been satisfied, that at the time of the alleged committal of the offence the Order had not been published, then the onus is transferred back to the prosecution to
  1136
  show that nevertheless a conviction is right, because they had taken reasonable steps to put the defendant in the position in which he ought to be put.
  If the onus is on them, and if the words in the Clause are as I read them, that they have to show that reasonable steps have been taken, I am bound to say that if I were acting professionally for a defendant, I would rather that the question of whether the steps taken were reasonable or not were left to the unfettered discretion of a tribunal or a jury, than if the words were limited by definition in the Clause in the Bill. I say that without meaning to make any party point. I am making a purely professional point, in which I think most people charged with the responsibility of conducting defences would agree. It is surely not desired that a defendant in a case of this kind shall be put in a better position than a defendant in any other kind of case? It is not a defence in any other criminal action to say "I did not know the law." The prosecution has not to prove that a defendant knew the law, because it is a presumption of our law that he does know it.
  What was objected to here was that such a presumption in the case of statutory instruments of this kind was wholly unreasonable, that there ought to be no such assumption in cases of this kind. The Government have met that point. The Clause raises a presumption to the contrary, because it places the onus on the prosecution of saying that they have taken every reasonable step to make the defendant aware of the law. The hon. Member asks, "What ought to be done? Suppose it was only on the wireless, or was only printed in a trade paper, ought the defendant to be fixed with an assumption of knowledge of the law in those circumstances? "Surely the answer is that one ought, as a reasonable person engaged in a trade, to know what is going on in one's trade, and if the Government have made it possible for one to find out, it is not reasonable to say afterwards that one does not know. It seems to me that the objections taken are wholly unreasonable.
  I wish to refer to what took place on the Second Reading of this Bill. Everybody on both sides of the House then thought that, on the whole, it was a good and necessary and useful little Bill, but

  1137
  hon. and right hon. Members opposite objected to two points in it, the one with which we are now dealing, and another one, and for that reason proposed to oppose the Second Reading. I thought they were right in regard to the two points, and I supported them in the Debate, but it did not seem to me that they were good reasons for opposing the Second Reading. They seemed tome to be points which could easily be remedied in Committee, as indeed both of them now have been. Having said throughout the Debate, that they would vote against it, unless they received satisfaction on these points from my hon. and learned Friend at the end of the Debate, they then saw to it that he had no opportunity of replying.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely the hon. Member desires to be accurate in this matter. He is accusing the whole of the party on this side of the House of preventing the hon. and learned Gentleman from winding up the Debate on that occasion. If he had been present on that occasion he would have known that it was not done by the party as a whole.
  Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member says that on behalf of his party, I accept what he says. I was not in at the moment, but I know that one of his hon. Friends behind him prevented my hon. and learned Friend from giving any explanation at all.
  Mr. Speaker: It is becoming a little difficult to follow what it has to do with this Clause, whether the Solicitor-General spoke or did not speak in the Second Reading Debate. I suggest that we are getting rather far away from this Clause.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not think I am responsible for all of it, Mr. Speaker. I was not responsible for the interruption. I do not think that it mattered in the least whether my hon. and learned Friend replied or not on Second Reading. I was satisfied that he would deal with the matter in Committee. I am regarding the character of the Opposition with which he is row faced, and the Opposition he was faced with then. Irrespective of the fact that he was not allowed to give an explanation, hon. Gentlemen opposite voted against the Second Reading.
  Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. Is the character of the Opposition relevant to the Clause?
  Mr. Speaker: It is rather difficult to see how it is, but this is more a matter of opinion and not of Order.
  Mr. Silverman: I have never been a Minister, but I suppose if I ever were one, and if I were considering opposition, I should think it important to know whether the opposition was reasonable and constructive, or factious and irresponsible. If I thought it was factious and irresponsible, I would deal with it in one way, and if I thought it was trying to be helpful, I would deal with it in another way. I say that the point here has been substantially met. It has been met as fully as is consonant with the operation of this Bill, and I think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite, unless they are really factious and irresponsible, ought to be content.
  4. p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I join in the thanks to the learned Solicitor-General for the new Clause. It goes some way to meet a defect in the Bill as it originally stood, but I agree with the criticism of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that good as the new Clause is it does not go far enough, because the trouble now arises about the new Instrument which has not been issued or the issue of which is in doubt. As the position stands the only Instrument that is likely to cause trouble is the Instrument about which it is not clear whether it has been issued or not. What is to happen in that position? The first thing that is wrong with this new Clause, in my view, is that it shifts the onus of proof on to the defendant. Under Subsection (2) it says:
  "It shall be a defence to prove that the instrument had not been issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office."
  That will have to be proved by the defence.
  Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman has read Subsection (1) as well he will see that it shows a very ready and simple way of ascertaining at once whether the Instrument has been issued or not. One has only to look at the List. That is not an onus of proof.
  Mr. Morris: The defence must prove 1hat it has not been issued, and then it becomes a matter of rebuttal by the Crown to show that they have either brought it to the notice of the public—of the class of persons likely concerned or

  1139
  the actual person. Otherwise, the defence must prove that the Order was not issued. The second point of objection I wish to make is that the division making three classes—the three alternatives to which the Solicitor-General referred—is not a desirable classification to bring into the criminal law. The criminal law may affect one class more than another, but it concerns all citizens alike, whether they happen to belong to the special class affected by the Order or not, and it is important that all should know what the position is. The application of the criminal law should not be justified upon the claim of its having been brought to the notice of special classes or individual persons. There should be information for all alike. None the less the Clause is an attempt to make the Bill a far more workable Measure than it was in its original form.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: As one of those who ventured to make some criticisms on Second Reading and also in Committee, I too should like to express my thanks and congratulations to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for this new Clause and for the language in which it is couched. I find it difficult to appreciate the criticism which hon. Members opposite have directed to the Clause. I feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) felt, that this was a good Bill when it was introduced, but it suffered from certain defects, the chief of which, perhaps, we are now—thanks to the Second Reading, which was carried despite opposition from hon. Members opposite—in the happy position of being able to cure. The defect to which I refer was that during wartime, particularly, but to a lesser extent during peacetime, an increasing number of offences had been created by Statutory Rules and Orders, or Statutory Instruments as they are now called, and that under the criminal law any breach of any of those Statutory Rules and Orders created an offence. As a result, benches throughout the country found themselves compelled to convict, although in a number of cases it was transparent that the accused person did not know and could not have known of the passage of the particular Instrument under which he was to be convicted. It was a serious position, for the reason that on account of the multiplicity of these Statutory Rules and Orders and of the
  1140
  diligence of enforcement officers there were some 30,000 prosecutions in one year alone at the instigation of the Ministry of Food. Some were of a serious nature and some of a trifling nature, and no doubt the great majority of them well merited punishment, but, nevertheless, there was a serious number of cases each year in which hardship and injustice were caused because the accused person could not have known what the law was. I think this is well illustrated in a book called "Laws and Orders," by Professor Allen, which was recently published, in which he draws attention to the state of affairs which existed before this new Clause was introduced. He gives a number of cases, and on page 225 says:
  " A grocer was prosecuted for selling tinned mackerel at more than the controlled price. This was a new line of goods and the grocer could obtain no information about its price either from his wholesaler, his printed price lists or his trade journal. He therefore sold at a guess at the price of tinned salmon. This was 1½d. too much. He had to be convicted and fined."
  A similar case:
  " The principal of a small religious order vowed to poverty was prosecuted for buying eggs for his brotherhood at more than the controlled price. He bought from a supplier of many years' standing, a widow entirely dependent on her small trade, and neither the seller nor the unworldy purchaser had the faintest idea that the price had been altered by a recent Order. The magistrates expressed their disgust and astonishment that the enforcement officer had not thought this a proper case for mere advice and caution, but they had to impose a fine."
  The evil which this new Clause is abolishing is the evil that there has been, unfortunately, in recent years a great many prosecutions which have been unwise, unnecessary, misconceived; and because of the absolute nature of the law as it stood benches of magistrates, notwithstanding their sympathy with accused persons, felt bound to convict, to brand them as criminals and to impose a fine. This new Clause is not in the form which I ventured to suggest on Second Reading and in Committee; it is not in a form making it absolute that no Statutory Instrument shall come into operation until it has been published or brought to the notice of the public in some other way, but its great merit is that it is in a form which in future will make it impossible, or at any rate very unlikely, that we shall have these continuing instances of unnecessary, misconceived prosecutions by

  1141
  enforcement officers, in cases in which, on the facts, it is quite obvious to any tribunal administering justice as humanly understood that the accused person is innocent because he had no knowledge and no means of knowledge of the Statutory Instrument. Therefore, I conclude as I began by thanking the Solicitor-General and hoping that the House will give a Second Reading to this new Clause.
  Captain Crookshank: We shall be glad to give a Second Reading to the Clause, but before it is added to the Bill my hon. and learned Friends on this side hope to have an opportunity of getting the House to accept certain Amendments, if they are lucky enough to be selected by you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that we are grateful to the Solicitor-General for the trouble he has taken about this, but for my part I am rather perturbed at the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referring once again to the need for dealing with emergencies, and rather using that as an argument against the case which we want to establish for full publicity.
  It seems to me that we are rather losing sight of what the Bill is about. It gives statutory powers to make Orders, Rules and Regulations and other subordinate legislation, and the great bulk of those Orders and Rules are not emergency powers at all. The Government seem to have got themselves into a completely emergency state of mind. I am quite prepared to believe that all the time there is a Socialist Government this country will be living in a time of crisis and excitement, but it is not a good thing to deal with legislation on that basis. Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the directions to be given to the Bank of England ought not to be given publicity because there might be a war, or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might be in a difficult situation, but we on this side have not thought of the next few years as being troubled all the time by wars and rumours of wars, and until this afternoon I had not thought this particular Bill was to be concerned with Regulations dealing with emergency. I had understood that this was just a machinery Bill dealing with the publication of Statutory Rules and Orders. To that extent it does not seem to be neces-
  1142
  sary to be discussing it from the angle of a constant emergency.
  However, we shall have something to say a little later on the point of publication, and I hope the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will not consider the objections which we make then unreasonable. Regarding the quotation we have heard from that learned and interesting book, which all those interested ought to read, if they have not already done so, in the tinned mackerel case the whole point was that, in spite of the little grocer doing his best to find out, the change of prices had not been notified in the trade journal, and yet that is the very vehicle which the Solicitor-General tells us should be employed in these cases. To that extent it seems to me that there is a gap in the argument.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It is obvious that, had the present Clause been in operation at the time, in neither of the two cases which I quoted would there have been a conviction.
  4.15 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I am not at all sure about that, but I will leave that to be dealt with when we come to the point. I was only remarking that in that case there was no publication in the trade journal. I am very much obliged to the Solicitor-General for all the interest he has taken in the case, and the attention he has given to this matter.
  The Solicitor-General: I wish to express gratitude for the very kind references that have fallen from the lips of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) was in some anxiety about how the provision would work. He pointed out that there was to be a defence, in some circumstances, as to the time when the instrument was issued, and the date on which it appeared in the list. If when the case is opened the prosecution indicate the fact that the offence was earlier than that date, there is, automatically, a defence. The question then intervenes whether the prosecution can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal, that reasonable steps were taken to do one of three things indicated in the Clause. In that respect I would like to adopt what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: If it were established that the offence was committed at an earlier date, it would be doubtful whether the Order was in the ordinary list and that would be a defence. But it is for the defence to prove that the Order was not issued.
  The Solicitor-General: The answer to that is that one has only to look at the list and see conclusive evidence as to the date on which it was issued. Any courteous prosecution would make a copy of the list available to the defendant.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to ask a question about these lists. It may be that the Regulations are made, and the man applies to the Stationery Office for a list, and finds that the last list was published three or four weeks previously and that there is no list for that time.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member will notice that this is provided for by Regulations which provide that the lists shall be issued at such periods as may be convenient or necessary. I ask the House to say that this Clause should be added to the Bill.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Brigadier Low: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 2, after "date," insert "and time."
  I would ask that the following three Amendments standing in my name should also be considered:
  In line 7, after "date," insert "and time."
  In line 11, leave out "at the date," and insert "before the time."
  In line 12, leave out from "proved" to end of line 15, and insert:
  " at that time he knew the purport of that part of the instrument against which the offence is alleged to have been committed."
  I add my thanks to those already offered to the Solicitor-General for the considerate way in which he has met the points which I and my hon. Friends have put to him during the Committee stage and on Second Reading. I would also congratulate him, not on having brought a good Bill to the House, but on having now got the Bill into a state of convalescence. The reason for these four
  1144
  Amendments is that I believe the Solicitor-General, in drafting his Clause, has not stuck to the principle that he himself ennunciated to us, and which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put forward on the Second Reading and in Committee. The hon. Member said it was important to ensure that no man is answerable in criminal courts for an offence he did not know and could not know he had ever committed. I believe that we have departed from that principle, in the words of the Clause as it now stands, and I have tried in drafting the Amendments to get back to that principle. The principle has been put in another way—that no man shall be convicted for an offence against an instrument before that instrument has been made known to the public.
  That indeed is what the Solicitor-General has told us several times the law is. He said in Committee:
  " I can summarise it by saying that the law at the moment is that a citizen is not affected—to use Mr. Justice Bailhache's words—until an Order is made known. So that quite apart from any question of amending Clause 2, and apart from amending the practice at the moment, until an Order is made known to the public it is not effective and cannot alter the rights of citizens who come within its ambit."
  And, in replying to certain criticisms put forward, he stated:
  " I ask the Committee to take the view that in those circumstances it is better to leave the law as it is. It is reasonable and coherent; you cannot be convicted until the Instrument is known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, Thursday, 15th November, 1945; c. 8–11.]
  As the Clause now stands, if an Order is issued at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of, say, today and something has been done contrary to that Order at 10 o'clock this morning, then what was done at 10 o'clock this morning is or might be a criminal offence. That seems to me distinctly contrary to the principle which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the Solicitor-General put forward and for which many hon. Members fought on the Second Reading and in Committee. It may be that I am chargeable by de minimis non curat lex. Maybe hon. Members would care about the minimis even less. But it is important to know that the words of the Clause, as it now stands, do allow a man to be convicted for an offence against an Order, which offence was committed before the Order was issued. For

  1145
  that reason I have tried to incorporate the time in the Clause.
  The Solicitor-General would probably reply by referring to the rules of law applicable to the coming into operation of Statutes; that is that a Statute comes into operation at the commencement of the day on which it receives Royal Assent, and there is no doubt upon that subject. I would like to refer him to what I believe is the law as regards rules and orders, although it may not be very clearly stated, for Mr. Justice Bailhache, in Johnson v. Sargent, draws definite distinction between the Statute and the Statutory Rules and Orders, as they were then called. It is worth noting that one of the great differences referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) just now, was before the judge, because Lord Wright, as he now is, used that in his argument, and Mr. Justice Bailhache said:
  " While I agree that the rule is that a statute takes effect on the earliest moment of the day on which it is passed or on which it is declared to come into operation, there is about statutes a publicity even before they come into operation which is absent in the case of many Orders such as that with which we are now dealing, indeed, if certain Orders are to be effective at all, it is essential that they should not be known until they are actually published. In the absence of authority upon the point I am unable to hold that this Order came into operation before it was known, and, as I have said, it was not known until the morning of 17 May."
  I submit that, on those words, the learned judge was definitely referring to a stated time and not just to a date. If I may give some examples, there was the case of Johnson and Sargent, which dealt with some beans which had been sold and the Order in effect forbade the selling of beans without reference to the Food Controller. Those beans were, in fact, sold on 16th May and the Order was not made known until the morning of 17th May, but supposing, for the sake of argument, that the beans had been sold at 4 o'clock on 17th May, what would have been the answer in those circumstances? Vegetables, as we know, are often sold at that time of day and the point that the judge put up was that the Order had not been made known at the time of the sale. Take another example. There was the case, referred to in Committee, of church bell ringing. A clergyman was convicted and was put to great "inconvenience for having rung his church
  1146
  bells, actually three days before the Control of Noise Order was published. Supposing instead, he had rung the bells at 6 o'clock in the morning on the day when the Order was published. What is the answer to that? Certainly, as the Clause now stands, he would have been guilty of an offence.
  Passing to my fourth Amendment, I should say that the only exception which should be allowed to what the Solicitor-General concedes as a general principle, that no man should be convicted until the Order has been issued, is that the man who is charged with the offence should be proved to have known the Order or the purport of it. That such a case is not impossible to imagine can be proved by Sir Cecil Carr's book. It is the only authority I can find for a case which, in actual fact, arose out of the tea rationing Order. The Order was made on the 9th of the month but official prints were not available until the nth. A grocer was summoned for selling un-rationed tea on the morning of the 9th. The new Order was mentioned on the wireless on the night of the 8th; the grocer admitted listening to the wireless news on the night before, but did not appreciate that the rationing Order was to be introduced next day. That man was convicted.
  4.30 p.m.
  The only exception to the general rule should be proof that the man in fact knew. A conviction can be secured if the prosecution can prove that reasonable steps were taken by the Department of the Government to make these Orders known. What is reasonable can surely only be judged in the courts by what is reasonable to the Government, not what is reasonable to the man who is charged. The criminal law has always referred before, to the actual man charged with having committed an offence. The wording of this Clause seems to be abhorrent to the criminal law of England as we have known it before, and I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider it.
  There is another argument which is relevant in considering Subsection (2) of the new Clause. Subsection (2) affects criminal actions and Subsection (3) the operation of instruments in civil cases, contracts and so on. If I am right and the Solicitor-General is right in regard to the passage which I read out, then, what

  1147
  we have been trying to secure for criminal procedure, we may have succeeded in securing for civil cases. But we have not secured it for criminal cases. I fear that I may have not put this point very well but I hope the Solicitor-General will answer it and perhaps, if he can, persuade the House that I am wrong.
  Commander Noble: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It might be convenient, as my hon. and gallant Friend has included the case of his Amendment in the general discussion, if, instead of taking separately the last Amendment on the Paper to the proposed new Clause— in line 12, leave out from the first "of" to the third "the "— the. whole of the questions covered by these Amendments were discussed together. It might enable a better discussion, and so, with your permission, Sir, I would pro pose not to say anything further about the first three Amendments in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). He has stated the argument with clarity, and it deserves careful consideration which I am sure it will get.
  On the fourth Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend and myself there are two steps. My hon. and gallant Friend and I are in complete accord about the first step, and we suggest only slightly different Amendments with regard to the second step. The first question is: Is it a good thing to bring into this matter, not only the person charged, but also notice to the public, or to persons likely to be affected by the Order? These two alternatives are embarrassing to the court and really help very little. The person accused is a member of the public, and a much easier way to deal with the matter is to see that such notification has been made, as it is reasonable to think ought to have come to his knowledge. If he can say, "I am a member of the public and what you did in the way of publication was not calculated to reach me," then, it can be said that it was not calculated to reach the public. The public does not mean a proportion of the public, but the public as a whole. If a member of the public, who has nothing peculiar about him, is able to come along and say that what was done did not reach his
  1148
  eyes or ears as an ordinary, undistinguished member of the public, then, the bringing in of the public is more of an embarrassment than anything else and does not help. When one comes to persons affected, ex hypothesi, the accused is the person affected by the Order, otherwise he would not be an accused person; and to ensure that the matter was brought to the knowledge of persons likely to be affected is to deal with the person who is accused at the moment. If he can say that he was the person, obviously, likely to be affected and nothing happened to him —
  The Solicitor-General: On a point of Order. Only one Amendment has been moved and my right hon. and learned Friend is making observations relevant to one which has not been moved. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool, North (Brigadier Low) spoke first as to the three Amendments on the Paper, and then to the fourth Amendment, and spent some time in making observations relevant only to the fourth. Now observations are being made relevant only to the fifth Amendment and it is going to be extremely difficult on this side to deal with this many-sided approach to this question.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Member asked leave to refer to the four Amendments standing in his name, and I understood that Mr. Speaker was of the opinion that they could conveniently be discussed together.
  The Solicitor-General: It is possible to answer the first four Amendments under two separate headings, but now I gather that still another Amendment has been introduced. I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you are proposing to allow them all to be discussed or not, but I do not mind so long as we know where we are.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House wishes, all the amendments can be discussed together; only one so far has been moved.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I take it that what we are really doing is discussing all the Amendments to the Clause together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
  The Solicitor-General: The arguments cannot be listened to again.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) spent most of the time on the Clause, discussing, and putting forward arguments in favour of, the fifth Amendment. Are we to have a repetition of points already put?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in the hands of the House. If any objection is taken, we cannot discuss the Amendments together.
  The Solicitor-General: So far as I can speak for Members on this side of the House, I have no objection at all, so long as we do not discuss the first four Amendments and go through all the arguments again.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course, that is understood.
  Mr. Reid: I asked leave to discuss the Amendments on the ordinary footing, that, if we discuss the matter on the first Amendment, nothing but a formal moving of theAmendment— if indeed we move it at all— could possibly occur at a later stage. The reason I am taking this course is, that I thought it would lead to a waste of time if we discussed the first four Amendments and the fifth Amendment separately. Therefore, I wanted to discuss them together. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and I am trying not to go into anything that he said, but to present the case from a different angle, and I think that it will be agreed that I have succeeded up to now.
  If I may find my way back to the point where I was when I was interrupted, I think I was venturing to suggest that the addition of the words "persons likely to be affected" by the Order gave very little advantage to the prosecutor and probably did more harm than good, because they were calculated to embarrass the issue. The phrase:
  " reasonable steps have been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the instrument to the notice … of the person charged "
  is difficult, no doubt, but, nevertheless, the court is accustomed to deal with it. It is a familiar but difficult type of inquiry, and we shall get into further trouble if we add to the ambit of that inquiry the bringing in of the other things to which
  1150
  I have referred. I think that that meets the case, and the desire of the Solicitor-General completely. But suppose we go on and we imagine that the prosecutor is going to deal with reasonable steps to bring the matter to the knowledge of persons likely to be affected. Surely, the defence is entitled to say, in that case, with great force, "I am the person likely to be affected." The question is: Has this been done in a way which makes it reasonable to suppose that a person has heard about it? It is no good saying that it has been published in a trade journal to which only a certain number of traders subscribe. One must do some thing calculated to reach the knowledge of, substantially, the whole of the persons affected, before one is entitled to succeed. Once a thing has become public in the full sense, you have to assume— wrongly in many cases— that after that stage people have somehow an inkling of what is going on.
  Here we are dealing with a very early statement, a very short period, a period of a few days, we hope, between the Order coming into operation and proper publication. However clear it may be at a later stage to say. "You must be held to find out something about it although we did nothing to bring it to your notice," it is not fair to use that argument in the first day or so. We must be much more particular in bringing to his knowledge the fact that a person is doing wrong. I suggest, therefore, that the Solicitor-General might do well to accept the terms of our Amendment. He might do well to go even further and accept the terms of the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. There is, one part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment which, I confess, we had not thought of, and which it is necessary for the Solicitor-General to consider. In the second line it says: "knew the purport of that part of the instrument," and it might be helpful if the Solicitor-General would adopt those words and put them into the Clause. I do not want to discuss these Amendments in any sense of controversy, but I do suggest it might help the object which the Solicitor-General and I have in mind if he would consider these Amendments, and possibly make an alteration in another place if he cannot do so here.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. S. Silverman: With the best will in the world, and in spite of the appeal which was made some little time ago by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid), I find myself completely unconvinced. It may be that it would be a very useful change in criminal law to put upon the prosecution an onus to prove that a particular defendant himself knew the law which he is charged with breaking. I think, in equity, there would be a good deal to be said for such a view, but it is not the law generally, in criminal law at any rate. I suppose the reason why it is not the law is that it puts an impossible onus on the prosecution, and if one had to prove, generally— I am not speaking on this Bill for the moment— that every particular defendant knew exactly the law that he was breaking, in a great many cases, and perhaps in the majority of them, one would never be able to convict anybody of anything. What is now being sought is to put precisely that onus upon the prosecution in this branch of the criminal law.
  If we were to accept the fourth or fifth Amendments on the Order Paper, no prosecution could ever succeed unless the prosecution discharged the onus of proving that the man charged knew of that particular Order or, at any rate, of its purport. I am well aware that the point only arises in cases where it is not on the list, but even in those cases one would be putting that onus upon the prosecution, which goes far beyond what is required in other cases and far beyond what is reasonable. Supposing this Clause were not altered at all, what harm would be done? What is the danger which hon. Members fear? I cannot see any. Supposing in such a case the prosecution prove to the satisfaction of the jury that it had taken reasonable steps to bring knowledge of this Order to the notice of the public. I would like the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke just now, because I am trying to deal fairly with his argument. Suppose the prosecution had proved in a particular case that they had taken every reasonable step to bring to the notice of the public, knowledge of the Order a breach of which was alleged, and everybody was satisfied that that had been done. What, then, would there be
  1152
  unreasonable in convicting the defendant of an offence against it, having proved that the Government had taken every reasonable step to bring knowledge of the instrument to the public?
  Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that if reasonable steps have been taken to bring it to the knowledge of the public, of which the defendant is a member, it therefore follows that reasonable steps have been taken to bring it to the notice of the defendant?
  Mr. Silverman: No, I assure the hon. Gentleman that does not follow at all. It would be a very much more serious onus on the prosecution to have to prove that John Smith knew, than to have to prove that the public knew. For the purpose of this argument, I am asking hon. Gentlemen to assume that the prosecution has proved that the Government took all reasonable steps to bringknowledge of this instrument to the knowledge of the public. Suppose they had done that. The question I asked was: What com plaint could there then be if a defendant, presumably a member of the public, were convicted of a breach of it? I answered "None," because, having proved that they had taken every reasonable step to bring knowledge of it to the notice of the public, I suggest they had done all they could reasonably be called upon to do.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman has now twice— I am sure in advertently — insinuated the word every." There is nothing in the Clause bout "every reasonable step."
  Mr. Silveman: I am sorry. I ought not to have said it. I will pursue my argument in the amended form-— '' assuming they had taken reasonable steps." Supposing they had taken reasonable steps to bring knowledge of the instrument to the notice of the public, I ask, what complaint could any member of the public have if he were convicted of a breach of it? I answer, "None." The Government have not been content with that. They have given further scope. Suppose they do not prove that it was brought to the notice of the public, but they do prove, according to the second Subsection of this Clause, that they have taken reasonable steps to bring it to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has

  1153
  already said that the fact that a man is charged with the breach of it proves that he is affected by it. Supposing the prosecution prove that the Government have taken reasonable steps to bring the know ledge of the instrument to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it, of whom the defendant is one, what com plaint has the defendant then got? I suggest the answer must be that he has no complaint at all. He is rightly convicted if the Government have taken reasonable steps to bring knowledge of it either to the public or to persons affected by it, always provided that the defendant belongs to one or other of those categories.
  There is the, further point. Suppose they have done neither of those things, and they have not taken reasonable steps to let the public know or to let persons likely to be affected know. But suppose, nevertheless, they have taken reason able steps to let John Smith know. Would it then be reasonable not to convict John Smith if he committed a breach? It is very difficult, as I said, with the best will in the world, to see there is anything in these points except the desire to make the working of this legislation as difficult as possible. I submit that the Clause as it stands does no conceivable injustice to anybody.
  Mr. Molson: I shall take up only a few moments of time, but I would like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). This is only a matter of drafting, because I think we are more or less in agreement on that which we want to achieve. It appears to me that the Clause as drafted is unnecessarily verbose and complicated. I would like to put my case in this way. Let us take the case of a man who owned tea at a time when a Regulation was introduced rationing tea. First of all, that individual is the owner of a substantial quantity of tea. In the second place, he is a grocer, and in the third place, he is a member of the public. As I understand the position which the Government have in mind, there are some statutory instruments which would apply exclusively to persons who were the owners of substantial quantities of tea. There might be other statutory instruments which would apply to grocers of all kinds, and which would introduce various rationing regulations dealing with them all. Thirdly, there
  1154
  might be a statutory instrument which would be of general interest to the public and the whole country, to the effect that, owing to an emergency arising, food rationing which had been suspended was going to be reintroduced. It is my submission that, in point of fact, there is no need to deal separately with the public and with persons likely to be affected. The question with which we are concerned is whether reasonable steps have been taken by the Government to bring the purport of the instrument to the know ledge of the person charged.
  Mr. Silverman: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to do that? Supposing they did it by inserting a large notice in a trade paper, would they have to prove that the defendant got that trade paper, that he got that issue and that he read that particular page?
  Mr. Molson: I would have thought that what the Government had in mind was that in the case of a general introduction of food rationing, if it were made known on the B.B.C. and in newspapers with a wide national circulation, all had been done that was required of it.
  Mr. Silverman: But not if you amend the Clause in this way. If the Clause is left as it stands, what the hon. Gentleman says would, I suppose, be held by most courts to be reasonable steps to let the public know, but no one would hold that notice through the B.B.C. or in a newspaper was sufficient to let a particular individual know.
  Mr. Molson: I would not have thought that was the case. I would have thought that if John Smith was a member of the public, and if reasonable steps had been taken to bring knowledge of the rationing to the public as a whole, they would have taken reasonable steps to bring it to the notice of any member of the public. Similarly, in the case dealing with the rationing in so far as it affects grocers, the appropriate method of doing it might be to put it in a trade paper circulating among grocers. Again John Smith would be fixed with a constructive notice of the statutory instrument because it would be put into the trade journal. Thirdly, in the case of a holder of a substantial quantity of tea, whatever steps might be appropriate there for persons dealing in tea, such as notification to the whole-

  1155
  salers and so on, would again fix John Smith with a constructive notice of the statutory instrument dealing with it. It seems to me to be like the case of the Irishman, who, in order to provide an exit for three members of the feline family, had one large hole cut for the tom, a slightly smaller hole cut for the she, and a very small hole cut for the kitten, whereas if one large hole had been cut it would have been sufficiently large for the whole feline family to make their exit one after the other. I would have thought in this case that it was unnecessary to make this special provision for the public and for the persons likely to be affected by the instrument. If these words were left out the result would be the same and it would be better drafts manship.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: If I may take the arguments that have been advanced on all the five Amendments seriatim, I will do so in the following form. First, the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) felt it was desirable to make a point of time in the terms of the Clause as to which the immunity should operate. I submit that it is really for more convenient and far more likely to lead to justice if the Clause is left as it is. When talking about publishing a thing either to the world or to a limited part of the world, it is extremely difficult at any particular hour of the day to say whether you have done it or whether you have not. That is really the point. Supposing we take the case of a number of these instruments being delivered to a messenger to be taken out and displayed in certain shop windows, and so on. It is not altogether easy to say as from what precise point of time it was brought to the notice of the public.
  What does the Clause do, as it stands? It says that on a particular day we are going to treat this thing as having been published. If a person were, in point of fact, charged with an offence, and it appeared that the offence was committed upon the same day as this thing appeared in the list, I should think it would be most oppressive action on the part of any prosecuting authority to try to say that, in those circumstances, the person charged was not entitled to the benefit of the Clause. The court before which the case
  1156
  was brought would make that perfectly clear, I think. The way the thing should work is this: The Instrument is said in the list to have been issued, say, on the 10th of the particular month. If the prosecution, when opening the case, say that the offence was committed on the 9th, clearly the immunity operates, and the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the necessary reasonable steps had been taken.
  Suppose, however— if we are to go down to the question of particular hours, as the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to do, and I do not complain— from a commonsense point of view, the offence was done on the day. Obviously, any court considering this Clause would say that in that case the prosecution ought to have regard to the provisions of the Clause. Clearly, offences which are to be caught by the operation of the Clause are those which can fairly be said to have been committed before the Instrument was issued. It would be putting an in tolerable burden upon the King's Printer and the Stationer's Office if the actual time on any one day had to be put on the Instruments in the list.
  Brigadier Low: Will the Solicitor-General tell us why the Clause does not say "one day before the date? "If he is right in saying that a court would not convict if the offence was committed on the same day, why does not the Clause specify the day before?
  The Solicitor-General: It reads perfectly reasonably at present. It says:
  "In any proceedings against any person … it shall be a defence to prove that the Instrument had not been issued … at the date of the alleged contravention."
  That is a perfectly sensible thing to say in all ordinary cases. I therefore ask the House to say that it is much more convenient that the Clause should stand as it is lather than that one should try to carve up a day into particular portions and try to allocate one portion as the pre-issue period and another portion as the post-issue period. Apart from the enormous amount of work which would be entailed, that process would have the effect of introducing a great deal of doubt. The result would be much more unsatisfactory than allowing the position to rest as it is, in which we have a clear definition between pre-issue and post-issue, estimated in terms of days.

  1157
  I hope the hon. and gallant Member does not think that I am dismissing his argument lightly. I am not intending to do so. Having regard to the balance of convenience, estimated in terms of the likelihood of justice being done, it is far preferable that we should leave a clear distinction between one day and another. If the offence is committed before the date when the Instrument is issued and is shown in the list, then the Clause should operate. I ask the House to say that that is an adequate and proper answer to the argument that has been adduced.
  Now I would pass from that argument to the second argument, which relates to the fourth of the proposed Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member suggests that the onus should be on the prosecution to show not merely that the Instrument, but that the particular part of the Instrument that affects the person charged, was actually brought to the notice of that person. If the prosecution had to do that, they would have to do much more than they have to do in the case of the ordinary Statute, although the position is very much the same. In the case of the ordinary Statute we do not have to prove that the person charged knew the Statute at all, or that he had either read it or had been in a position to read it. That is the law of the country. The endeavour is to introduce some reasonable conformity between the position of the Statute and of the Statutory Instrument.
  Take the ordinary case of a motorist. You know in a general sense that you must not drive on the wrong side of the road. Your instinct tells you. You know there is some law about it. You do not know whether it is contained in a Statutory Instrument or in a Statute, how it is worded or exactly what the pro visions are. You know, in a general sense, that you must not do it. That is the kind of way in which the ordinary citizen obtains cognisance. He has a general sense about it. If he is concerned with some particular trade or kind of operation, he knows in relation to it that there are certain general prohibitions, and that if he wants to do something of that sort he should be careful and should inform himself. He would have a grievance if, wishing to inform himself, he went to the trade papers and could not get information, or if he went to the B.B.C. or the newspapers and could not get any in-
  1158
  formation, and if he were convicted of an offence during a pre-issue period.
  The Clause proposes to remove that grievance. He is not to be convicted in respect of a pre-issue offence when he could not obtain any information from any of the sources which are normally open to any person. If he were in such a position that you could not have got the information to him by the putting up of some sort of notice or if he had referred to his trade papers or to some other source accessible to a person engaged in his activity, or by any other reasonable steps taken to make the thing known to members of the public at large, then if his offence was in the pre-issue period, he cannot be convicted of it. In my submission to the House, that is dealing with the matter sensibly and fairly. It puts the person, roughly speaking, into the position in which a person is in relation to a statutory offence.
  The ordinary citizen knows that it is wrong to take bribes or pay bribes. His instinct tells him that probably the law says something about it, but he has no idea of the Prevention of Corruption Act He never heard of it. Probably he does not know when it was passed and he does not know what the provisions are. That is the general sense one has about the law. You know there are certain types of thing you must not do. I suggest that the Bill brings that position about in relation to Statutory Instruments. One has to bear in mind that the Clause applies only to a very limited class of case, to the unfortunate case where, during the few days that may elapse after the Instrument is made and before it becomes generally accessible, a person should have been so unfortunate as to be caught out contravening its provisions. In that case, a person cannot be convicted, unless the ordinary sources of information which may fairly be said to be accessible to ordinary citizens would not, had he had resort to them, had given him information of it, and told him that he should not have done that with which he is charged.
  If we try to go beyond that point, we shall put an impossible burden of proof upon the prosecution. They will have to show that everything possible had been done to bring the matter to the notice of the person charged. They might be able to show that they had plastered the place with notices, that they had thrust

  1159
  notices into his letter box or that they had, if, you like, shouted it into his house. If he were a respectable kind of person he might say that when the notices were thrust in his letter box he did not happen to be at home, or he might say "I hap pen to be deaf," or "I do not happen to be able to read." If you put on the prosecution the burden of showing affirmatively not only that the person charged knew that there was a Statutory Instrument but that he was familiar with that part of it which related to him, you make the administration of justice in relation to the pre-issue offences absolutely impossible. I therefore ask the House to say that the fourth of the proposed Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool North (Brigadier Low) ought not to be accepted.
  Now I would pass on to deal with the arguments which were addressed on the subject of the fifth Amendment. As I understood them, they were based on the footing that better drafting required that the words in the Amendment should be omitted. I think I may fairly summarise the arguments in the following way. It was, a fortiori, if you take steps to bring the matter to the notice of the public you take steps to bring it to the notice of the person charged, and as a pure matter of drafting, more a matter of form and tidiness in the wording, it would be better if we left out those words.
  I put it to the House that that argument is misconceived. I answer it again purely on the footing of good drafting. The Clause is drafted in the way in which it is in order that it shall afford adequate and proper guidance to the court. Take a case in which it has been proved that steps had been taken to bring a matter to the notice of the public, then the prosecution will start to ask, "Are we, for this purpose, to treat the person accused as a member of the public, or are we to see whether, in point of fact, he was in some way divorced or separated from the general body of the public in this country?" Perhaps he lived in an outlying place. In drafting the Clause we have provided that the Minister who desires to enforce his Statutory Instrument must do one of three specific things. He can take his choice, but he must definitely bring himself within one of three specific courses of action which are defined in the Clause, and about which there can be no doubt.
  1160
  He must take reasonable steps to bring the matter to the notice of the public generally. The court before whom the case is heard will get from the prosecution what steps were taken and will decide, as a matter of commonsense, whether those steps were reasonable to achieve the end desired. Or, secondly, he must take reasonable steps to bring the matter to the notice of persons likely to be affected. We have been talking about publication in trade papers. Ordinarily, I should have thought that most courts, deciding the matter on a commonsense basis, would say that if you took steps to see that it was circulated in the trade papers concerned, they would be reason able steps. Finally, we give the Minister a third alternative. Take the case of markets or port towns. People who resort to those places will look, in all probability, at specific notice boards. If you put your notices on those notice boards I should think the court would say that you had taken reasonable steps to bring the matter to the notice of the person charged. Purely on the footing of drafting we have given, in the Clause as it stands, specific guidance to the Minister what he is to do, and to the court what they are to decide, in considering the question whether reasonable steps were taken.
  To omit the words which it is suggested should be omitted, would not be to improve the drafting, but, in my submission, to increase the obscurity. Here are three specific alternatives, and we are telling the court that they must exercise their minds on these three alternative courses of action and on nothing else. I ask the House for those reasons to say that the proposed Amendments do not improve the Bill and that they should, for the reasons that I have given, be rejected.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is a point I should like to raise, and it is neither the one I raised on the Second Reading of the Clause nor the one which we have been discussing on the Amendment. It is, however, a point of some substance and importance. I am not at all sure that we have not spent too much time in considering what would happen if the defence do prove that the statutory

  1161
  instrument has not been issued, because it is not at all clear to me, under this new Clause, how a defence can ever fulfil that task, and only if they can prove that the instrument has not been issued do the matters which we have been discussing at considerable length come into consideration at all. But how can they prove that it has not been issued? The first sub-paragraph of the new Clause provides for the making of lists, and then provides that such lists shall be conclusive proof of the dates on which the statutory instruments contained in them were made.
  I have been considering— and I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to calm my fears on this point— what this in fact means. The defence, when charged, says that the statutory instrument has not been issued. If it is contained in any list which has been issued by the King's Printer, then the prosecution can prove that point, and all paragraph (2) falls to the ground. But suppose the list which is produced was published on 1st January, and the prosecution was in respect of an offence which has taken place on the last day of that month, under an Order made in January. The defence says that it has not been issued, as it was not recorded or entered in the last list issued by the King's Printer. The prosecution would answer that it was not in the List issued by the King's Printer because the Order was not made then. But to avail oneself of the defence under this paragraph, one must show that it was not issued at the time the offence was committed. The question I wish to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman is, how is the defence to discharge that burden, which may be in tolerable, since only upon the discharge of that burden do the matters on which we have spent considerable time become of any importance at all?
  I tried to get an indication from the hon. and learned Gentleman of how often these lists were to be issued. I should have thought that, if they were to be issued frequently, one solution of the difficulty would be to say that the lists should be not only conclusive proof of the dates of issue of the documents shown in them, but also prima facie proof of the non-issue of the statutory instruments not referred to in the lists. I throw that suggestion out, and I admit that it is a point which did not occur to me until the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)
  1162
  was addressing the Committee. I think it is a point of considerable importance. If that were provided, the defence would have a means of discharging the burden of proving that the particular instrument had not been issued.
  Unless some such machinery is provided, this new Clause may be robbed of a great deal of its effect, because although the accused person may say that a particular instrument has not been issued, that is not enough, he has to prove that it has not been issued. There is no list which he can produce to the court, and in respect of which he can say, "It is not in that, therefore it has not been issued," because this merely provides that lists shall be evidence of what has been issued. I do not want to take up time in pursuing this matter any further, nor indeed do I expect the Solicitor-General, unless he is in a position to do so, to answer this point here and now, but I would ask him to look at it, because I am quite sure that it is his desire, as it is mine, that the protection we are seeking to give to the accused person shall not in fact be a complete sham and a waste of time.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: What I think the hon. Gentleman has completely overlooked is that there must necessarily be an interval of time between the committing of an offence and the time when any summons relating to it comes before the court. It seems abundantly clear to me that no situation can possibly arise of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I suggest that the hon Gentleman's remarks so far do not indicate that he appreciated the point I was putting? Although a great deal of time may elapse between the commission of an offence and the issue of a summons, the time between the two may also be very short indeed, allowing for no list to be published in the interval. If one could be sure that there would be no prosecution for an offence under a statutory instrument until after the date of publication of a list— that is, that a list would be published between the commission of an offence and the hearing, I quite agree that this point would be covered.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: One would have thought that if any such case arose there would be an adjournment, to allow the court to ascertain the facts. Surely the

  1163
  position envisaged under this new Clause is that on the hearing of any alleged offence it will be open to the defence to submit to the court the lists of statutory instruments that have been published in accordance with the regulations made under the first part of the new Clause. Presumably those Regulations, which will come before the House in due course, will provide for the lists to be published at regular intervals, and presumably they will provide for all statutory instruments that have been issued to be included. Presumably it will be a reasonable inference, which any court will draw, that if any statutory instrument is not included in the list that has been published, then it had not been issued on the date of publication of such lists. Then, if there is any doubt about the date on which the prosecution suggests that the statutory instrument in question was issued, being at a later date than the latest publication of those lists, one would have thought that an obvious course which any court would follow would be for a sufficient adjournment to take place to enable that fact to be verified or disproved. I should therefore have thought that in any case it would be the simplest possible matter for the defendant to show whether the first part of this new Clause operates or not, that is, whether the statutory instrument in question had in fact been issued. If it had not been issued, the other part of the Clause which we have been discussing recently can be brought into play.
  Mr. Gallacher: I was present during some of the discussions in Committee, and I listened to lawyers on one side and on the other arguing all about this. The feeling I got was that the more you listen to lawyers the more difficulties you find they create. I was quite satisfied with this Clause until I heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and he knocked all the satisfaction out of me. I would like the Solicitor-General to think this over. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that a man could be prosecuted under the criminal laws and could not say in his defence that he did not know the law. But what we are discussing here is the question of whether the alleged offence is actually a crime or not. It is not a crime if the defendant had no knowledge of the regulation. That is something entirely different from criminal law. If the defend-
  1164
  ant had no reasonable grounds for knowing the purport of the regulation, then it is no crime. It is only a crime if he had reasonable grounds for so knowing. Then there is the question of what constitutes reasonable grounds. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, as many lawyers will say, "Better leave that to the discretion of the court." It is impossible for any ordinary individual to understand why it should be left to the lawyers to haggle over. If it is to be left to the discretion of the court to settle what constitutes reasonable grounds, will every court come to the same decision?
  Suppose a man is brought before a court in Liverpool and evidence is given for the prosecution that the regulation was given over the B.B.C., and the court decides that that is a reasonable method of supplying information to the person charged. Will that apply to every other court? If another man is brought up in London and the prosecution says. that the regulation was put over the B.B.C., will the same decision be reached? That is the situation. Unless it is laid down that the first decision given must be taken as a precedent, decisions will vary as between one part of the country and another. I think that that would be very unsatisfactory, and I hope the learned Solicitor-General will look at the point again. We do not want people to be hauled up and convicted unless we are certain that they have been committing an act knowing that it was a wrongful act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause.— (Amendment of statutory instrument.)
  Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act any statutory instrument is required to be laid before Parliament either House of Parliament may amend this instrument and, if the other House agrees with the amendment, the instrument shall come into force or shall continue in force subject to such amendment but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.— [Mr. Hopkin Morris.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: On a point of Order. I humbly submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill. This new Clause takes powers to amend statutory instruments. The Title of the Bill says:

  1165
  " to repeal the Rules Publication Act, 1893, and to make further provision as to the instruments by which statutory powers …"
  There is no word about amending the instruments, and certainly under the Rules Publication Act there was no power to amend any Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner):I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, but Mr. Speaker has ruled that it is in Order.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It will not require a very long speech from me to commend this new Clause to the House. I commend it with some confidence, since hon. Members opposite and hon. Members above the Gangway on this side have from time to time, in recent Debates in the House, supported the purport of this new Clause. Many of these statutory instruments will be of great importance in the future, and will deal with very important schemes. The aim of the new Clause is that the House, instead of as at present being able merely to accept or reject statutory orders, shall be empowered to amend them, and if the other House agrees with such Amendments, they will become part of the Order. This would give Parliament greater power over delegated legislation.
  Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. Molson: I have been associated with a number of my hon. Friends who have been jealous of preserving the general control of the House over delegated legislation, but in spite of that fact, I hope the Solicitor-General will not accept this new Clause. I think it is generally recognised that there is a sphere in which the principle of delegated legislation is both expedient and necessary. It has been used by Governments of all complexions, it is now of long standing, and it has been found to be convenient. The instruments that are brought forward result from the policy which has been decided upon by Parliament in the parent Act, and the purpose of the delegated legislation is to enable the executive, or any other appropriate body which is given power under the terms of the Act to give
  1166
  effect to the policy which has been laid down. In those circumstances, if delegated legislation is to be flexible and convenient, it is extremely important that it should be passed with reasonable expedition.
  I do not believe that in the long run the House would really increase its effective control over delegated legislation and over other kinds of legislation if it deprived itself of this expeditious way of having effect given to the Acts which it passes. If on every instrument that came before the House there were un limited opportunities of Debate and Amendment, it would mean that the House, which is overworked already, would be even more overworked than it is at the present time, and the effect would be that, because of the vast volume of business laid before the House, the control, supervision and scrutiny would be less effective than at the present time. Therefore, I suggest that this new Clause, which at first sight is so attractive because apparently it is designed to increase the control of Parliament over delegated legislation, would in point of fact not be effective for this purpose. There are other ways in which the House must make certain that its voice is effective. The executive is responsible to the House, and as long as the House retains the power either to dismiss the executive or to reject delegated legislation which is laid before it, it is in that way retaining its power far more effectively than would be done by the acceptance of this new Clause.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) indicated, the object of the new Clause is to permit both Houses to amend any statutory instruments laid before them. For the reasons which the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) indicated, and for other reasons, if this new Clause were agreed to, it would make things extremely difficult, and would often make the method of putting through delegated legislation completely unworkable. Many of the Statutory Rules and Orders are laid for information only. There are many hundreds in the course of the year which are laid purely for the information of both Houses. There would be no machinery available to permit the new method of amending them to be used. Nor do we think it would be possible to use this new

  1167
  machinery, supposing the House agreed to it, in the case of an instrument which required only a negative resolution. It would have to apply, if it applied to any, to those that needed an affirmative Resolution, and that being so, there is in existence no real machinery which would allow for any adjustment of differences between the two Houses. As the hon. Member said, the new Clause would allow either House to amend a statutory instrument, but there is no procedure in existence to permit a difference between the two Houses as to an Amendment to be settled. As the hon. Member for The High Peak said, the effect of the new Clause would be to stultify the object of statutory instruments, which is to expedite something which a particular Minister wants to do under a general enactment giving him powers to do it, and it would in fact in many instances turn a statutory instrument into a Bill, on which there would be debates and to which Amendments would be moved. Frankly, I am sure the new Clause would not fulfil the object which the hon. Member desires to accomplish, and I hope he will consent to withdraw it.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
  Clause 2.— (Numbering, printing, publication and citation.)
  Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, after "shall" insert:" as soon as possible."
  I would like to thank the Solicitor-General for the kind way in which he has met our suggestions for amending the Bill. I am sure the Bill is now a better one than it was originally, and that is due to the way in which he has accepted suggestions concerning it. I hope these remarks will soften the hon. and learned Gentleman's heart on this Amendment, which is an important one, although it is simple. In the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee, we have for some time noticed the variation in time between the-signing and the publication of these instruments. We took the trouble to have some inquiry made about the actual time, and we found that the times between the receipt of the document by the King's Printer and the publication were as follows: a four page document normally takes three days, and a 24 page document
  1168
  takes seven days, but the period of seven days is reduced to five if the document is set up in type in advance of signature. In the second Special Report, which was in the hands of the House a week ago, the Committee pointed out that the period between the signature and publication should be shortened, and we also recommended that the practice of having Rules and Orders set up in type in advance of signature should be extended. As an example of the delay in printing, I have in my hand S.R. & O. 1436, Nurses (England and Wales). This Order came before the Scrutinising Committee a fortnight ago, and we noticed that, although the Regulations were made on 9th November, they would not be laid until 19th November— 10 days later. According to our terms of reference, we were empowered to ask for a memorandum from the Department, which we did, and we found that the Regulations were made on 9th November and the Order for printing asked for de livery by 16th November. Why does not the Department want them as soon as they can get them? Nobody wants to ask people to work at an excessive speed, but why should there be any slowing down? The purpose of this Amendment is that the thing should be printed as soon as possible, which I think is only reasonable, and I hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac Andrew) for his very kind words, which did soften my heart, because I am happy to say that we feel the Amendment he has moved would very definitely improve the Bill, and we are prepared to accept it. There was a lacuna in the Bill and the Amendment conveniently fills the gap.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I wish to thank the Government for accepting this Amendment, and to point out that when anyone having expert know ledge, as my hon. and gallant Friend has on this matter, moves an Amendment, it is almost invariably an Amendment which would bring about a great improvement in a Bill. I thank the Government for allowing the Tory Party to improve their Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  5.45.p.m
  Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, insert:
  " (2) Every copy of any such statutory instrument sold by the King's Printer of Acts of Parliament shall bear on the face thereof a statement showing the date on which the statutory instrument came or will come into operation."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to insert in this Clause a provision which appears in Clause 3. The House will realise that the Bill provides for statutory instruments in two categories, those which arc required to be laid before Parliament, and those which are not so required to be laid. Clause 3 deals exclusively with statutory instruments which are required to be laid before Parliament. In Subsection (2) of Clause 3, it is provided, and very sensibly, that every such statutory instrument shall bear on the face of it a statement showing the date on which it came, or would come, into operation. The object of the Amendment is to extend that provision to all statutory instruments and not only to those which are required to be laid before Parliament. I should have thought that, if that was desirable in the one case, it was equally desirable in the other, and I find it difficult to understand why this provision should be confined to one class of statutory instrument and not be extended to all. I hope the Solicitor-General will see his way to accept the proposal, or, at least, to consider it sympathetically, with a view to an Amendment being inserted in the Bill in another place.
  Major Wells: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members, but we feel that this Amendment does not improve the Bill at all. The reason why the provisions set out in -the Amendment are incorporated in the statutory instruments that have to be laid is in order to bring into operation the machinery provided under Clause 3 of the Bill. This is designed to bring to the notice of all persons concerned cases in which there has been an omission to lay the instrument when it should have been laid, but that does not apply at all in the case of an instrument which is not required to be laid before Parliament. The reason is, therefore, entirely inapplicable, and the two sets of instruments stand in completely different categories. I believe I
  1170
  am correctly informed that, in point of fact, before any instrument is accepted, it must be signed and dated, and, in the ordinary course, it will come into operation according to the terms of the Interpretation Act, and I therefore ask the House to say that this Amendment does not improve the Bill, is quite unnecessary and should not be accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 3.—(Statutory Instruments which are required to be laid before Parliament.)
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) were discussed together.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, leave out from "shall," 10 end of line 11, and insert:
  " not come into operation until it has been so laid."
  Under your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we shall also consider the next two Amendments—in page 2, line 12, after "if," insert:
  " the Minister making, confirming, or approving any instrument certifies that." and in page 2, line 15, after "any," insert "such."
  Clause 3 is now in a very different form from the Bill which was considered on Second Reading. That, again, is evidence of the value of a Committee stage, and, if I may so, shows the valuable part that the Opposition can play. I hope that, notwithstanding these observations, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not resist these further Amendments to his Clause—and we are grateful to him for the trouble he has taken about it—with a view to improving the Clause.
  In the first part of Subsection (1) are the words:
  " subject as hereinafter provided, shall be. so laid before the instrument comes into operation."
  These words "so laid before the instrument comes into operation "may be misleading to some people. They might imply that the document has to be laid before Parliament as a condition precedent to the statutory instrument coming into effect, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that that is not what this Clause does at all. As

  1171
  it now stands, we could have a statutory instrument brought into operation and it will not cease to be in operation because this part of Clause 3 has not been complied with. What we, on this side, think, is that those statutory instruments which require to be laid before Parliament, should not come into operation until they have been laid. It would avoid a great deal of trouble if that could be brought about. It might, I anticipate, necessitate some alteration of the procedure of this House in order to provide for laying statutory instruments during a Parliamentary Recess, but I doubt whether there would be any insuperable objection to that being done, and, if the Amendment were accepted, no doubt it would accelerate that being done.
  We go on to provide—and may I point ' out that there is a proviso to Clause 3 that copies can be laid—that, where they are not laid before the instrument is in operation, notification shall be sent to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons. We propose as an alteration of that proviso that, if the Minister making, confirming or approving any instrument certifies that it is essential that any such instrument shall come into operation, copies of it can be laid, so that the orders could come into operation before they are laid although this provides that they should be laid, before they come in to operation. All that happens is that Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor are notified. In our Amendment, we stipulate that, in normal cases, statutory instruments which require to be laid, shall not come into operation at all until they have been laid, and laying will, in normal cases, be a condition precedent. But, if the Minister certifies that it is essential that an instrument shall come into force before it has been laid, that can be done. I should have thought that would meet all possible objections from the hon. and learned Gentleman, apart from that relating' to instruments laid during a Recess, and I think that that objection can be overcome. I hope I have made the object clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to hon. Members opposite.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: I have to submit to the House that there could not be the
  1172
  smallest doubt, on a reading of the essential part of Subsection (1), that the words, as they stand, do not imply that it shall be a condition precedent to an instrument coming into operation that it shall be laid. This question, whether it would be right to provide that it should be a condition precedent, or whether it would be right to provide that the instrument should cease to operate if not laid within a specific time, was very fully discussed in the Standing Committee. It is a matter which depends, in each case, on the same principle. The answer given in the Standing Committee was that, if an instrument was not laid, it was appropriate that Parliament should use its own remedies, and that it would not be appropriate to penalise the public, who would be affected by the instrument, if there was a failure on the part of a Minister or a Department to comply with the obligation to lay it. For that reason, after careful consideration, the Committee accepted the view that the Amendment now embodied in Clause 3 should be. accepted. That is the part which provides, in mandatory form, that the instrument shall be laid, but does not go on to provide that, if it is not laid as required, it shall not come into operation.
  The whole question was very exhaustively considered, and the view was accepted that that was a matter for Parliament. That is why the very elaborate procedure provided for in Clause 3 was accepted and adopted. If the Amendment now proposed is accepted, one might just as well strike out the whole of Subsection (1), because it would become unnecessary. I ask the House to say that this Amendment should not be accepted. It is unnecessary, because the Amendment adopted by the Standing Committee does, in point of fact, provide an adequate safeguard and does meet the whole difficulty, which has been repeatedly discussed throughout the proceedings on this Bill.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I understood that the three Amendments were being considered together, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not, I think, said anything about the second one, which is of an independent character, although it fits into the scheme.
  Mr. Gallacher: It may be independent, but it has not much character.
  Mr. Reid: Subsection (1) states:

  1173
  " Provided that if it is essential that any such instrument should come into operation before copies thereof can be so laid as aforesaid the instrument may be. made so as to come into operation before it has been so laid."
  There will be difficulties if it is left like that. If it is essential, surely it would clear the matter up if the Minister certified that it was essential and let everybody know that it had come into operation, rightly and properly, on the Minister's certificate, which he would not give without good reason. If, however, we are merely leaving it as it is, there will be disputes about who says it is essential, and 1 suggest that, in order to make a tidier job—if we accept, reluctantly, the view that the Solicitor-General should have his way on the first Amendment—the second one, which does improve the framework of the Bill, should be accepted by the Government, even if the other is not. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider it from that point of view, and also from the point of view that it would avoid a great deal of controversy and make the thing perfectly clear if some authoritative expression- of the urgency of the matter were put on the face of the document in order that there might be no dispute. I do not see that there could be any objection to I he certificate being given. Obviously, this would have to be considered at a high level, and, if that is so, there is no reason why that certificate should not say so. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will take that view.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to warn the Solicitor-General that the more words we put in, the more opportunity there is for confusion. Can anyone imagine a Minister coming here with a Clause of this kind and somebody asking him, "Are you convinced that it is essential? ", and the Minister saying, "I do not know whether it is essential or not; I am just putting it down ''? No Minister would bring in a Regulation unless he was satisfied that it was essential, and putting in more words will not make it any clearer.
  The Solicitor-General: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again on the same set of Amendments, I would like to put this point with regard to what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid). If the Amendment were intro-
  1174
  duced, the effect of Clause 3 would, in fact, be weakened. As it stands, somebody concerned has to take a decision, but the Clause only allows the instrument to be laid if it is, in fact, essential. As the Clause now reads, supposing an instrument is laid and there is no reasonable justification for saying that it is essential that it should be laid, then it is a matter which can be inquired into. When the Scrutinising Committee, in due course, comes into possession of the instrument and hears that this particular instrument was laid as being an essential instrument, when there is not a shadow of justification for saying that it is essential, they can make comments about it. If, however, the Amendment mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were introduced that would be taken away because the Minister's certificate, at any rate on a first reading of the proviso, would become conclusive.
  It will not be open to the Scrutinising Committee, if the Amendment-is introduced, to say that the instrument should never have been made to come into operation before it was laid as being an essential instrument. If the Amendment is introduced the certificate of the Minister, his ipse dixit, becomes final, and the Scrutinising Committee can no longer investigate that particular aspect of it. Hon. Members opposite have been very anxious to safeguard that position. I quite understand that they introduced this Amendment with a view to improving the Clause, but I submit that it has exactly the opposite effect and, in point of fact, it will whittle down very materially the effect of the safeguards at present provided by Clause 3. Therefore, I ask the House to say that this Amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not move the Amendment, so he cannot withdraw it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at end, insert:
  " and the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker shall thereupon inform the House of Lords and the House of Commons, respectively, that he has received such a notification."
  This Amendment is intended to carry one stage further the process to which

  1175
  the hon. and learned Solicitor-General referred when he was dealing with the previous Amendment. As he has emphasised that the Government have no intention that statutory instruments shall come into effect until they have been laid upon the Table of the House, except in exceptional circumstances, and in order that all such cases shall be brought to the attention of the House, he moved in the Committee stage an Amendment that. notification should be sent to the Lord Chancellor and to the Speaker of the House of Commons drawing attention to the fact that copies of the instrument. have yet to be laid before Parliament and explaining that such copies were not so laid before the instrument came into operation. All the instruments to which this Bill applies will, in due course, when they have been laid on the Table of this House, go before the Scrutinising Committee. What we are concerned with at this point is what happens in the case of statutory instruments which are so laid as to come into operation before they have been laid on the Table of the House, and before, therefore, they have become referred to 'the Scrutinising Committee. I venture to point out to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in the Committee stage that if Mr. Speaker were to receive a notification that, if the matter were just left there, there would be no means by which he could bring the matter to the attention of the House. It was for that reason that I have moved this Amendment.
  There are two ways in which Mr. Speaker could be enabled to bring the matter to the attention of the House and of the Scrutinising Committee. It can either be done, as I am proposing in this Amendment, by incorporating the words in the statute itself or, of course, it would be possible for the matter to be dealt with by an Amendment of the Standing Orders of the House. I will be frank with the House. I was not aware when I drafted this Amendment that recently the terms of reference of the Scrutinising Committee have been specially enlarged in order that amongst the matters which they are required especially to deal with, and to bring to the attention of the House, is delay in the laying of a statutory instrument before Parliament. It was on 23rd August of this year that a Motion was introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend
  1176
  the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew) which has widened the terms of reference of the Scrutinising Committee in that respect.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: If my hon. Friend would allow me to interrupt, it was on 6th November.
  Mr. Molson: I beg pardon, that is so. The effect of that is that the really effective scrutinising body is the Select Committee which, under the enlarged Terms of Reference, will now be required in each case to give special attention to cases of this kind where a statutory instrument comes into effect before it has been laid before the House, and they are empowered under their enlarged Terms of Reference to bring specially to the attention of the House any case where they consider that that power has been abused. Therefore, what we are concerned with in this Amendment is merely the exact machinery by which Mr. Speaker shall make known to the House, and thereby to the Scrutinising Committee, the fact that he has received a notification of that kind. This, therefore, is not a controversial Amendment, but one designed to provide the necessary machinery in order to enable the Amendment moved by the learned Solicitor-General at the Committee stage to be made effective for the transmission 'of the notification, which will have been received by Mr. Speaker, to the House and to the Scrutinising Committee.
  Mr. Maude: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: I propose to ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and I wish to make the following statement to him and to the House. Clearly, some channel of communication must exist between the Scrutinising Committee and Mr. Speaker in reference to instruments which have not been laid. The question is what should be that channel of communication? The further question is whether some amendment of the Standing Orders of the House is necessary with a view to bringing into operation some regular system of communication. Personally, I am not convinced that it is necessary, but it is obviously a matter which requires consideration and it will be given consideration. If it is found necessary that there should be some Amendment to Standing Orders to deal

  1177
  with it, steps will be taken. to propose such an Amendment. I fit is not necessary, then naturally no such steps will be taken, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment to the actual Bill on that assertion of mine, that it is rather a matter for discussion with the House authorities as to the appropriate channel of communication and the appropriate Amendment, if any, to Standing Orders if one is necessary.
  Mr. C. Williams: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him what harm this Amendment could do? It would not in any way hold up matters, and if there is a possibility that such a thing may happen under Standing Orders, I cannot see that there is any great harm in this Amendment and why it should not go in.
  The Solicitor-General: The Amendment does not improve matters at all; it puts an obligation on the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor to do something which, at any rate, at one stage it was thought they might not have to do. When the Amendment was originally introduced, I say perfectly frankly, it was thought that Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor might exercise a discretion in the matter" It may or may not be possible for them to do so, very likely it will not be possible, but if this Amendment is introduced and made part of the Bill, then it means that an unqualified obligation is put on them which does not permit of any elasticity, and merely puts a complete close to any further discussion of what would be the most appropriate procedure. Therefore, I ask the House to say that it would not help, but harm, and that it would be far preferable to discuss the matter fully, and, if necessary, to make any Amendment to Standing Orders so that, whatever was found to be actually the most convenient and efficacious form of procedure, could be embodied in Standing Orders.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I do not think it is quite so simple as he thinks. My hon. Friend's Amendment may not be in the right form; I do not know —
  Mr. Gallacher: It certainly is not.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: I have given a great deal of time and thought to Statutory Orders, and I think that, at present,
  1178
  the weak point in Clause 3 is what will happen if the Speaker is notified. The right hon. Gentleman talks about an alteration to the Standing Orders, but he must bear in mind that this Scrutinising Committee is of recent date, and I do not think that any mention of it will be found in Standing Orders. It seems to me that the appropriate body is the Scrutinising Committee, but I do not think that it is going to be so easy to amend the Standing Orders for the reason I have given.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) inquired what harm this Amendment could do. Apart from the reasons given by the Solicitor-General, there are grave constitutional objections to this Amendment. The Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker occupy honoured, dignified and unique positions in the Constitution of this country. I submit that it is an undesirable innovation in a Bill of this kind to prescribe duties for the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker, for sending communciations either to another place, or to this House. This Bill embodies the safeguard to give this House control over the Executive on this particular matter of delegated legislation.
  Mr. Molson: If there is objection to using Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor in that respect, surely that objection applies to the Amendment moved by the Solicitor-General requiring that notification should be made to them.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Not at all. That is an entirely different thing. The Bill provides that there shall be communication to the Lord Chancellor and to the Speaker of this House which is appropriate, at any rate, in connection with communications to this House by the Executive Departments in this matter. There is abundant precedent for that, but I should be very surprised 'to find that there was on the Statute Book any Act of Parliament which placed the duty on the Lord Chancellor or on Mr. Speaker to send communication to Members of this House or to another place. Matters of that kind, which are matters of internal regulation of the affairs of the House of Commons, do not appear to me—and I speak as a new Member subject to correction —to be appropriate matters to embody in an Act

  1179
  of Parliament. They are matters with which we can deal by our own domestic machinery. I urge the House—apart from the reasons given by the Solicitor-General—for these very constitutional reasons not to accept, at this late stage in the Bill, an Amendment of this kind.
  Mr. S. Silverman: It is clear that what everybody wants to do is to secure, if such a lapse occurs, that the House shall have notice of it. It was at one time thought that that object could be achieved by requiring that notification should be given to Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. That seems ineffective by itself, and there are reasons why it cannot be made effective in the way proposed by the Amendment. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend would think it convenient, at a later stage, to amend this part of the Bill altogether, so as to provide that notification shall be given to the chairman of the Scrutinising Committee, who will then have direct cognisance of it and will have the duty, in the event of anything being wrong, of reporting it to the House.
  Mr. C. Williams: I interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman in the middle of his speech with a question and he replied. With great deference —
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry but the hon. Member has made one speech and he cannot make another on this Amendment.
  Mr. Williams: What I did was to ask a question. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave way to me.. Of course if this is another speech, then he has made a second speech.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought it was n. speech which the hon. Gentleman made; if so, he cannot make another speech.
  Mr. Williams: May I ask the leave of the House to say something? It will be in the recollection of the House that if I have made two speeches and the hon. and learned Gentleman has made —
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he has made two speeches he is not entitled to make another.
  Sir C. MacAndrew rose—
  Mr. McKie: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman not allowed to ask the leave of the House to make another speech?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In strictness on the Report stage, only the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or an hon. Gentleman moving an Amendment is entitled to speak more than once. No other hon. Member is entitled to speak twice.
  Mr. Molson: If I may be entitled to say a few words, I am much obliged to the Solicitor-General for the sympathetic reply which he has given to my Amendment. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has also made a suggestion which, I hope, the Solicitor-General will consider. I think it has become clear that we all hope and expect that the Scrutinising Committee will be the effective body for making quite certain that statutory instruments are not lightly brought into operation, without having been laid before the House. I accept the assurance that the Solicitor-General has given that he will consider this matter further in consultation with the authorities on the procedure of the House. In view of that assurance, and in the hope that he will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7.—(Regulations.)
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the three Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) were taken together.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, after "instrument," insert:
  "not being of the nature of a public Act."
  There are many things which could have been put much better in this Bill, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will agree to the alteration which we propose. The matter was raised in Committee, and I understood that the Solicitor-General agreed to look into the matter again. In. Clause 7 (i, c) it is provided that regulations, made
  " with respect to any classes or descriptions of statutory instrument that they shall be

  1181
  exempt from the requirement of being printed and of being sole! by the King's printer of Acts of Parliament, or from either of those requirements;"
  There is undoubtedly a case for exempting certain private and local regulations—instruments—from printing. It would be a waste of money to print them, because the circulation would be very small, as only a few people would be interested, and it is much easier and cheaper to reproduce them in some other form. But I submit that any instrument in the nature of a public Act should never be exempted from printing, because instruments of that nature have a fairly wide ambit. They may affect only a few people, but you cannot be certain how few. I think" it right that all instruments in the nature of public Acts should be printed, and I think it right that every instrument should be on sale either as a printed copy or it may be as a duplicated copy in some other form. Nothing ought to be the law of this land unless it is possible for someone affected by it to get a copy of it. There is no excuse for any form of legislative government being withdrawn from publication and circulation from those who are prepared to pay a reasonable fee. Therefore, I think that all references to exemptions from being sold ought to be deleted from the Bill and everything ought to be on sale for those who wish to buy it; but I agree that only certain instruments ought to be printed.
  One other point was raised by the Solicitor-General. He said that certain of these instruments are printed already before they come here. He instanced some Army documents. I put it to him that what we are trying to do is to make it easy for the person affected by the law to find the law. Everyone knows that you can find Statutory rules and instruments in the annual volume which is published and indexed. If you cannot find it there, it is often not very easy, particularly if you live some distance from the Stationery Office, to find what you want. Therefore, even if it is going to cost a little money and take up a little more paper—these things do not happen very often—submit that everything in the nature of a public Act ought to be printed, and ought to be available to people all over the country, as it is available if it is included in a collection of Statutory Rules and Orders, and as it is
  1182
  not available if it is in some other obscure form of printing or is not printed at all. I propose this Amendment with the double object of making sure that every legislative instrument is on sale and that every legislative instrument that is going to affect the public generally is in printed form and available in the annual collection.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. This matter did arise in Committee, and the Solicitor-General promised to see if- anything could be done. I have to say that he has looked at it and, in our view, nothing can be done. We have, therefore, to resist these Amendments. As I understand it, the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in view is to ensure that all statutory instruments of a public general character are printed, and that others, which may not necessarily be printed, should be either printed, or copies of them should be obtainable if necessary.
  What the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say was that the system which hon. Gentlemen opposite are now seeking to change has now been in existence for 50 years. Up to now, it has worked extremely well, and in my view it would be wrong, at this period of time, with50 years' experience behind us, to change it. It would, indeed, put limits on the authority of the rule-making authority under the regulations, namely Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor, limits which we do not think they should have put on their authority. It does not mean that under the present regulations these statutory instruments will not be printed. What it means is that there should be a discretion. We think that that discretion has been used in a proper way, and that it should continue, and should reside, as formerly, in the authority to which I have referred. I hope that the House will reject this Amendment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry we have had that considered opinion of the Government, as expressed by the Financial Secretary. Although he told us the conclusion, the reasons he gave were not very convincing. I should have thought that, to hon. Members opposite, the fact that a practice had been in existence for 50 years was about the least appealing

  1183
  reason that the right hon. Gentleman could put before them.
  Mr. Kirkwood: He was appealing to the other side.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: We are trying to include the practice which has been in existence for a considerable time, and it does not meet the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend merely to say that this is an old practice. The Financial Secretary said that it has worked well. Let us have some evidence of that. The Government were asked in Committee how many of these statutory instruments, or rules and regulations as they were then called, have been made and have not been printed. How many of them have not been put on sale? I take the view that if any law is made, a copy of it should be procurable by anyone who is affected. I do not know that any reason has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman for the rejection of the Amendment, to leave out from "printed," to the end of the paragraph. Why should there not be some stipulation, so that if their printing is not required at least a member of the public can buy a copy of what the law is, and can satisfy himself by learning what the law is? These laws may cover a wide field of individuals and yet no one, be he a student of the law or a person affected, will have any knowledge of what is taking place. Could we be told how many times this power, which has existed for 50 years, has been exercised? If it has not been exercised much that would not provide a good reason for continuing it. If it has been exercised a great deal, it strengthens the argument for putting an end to the practice. I hope we shall have a more detailed and fuller reply giving the reasons why the Government must be so conservative in their attitude with regard to the existing procedure.
  The Solicitor-General: If the Measure were so worded as to bring about the result that instruments which ought to be accessible to the public, would of necessity be withheld from them, I should at once accept the Amendment. But, as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has pointed out, there is simply a regulation-making direction. I would ask hon. Members to consider this sort of statutory instrument, which is of
  1184
  general application—an instrument made under the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, appointing a day as a Bank Holiday. Clearly there is no advantage to be gained by printing that and making it accessible to the public. Everybody knows it. Who wants to buy a copy of the instrument? People enjoy the Bank Holiday, but they do not want to bother about buying a copy of the Order.
  Mr. Reid: Suppose, and it is quite possible, that one has some contract which refers to a Bank Holiday and one's opponent in court is troublesome and will not agree on the statement as to the Bank Holiday It is perfectly possible that someone may have to prove, in a court of law, that a certain date is affected by this Order. How is he to prove the Order?
  The Solicitor-General: By getting a copy from the Department, which is quite simple and easy to do. The hon. Member' for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked for information. I can furnish certain figures. In point of fact a very small percentage indeed of instruments of a public character have not been printed and made available. Let me give the figures for three years. In 1943 out of 1,333 there were 1,312 printed; in other words 21 out of 1,333 were not printed. The figures for 1944 are similar: out of 1,028 there were 1,012 printed. In 1945, up to 13th December, out of 1,060 there were 1,052 printed. If hon. Members ask why the others were not printed, there are various reasons. I mentioned the Bank Holiday one. There are cases like the Army Regulations which may appear in Army Orders. There are a variety of reasons which make it completely. unnecessary to print certain statutory instruments, although they may be instruments which have a public application.
  I ask the House to say that a system which has worked as this has should stay as it is. I agree that the mere fact that a practice is old does not mean that it is good. The point is that this has worked well and does not require improvement. It is in the public interest that there should be a discretion to provide that instruments which clearly need not be printed, either because they have already been printed or can easily be obtained from the Department in the rare cases in which they are required, should not need

  1185
  to be subjected to the quite costly and unnecessary procedure of printing. In asking the House to reject the Amendment I summarise my argument by saying that it is not as if the Bill provides definitely that an instrument which ought to be available to the public will not be. It gives a discretion similar to that already exercised very reasonably by responsible people, in cases in which instruments ought not in the public interest to be printed, to decide in the case of a particular instrument that further printing is not necessary. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Reid: The Solicitor-General has raised a new and important point in the course of this discussion. He has stated that in the case of these instruments which are not on sale by the Stationery Office, they are always available to any person who has any interest in obtaining a copy. If he could assure us that it can be put on record that any person who has an interest in obtaining a copy of any instrument which is not on sale in the Stationery Office has only to write to the appropriate Department and get it, that goes a long way to meet our point. If the Solicitor-General can give us that definite assurance I will be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps I can briefly state that, where the Department thinks it is not essential that an instrument shall be printed, the Treasury can, with the concurrence of Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor, override the Department and decide that it should be printed. In cases in which they are not printed, the public can get one when they are entitled to have a copy and need it. I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.
  Mr. Reid: That was not what I asked for. I said that if I could be assured—
  Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not satisfied with what the Solicitor-General said, and asked a question. Is he now entitled to make another speech?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly entitled to do so. He moved the Amendment
  Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what he said does not give the assurance for which I asked? I asked for an assurance that the Departments would make these Orders available for those who had an interest in seeing them. Can he go one stage further and assure us that any member of the public who is interested in obtaining a copy of a particular Order, as an interested person, can write to the appropriate Department, and will, in fact, get the Order? If I can be given that assurance that meets the point.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. What happens now, will continue under this Bill when it becomes law.
  Mr. C. Williams: We are getting very close together on this matter. It seems that there are very few cases in which the instrument is not printed. That being the case I cannot see why, if it is only a minute percentage of cases which is affected, they should not always be printed and made available. It would not do any great harm. I am not for encouraging the Government to print too much. I think all Governments print too much already. I would point out to the Government that they are now getting into a rather difficult position. I have often heard it laid down that if a thing is suggested and its inclusion is refused, that is taken almost as a mandate of the House that that should not be done. I am rather afraid it may well be, if this Amendment is refused, that that may rather be taken as a mandate to the Departments not to print at all. I hope that before we leave this Amendment, the Government will tell us quite plainly that they will not use the fact that this Amendment has not been accepted to prevent Departments from printing as much as they have done. I should not like the Government to use the fact to prevent the public from getting information which has always been useful and valuable.
  Mr. Reid: In view of the assurance that we have received, I do not think we should press this matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.44 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move That the Bill be now read the Third time."

  1187
  I wish to say very little because this matter has been exhaustively considered, during the Second Reading, the Committee stage and today. The object of the Bill is to regularise something which the House felt required regularising. Obviously that required a good deal of detailed consideration. The Bill has been given that detailed consideration, and as a result has emerged in a form which I believe does meet the views of all parts of the House. It is a short Bill; it has been described as a useful Bill, and I commend it to the House on Third Reading as such.
  6.45 p.m.
  Sir C. Mac Andrew: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a very good Bill now, though I think there are still one or two weaknesses in it, and I am sorry that we did not come to a better conclusion about Clause 3. That is the Clause which makes it essential to send to you, Mr. Speaker, a copy of an Order which comes into force before it is laid. The question is, What is to happen once you have received it? We did not come to any conclusion on what should be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested that it should be sent to me as chairman of the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee, but I would point out that that is a Sessional Committee, and that there would be this difficulty if it were sent to the chairman. I happen to be the chairman—I do not quite know why; perhaps nobody else wanted the job—and I had that appointment ' under the last Government too, and though it would perhaps be all right when there was a chairman drawn from the Opposition, I imagine that if he was a supporter of the Government it would be pointless to send this notification to him. I think also there is some difficulty in this. No doubt Orders would come before the S.R. and 0. Committee, but the Committee might slip up, and if an Order has to be sent to the Speaker, something, though I cannot think what, ought to be done, because it is a pity that we should leave the position as it is.
  Mr. Bowles: Obviously if a communication is sent to Mr. Speaker his counsel. Sir Cecil Carr, who is, as we know, a very valuable member of that Committee, would therefore communicate the informa-
  1188
  tion. By submitting it to Mr. Speaker it will get to the S.R. and O. Committee.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: I think that is probably true, but would that be sufficient to enable the Committee to deal with it? Mr. Speaker kindly lends his counsel to that Committee, but he serves us in an advisory capacity, and I do not think it would be fair to ask Mr. Speaker's. counsel to say what. goes on when he goes behind the scenes, so to speak. I think there is difficulty on that account, but I cannot see how it can be met, and no suggestion has been made to overcome it.
  Let me turn to Clause 4, the one which requires an Order to lie for 40 days. I am very glad that that has been adopted. In days gone all sorts of periods were specified. In the list of Orders this week there appears a Savings Bank Order to which the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee drew attention in a special report. That is to lie for 21 days, and it is to lie during the Session of Parliament. That Order was laid on 10th December, and that means it gets its 21 days of the Session of Parliament by the end of the year, and comes into operation on 1st January. Obviously, under our present procedure, that is very unfair, because there are only a very few days on which it 'would be possible to present a Prayer against it. Under the 40 days' procedure anything of that kind will be made impossible.
  I should be glad if we could get from the Government a clear indication of how far Clause 1 goes. I am not a lawyer, but I am under the impression that Clause 1 brings in many things as Statutory Instruments which are not Statutory Rules and Orders now. If that is so, will not the registration system be swamped? Further, in the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee we do not have before us what we call "grand children," that is to say orders made under Regulations.
  We see the Orders made under Acts, but we do not see the others, and we call them "grand children" in our language in the Committee. Does this Clause bring in the grand children or not? Some say "Yes" and some say "No," and I should like to know for certain. Then again, under Clause 7 certain things are left out. The net is very wide, but certain things are omitted. I should also like to know who are the persons who are mentioned in

  1189
  Clause 7 (1,e). These are all important matters to which we must have an answer. This is a new provision and I think we are entitled to be told. I have two small points to put forward in conclusion. The S.R. and 0. Committee had before them the other day an Air Navigation Order and since the Air Navigation Act was passed, I think in 1923, there have been altogether 34 amending Orders. Surely they ought to be consolidated; that is only reasonable. Again, there was a Treasury Order in 1929 saying that every Rule should have a short title. They do not all have a short title now, and something should be done about that. We are dealing with an important matter, and I feel that the questions which I have asked merit an answer.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. C Reid: I think this is a very good example of the value of a Committee stage on a complicated and technical Bill. Certain hon. Members have in the past doubted whether, in the case of Bills of this character, the House of Commons or a Committee of the House was the appropriate body to deal with them, but I think this Bill is a very good proof that there is no body better adapted for dealing even with a complicated and technical Measure than a Committee of this House. Very valuable changes for the better have been made in the Bill since the Second Reading. The Bill is not entirely to our liking, we do not think it is perfect by a long way, but it is so much improved from what it was that we certainly have no intention of objecting to its passage into law. I ought to say that we have to thank to a considerable extent the learned Solicitor-General, who has given very much consideration to the matter and has succeeded in obtaining valuable Amendments. We anticipate something of a flood of delegated legislation in the coming months or years, and I hope that this Bill will enable that flood to be dealt with adequately and efficiently from the point of view of this machinery. I think probably it will, but I would say one thing particularly to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who, I imagine, has the responsibility in these matters. He will be well aware that the indexing of Statutory Rules and Orders is not above all complaint. There is no consolidated index. I venture to ask him to complete the process which has been begun by this Bill
  1190
  of bringing the position up to date, so that the general public may be able more easily to find these Orders than, perhaps, a trained lawyer can do at the moment. I think the Bill has been so much improved that I would venture to suggest to my han. and right hon. Friends that we can accept it as at least a tolerably good Bill.
  6.55 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General; I hope I shall have the permission of the House to speak again on Third Reading, with a view to answering the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew). His anxiety was lest the effect of the Bill might be to cause a flood of Statutory Instruments to descend upon the Scrutinising Committee. I do not think his apprehensions are well grounded. The scope of the Bill is set out in Clause 1, and that Clause is limited in effect. It applies to instruments which were made by Rule-making authorities within the Rules and Publications Act, 1893. That is one class of Statutory Instruments. The other class of Statutory Instruments to which it applies are those Instruments which, in the Act which gives power to make them, are actually called Statutory Instruments. It is not every Act which gives power to make a subordinate Instrument which results in Statutory Instruments being made, but only those Acts which specifically say that the power given to bring into operation subordinate legislation is to be exercised in the form of Statutory Instruments. The Act has got to use the term, so that it is limited in application. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether "grandchildren" are included. The opening words of the Bill are:
  "Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act power to make confirm, or approve orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate legislation is conferred."
  etc. That, I think, is the answer to the question. It is limited, as stated, in the first line. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred also to the question of consolidating a number of Orders, and quoted a case where there are 34 Orders dealing with some matter. That obviously requires consideration, but I respectfully say that it does not come within the ambit of this Bill which is not designed to deal with that particular anomaly. The Regulations made under

  1191
  Clause 7 provide for specific things, but do not provide for consolidation of a number of Orders dealing with the same matter. It provides for provisions relating to printing and publication and so on, but does not deal with consolidation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked who are the people referred to in Clause 7 (1, e). I am not in a position to let him have a specific answer, though I would like to do so. Obviously only persons of responsibility or authority would be entrusted with that particularly responsible task by the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker. Clearly a task of that sort would not be entrusted to anybody who was not qualified to discharge it. That is the only answer I can give the hon. and gallant Member at the moment. That will require consideration, as will the question of the proper channel of communication between Mr. Speaker and the Scrutinising Committee. That is a matter for consideration as was indicated earlier in the course of the Debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  New Clause. —(Power of entry.)

  (1) During the period of five years beginning with the end of the war period, any officer of an authority responsible. for enforcing a building law or planning control shall, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority to act for the purposes of this section, have a right, subject to the provisions of this section, to enter any premises at all reasonable hours—

  (a)for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are on the premises any works carried out during the war period which do not comply with a building law or with planning control, or whether a use of the premises continues which was begun during that period and does not comply therewith;

  (b)where an application has been made to the authority under section two of this Act, for the purpose of obtaining any in formation required by the authority for the exercise of their functions under that section in relation to the application;

  Provided that admission to any premises which are occupied shall not be demanded as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been served on the occupier.

  1192

  (2) Any person who wilfully obstructs any officer of an authority acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds—[Mr. Key.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  When this Bill was in Committee we were asked to accept a new Clause relating to powers of entry of the officers of local authorities for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information that would be required for the carrying out of the duties imposed on local authorities. We were not able to accept the new Clause that was suggested in Committee, but I gave an undertaking that consideration would be given to it, and that, if it was held to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill, a new Clause would be submitted. We did that. Unfortunately, our suggested new Clause was probably a little too widely drawn and when we brought it before the Committee, objection was raised to it on the ground that, although the Bill dealt with contraventions that had taken place during the war period, and limited the time that local authorities could deal with them to five years after the coming into operation of the Act, our Clause could be held to give power of entry it was claimed, for contraventions preceding the war period, dating back as far as 1870. That interpretation of that first edition of the Clause may or may not have been correct. I admitted at the time that I was in some doubt about it, and further consideration of this Bill was adjourned. Since that time a great deal of misrepresentation of that Clause has occurred, and a lot of wild and foolish statements have been made about an attempt to rush through in the early hours of the morning legislation that was to give power to violate the sanctity of private property and the sacred privacy of the home. It has been called "A snoop Clause" that was another example of the "power to imprison and persecute" for which this Government plots and plans, a Clause which ensures that with the "prying inspector comes the spying, snooping, sneaking, jealous neighbour."
  Mr. Willink: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in

  1193
  Order in discussing a Clause which he withdrew?
  Mr. Speaker: This is a new Clause, and the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Clause that it is replacing.
  Mr. Key:But there is more that has been said even than that, and I feel bound to draw attention to a particularly scurrilous article, purporting to be a report of the proceedings of this House upon this subject. It was headed as being by the Parliamentary correspondent of the particular newspaper, and it started off in these words:
  " A battle for an Englishman's right to call his home his castle began at i o'clock this morning when Mr. C. W. Key, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, moved a new Clause regarding right of entry on the Report stage of the Building Restrictions (Wartime Contraventions) Bill."
  The article went on to set out the powers that were asked for in the Clause, powers for Ministry of Health officers—I want that to be noted, not local authority officers—to enter any home at 24 hours' notice to check up on available accommodation—nothing to do with contravention of bylaws—with a £5 fine on the householder if he resisted. Then it went on to say:
  " Mr. Aneurin Bevan, dissatisfied with the number of people who have offered to share their homes with others, and labouring under a belief that the public are "dodging" the building repairs limit, is seeking the power to enter homes under the Building Restrictions Bill. It could be brought into force whenever the Government decided compulsory billeting must replace the voluntary system. Under the proposals, any householder attempting to prevent the officer from entering his house, could be fined £5 on conviction. Should the Minister believe an occupier was spending more than£ 2 a month on house repairs (the legal limit) he would be able to send an officer to assess the amount of repairs carried out."
  But, not satisfied with that dirty, low-down, distortion of what actually was taking place in this House, the same newspaper published some editorial comment on this matter—
  Mr. Speaker: It might be better to get on with the Clause and not deal with newspaper reports of proceedings in this House.
  Mr. Key:I feel that the harm and injury done to the business that this House was trying to carry through in this Bill, the doubt and dissatisfaction caused in the minds of a great number of people
  1194
  outside, are really so serious that something ought to be said in this matter, to put an end to these doubts and fears and to make plain exactly what this Bill deals with. Therefore I would like attention to be turned to the truth with regard to this power of entry in the Bill. If hon. Members turn to Clause 6 of the Bill where we deal with the definition of building law, they will find that there are nine different groups of enactments dealt with. The first of them is the Public Health Act of 1936 in Section 287 of which the powers of entry given to officers of local authorities are practically identical in terms with those set down in this new Clause.
  I will return to that in a few minutes and show how close is the likeness, but for the moment let us consider the other parts of this definition. Similar powers to those under the Public Health Act are available in the London Statutes that are mentioned in connection with items (b)and (c). The unrepealed part of the Public Health Act, 1875, contains similar available powers in respect of (d), (e) and (g). The local Acts mentioned in (i) in almost all cases will be found to contain parallel powers. That leaves only paragraphs (f) and (h), and here the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, gave powers of entry in cases of planning schemes, whilst during the interim period the interim development authority, although it has not such a Statutory power of entry, is often the public health authority. These powers have existed for 70 years, and they have been there as a restriction on the freedom of property owners to exploit their tenants. There has been nothing said about people standing in mortal fear of the entry of the sanitary inspector except those persons who were slum landlords and who had something to fear when the inspector really did go in.
  Further, I would like to refer hon. Members to Section 287, and I would like them to compare the terms of Section 287 in the Public Health Act, 1936, with the words which we have put down in the suggested Clause. Section 287 begins:
  " Subject to the provisions of this Section, any authorised officer of a council shall, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a right to enter any premises at all reasonable hours—"

  1195
  Then it set out in four paragraphs the purposes, such as ascertaining whether there is, or has been, any contravention of the provisions of the Act or of any bye-laws. I would also draw attention to the Proviso:
  " Provided that admission to any premises not being a factory, workshop or workplace, shall not be demanded as of right unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier."
  That proves that, far from being some new power which was being sought to penetrate the sanctity of the home, we are here merely repeating the powers which already exist for local authorities to deal with contraventions similar to those that are being. dealt with in this Bill. Why, it may be asked, has this to be repeated here? When the Coalition Government introduced the Bill in May, and when it was re-introduced by us in October, it was thought that these existing powers were really sufficient for the local authorities to carry out the duties that were imposed upon them.
  The local authorities, however, took the view that their task under the Bill would be simplified, if, instead of having to give consideration as to whether any, and, if so, what powers of entry were available in each particular case with which they had to deal, that a single new power should be given to them, and, as I have said, an Amendment was put forward in Committee stage which we did not feel then we could accept. We have, however, thought it right to pay regard to the views of the people who have to work this Bill when it becomes an Act. We felt that a self-contained Clause would be a much better way of dealing with it than legislation by reference, especially since existing powers differ in form between London and the Provinces. We have felt that it was wise that we should make quite certain that the Clause shall be limited, clearly and definitely, not only to the purpose of gaining possession and getting information of contraventions that had been carried out during the war period, but that it should be limited to the five years after the war for its operation. Therefore, the House will see that the suggested Clause begins with the words:
  "During the period of five years beginning with the end of the war "
  as the period of operation. It says quite definitely that entry shall be
  1196
  "for the purpose of ascertaining whether"
  there have been any contraventions
  "carried out during the war period."
  Every necessary safeguard has been provided and we know that the powers are essential for the job to be done and, therefore, we hope that the House will readily accept this new Clause in its new form.
  7.15.p.m.
  Mr. Willink: I think the House must have been a little surprised by the contents of the Minister's speech. The position would seem to be that the local authorities have indicated that there are serious matters concerning which it is desirable they should have proper powers of entry in case there have been contraventions of bye-laws. The hon. Gentleman having sought to introduce at a late stage, and in a very hurried manner, a new Clause, which" turned out to be quite shocking in its irrelevance and in the extent to which it went outside the scope of the Bill, is now, and I think he must have been feeling very much annoyed, if not peevish, about it. Ministers must expect the natural consequences of their acts, and when, in such circumstances, a Clause is introduced extending to every local Act and every bye-law of whatever date, and however far back in the past, and on a Bill concerned with a period of five years after the war extending indefinitely into the future, it is not surprising it should have given some alarm. Let us do what is more relevant, and look at the Clause. It is better than it was. I, speaking for myself at any rate, recognise the point which was first made by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) was a sound one—that there should be some appropriate and carefully considered power of entry for relevant purposes. There are defects in the Clause, as it stands, to which, no doubt, there will be an opportunity to call attention in a moment. The matters that had to be cut out of the Clause were matters which ought to give the hon. Gentleman occasion for pleasure rather than peevishness.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 16, leave out "as of right," and insert "or requested."
  The House will have observed that in the new Clause, which has just been read

  1197
  a Second time, there is a proviso that admission to any premises should not be demanded as of right unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been served on the occupier. That is the form of words that is to be found in earlier statutes, but we venture to suggest, and to press the point, that it is not as good as it might be, and is not as fair or as wise legislation as we should insist on having. Let us see what the position is. The local authority suspects that in the course of the war period, something inconsistent with planning regulations or with a by-law has been done in a house, and it can claim admission to the premises. But, under the Clause as at present drawn, it cannot demand admission as of right without giving notice. I would have thought, from the point of view of the privacy and sanctity of the home, there were very great advantages indeed in embodying in this legislation, even if it be for the first time, a specific provision that people who arc to be visited and asked to admit officials into their homes should be given 24 hours notice of the visit.
  This Amendment is not moved from any hostility to local authority officials. It is moved from this point of view; we all know that year by year there are new techniques for obtaining entrance to houses, and it is the simplest possible procedure to say, "I am from the local authority. We want to have an opportunity of seeing whether there has been my breach of a by-law during the last five years when you were not in the house. We arc not imparting any blame to you at all." What a delightful method of getting into a house—a plausible person representing himself to be a local authority officer, carrying a copy of the Act with him and saying "I know you will not insist on this being a demand as of right. You will not want to give us trouble. I was passing down the street and I thought I would like to take this opportunity of seeing whether there has been a breach of the by-laws." I do not think there is any objection to a simple piece of local government machinery by which such a request, just as much as a demand as of right, is preceded by a postcard 24 hours previously Such a request would be on the notepaper of the local authority. It would be unknown to the person who was desirous of making the criminal entry which I have
  1198
  suggested is a very easy thing to effect, and there would be a very substantial safeguard if the local authority machinery for carrying out the provisions of this Bill included the routine whereby, whether on a voluntary or a compulsory basis, there were notice to householders, before the local government officer came and asked for admission to the house. I cannot see any disadvantage in it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will not say, "Look at the Acts passed 10 or 20 years ago; this was not thought of then. Why should it be thought of now? "It is a solid point that we are making, namely that it is a better piece of machinery and a better routine if, with both types of case, the householder were notified in advance.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will regard this Amendment with favour. These words add a tone of moderation, and of politeness and courtesy. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not accept this Amendment, I do not think he would be treating this House quite properly, unless he informs us that he has changed his mind since the Committee stage. I was a Member of the Committee on this Bill, and these are the words that the Parliamentary Secretary used on that occasion when resisting an Amendment of this nature:
  "It purports to give the enforcing authority powers of entry first "—
  I would like hon. Members to listen to this point—
  " where an application has already been made under Clause 2 and, secondly, where the authority itself proposes to take steps for enforcement. So far as the first of these is concerned, where an application has already been made, as is pointed out, it is necessary that the application should be accompanied by all the necessary information required for the purpose, and therefore the authority is aware of what has to be considered. So far as the second is concerned, according to this Clause the power of entry only begins to operate when the authority proposes to enforce the ' law; but surely the, fact that they propose to do this means that they are aware of the conditions that exist, and have the necessary information upon which to operate. — OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee C, Tuesday, 13th Nov. 1945, c. 19.]
  So at that time the Parliamentary Secretary did not want this power which he is now asking the House to give, and he has changed his mind. I will be pleased to hand over to him his own words if he would like to see them. I

  1199
  do not intend to pursue this question further, beyond saying that in regard to this urgent new Clause which has been brought in, the Parliamentary Secretary might very well modify it to the extent of the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend. I sincerely hope that after listening to his eloquence, the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to do so.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I, too, hope that this Amendment will be accepted, because it is one which I feel sure would be welcomed by the Parliamentary Secretary if he had been consulted upon it. Every hon. Member knows how frequently at one time people were able to effect entry into houses merely on the pretext that they were coming to read the meters and things of that sort, and then to commit criminal offences. If it is provided that there shall be a request 24 hours before admission is required to be made, that will give the ordinary householder a chance of checking up if her suspicions are aroused. We have not yet reached a stage where all representatives of local authorities wear an identifiable uniform, and it only needs a plausible rogue to put forward that pretext to secure admission to all sorts of houses. Therefore, in these days we ought to be careful in extending the right of entry on one excuse, or ground, or another. We have talked quite a lot about entry as of right. I think I am correct in saying—the hon. Gentleman opposite, I hope, will confirm this, if he will give me his attention for one moment —that although this new Clause provides for persons having a right of entry, it in fact gives no right at all of enforcing entry if the occupant objects to give admission to the person who applies for it. I think I am right in saying that if the demand is made within 24 hours, and the occupant of the house refuses to admit him, there is a possibility of a prosecution and a fine of?, but there is no right of enforcing entry into the house of the occupier.
  Again I would ask the hon. Gentleman the following question. He says these powers of entry are required, and the Clause refers to entry "as of right,' which are the words which this Amendment proposes to leave out. How are unoccupied premises affected by this Clause? Does this Clause, or any part
  1200
  of it, give any right of entry to unoccupied premises? Has a notice to be given to the owner of those premises under this proviso? I would imagine that the answer to that is in the affirmative, but even if such notice be given, can entry be forced? If the answer is that entry cannot be forced when the occupant refuses, I suggest that that is a strong ground for not using the words "as of right," in the Clause, because they will only mean the same as the words that we propose in the Amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to deal with that point when he replies.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Sparks: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward from the opposite side of the House. The main case that they appear to make is based on an endeavour to prevent criminal entry into houses or premises, but I cannot discover how the Amendment would prevent a criminal entry. It will not be a safeguard in any respect. If a person intends to make a criminal entry he will endeavour to enter illegally, and it is for the owner or occupier to be satisfied that a person who is about to enter is legally entitled to do so. The Clause as it stands seems clear. There is no demand to enter as of right unless and until 24 hours' notice have been given of the intended entry. Therefore the occupier is safeguarded until he has received 24 hours' notice of entry, and he is entitled to resist the admission of any person, no matter who he may be. Having received the 24 hours' notice, it is the occupier's duty to satisfy him self that the person who will expect to enter at the expiration of the notice is the duly authorised person for that purpose. I have yet to know that any official of a local authority would demand right of entry into premises without being in possession of some credential to prove that he was the bona fide official.
  I believe that this Debate is very much a quibble over words. I cannot see any logic or substantial argument for the Amendment. I do not believe that if the Amendment were adopted it would avoid criminal entry or would disperse the danger of criminal entry on the part of any person. It is for the owner to satisfy himself that a person who is about to be admitted is the accredited official of the

  1201
  local authority, and 24 hours' notice is to be given to him to satisfy himself on that point.
  Mr. Key:First, with regard to the question of attempted criminal entry, I would point out that Subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause lays it down that an officer of an authority shall, if requested, produce "some duly authenticated document showing his authority to act'' for the purpose. Therefore it is always open to the occupant to see that the person who is pretending to come and do the job is really the authenticated representative of the authority that is responsible for the job. There is certainly no right of forcing an entry, but there is a penalty for people who will not comply with a demand as of right to enter, and for preventing or hindering the duly accredited representative from carrying out his duty.
  With regard to the quotation from a statement which I made the other day, it is suggested that I said that this right of entry was not required. 1 would point out that what was being there discussed was a suggested new Clause which seemed to imply that this right of entry was required even for the purposes of Clause 3, under which an individual was taking action to get a local authority to operate, and must therefore have given the local authority the information with regard to the contravention that was in consideration. I was saying that, for that purpose mentioned in the suggested Clause, the right of entry was not required, but that does not mean that it is not required for the other parts of the Bill where the information is lacking.
  The difficulty which I am in with regard to the suggested Amendment is one to the full effect of which even the right hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed it has not given full consideration. As I see the Amendment, it would preclude a local authority's officer from entering premises for the purposes of the Bill, even with the consent of the occupier, unless he had given the necessary 24 hours' notice. If he did so go in, even with the consent of the occupier, he would, in law, so far as I can understand it, be a trespasser, and if, as a result of any negligence of the occupier, some accident happened to him, he would have no redress or right of action against the occupier, for such entry before the expiry of the 24 hours' notice. I can see no reason why we should desire to
  1202
  complicate the operations of officials of local government bodies for the purpose of this one Measure, when all parallel Statutory provisions give them power of entry on request, if the occupier is willing to let them in.
  There is need for the Clause to afford this power in those cases where the occupiers are not willing to let the representative enter to carry out his duties. It is in the interest of the general body of the public that there should not be unknown contraventions. I want to point out that the purpose of going to find out information of contraventions is that authorities may whitewash whatever has been done that has contravened the byelaws. Therefore it is for the safety and the benefit of the people concerned that officials should have the opportunity of seeing what has been done.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him a question? He has called in aid the part of the proposed new Clause which says:
  " any officer of an authority responsible for enforcing a building law or planning control shall, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority to act for the purposes of this section, have a right, …
  May I ask what is the object, in that case, of putting in the words "if so re-required ';?Would it not be very much better if, when anybody presented himself at a householder's door to do the inspection necessary, he were compelled instantly to produce his authority and not to wait for a request by the occupier?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller:Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer the point I made about the effect of this proviso with regard to admission to unoccupied premises? What is the use of demanding, as of right, entry to unoccupied premises?
  Mr. Key: He demands it as of right—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Of whom?
  Mr. Key: —of the owner of the premises.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The words of the Clause are "on the occupier."
  Mr. Key: If there is no occupier, he must necessarily take what steps he can. At the present time local government officials know pretty well who is the owner of premises; they take the necessary

  1203
  steps and get their entry. With regard to the production of an authenticated document if so required, it must be remembered that sanitary inspectors and other officials of local governments are, in a great number of cases, very well known to the occupiers of particular premises, and they are freely given the right to enter, because they are known. A new officer, however, as is shown by my 25years' experience of local government work, is very often asked to show his authority on his first visit, but, when he becomes known, he is not asked, and therefore there is no necessity to put it in.
  Mr. Logan: The proposed new Clause states:
  " Provided that admission to any premises which are occupied shall not be demanded as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been served on the occupier."
  Does it follow also that, on notice being given to an occupier that entry is desired, a statement will be made of the reasons for demanding entry?
  Mr. Key: The Clause does not say that. It says that the person who is going has to be duly authenticated to carry out the duties here laid down; he goes as the representative of the authority to see that there are no contraventions of the bye-laws.
  Mr. Logan: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has not grasped what I mean; it is not a question of a general survey. Is it possible for the occupier to have, from the accredited representative, notice of what he is coming to inspect?
  Mr. Key: Yes, in carrying out his duties under the Bill, his entry is for the purpose of ascertaining whether there have been any contraventions of the bye-laws during the period of the war. That is his purpose.
  Major Guy Lloyd: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinarily feeble attempt to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) with regard to absentee occupiers. He did not convince me in the least. The hon. Member for Daventry asked what was the position if the occupier was away—if he was an absentee occupier, did not in fact receive the notice, and was not aware that the
  1204
  notice had been served on him. The hon. Gentleman talked about owners, but the Clause uses the word "occupier," and I want to know what is the status of an occupier who happens to be away. The notice may be pushed through his door but he may not be aware of it at all, and in that case what is his status under the Clause? It is a most important point. Many occupiers may well be away at the time and be entirely unaware of the notice.
  Mr. Key:That happens very often in many cases where the local authorities are attempting to carry out their duties, in regard to public health and things of that sort. Public health officials act wisely and leniently. They do their job well. If the occupier is absent, they wait their time until he returns. The only reason for wanting this power is to deal with the cases in which people obstruct the local government officer, and he must have some backing to enable him to do his job.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bossom: Are we to understand from this Clause that the inspector can go to a house and, when he gets inside, have a sort of roving authority to go wherever he likes and examine the house from top to bottom? There does not appear to be any limitation. The owner or occupier should have some information as to what the man is coming to look for. It would be very unfortunate if a man could come in and go where he liked about the house, and that nobody should have any right to say "No."
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment we are discussing is to delete the words "as of right." The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of that.
  Mr. Willink: We on this side of the House feel that some very unreal arguments have been presented against this Amendment, arguments of a singularly unprogressive character. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was particularly-unconvincing in that he said that the occupier must look after himself. Surely we all feel that ordinary humble people occupying small houses will not in fact know—and cannot be expected to know—the details of Acts of Parliament of this kind.
  Mr. Sparks: The point I was trying to make was that the occupier would want

  1205
  to be satisfied that the person who was about to enter was a bona fide official of the local government, and would ask for credentials. If a person fails to ask for Credentials, he cannot complain if there is an unauthorised, criminal entry.
  Mr. Willink:If the hon. Member is really saying that no one in this country can complain if the law is such that he is in peril of being persuaded by a plausible ruffian, I cannot agree with him. It seems to me to be most desirable that we should not create a new opportunity for plausible people to gain entry to people's houses for any purpose. That is what is done if there s no provision for an advance notice. The local authority should be bound, in our submission, to take steps to indicate to anybody whose home they desire to enter that they are coming to do so in 24 hours or more. One cannot reasonably say that anybody who is visited by a person purporting to be an official, and who is persuaded by a person who is not in fact an official, has only himself or herself to blame. It is not so. These people are extremely plausible, and the way to safeguard the householder against their invasions is to say that the local authority, which can make rules and keep them, shall always give 24 hours' notice before visits of this kind. If we pass yet another Act of Parliament enabling officials, or people who purport to be officials, to come and
  say "There is an Act of Parliament under which I can come at any time and ask for admission to your house, without notice, to see that there has been no contravention of bye-laws," I say that we are putting householders in peril quite unnecessarily.
  It is an immense safeguard to the householder if, before any person can ask properly and lawfully for entry, he should give 24 hours' notice. I am not in the least impressed by the Parliamentary Secretary's point that the man would be a trespasser if he obtained consent. It will be up to the local authority's officer to know that he must not ask for consent unless a notice has been given. We all know of the crime wave that is going on at the moment; at all times there have been dishonest people who, by great plausibility, effect entrance to people's homes. It only needs two people: one effects the entrance, the other detains the householder at the door while the supposed local authority officer, not having given any indication of a visitation of this kind, goes in and does what he likes. We are here copying a Statute which is 30years old, and apparently are not disposed to improve it.
  Question put, "That the words ' as of right,' stand part of the proposed Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 126

  Division No. 58.]

  AYES.

  [7.54 p.m.

  Adams, Capt. Richard (Batham)

  Buchanan, G.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Adamson Mrs, J. L.

  Burden, T. W.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Burke, W. A

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Callaghan, James

  Dye, S.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Chater, D.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Attewell, H. L.

  Clitherow, R.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Austin, H. L.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs, B.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Ewart, R.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Collick, P.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Collindridge, F.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Barton, C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Battley, J. R.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Follick, M.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Cook, T. F.

  Foot, M. M.

  Benson, G.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Forman, J. C.

  Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Binns, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Blackburn, Capt. A. R.

  Daggar, G.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Daines, P.

  Gallacher, W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Gilzean, A.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Deer, G.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Braddock. T. (Milcham)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Diamond, J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Dobbie, W.

  Grierson, E.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Dodds, N. N

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mainwaring. W. H.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Guy, W. H.

  Mathers, G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)

  Medland, H. M.

  Solley, L. J.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Messer, F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mikardo, lan

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Stamford, W.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Monslow, W.

  Steele, T.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Montague, F.

  Stephen, C.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Morley, R.

  Stubbs, A.E.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Swingler, Capt. S.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Mort, D. L.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Holman, P.

  Moyle, A.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  House, G.

  Nally, w

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Hoy, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Hubbard, T.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.)

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Thurtle, E.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Orbach, M.

  Tiffany, S.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Tolley, L.

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Usborne, Henry

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Jones, P. Asterley

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Viant, S. P.

  Keenan, W.

  Pearson, A.

  Walkden, E.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Walker, G. H.

  Kenyon, C.

  Perrins, W.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Key, C. W.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  King, E. M.

  Popplewoll, E.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Porter, E. (Warrington).

  Watson, W. M.

  Kinley, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Kirby, B V.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Lang, G.

  Randall, H. E.

  Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)

  Lavers, S.

  Ranger, J.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Rankin, J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

  Wigg, Col. G. E. C.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Reeves, J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Leonard, W.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Rhodes, H.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Willis, E.

  Logan, D. G.

  Royle, C.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Longden, F.

  Sargood, R.

  Wilson, J. H.

  McAdam, W.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Woodburn, A.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  McGovern, J.

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Yates, V. F.

  Mack, J. D.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  McKay. J. (Wallsend)

  Shurmer, P.

  Zilliacus, K.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Silver-man, S. S. (Nelson)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McLeavy, F.

  Skefnngton, A. M.

  Mr. R. J. Taylor and

  Mr. Simmons

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Channon, H.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Cooper-Key, E M.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Ba'dwin, A. E.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge)

  Beamish. Maj. T. V. H.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Beattie, F. (Catheart)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Herbert, Sir A. P.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Bossom, A. C.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Howard, Hon. A

  Bower, N.

  Dravson. Capt. G. B.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

  Duthie W S.

  Hurd, A.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Carson, E.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Challen, Fit.-Lieut. C.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Keeling, E. H.

  1208

  1209

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Nicholson, G.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.

  Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Linslead, H. N.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Turton, R. H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Prescott, W. R. S.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Wadsworth, G.

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

  MacLeod, Capt. J.

  Renton, D.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Robinson, Wing-Cmdr. Roland

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Wheatley, Col. M. J.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  White, D. (Fareham)

  Marples, Capl. A. E.

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

  Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodntin)

  Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Maude, J. C.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Williams, Lt.-Comdr. Gerald (T'nbr'ge)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Spence, Maj. H. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  York, C.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Stoddart-Scolt, Col. M.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Mr. Drewe and.Mr.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Maude: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 20, at end, insert:
  " If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this section is admitted into a factory, workshop or workplace, discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory, workshop or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
  I have good reason to believe, if the lion. Gentleman will allow me to say so, that he will look favourably upon this Amendment. May I simply say this in order to save the time of the House? This is no new thing; that is to say, we have looked at what appears to have been adopted by the hon. Gentleman as a model Clause—Section 287 of the Public Health Act, 1936—but, whereas the Government have not asked for, for instance, the provisions under Subsection (2) for a warrant and forcible entry, they did, in fact, omit to incorporate in the Clause which now stands in the name of the Minister of Health, Clause 5, and that is, in substance, exactly the same. We have left out certain words, and, if I may read them to the House, it will be apparent that there is no novelty or anything unwise. We have left out the words "or of a warrant issued there under. "In substance, if the Government accept the Amendment, they would insert a provision which would operate not merely in favour of an individual business but will operate in favour of every business, and, as the Clause has already received the
  1210
  sanction of Parliament in the 1936 Act, I suggest to the House that it is a Clause which commends itself as a commonsense way to safeguard industry in a way which everybody would wish.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Key: I am quite ready to accept this Amendment. The only reason that I think I can give for it not being included in the suggested Clause was our desire to keep that Clause as simple as possible, and the fact that the powers were already, as it were, existing.
  Amendment to the proposed Clause agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 2.—(Power to sanction wartime non-compliance with building laws or planning control.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, leave out from "application," to "and, "in line 23, and insert:
  "publish notice thereof in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area in which the land is situated and serve notice thereof on any person appearing to the authority to be specially affected by the application."
  When we were considering this Bill in Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that our wording was not quite happy, because the Minister might not be in the position of knowing, in any particular case, what was happening in time to give the directions that are there put down within the 14 days that is prescribed in line 20 for the giving of such notices. In order to meet the criticism which the right hon. and learned

  1211
  Gentleman raised, we are suggesting that the words "general or particular directions by the Minister "be left out, and that, instead, the Bill itself shall lay down what notices should be published.
  Mr. Willink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister for having given consideration to a suggestion of my own. I still think that the alteration in the Bill is an improvement, and I think that its drafting is beyond praise.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 25, leave out "giving," and insert "publication." —[ Mr. Key.]
  Clause 3. —( Supplementary provisons as to enforcement.)
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after "land," insert:
  "and within seven days of the making thereof serves on the person proposing to take steps as aforesaid notice that the application has been made."
  It has been pointed out to us that the Clause as worded does not make sufficient provision for the case where a private person attempts to set the law in motion, inasmuch as that private person will not necessarily know whether the person against whom the action is being taken has applied to the local authority, or appealed to the Minister, for the non-conforming uses or work to be whitewashed under Clause 2, and our Amendment is designed to ensure that the person who has initiated the proceedings shall be informed if those counter-proceedings are taken by the individual. We think it will help the local authorities in carrying out their duties.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, leave out "in respect of the carrying," and insert "against any person for having carried."
  Under some of the enactments here affected, particularly the London Building Acts, a local authority is empowered, when it discovers a contravention of any of its building laws, to serve notices upon people concerned requiring the works to be brought into conformity with the building law, and, where this is done, failure to comply with a notice really constitutes an offence under the law. The intention of Subsection (3) is that the mere fact of the existence of these nonconforming
  1212
  works that have been constructed during the war should not subject the owner or occupier to the penalties, as it does now, under the existing law. It has been suggested to us, particularly with regard to the London bye-laws, that the Subsection as passed by the Committee was too wide, because it could be said that the serving of notices was a form of action in respect of the carrying out of works during the war period, and we felt it desirable that any such possibility as that should be avoided. Therefore, we suggest the alterations entailed in this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 19, leave out "of." — [Mr. Key.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." — (King's Consent signified.)
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Key:A question was raised on the Committee stage on which I promised to make a statement when we came to the Third Reading. It dealt with the expense involved in removing any structures on private land, typical examples being pillboxes and things of that sort, which were erected by the military authorities. Under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the landowner may have received compensation for the value of the land that has here been involved, but that will be in many cases quite a negligible sum, and he will not have received any compensation for the cost of the removal of the particular structures, if he wishes so to do, or if he is requested so to do. It was maintained, and I think rightly, in Committee that it would be an intolerable hardship to place the responsibility and expense of the removal of these structures upon the individual owner whilst, at the same time, it was felt it would be scarcely less justifiable if it were placed upon the ratepayers of the particular area concerned through the local authorities. The claim was made that it should be the taxpayer who would be responsible for the cost involved and, as I said, I gave a promise that we would consider the matter further.
  It is now my duty to say that it has been decided that the Minister of Works shall be responsible for the removal of temporary defence works on private land where their removal is desirable in the public interest. Where, therefore, in his appellate jurisdiction under the Bill, the

  1213
  Minister of Health is satisfied on the representation of the responsible local authority that the removal of a structure put up during the war period is in the public interest and that the compensation, if any, which the owner has received has not taken into account the cost of its removal, he will bring the case to the notice of the Minister of Works, who will take as evidence of "public interest "in the matter the decision of the Minister of Health in favour of the removal of the offending structure.
  It must, however, I think, he plain that such removal work will have to take its turn, because there arc many calls upon the resources of the Minister of Works at the present moment, and early removal of such obstructions might not be possible. The Minister of Health then, again in his appellate jurisdiction, will under the Bill be prepared to allow time for the removal of such works; in other words, he will give, in cases where such a course is necessary, a decision in favour of their being allowed to remain until such time as the Minister of Works can be reasonably expected to remove them. I hope that that explanation and undertaking will satisfy the points that were raised, and that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.
  Mr. Bossom: I wish to thank the Minister very much for giving consideration to this, but how will it be put into an understandable form?
  8.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I would like to thank the Minister for the way he has met us on this matter, which was discussed very fully in Committee and, as the Minister said, quite rightly, he gave an undertaking that he would fulfil his promise when it came to the question of the Bill being brought down here. From what I can see, he has fully met this undertaking, but I would like to ask him one question: He does not limit this just to defence works, does he? Does he include the large number of cases where buildings have had to be altered, extended and so forth, which were really not defence works at all?
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. Key: With the permission of the House, I do not think it is possible to extend this undertaking to alterations and
  1214
  extensions of buildings, and other things that might have been necessary in wartime. What were brought to our attention were obstructions which had been placed upon land, and we have undertaken that it shall be the duty of the Minister of Works to remove these, not merely the cases that are brought to notice as a result of the operation of this Bill, but in all cases it shall be his duty. As I say, where it is brought up under this Bill and the Minister is appealed to, there will be an instruction to the Minister of Works to remove them, but they will be whitewashed for the time being, as it were, so that future action cannot be taken against the owner because of the inability of the Minister of Works to remove them immediately.
  8.17 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I feel that we are entitled to have some reply on the other point which I have put forward. I think the Minister's safeguards are more than adequate as far as defence works are concerned; they are reasonable because, given good time, the Ministry of Works will be forced by a lot of us who want to see this done, to remove the works themselves rather than order other people to do it. From that point of view it is quite satisfactory, but I am trying to put before the hon. Gentleman the very real worry many of us feel that they will be ordered under this Bill to carry out all kinds of work which they were not responsible for creating. For instance, I know many instances where houses were altered for the billeting of soldiers and sailors. I would like an indication that, when His Majesty's inspectors, or local authorities, or planning authorities come round and find those alterations are not in conformity with building laws, they will not enact that restitution shall be done at the expense of the owners. That would be unreasonable, and I think we are entitled to some explanation on that point.
  Mr. Key:In the case of requisitioned properties, it is the duty of the requisitioning authority to reinstate at the time of requisition and that, therefore, should deal with the problem raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Willink: It should not be long before this House parts with this Bill, but I would like to express my appreciation of the

  1215
  statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to what I thought was not one of the largest points, but an important one from the point of view of equity. It is sometimes a little difficult to follow a statement of that kind at first hearing, and there is one particular aspect of it which I am bound to say I did not follow entirely. So far as this Bill is concerned, I imagine that this problem will arise where it is decided that it is in the public interest that a structure should be removed. There are circumstances in which undue expense may be put on the owner or occupier with regard td something which he never wanted to have on his land, and which it will be expensive for him to remove. That has been safeguarded in a reasonable way in the announcement which the Parliamentary Secretary has made.
  What I found difficult to follow was the range beyond the actual scope of the text of this Bill which he covered in his later observations. I should have thought —although I may be deemed to go beyond the scope of the Bill, as, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary himself did—that the measure of obligation on the Crown to remove defence works should not be solely measured by the public interest. There are people who' may have grounds for saying to the Government: "Take away this horrid thing you have, put on my land. I cannot believe that the public are very interested in the way in which you have covered my garden with concrete."
  I should not have thought that the measure of obligation put on the Minister of Works ought to be entirely based on whether all sorts of people were interested in this particular work. I think, however, that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary and I ought to restrict ourselves to the effects of this Bill. So far as that is concerned, I think that the explanation and the statement that the Parliamentary Secretary has made with regard to the duty which will be placed on the Ministry of Works where it is held to be in the public interest that works should be removed is satisfactory. We could have wished that the Bill had been more improved than it has been, but it is a necessary Bill, and it has been improved to some extent. I have, therefore, no desire to delay the House longer upon it.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  INDIA (PROCLAMATIONS OF EMERGENCY) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is designed to remove or prevent doubt as to the legal basis for certain emergency powers which have been exercised by the Government of India during the war period. It is a result of certain challenges recently made in three Indian High Courts to the drastic use of the Government of India Emergency Powers, namely, with respect to the requisition of movable property. I would remind the House that under the provisions of the Government of India Act, the Federal Legislature was given power to make laws with respect to all matters enumerated in the Federal Legislative list. The Provincial Legislature, on the other hand, were given power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative list. Under Section 102 of the 1935 Act—the main Act—where the Governor General has declared by proclamation that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened, whether by war or otherwise, the Federal Legislature is empowered to make laws for defence in respect of any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative list. In September, 1939, the Federal Legislature passed the Defence of India Act. Section 2 of that Act authorises the making of rules covering inter alia the requisition of any property movable or irremovable.
  It is in respect of the Defence of India Rule 75, which provided for such requisition, which has given rise to the litigation to which I have referred. In this litigation it has been contended that inasmuch as there is no entry in any of the legislative lists— that is the Provincial or Central Legislative lists—dealing by name with the requisition of movable property, any legislation directed to that end is, therefore, inappropriate. That contention was in fact repelled by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts, but was accepted by the Bombay High Court. Appeals to the

  1217
  Federal Court are pending from both the Calcutta and Bombay judications, and no successful decisions there can be said yet to have been reached. It should be emphasised that these cases have not been brought because of the absence of provision for the payment of compensation for the property which has been requisitioned, as such provision is included in the Defence of India Rules, and compensation has been paid for what was taken.
  The calling into question of the validity of the Government of India Emergency Powers is regarded seriously because it may conceivably be directed against other powers exercised under the Defence of India Rule, even though the present appeal to the Federal Court should fail. The Government of India are very anxious that steps should be taken, irrespective of the eventual decision of the Federal Court, to safeguard the general Emergency Powers from this form of challenge, by removing any doubt that there may be as to the validity of other emergency powers; and that is what this Bill proceeds to do. In other words, the main object of the Bill is to give the Governor-General the power to make the rules which everyone supposed he had the power to make, and upon which the Federal Court has not so far adjudicated. I should like to be quite frank with the House, and say that I am fully aware that retrospective legislation does not find favour with the House, nor do T favour it myself. It is undoubtedly something which we have to avoid so far as possible, but cases do occasionally arise where it is essential and unavoidable that retrospective legislation should be carried. It is on this basis that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  There is one other matter, which relates to Clause 2 of the Bill, on which I should like to say a word. It is considered that everything possible should be done to remove any hardship which might fall upon a litigant who had won his case in the High Court and who had been deprived of the opportunity of upholding the decision that he had obtained. Therefore, Clause 2 endeavours, firstly, so far as possible, to put him right in so? As costs of the legal proceedings are concerned, and, secondly, in so far as he may have sustained any loss due to his having assumed that decision would be upheld, when, in fact, it would
  1218
  be overruled as a result of the passing of this Bill.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I am sorry to appear to quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest and most sincere affection, but I feel profoundly anxious about this Bill from a good many points of view. It has been my fortune or misfortune to have had to understand a good deal about the Indian Constitution, and I find a good many things that worry me about this Bill, and about the wide scope of it. The Under-Secretary tells us that there are three decisions of which one or two cause some anxiety to the Government of India. If I saw in this Bill a provision to alter the law so as to cover these two decisions, and nothing else, I would not seriously worry. But I find in this Bill an immense width of provisions, and 1 bear in mind in examining the width of those provisions, if I can recollect merely from the cases I have been in myself— and I have not by any means been in all of them— that there are scores of rules and enactments of various kinds in British India that have been held invalid and subsequently re-enacted in different forms. There are literally thousands of people who have been unlawfully imprisoned in India for long periods without trial, as a result of those illegal enactments. As soon as those enactments have been held to be illegal, further and better drawn enactments have been passed, which have been held to be legal, to cover up their tracks and keep their citizens in prison, or perhaps I should call it detention.
  When one turns to the Bill and finds that instead of it being an innocuous Bill to put right three cases, the effect is that on the proclamation of an emergency— and there generally are proclamations of emergency—the powers to legislate for Provinces are transferred to the Central Legislature, which means the Indian Legislature; and in fact they are then often enough transferred to the Governor-General, and the functions of legislation are largely performed by the Viceroy and Governor-General. One finds that he is given, by the Constitution Act as it stands, all the rights of Provincial legislation. This Bill seeks to give him a large number of rights of legislation which have not previously been his at all. I daresay we would not be very alarmed

  1219
  about that because we have to be tolerant and broadminded about the difficult tasks of government nowadays. But there have been many cases in which powers have been widened retrospectively like this without going on to enact such provisions as are to be found subsequently in this Bill. Look at Clause 2. The first Subsection says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Section, this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935.''
  That is to say, this alteration in powers, which is intended to become law in 1945, or early in 1946, will date back— the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong— to 1st April, 1937. So it will have to be pretended in all further litigation and legislation that the law has been different from what it has in fact appeared to be for nine years. That need not necessarily worry us. It will not worry the layman, because he doesn't worry about the law until it hits him, and it will not worry lawyers because they understand that this sort of thing is often necessary.
  It is when we come to Clause 2 (2) that I really am worried, because in all the odd legislation I have ever seen in this country, the Dominions and the Colonies, in the trouble us times in dealing with Ireland, and in many other cases, I doubt whether I have seen anything of this sort. I am prepared to accept almost anything new. Indeed, I give up most of my political time in helping to fight for something new, but when I see something new of this kind I want some explanation. The Under-Secretary, like his chief in another place, really has not given an explanation at all. Look at what the Subsection says:
  "Where, before the passing of this Act, a High Court in British India has given a judgment or made a final order in any proceedings involving a question as to the validity of any law, ordinance, order, byelaw, rule, or regulation passed or made in India, any party to the proceedings may,at any time within 90 days from the passing of this Act, apply" —
  in some cases to the Federal Court and in other cases to the High Court—
  " for a review of the proceedings in the light of the provisions of this Act, and the Court to which the application is made shall review the proceedings accordingly and make such order, if any, varying or reversing the judgment or order previously given or made, as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Act:"
  1220
  Let me translate that if I can, if I can make my somewhat unhappy voice heard, into simple English and apply it to the case to which, when I read the Bill, and before I heard the Under-Secretary's explanation or read the explanation in another place, I thought it was meant to apply, and to which I know as a matter of English it can apply. Suppose that before the passing of this Act, say, any time from 1937, or more likely from 1939, until today a High Court in British India has given judgment saying that some regulation is invalid, and as a result of that one of my fellow citizens in India has been released from detention. This Bill becomes an Act and makes valid the regulation, whereupon within 90 days "a party to the proceedings," namely, officials of the King-Emperor, can go to the court which dealt with the released person in question, and say, "Reverse the judgment in the light of what we have enacted to be the law, and put the man back in prison."
  If the Under-Secretary says that this Bill is not intended to do anything of the sort, I would say that of all the Governments we are asked from time to time to trust, the one which I trust with the least good will is the Government of India. I do not trust the Government of India when I find a Bill that would enable them to do almost anything and then say that the only purpose they will use it for is the three cases of civil proceeding mentioned by the Under-Secretary. If that is all they want to do the Government should take this Bill away and bring before the House a new one that does that, and nothing more. That is only one illustration of many. The general proposition that will appeal to most of us is that when there has been litigation, and it has been carried through to the end, and has been decided in favour of one party or the other, when someone has a specific right to get his damages, or is cleared of the burden of paying damages, or when he gets his freedom, or does not, it should not be possible nine years afterwards to go back to the court, rip up the whole proceeding sand have an entirely different judgment delivered.
  I am prepared to assent to anything if I am shown that it is in what I believe to be the real interests of my country, but I am not prepared to assent to a thing like that, unless the Under-Secre-

  1221
  tary or whoever is to reply tells us why it is really necessary. If it is desired to make valid some regulations which have been previously declared invalid, then do that, but why rip up, say, three cases? There may be 30,000 cases for all I know. As a matter of interest, today and tomorrow I am engaged in the task of trying to discover whether a particular piece of legislation in British India — entirely non-political of course, or I should not have mentioned it here— is valid or not. That involves 100,000 cases. This may easily do so. Whatever the number is, is it not sufficient to get the regulations made valid? Why rip up previous proceedings and take away from someone the judgment they have got. Again I am quite prepared— very little shocks me— to be told that there is some good reason, but at the moment I know of none.
  Then we are asked to look at the proviso to Clause 2. It is the only part of Clause 2 that the Under-Secretary really mentioned, showing what the Government are prepared to do. I think his words were that they were particularly anxious to remove hardship from litigants. The best way to remove hardship from a litigant who has won his suit is to leave it alone. The Government do not want to do that, they want to take his judgment away, and so they put a proviso in the Bill that on any such application, that is to say when application is made to the court, in effect, to rip up the judgment, and make it conform to what is now enacted to be the law, the court
  "may make such order as to the costs of the application and of the proceedings as may be just."
  I assume that the court will say to the litigant "You won your case in 1942, and you have been brought up in 1946 to lose it. We will give you your costs on the application and the proceedings." He is not so far any better off than he would be if they had left him alone. Then "where they vary or reverse the original judgment or order," he court "may order "— which means that they will not do it unless they want to— that the person adversely affected by the variation or reversal shall be paid
  "such compensation as may be just for any loss sustained by him,"
  not by the judgment, not restoring to him his judgment—
  1222
  "which is attributable to anything reasonably done by him in reliance on the original judgment or order."
  To give a simple illustration, suppose they take away his motor car and he brings an action against them because their Regulation was invalid and recovers the value of his motor car, or the car itself. It might be thought sufficient to leave the man with his motor car. Oh, no, no. You must first reverse the judgment which took his motor car away from him, you take away from him the compensation recovered in the action, and generously award him his costs, and then give him "such compensation as may be just for any loss sustained by him in any action he took in reliance on the order." If he relied on the judgment of the Indian court that the car was his and he should have it, and he subsequently bought a new carburettor for it, you generously give him the cost of the new carburetter.
  We are being asked to assent to this at an anxious time in the history of British India, at the instance of a Government in British India which does not command the universal confidence of all of us, and so I ask that we shall be given some really good reason why we should assent to this astonishing legislative provision. The only other thing I should like to ask is. Why are we to legislate here about this at all? It seems to me that the Constitution Act gave the Government of India ample power to deal with the whole problem. Sometimes I wish I had been in the House when that Bill was going through, not because I would have approved of it, but because I could have learned something about drafting. However, it is not too late. If the ordinary lawyer looked at this Bill he would at first sight think that this question should come to the Legislature here in Westminster, because it was Westminster that gave all these powers, it was Westminster that laid down the Schedule and enacted Section 102, and so if it is necessary to widen it this must come to Westminster. But when I look at what Westminster did I find it says in Section 104:
  " The Governor-Genera] may by public notification empower … the Federal Legislature to enact a law with respect to any matter not enumerated in any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule to this Act."
  I look back at the Bill, and I find that the Federal Legislature is being given power to legislate

  1223
  "with respect to any matter not enumerated in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule to this Act."
  Again I am quite prepared to have it explained to me, but it looks as if the whole of this legislation, good or bad, could be enacted by the Governor-General by public notification under the powers contained in Section 104 of the Act. It may be that they want to throw the odium on Westminster rather than on Delhi. In that case I must not say "Return the buck" but "Let us refuse the odium." Unless and until I receive an explanation which I can understand, I shall regard this as a bad Bill which this House ought not to pass.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I, too, feel that this is a bad Bill, and to my mind both the Secretary of State in another place and the Under-Secretary here have treated this matter a little too lightly. The Bill has come to us from another place, where it was dealt with in a few moments, and I think the Under-Secretary has rather glided over matters as if there was no very great point involved; but there is. I have never seen a Bill of this kind referring to this country drawn up in this form. The Under-Secretary has said that the Government were proceeding on the line of retrospective legislation, sort of half apologising, but we are now asked to legislate and pass a Bill in 1945 and to say that it shall have exactly the same effect as if it had been passed 10 years ago in 1935, and the Government are obviously taking far more powers than they need under this Bill. As the Under-Secretary rightly said, one does not like retrospective legislation at any time, because the effect of it is to make illegal what it was perfectly legal for a man to do at the time he did it and he is to be punished today for doing it though it was perfectly legal at that time. We do not like that kind of thing unless, to repeat the words used by the Secretary of State in another place, there is some extraordinary and special reason for it. I cannot see any extraordinary and special reason for going back so much further than there is any necessity to do.
  This matter arose as the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said, because of bad drafting in the original Act of 1935. Under that Act we gave to India the Constitution under
  1224
  which she now operates, and we divided the powers between the central legislative authority and the provincial legislative authorities. Ordinarily when that is done, in case you have not provided for everything in your two separate Legislatures, you decide where the residue of the power is to reside. In the case of the United States of America the residue is in the individual States. What happened under this Act was that instead of deciding there and then, it was said, "If there is anything that we have forgotten, any residue, then the Governor-General shall have power to decided whether it shall go on the one hand to the central authority or, on the other hand, to the provincial authorities. "No question having arisen calling for any decision in that way, we come down to 1939.
  In 1939the Governor-General exercised a power that had been given to him by the Act of declaring a state of emergency as having occurred. Thereupon he proceeds to issue what are called in this country Orders in Council. For a while nobody seems to have cared; they were accepted under a state of emergency. Then individuals began to challenge them and the Under-Secretary has told us that three cases have come before the High Courts, one in Madras, one in Calcutta and one in Bombay. In the first two cases the judges in India decided that the Orders made by the Governor-General were valid, but in Bombay the Court came to the conclusion that they were invalid and ultra vires. Thereupon, in one case the Government appealed, and in the others the subjects appealed. Along comes the India Office and proposes this hurried legislation. All that was mentioned in another place, and the only thing the Under-Secretary has mentioned today, was that something had arisen under one Order relating to moveable property. If that be the only Order troubling them and the state of emergency having now ended, why do not they come and ask for this narrow matter to be dealt with and ask the House to deal with that and that alone? Instead, they come and ask for the widest possible words, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith read out. They are:
  "Any question involving the validity of any law, any ordinance, any order, any law, any rule, or any regulation passed or made in India."

  1225
  Those words cover every kind of Act that can be thought of, relating not only to property but, possibly, to the actual persons themselves. Might I impress upon the Under-Secretary of State, following upon my hon. and learned Friend, that they are taking powers to call again upon people who have been released from prison to go back. It is no good the Under-Secretary shaking his head. [An Hon. Member: "It does not say that at all."] I will repeat what I have already read to hon. Members. The proceedings are of the widest sort, both civil and criminal. There is no adjective limiting them. Proceedings Under
  " any law, any ordinance, any order, any bylaw, any rule or any regulation."
  It is no good the hon. Gentleman telling us it is not so. What right has he to make any pledge on anybody's behalf? This is the Constitution of India over which he will have no control whatsoever, and I submit there are wider powers being asked for here than this House has ever granted under conditions of this kind. Whenever anybody has made a mistake and an Order made in Privy Council turns out to be ultra vires and invalid, all that happens is that they come down to the Legislature and ask it to put it right, and, possibly, to put it right in retrospect as from the date it was first made, but they will not ask for more. Then an indemnity is granted, but here, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the original Order may have been invalid; somebody may have taken the trouble to challenge it, and gone to great cost in challenging it. That person's property has been taken.
  The hon. Gentleman says he has been given compensation. Compensation may be a certain consolation, but it is not the same thing as the original property itself. The court in Bombay said it was wrong, that those goods ought to be handed back, and that the Government ought to pay the costs. But, as my hon. and learned Friend knows from his past practice, costs that are given in court are never indemnified, not even if they are made as between solicitor and client. The man is out of pocket. Now, having won his case, the Government will bring him before the court again and say that in the light of this new Act of Parliament passed at Westminster they are asking the court to review the case and make a new Order, as may seem to be just and fair.
  1226
  Is that the kind of thing we ought to assent to today? Either, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, this hurried bit of legislation should be withdrawn—it seems to me, again, to have been inherited by this Government—and another more limited Bill brought in dealing only with the point the Government want to deal with. Or, if they do not want to do that, will they limit it in commitment by a definite Clause which will make it absolutely certain that it can go no further than the point at issue? Under no circumstances should there be any review with regard to the personal liberty of anybody so that a person can be quite sure that something which we do in 1945 shall not put him back into prison for something he did prior to 1945. Let us, at any rate, have that perfectly clear. I beg the Government to be more careful about this type of Bill, which might well slip through unless somebody keeps an eye on it.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: The first observation I should like to make to the House this evening is that this is the second time the India Office have brought down to the House of Commons a Bill to put right some gross error in the courts of British India. On the last occasion we had a divorce Bill, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was obliged to come down and explain that owing to some glaring error owing to the inability of the High Courts of India to read the notice of a passage elsewhere, there was confusion in the divorce law of India. I was very sympathetic with the hon. Gentleman when he came here to ask the Imperial Legislature to take the time of both Houses to pass an Act of Indemnity because a mistake had been made in India. I think it damaging to the Government to have to come again, on a second occasion, and introduce a Bill to put right errors committed in India. I extend my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for having to come here a second time and trouble Parliament in both Houses in this connection. I would say this time—and I uttered eloquently on the last occasion which was critical of the Government—that we have had enough of this sort of thing in Parliament and that the time had come when we should say that those who administer the law in India should do it in the right way. I must confess that the terms of the original

  1227
  Act, with which I had something to do in 1935, may be at fault. I would not accept the view of the hon. and learned Member who has spoken that this is a damnosa hereditas from the last Government, but it may be a damnosa hereditas from the Act of 1935. If that be the case, I can only say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary for India must look into it very closely and, with the help of those of us who have had to deal with the operation of the law in India, put it right.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has put forward some very definite and damaging arguments which affect the Bill as we see it before us today. As I understand the position, it is that there are no actual items onthe legislative list which cover the action of the authorities in India in requisitioning certain properties. As that is the case, it is necessary to come before Parliament for an amendment of the original Government of India Act in view of the relationship of the original Government of India Act to the Defence of India Act itself. The only learning I can add to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith is that we must read this not only in the light of the Government of India Act of 1935,but of the Defence of India Act, and the fact that this is dealing with an emergency.
  The first question I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary—and on this point depends our attitude on this side of the House to the Bill—is: are any powers envisaged under this Bill, either retroactively or in the future, greater than the powers used in this country under the emergency provisions generally? If we find that this is to deal with normal cases under emergency powers, we will be - somewhat concerned. I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer that point clearly, so that we know the scope of this Measure, and I would like him to answer the anxiety raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith and other hon. Members as to whether this Act is intended to deal with prisoners, civilian cases, and, if not, I fail to see how the language on the face of the draft Bill would reassure us on this side of the House. I am not a lawyer and, therefore, appeal to the hon. and
  1228
  Learned Gentleman to assure me on that point. If he will reassure us in these two respects, we do, at any rate, get a certain distance.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, without whose co-operation we were unfortunately obliged to pass the 1935 Act, but with whose help the Statute would have had more eloquence and even greater precision, has drawn attention to Section 104 of the original Act of 1935, and he suggests that it can be done as residual powers of legislation, where by the Governor-General would be able, in his view, to alter the items' on the legislative list. I remember that that Section was inserted on purpose to deal with cases of obscurity in the field of the legislative list as it lay between the projected legislative Legislature and the Provincial Legislature. I was for a moment deluded by the legal observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but as I read the Section it is the case that if the Governor-General were to make a decision in his discretion in this field, he would not be able to alter his notification and, therefore, once and for all the subject he designated as being an item in the Provincial list, for instance, would remain forever in the Provincial list. That is not the desire of the Government in this case.
  Mr. C. Davies: Surely the difficulty under Section 104 is that the Governor-General cannot act retrospectively.
  Mr. Butler: Perhaps if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) allowed me to conclude my legal discussion, he would see that I come to that as my second point. The fact that as a lawyer he adds a second point to my first does not invalidate my first point. I was about to add, with the aid of my hon. and learned Friend, whose aid I will always call in future in these difficult problems, that in Section 104 the Government do not mean retroactively. There are two difficulties in relying exclusively on Section 104. It would be necessary to pass some resolution to put right the action of the authorities in India who have requisitioned property under the Emergency Regulation. If that be the case, so far, part of the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith is demolished and I do not think that he can call in aid

  1229
  Section 104. It is necessary to have some legislation of some sort for the two reasons that I have given. I ask the Government to give an answer as to the scope of the legislation. If the proposed legislation is so wide as to bring in civil and human cases, I consider that the legislation is drawn far too wide for the House to consider and pass this evening. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can give an assurance on these points, we would be happy to examine the legislation in Committee.
  I come to Subsection (2), which is drawn in exceedingly wide terms, as has been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith. The terms of Subsection (2) seem to give an opportunity to range over a vast range of proceedings in the past. It is incumbent upon the Under-Secretary to tell us in what way this wide ranging is in the least degree limited? It is somewhat disturbing, looking at the Proviso, to consider the words "the variation or reversal of such compensation." If the measure, when it is finally passed is to apply to three cases under the High Court we have a certain satisfaction in knowing that legislation is limited, but if we read, together with the proviso, the wide ranging words about proceedings involving the question as to validity of any law we are opening up a field so vast, and, if it is not limited by civil cases, so obnoxious, that I do not think that the House ought to pass the Measure without further satisfaction.
  I put this question to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he can answer satisfactorily then I would permit this Bill to go to a discussion in Committee but I must reserve the right of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to examine the Bill most carefully in Committee. Little Bills rushed through are not necessarily good legislation. It is incumbent upon us on this side of the House, together with the unusual aid that we can seek from other quarters, to make sure that the legislation passed by this ancient and honourable House is satisfactory. Our attitude depends on the answers as to the scope of the legislation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself.
  9.8 p.m
  Mr. Solley: Like the hon. and learned Member for North Hammer-
  1230
  smith (Mr. Pritt) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I view this Bill with the gravest apprehension. Bearing in mind that it comes from a Socialist Government, I should say that it is a doubly bad Bill. During the course of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery there was interruption from the Opposition benches to the effect that Clause 2 of the Bill had only reference to civil matters and not to criminal matters. That is not so and I propose to give the House two examples to show that if we pass this Bill as it stands we shall in fact be sentencing hundreds if not thousands of our Indian friends to terms of imprisonment. I propose to prove my point be reference to a specific case which went to the Privy Council. In the case of The King-Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji and Others, some eight Indians were detained under one of the many regulations made by the autocratic Government of India, and, very properly in the circumstances of that case, these Indian subjects applied to the High Court at Fort William for a writ of habeas corpus. It was argued during the course of the proceedings that the alleged law under which they had been detained was ultra vires the power of the authorities who had made that law, and that consequently the detention was illegal. That High Court ordered that those Indians should be released. Happily, from the point of view of the British authorities in India, those Indians were immediately seized and arrested on some other charge. The fact remains that if this Bill goes through as it is today, those Indians who were declared by the Divisional Bench of the High Court of Judicature to have been illegally detained, could again be detained and be sent back to prison. That is one example of proceedings by way of habeas corpus where the appropriate court could grant an order of review.
  Let me take another type of proceeding. Let us suppose—and there must be at least hundreds of such cases—an Indian is sentenced in India for some alleged criminal offence. He appeals against his sentence, the ground of his appeal being that the law under which he was convicted was ultra vires, and the appellate court upholds that decision. The man is consequently released. What will happen if this Bill becomes operative? If the law is validated, the man who was re-

  1231
  leased by the appellate court must go back to prison. That is what we are being asked to do today by a Socialist Government, and I would add my voice to those of the right hon. Gentleman and hon. and learned Gentleman opposite who have spoken, and say that if it is in fact the intention of the Government that this Bill should apply exclusively to the three cases referred to by the Under-Secretary of State, then there is absolutely no necessity whatsoever for Clause 2 of this Bill to be worded in this way. The argument does not stop there. The proviso of that Clause does not, in fact, give any compensation to a gentleman who is sent back to gaol through no fault of his own. It only provides a very limited compensation for certain persons who, in certain very special classes of cases, have acted on the assumption that they are lawfully entitled to follow a certain course of conduct. It does not, in my submission, apply to any case of a criminal or quasi criminal type.
  Finally, I would like to address myself to Clause I We are being asked, in a matter of an hour or two, to make what is, in my submission, substantial constitutional changes in respect of the Government of India. What we are being asked in Clause I of this Bill is to alter the centre of gravity of the legislative councils in India. We are giving the federal legislature which, as was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith, is often merely a nom de plume for the Viceroy, legislative rights which, at the moment, it does not possess, and, accordingly, to take away from the provincial legislatures rights which at the present moment they possess.
  All I can say to that politically is that it may well be that the Indian Government have in mind the prospect of elections in the near future and that the new Provincial Legislatures possibly may have a political colour which does not appear to be proper to the Powers That Be; and therefore they are thinking, in the year 1945, of getting emergency powers whereby they can take away from democratically elected Provincial Legislatures certain powers of legislation which those bodies possess, so that in effect, the will of the Indian people can once again be circumscribed by autocratic and dictatorial emergency legislation. For those reasons and for reasons which have
  1232
  already been given, I am not prepared to support the Government on the Bill unless I have a complete assurance that the Bill will correspond to what one would expect from a Socialist Government.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: There must indeed be something wrong with this Bill if it can produce speeches of the sort to which we have just listened. I interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) to say that the Bill applied only to civil cases. The object of the Bill is perfectly clear. When Provincial Legislatures fail to function, certain powers are taken over by the Central Legislature of the Central Indian Government, under Section 93, and it has been found that the resumed powers, as one might say, in some cases are not completely comprehensive. Certain subjects have emerged into the light of day which are not included among the provincial powers enumerated in the Seventh Schedule. I said that it covered only civil cases because all possible criminal cases are already covered in the Schedule. As I see it, the sole purpose of the Bill is to say, in legal jargon, that if by any chance there are odd subjects which have been left out, or were left out in 1935, it shall be proper that Ordinances be issued in respect of them. Under Section 104, of course, there is a residual power of legislation left, but that power does not apply when the Provinces have been administered under Section 93.
  Mr. Pritt: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him to say that I think he is wrong in his reference to Section 93. It is not a case of failure to exercise powers under Section 93. It is Section 102 which applies when an emergency has been declared and the powers of a provincial legislature have been taken over by the central legislature. It may not invalidate the argument, but that is the position.
  Mr. Nicholson: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member must be right, but I do not think that fact invalidates my argument. As I see the purpose of the Bill, it seems to stop up any possible gaps that can be. They would be gaps only of a relatively minor nature. I still maintain that it would be physically impossible for the Bill to cover any but civil cases, because everything has been covered in

  1233
  the Seventh Schedule. I hope that the India Office will not adopt such very comprehensive phraseology. Further, I admit that unless one studies the India Act very carefully, it is very alarming phraseology. It rather reminds me of the medieval scholastic philospher who wrote a book entitled "De omnibus rebus, et quibus dem aliis," in other words, "About everything and a few other things." It looks to me as though this legislation is framed somewhat on those lines. I hope the purpose of the Bill can be explained in simple language. It gives the Governor-General power to issue Regulations in the case of some purely drafting slip or omission in the Seventh Schedule to the Act.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am not competent to judge whether this Bill could have all the effects attributed to it by my hon. Friend, but it seems quite clear from a very casual reading of the words that it gives the Government of India powers far wider than would appear to be necessary to cover the very narrow object for which my hon. and learned Friend said he wanted the Bill. It seems as if there is a gulf fixed between the purposes of the Government and the achievement of the Bill, and the part of it that worries me most is what seems to me to be the great power of the Government of India to give retro-active effect to criminal legislation, so as to involve people in criminal sanctions and penalties for doing things which, it is clear from the fact that this Bill is before the House, it was perfectly legal for them to do. It is a very bad thing for any sovereign legislative assembly to legislate in that fashion for its own subjects here at home, who some day will have the right to say something about it when a General Election comes, but it must obviously be very much worse to do it in this House for millions of people in India who are subjected to an administration which is not responsible to this House at all, and in circumstances which would render it impossible for this House to keep any effective control. I do not want to add anything to the embarrassment which I am sure my hon. Friend feels. This is not his fault. Neither the circumstances, nor the fact that he has to come before the House and ask for these powers, are his fault, and I am sure he is getting, and certainly deserves, the sympathy of the
  1234
  House for the predicament in which he finds himself.
  All I want to ask him to do is to undertake, before Committee stage, to look very carefully at the actual words of the Clause, and see whether they do not indeed give the Government of India far wider powers than are necessary to meet the position which has arisen, and particularly on that side of the matter which might involve criminal proceedings or penalties. I suppose the introduction of the word "civil" in Clause 2, before the word "proceedings," would go a long way to ease some of our anxieties, but whether that kind of Amendment or some other would be better, I am perfectly content to accept his advice when the time comes, provided that he will at this stage give us the assurance that it is not intended that these powers which are retroactive will affect anything but civil proceedings.
  9.24 p.m.
  Mr. Sorensen: It is very rarely that I look to the Conservative benches for inspiration, but tonight I must confess that I do, for the simple reason that every speaker from the Liberal and Labour benches has been a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, and the only two speakers on the Conservative benches are not lawyers. But for them I should have been so impressed by the forensic skill of the other speakers that I would have remained dumb. I do not intend to speak for more than a few moments, because the point I have in mind has already been well covered by my legal friends and by my opponents. Even though this Bill, possibly, had an entirely innocent intention—and I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India is a man above guile and hardly likely to foster the enactment of legislation with an ulterior motive—I must confess that my hon. and legal Friend who spoke earlier, did point out that it is sometimes possible that people most innocent in appearance, have a sinister motive. I do not suggest that there has been any sinister motive in this legislation, but as a layman I think that a good many of the terms of this Bill are capable of a much wider interpretation than the relatively innocent application to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier.

  1235
  It may be that I am wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to me that one possible effect of the passing of this Bill may be still further to strengthen the Central Legislature of India against the Provincial Legislatures. That may seem to be quite attractive to the democratic minds of the House, until one realises that the strengthening of the Central Legislature is really the strengthening of the powers of the Governor-General, because under the Government of India Act he has power to repeal any Act made by the Assembly of India. In those circumstances it would be well, I think, for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State to consider very carefully whether, without his really understanding or knowing it, he is not bringing in a Bill the effect of which will be substantially to increase the autocratic power of the Governor-General.
  Reference has been made more than once to the undoubted fact that under the provisions of Clause 2 it will be possible to get the courts to return to prison persons acquitted by the courts, even if they have been acquitted years before the passing of this Bill. That is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is perhaps the more dramatic, or even melodramatic aspect to which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) referred. I do not know whether all that we are discussing today comes under the general heading of the India (Proclamations of Emergency) Bill, or whether in fact there are behind the scenes those who envisage a much greater emergency than this Bill desires to cover. I would simply observe that it is a little unfortunate, on the eve of the departure of a deputation to India, to come forward with a Bill the actual effect of which is not to decrease the amount of emergency legislation, and not to extend the amount of freedom, but on the contrary rather to contract it. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, who expounded the Bill in all innocence and integrity, to' think again, and to see whether he cannot withdraw the Bill, or give some complete assurance that what he thinks is in the Bill is really covered by it. If he is not assured of that in his own mind, I beg him to withdraw the Bill and think again.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Mikardo: As I also am a layman, I intervene in this Debate with some diffidence, but one does not need to be a lawyer to understand two things about the Bill. The first is that when hon. Members consider legislation, they ought to consider, not what the Minister says he wants to do under the legislation, but what it is possible for him or his successors ever to do under the legislation. The second thing is that it is always dangerous to go in for retroactive legislation, which apparently my hon. and learned Friend wants to call retrospective legislation. Because everyone appears to appreciate the danger of retroactive legislation, the proviso at the end of Clause 2 is inserted. As a layman I want to ask one simple question. What precisely is meant by the expression:
  " Such compensation as may be just for any loss sustained "
  if the person adversely affected has sustained something adverse which cannot be measured in pecuniary terms? If I were the victim of a prosecution, I should consider myself adversely affected by the very fact of having been brought into court, but no compensation is envisaged for this loss of face, or embarrassment, or humiliation. Or, to take a further example, if someone had been put in prison, and had lost only the few pounds a week of his wages, is he to be compensated merely for loss of earnings, or does he get any other compensation for having been detained? It seems to me that this proviso is insufficient to act as a complete safeguard against the dangers of retroactive legislation.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. A. Henderson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may speak a second time. I appreciate very much some of the kind remarks that have been made by various speakers. One of my hon. Friends suggested that I had come down to the House, in all innocence, to put forward a Bill which I did not understand, and which would have appalling consequences if it became law. I would like, at once, to remove one misunderstanding which seems to be held, especially on this side of the House. and which followed the weighty attack by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) on the provisions of the Bill. Let

  1237
  me say at once, that this Bill does not, in any way, affect the liberty of any individual in India today. Let me explain the provisions.
  Clause I seeks to insert certain words in Section 102 of the 1935 Act. Perhaps I might quote that Section:
  " (1) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sections of this -chapter, the Federal Legislature shall, if the Governor-General has in his discretion declared by Proclamation (in this Act referred to as a Proclamation of Emergency) that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened, whether by war or internal disturbance, have power to make laws for a Province or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial legislative list: "
  If we-turn to the Seventh Schedule to the Act, we see there enumerated the various items that comprise the Provincial Legislative List and the matters which are within the province of that Legislature. During the emergency period, the central Legislature is given power to legislate for any of the matters contained in that Provincial legislative list. As I said in my first speech, the Government in 1939 passed the Defence of India Act, which contained a provision that rules, similar to our Defence of the Realm Regulations, should be issued, covering a multitude of matters that were of importance during the war period. That was five years ago. I may say, at this point, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr R. A. Butler) who asked whether I could give an assurance that the Defence of India Regulations, as amended in the event of this Bill becoming law, are no more extensive than the Defence of the Realm Regulations in this country. At the moment, assuming that the judgment in the court of Bombay were to be upheld by the supreme court of appeal— the Privy Council—the Defence of India Regulations, would be less extensive than the Defence of the Realm Regulations in this country. As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said, the intention of the Bill is to stop a loophole which, as a result of this litigation, has been found to exist in the Defence of India Regulations.
  The effect of Clause I would be to give the central Legislature, as from 1937, retrospectively the same powers over these additional matters as they have
  1238
  today for matters enumerated in the Provincial legislative list, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the first item on the Provincial legislative list relates to public order, and that any power that may be exercised today by the Government of India, in relation to imprisonment or detention or any other matter affecting the liberty of the subject, has been enjoyed by the Government of India ever since 1939, when the Proclamation of Emergency was first published. Therefore, so far as the question of the liberty of the subject is concerned, and in spite of the eloquence used by my hon. and learned Friend, I can assure him, and I can assure the House, that there is nothing in this Bill which in any way affects the liberty of the subject. I willingly say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that I will have examined very closely Clause 2 of the Bill with a view to placing beyond all doubt the point to which he referred in that connection.
  Mr. Solley: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds, may I say that while I accept his statement of the intention of the Government, the important point is to see that the intention of the Government is translated into appropriate language in this Bill? I submit that on the present wording of this Bill, every contention put before him by hon. and learned Members still stands.
  Mr. A. Henderson: What I am endeavouring to do for the benefit of the House is to explain the matter to the best of my ability. The words arc quite plain; there is no ambiguity about them:
  "to make laws, whether or not for a Province or any part thereof, with respect to any matter not enumerated in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule to this Act."
  Therefore there can be no ambiguity about what is contained now in the Seventh Schedule. They are in print, and my hon. Friend might take the trouble to look at the Seventh Schedule of the 1935 Act, when he will see for himself that the first item refers to public order.
  Mr. Solley:I have taken that trouble. The point is that Clause 1 is not limited by Clause 2, nor is Clause 2 limited by Clause 1. Clause 2 stands by itself. Would my hon. and learned Friend deal with the contention raised under Clause 2 (2), that that Clause makes retroactive

  1239
  legislation possible, without any reference to any Schedule?
  Mr. A. Henderson: I must confess that I can do only one thing at a time. At the moment, I am endeavouring to deal with Clause 1. I repeat that there can be no ambiguity about what is set forth in the Seventh Schedule itself as passed by this House. It is only with a very limited number of matters, not actually set out in the Provincial legislative list in the Seventh Schedule, that we are concerned in this Bill.
  May I take a practical point? The question from the point of view of the Government of India is this. They have their Defence of India Rules which have been in operation for the last five years. They have operated them. In the case of requisitioning, just as in this country, they have had to use their requisitioning powers extensively. The issue that has arisen is the doubt that has been thrown upon the validity of those requisitoning powers, because of the suggestion that there was nothing in the Seventh Schedule which permitted or authorised the Government of India to exercise these requisitioning powers. Therefore, what this Bill seeks to do is to say that Section 102 has to be interpreted to include any matter that is not to-day, enumerated in the Seventh Schedule. That could mean that if anyone hereafter were to argue that the requisitioning powers of the Government of India were ultra vires, he would be ruled out of court, because the court would have to read Section 102, together with the amendment of the laws contained in this Clause I. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) asked to deal with Clause 2. He said that there was no connection between the two Clauses; that one was independent of the other and that there were the widest powers contained in Clause 2. May I remind the House of what Clause 2 (2) provides:
  " Where, before the passing of this Act, a High Court in British India has given a judgment or made a final order in any proceedings involving a question as to the validity of any law, ordnance, order, byelaw, rule or regulation passed or made in India, …"
  Several hon. Members seem to stop there, and suggest that that would raise every conceivable order, regulation, ordinance and bylaw, that might have been issued or passed during the past five years.
  1240
  Should we not read a little further. We eventually come to the point where the question of the review of the proceedings is referred to—
  " for a review of the proceedings in the light of the provisions of this Act,"
  The "provisions of this Act" are those contained in Section 1 and, therefore, the ambit of the Bill is limited by these few words, which my hon. Friend appears to have overlooked in his anxiety to make an onslaught on this Bill. Whether we take Clauses 1 and 2 separately, or together, it is clear beyond doubt, that the object of this Bill is not to extend the powers of the Government of India, but merely to give protection as regards the Defence of India Rules, which are, today, in operation, and which, we hope, will come to an end in a few months, because the emergency period will obviously now be coming to an end, since the defeat of the Japanese.
  I ask the House to look at this Bill in relation to the explanation which I have given, and which I hope has convinced the House. In conclusion, in view of the representations of both my hon. Friends and of any idea that may exist—and perhaps with reason from their point of view —or which may exist in the minds of any other Members, I would assure them that ' there is no intention to alter the constitutional basis of India in the next few days. The Committee stage of this Bill will not be taken until after the Recess. We shall have a considerable period in which to think over and digest what has been said in this Debate. I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, I shall if required be able to satisfy, more than I have tonight, the misgivings of any of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman answer one of the questions which I put to him? I think that he has answered all but one. Why is it not sufficient merely to put the law right? Why is it necessary to rip up judgments already given, which is such an unusual thing to do?
  Mr. A. Henderson: If this Bill is passed it will nullify the verdict given in the Bombay case, which was to the effect that the Government of India had no power to requisition a motor car. As from April, 1937, we must read Section 102 in the light of the amendment of the law contained in Clause 1 of this Bill.
  Mr. C. Davies: They cannot do that unless an application is made to the court to get the original decision annulled. My hon. and learned Friend is asking the Under-Secretary why he could not ask for the original document to be left out.
  Mr. A. Henderson: In the event of this Bill becoming law, I think that it is a perfectly proper thing to provide that application should be made to the Court to revoke a judgment which, in view of the passing of this Measure, would be bad law.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: With regard to the proviso to Clause 2 as the result of which the court may, in certain circumstances, order the costs and compensation to be paid to someone aggrieved by the reversal of a judgment previously passed, it is not clear who is to pay the compensation or the costs. It would be an extraordinarily heavy burden on the successful litigant. There may have been a judgment nine years ago, as a result of which his opponent has carried on under some dispensation which he thought was valid. Is the then unsuccessful opponent — now successful—to have to pay compensation to his previously successful opponent because of the action taken by the High Court? It docs not seem at all clear.
  Mr. A. Henderson:With great respect I should have thought it was quite clear. The proviso says:
  " … in any such application, the Court may make such orders as to the costs of the application and of the proceedings as may be just…"
  That would mean, in the Bombay case, that it would be the legal representative of the Government of India or of the Provincial Government who would ask for the judgment against them to be reversed. It would mean that the previously successful litigant, whose judgment is reversed as a result of the passing of this Bill, would be entitled to receive his costs. Those costs would no doubt, have to be paid by the Provincial Government. As regards compensation, I am not in a position to give an example. I would say it is a question of fact. If the Bombay High Court reverses the decision, and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the litigant whose judgment is being reversed will suffer pecuniary loss as a result, they
  1242
  would, on the facts of the case, be entitled to award him a reasonable amount of compensation.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Against whom?
  Mr. Nicholson: On a point of Order. Surely this is the Second Reading, not the Committee stage?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can ask a question but not make a second speech.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 22nd January.— [Mr. Mathers.]

  INDIA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY)
  Resolved:
  " That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, `1935 by the Governor of Orissa on 30th June, 1944, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 7th September, 1945, copies of which were presented on 25th July, 1944, and 9th October, 1945, respectively."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

  STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments
  Ordered:
  " That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[I The Solicitor-General.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Clause 6.—(Operation of Orders.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 12, leave out "standing."
  9.47 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. Speaker:I suggest that if these Amendments are purely drafting we might take them altogether.
  The Solicitor-General: They are purely drafting except the last one, which introduces a time limit.
  Mr. Molson (The High Peak): The Amendment that has been moved in their Lordships' House does delete from the Bill the" word which I moved to include in the Committee stage in this House. I would ask the Solicitor-General to repeat to the House the assurance that was given by the Lord Privy Seal, in Committee, that a Report stage shall be provided for.
  The Solicitor-General: I readily repeat that assurance. In Clause 9 of the Bill there is power to make Standing Orders, and in particular, Standing Orders to deal with the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We give the assurance that the necessary steps will be taken to introduce Standing Orders which will bring it about that Orders pass through a proper Report stage after being through the Joint Committee stage, or having been presented, according to the particular Order in question
  Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 5, line 21,agreed to.
  First Schedule.—[Preliminary Proceedings.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 17, after "time ", insert "not being less than twenty-eight days."
  The Solieitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The object of this Amendment is to introduce a time limit in what I maydescribe as the preliminary procedure through which Statutory Orders have to pass. They have to be notified in the "London Gazette," and certain notices have to be published giving the opportunity to persons affected to raise objections. The preliminary procedure is set out in the First Schedule, and it is that procedure which, in default of any other procedure specified in the Act which makes it possible to make the Order, has to be made use of. Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule at present reads that every notice shall specify the time within which and the manner in which objections may be made to the application or to the Orders as the case may be. The object of the Amendment is to impose a time limit during which objection must be made, and the time limit which is proposed and which was agreed upon in
  1244
  another place is 28 days. At present there is no limitation at all, and clearly some limitation should be there, and 28 days is a perfectly reasonable limitation.

  POLICE (OVERSEAS SERVICE) BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Ordered:
  " That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Hynd.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Clause 2.—(Special provisions as to Members of home police forces.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 9, after "Where ", insert:
  " whether before or after the commencement of this Act,"
  9.53 P.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is to fill a gap in the Bill. Under the Police & Firemen (War Service) Acts a police officer of a home police force who has joined the Armed forces has his police pension rights preserved if, but only if, he rejoins his home police force after he is released from the Armed Forces. The purpose of Subsection (3) of Clause 2 is to preserve those rights in the case of a police officer who, on release from the Armed Forces, joins one of the overseas police forces to which the Bill applies without first rejoining his home police force. The Clause as it stands does this if the transfer takes place after the Bill becomes law. In a few cases, however, men have already joined the Control Commission Force in Germany without first resuming duty with their home police force. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the operation of the Subsection will cover those cases retrospectively
  Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that this Amendment is privileged, and I direct that a Special Entry be made.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment to line 12 agreed to.[Special Entry.]
  Resolved:
  " That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Huddersfield, which was presented on 26th November and published, be approved." — [Mr. William, Foster.]

  EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (GENERAL REGULATIONS)
  9.56 p.m.
  Major Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
  " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council dated 16th November, 1945, amending Regulation 42CA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 (S.R. amp; O., 1945, No. 1451), made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 to 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 16th November, be annulled."
  As the House will observe, this Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and myself asks for the annulment of Statutory Rule amp; Order No. 1451. The Statutory Rule amp; Order in question was made on 16th November last. Perhaps it would be proper if I read it to the House:
  " Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 1451. Order amending Regulation 42CA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. After paragraph 4 of Regulation 42CA of the Defence (General) Regulation, 1939, which relates to unlawful gaming parties, the following paragraph shall be inserted:
  " ' 4A. Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable ground for suspecting to have committed an offence against this Regulation.' "
  Perhaps it would be proper, in order to clarify the matter, if I reminded the House that Regulation 42CA, to which No. 1451 is an amendment, is the Defence Regulation dealing with unlawful gaming parties. The short point that arises on this Motion will be quite apparent to the House. It is that this Statutory Rule amp;; Order gives power to any constable to arrest with out warrant, at any time or place, any person whom he reasonably suspects of taking part in one of these unlawful gaming offences. I would stress two points, the first of which is the extraordinary width of that power. It is not in any sense confined to arrest at a gaming party, but would permit the arrest in the street 12 months later of
  1246
  anyone suspected of having taken part in it. Secondly, this is done by Statutory Rule amp; Order and is, in fact, as from 16th November, already the law of the land. Since we put down this Motion, one or two matters have arisen to which it would be material to invite the attention of the House. The first and most important is that the Select Committee on Statutory Rules & Orders has made its Sixth Report which states that the Committee
  " have also considered,the. Order in Council amending Regulation 42CA of the Defence (General) Regulation, 1939 (S.R &O. 1945, No. 1.451) a. copy of which was presented on 6th November, and are of opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made."
  That is the Report of the Select Committee responsible for reading and reporting upon this delegated legislation and, if I may say so without impertinence, for discharging the duty of watchdog, on behalf of the House, in connection with delegated legislation.
  Another matter that has arisen is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has, in Committee upstairs, introduced an Amendment to the Emergency Laws Bill designed to give to the police some, but by no. means all, of the powers already possessed under this Regulation. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not too strongly devoted to this Regulation, and that he may be able to take a reasonable attitude with respect to it. Should he be so inclined, I respectfully suggest to him that it would be a very fitting and proper thing for him to indicate that he is prepared not to dissent from the Motion now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is, if I may say so without impertinence, a democrat and a Parliamentarian, and if he could see his way to state the attitude which I have indicated it would vindicate in a very emphatic way not only the value of the Reports of the Select Committee, but also the responsibility of this House to be vigilant in respect of delegated legislation. In particular, it would make it clear that the safeguard of any hon. Member being able to set down a Motion such as this for the annulment of these Regulations was a reality and not a sham. Therefore, apart from the merits or demerits of this

  1247
  particular Statutory Rule and Order, a matter of a certain constitutional importance is involved.
  I have indicated that I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not regard the Regulation with undue respect or affection and therefore I think it unnecessary to go into the merits of the Regulation at any length. The power of a constable to arrest without warrant is one which affects the liberty of the subject, and it has been the object of a great deal of legislation and discussion. I stand subject to correction by many hon. and learned Members of the House in submitting that, in general, and subject to a certain number of exceptions, the tendency has been for arrest without warrant to be confined either under the common law to felonies, or to cases of some seriousness, or cases where the offence is committed in the presence of a constable. The present Regulation goes considerably further. I do not seek to justify or palliate the folly of gaming parties, in which quite a number of very foolish people have succeeded in losing a great deal of money. But it is quite another thing to say that the offence of taking part in such parties must be treated as a subject matter of great gravity. I would remind the House that this Regulation 42CA, in connection with which these wide powers of arrest are already given, is a Regulation which carries a maximum punishment of three months' imprisonment, or a fine of £500 and therefore does not seem to be regarded as of great gravity.
  I do not wish in all the circumstances to detain the House any longer on this point. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear "] I would say to the hon. Member who said "Hear, hear," that there are still some of us who value the liberty of the subject and who do not regard a few minutes of Parliamentary time as wholly wasted in the matter. I would draw attention to one further point. This wide power of arrest, without warrant, unlimited in time or place, has been given not by legislation which is subject to Parliamentary criticism, but by regulation, by Statutory Rule and Order, which becomes the law immediately and which only becomes the subject of Parliamentary discussion if an hon. Member puts down a Motion similar to my own.
  I submit as a general proposition that in time of peace it is undesirable that
  1248
  measures affecting the liberty of the subject and the power of arrest without warrant should be dealt with by regulation. I would respectfully submit that, where it is necessary to obtain such powers, the proper and right thing to do — as the Home Secretary is now doing— is to come to the House and ask for legislation in the normal way; I would in those circumstances ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot accept this Prayer.
  10.7.p.m.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to Second the Motion.
  The case has been put forward very clearly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter). As the hour is late and it does not seem necessary, where the principle is so clear, to elaborate the matter, I will leave it at that.
  10.8.p.m
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) might have carried his researches a little further, especially into the proceedings of the Committee Upstairs, He would then have found that I told the Committee on nth December that I proposed to revoke this Order which is the subject of the Prayer, on the earliest possible occasion. The exact words I used were:
  " The existing paragraph (4A) of Regulation 42CA, which confers a wider power of arrest than is necessary, is to be revoked at the next opportunity; that is to say, at a meeting of the Privy Council which I anticipate will be held on 14th of this month." [OFFICIAL RE PORT, Standing Committee B, 11th December, 1945; Col. 113.]
  That is the present month of December. Unfortunately, it was not possible to hold a Privy Council meeting on that day. A Privy Council is to be held the day after tomorrow, and an Order revoking this Order will then be submitted, in accordance with the promise which I made to the Standing Committee. The date of those remarks of mine in Standing Committee B was the day on which the Report of the Select Committee scrutinising these Orders was published, and my statement was made before 1 had seen the Report of that Committee.
  Major Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Motion was on the Order Paper three days prior to that?
  Mr. Ede: No, I was not. My attention had not at that stage been called to it, and I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I did not search the Order Paper to find out what his activities had been. I ought to say that I have included in the Emergency Laws (Transitional Powers) Bill a new paragraph which sets out so that all who read the Bill may see them, the exact powers I propose to take. At the end of the proceedings on the Emergency Laws (Transitional Powers) Bill, when it has become an Act of Parliament, I propose to re-publish such regulations as remain, in the form in which they will then be, so that, in one volume, Members will be able to find all the regulations that remain, and from time to time I have undertaken, if alterations are made, that republication of the volume in an amended form shall take place. But I must warn the House that, in accepting this Prayer, I do not accept all the arguments that have been adduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames this evening. It will be necessary, as it is under the Gaming Act of 1845, to arm the police, when they visit these illegal gaming houses, with the power of arrest and search of the persons found there —
  Major Boyd-Carpenter: On the premises?
  Mr. Ede: Found there. I shall carefully examine, as I promised the Standing Committee, the words which I have put into the Bill to make quite sure that I take no further power than that. I am exceedingly anxious— and I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving me the opportunity for saying this— that now we have reached a period of what, I think, was called in another place the other day, "incipient peace," these Defence Regulations, which we are bound to continue in the transitional period, shall be in such a form as can readily be comprehended both by Members of the Bar and by the laity. I do not want to have a repetition of what happened the other night when the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) spent some time denouncing me for two regulations which I had already revoked. Therefore, I hope the House will realise that I accept the general spirit of the remarks that were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who, I may say, reminds many of us of the distinguished part his
  1250
  father used to play in this House, and whose Parliamentary abilities we recognise. At the same time, I am very anxious that no more powers than are absolutely necessary shall be taken, and the House will have an opportunity on the Report Stage of the Emergency Laws Bill to examine the new wording of this Regulation and to propose such verbal Amendments to it as they think fit. I advise the House to accept the Prayer.
  Mr. Maude: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, as he has been so very pleasant and considerate in this matter, may I ask him one thing? As we are nearing the New Year, will he make a resolution not to be quite so naughty again for some considerable time?
  Mr. Ede: My opportunities for naughtiness will expire on 24th February, and I hope I may have that short time in which to enjoy myself.
  Mr. Renton: May I express my —
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House and he can only speak again by leave of the House.
  Mr. Renton: I would like to express my appreciation and that of my hon. And gallant Friend, in regard to the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that the Prayer was not prayed in aid of gambling — [Interruption].
  Resolved:
  " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council dated 16th November, 1945, amending Regulation 42CA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1039 (S.R. amp;O., 1945. No. 1451), made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 to 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 16th November, be annulled."
  To be presented by Privy Councillors, or Members of His Majesty's Household.

  LOCATION OF INDUSTRIES (COASTAL AREAS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Mathers.]
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Carson: The subject I wish to raise is that of light industries in certain areas, and my reason for

  1251
  bringing it to the notice of the House, apart from the normal subject of the location of industry, is as follows. The Government are, I do not hesitate to say, doing a very good job in the location of industry. They are trying to rule out heavy pockets of unemployment such as existed before the war, and to put industries where they are needed. I am afraid that there may still be small pockets of unemployment in areas in which it is not acute, but is uncomfortable.
  I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who is to reply why we want light industries in the coastal areas. Take my own constituency. Before the war, we had a bad unemployment problem but it was in the winter only. In Ramsgate the unemployment average between 1934 and 1938 was 22 per cent. of the winter population, which is quite large for the winter population of any town. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the further fact that when our young men and young women reached 18, 19 or 20 years of age, they said "There's nothing doing in this part of the world for us. We will go elsewhere." They had jobs in summer but none in winter, but they wanted steady jobs throughout the year. Therefore we were breeding our youth for export. Directly they grew up they left us. That is not what any part of the country requires. I would like the hon. Gentleman to bear that point in mind when he replies, because it is even more important than unemployment in the winter. The unemployment figures would be swollen to a very great extent if we had our young men and young women in our part of the country throughout the winter.
  I have had a certain amount of correspondence with the Board of Trade on the subject of light industry. The only real reply I have had from them is, "What sort of light industry do you want? "I can explain in a very few words what light industry is but I cannot give a specific answer. It can be answered only by His Majesty's Government, who have the whole policy of the country in their grasp, knowing how they are going to allocate industry. They are the only people who can say what types of industry will go to my part of the country. By "light industry "I mean one that is light, or that is run by
  1252
  electricity. We are a seaside resort and we are very proud of it. Most coastal areas are. We do not want an industry that will ruin us by a chimney stack or smoke and so on. It must be an industry that is run by electricity. I can mention innumerable examples including wireless valves, electric light and plastics. The only person who can really allocate industry to us is the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
  May I quote one instance? At the moment we have a factory on Government contract which, I believe, is rehabilitating battle dresses for use in Europe. It is a branch of a larger clothing factory, and is on Government contract until the end of 1947. That branch of that particular private enterprise has the highest output of all its branches. The people who are working there are happy and contented; in the main they take their holidays in Margate or Ramsgate, and wish to stay on. What can we offer to them and to other light industries if they stay on? We are near London, there are road facilities and good railway facilities. The railway can provide the extra transport because, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, goods traffic on the railways is moved mostly at night and we have no large goods traffic at the moment.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say in reply that we lack the factories on the spot, and the labour to build new factories. If he does say that I will suggest a possible answer. We were a defence area in the war and we suffered a lot. We did not ask to suffer, we suffered because of a perfectly reasonable and sensible Government Order, but we want to get back, not merely to the prosperity we knew before the war, but to a far greater degree of prosperity, if we. are to eliminate the unemployment we suffered. It is a responsibility, I think, not only for the coastal areas only but for the whole of the country. We must have help. Let us have back the labour which the coastal areas had before the war and which we lost during the war through the general evacuation Order. I could give many cases of people who are employed—no doubt usefully—on bomb damage repairs in London, Coventry and other places, and whom we need back at the moment for our own bomb damage, of which' we have had a not inconsiderable amount,

  1253
  and alter that to build up our prosperity. These people at the moment are not being allowed to come back.
  Then, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give us in the coastal areas some sort of priority in labour and materials. I want to be very brief, and in conclusion I would like to say that the Minister can direct labour and he can direct the factories. I know he does not like to do so, but I think that the direction of factories is one of the few good controls. I beg of him that he will either direct light industry to us or, what is almost the same thing, suggest to industries that they should come to us and to other coastal areas. We need them, and I am sure they will come with a little persuasion from the hon. Gentleman. We were in a bad state before the war, and I would like to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that, if he will not direct, he will, at least, suggest to industries that they should come to us and help us to iron out the unemployment problems we had before the war.
  10.25 P.m.
  Mr. Edward Evans: I want briefly to reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) in regard to coastal resorts, particularly those on the East coast, having very much in mind my own constituency of Lowestoft. It is the custom to associate the economic stresses of the interwar period more with what are now called the distressed areas, but those of us who have lived and worked in the East coast resort towns know very well that during that period the conditions there deteriorated to such an extent, that, although those areas were not classified as distressed areas, they were, particularly at certain seasonal times, very near to being distressed areas. I want to assure hon. Members that on the East coast conditions of labour and employment, and the general economic situation, are such as to merit the very serious consideration of the Government.
  As is well known, the main industries of these areas are fishing and holiday catering. The position in the fishing industry deteriorated so badly during the inter-war period that the Government had to take steps to rehabilitate the industry by the Herring and Inshore Fishing Acts. It is very doubtful whether, for a long time, the fishing industry will be able to
  1254
  sustain the population which it did before the Great War of 1914-18. The holiday catering industry, particularly in East Suffolk, has suffered from the very bad transport arrangements. I hope the Minister of War Transport will take note of the very serious complaint of those of us who live in Norfolk and Suffolk about the deplorable conditions of transport there. The bad transport in districts with large centres of population, the competition of holiday camps, and various other circumstances, have combined to make the conditions of these towns on the East coast, particularly in Norfolk and Suffolk, a very serious problem for the local authorities and for those interested in their welfare.
  During the war, both the main industries of fishing and holiday catering were wiped out at one stroke. The areas were banned areas, the drifters were taken over by the Government, and fishing was at a standstill. In addition, those areas suffered all the disabilities arising from sustained bombardment from the air. They were ideal targets for the tip-and-run raiders. Having regard to these considerations, I urge the Government most strongly to give earnest consideration to the plea made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that they should see that some measure of justice is done to the localities that have suffered so very badly. We saw the deflection of our finishing industry to the West coast, and we saw the holiday business going there also. I urge very strongly that such industries as those ancillary to the timber trade— there is a very great imported timber trade on the East coast— the canning of fruit, fish and vegetables, and the lighter crafts, can be very well maintained and sustained there. I urge the Minister to consider the case of these very hard-hit localities.
  10.29 p.m.
  Captain Marples: I listened with interest to the remarks on unemployment made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson). Undoubtedly the question of unemployment is tied up with the location of industries. I think the Government have done an extremely good job, particularly in the development areas, and I also think they have persuaded certain industries and businesses to go to certain areas. Unfortunately, I regret to say that they have not directed them to my constituency.

  1255
  The constituency I have the honour to represent has the double disadvantage of being partly a seaside area— and we have received no help from the Government on the question of replacing bombed-out furniture— and of having had a large unemployment problem before the war, affecting in 1936 some 26 per cent. of the insurable population. The reason for that unemployment was that the only method of obtaining employment was largely in the heavy industries. The Merseyside plan, which was an exceedingly fine production, did say that light industries should be introduced in the Merseyside area. The Government have undoubtedly introduced light industries into the Merseyside areas, but with the greatest respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I must say that I think they have introduced them one side of the Merseyside only— the Lancashire area— and on the Cheshire side, which is the right side, we have not really received the consideration to which we are entitled. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give some indication of what steps are being taken to introduce light industries in the Cheshire area.
  10.32 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): I am sorry that so many hon. Members who desire to speak on this subject will not have an opportunity of doing so, owing to the limited time at our disposal. I hope there will be other opportunities, because I welcome all the pressure which hon. Members in all parts of the House can put on us to adopt national planning. It is a principle of our policy. It is part of the policy on which we won the General Election, and therefore, if hon. Members are desirous that industries should be directed in the national interest, we will give very sympathetic consideration to all proposals of that kind.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson), who opened the Debate, made one mistake when he said that we have power to direct industry. At the present time we have no power to direct industry. What we have got is authority to steer industry and influence it, and as far as we possibly can, we are endeavouring to steer industry into those areas where it is in the best national interest it should go. Hon. Members who have
  1256
  spoken have taken a very reasonable attitude and have stated their case very clearly. I would like to place on record the facts affecting the constituencies of the two hon. Members who gave notice that they were going to raise this matter. As far as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Evans) is concerned, I will give an undertaking that the points he raised will also be considered. The real Isle of Thanet includes Ramsgate, Broad-stairs, and Margate, with its satellite towns of Westgate and Birchington. This area, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is dependent upon the seasonal holiday trade. The population of the Isle of Thanet increased very slightly, by about 1 per cent., between 1931 and 1939, compared with increases in Kent of 17 per cent. and over Great Britain as a whole of 3 percent.
  It is true that the whole district suffered very severely during the war, when it was in the front line. The number of insured workers was 21,700 in 1939. This number has grown at less than the average rate between 1929 and 1939, and since the war, as the hon. Member told us, a decline commensurate with that in total population has taken place. Of those insured, only 10 per cent. are engaged in manufacturing industries, and those are mostly of a local type, catering for food, drink, woodworking and printing. The pre-war unemployment was markedly seasonal, but fairly substantial in Ramsgate, even in the summer. The average for the months between the years 1934 and 1938 was Ramsgate 16.3, Margate 11 per cent., Kent 8 per cent., while Great Britain as a whole was 14.2. In October of this year the number of registered unemployed in the area for which the hon. Member spoke was Ramsgate 345; a percentage of 6.3; Margate 135, which was 4.4, while in the London and South-Eastern area the unemployment percentage was 0.7. I emphasise this because of something I want to say before I conclude. This area shares with other popular holiday resorts, the problem of seasonal unemployment— and it is a problem. Those of us who remember the Anomalies Act and the cases we used to deal with, have occasion to note these things. Margate and Ramsgate are mainly holiday resorts, for London people in August. The problem is a relative one compared with that of other areas, which cater for the more well-to-do, like Bourne-

  1257
  mouth and Eastbourne, where the holiday period is longer, and for that reason the same problems do not exist there.
  There is some war damage to be repaired in this district; there is also work to be done in connection with the rehabilitation of holiday resorts. I would emphasise what has been said about many local authorities not liking industrial development in these areas. Visitors from industrial areas prefer to get away from the factories and the smoke. However I would like to assure hon. Members that the Government have the problems connected with resorts of this kind constantly before them, but they must take second place to those of the development areas, and other districts which are dependant upon a single industry and whose fortunes are less promising than those of the areas which cater for the holiday trade.
  Sir William Darling: But this is a single industry.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I am hoping we shall find ourselves in agreement when my conclusions are reached and I indicate a method for holidays which I consider to be the most practical way of tackling this problem. The arrangement of staggered holidays with pay, should both increase the number of visitors, and lengthen, and even out the holiday seasons. The districts with declining industries, or single industries with uncertain prospects, must have first consideration. The Board of Trade is unable to give special facilities to those desirous of going to the Isle of Thanet, but we shall not try to attract to other areas those industrialists who have for special reasons wished to establish themselves there, and we shall not try to remove any of the existing industries from the areas. I think that that is the assurance the hon. Member asks for.
  I should also like to deal with the position in Wallasey, but I have only a limited time at my disposal. It is difficult to find the trades which will offer big employment in the winter and the arrangements made for the seaside resorts will not change the problem of seasonal unemployment. It is a problem to which we must all give attention and I would make an appeal to all public-spirited people who are residents, or who act in a representative capacity in these coastal areas. I would like to direct their attention to the need for planning
  1258
  for the people's holidays. The ideal of holidays for all is now admitted, by all except a very small minority, to be realisable. Every man and woman who has served our country in industry for at least twelve months should have a change of scene and air at least once a year. Prior to 1937, only 4,000,000 out of 18,500,000 insured people were entitled to holidays with pay, plus 750, 000 of our people with over £250 per year. Before the war, most workers in this country called their annual holidays the annual lock-out, but, after 1938, the number of insured workers entitled to holidays with pay— and this should give the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction and something to work upon— rose to7,750,000. That must be further increased —
  Sir W. Darling: A Tory Government.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: No, it was the result of constant pressure from the trade union movement and from my hon. Friends over a very long period. The holiday centres have not yet felt the benefit of this increase. Many had to work, for example, through their holiday periods in 1938 and 1939, and then the war came, and the holiday centres have not yet felt the benefit of this advance we have made, but the holiday centres can look forward to a great future, if Britain becomes and remains economically greater. Therefore, holidays must be planned. The seasons in the past have been far too short, and action on a national scale is required to secure planned provision for the accommodation of people desiring holidays, for their travelling and for catering.
  In conclusion, I contend that the standing of the British people is now higher throughout the world than ever it was in our history. It is true that, in 1938 and 1939, it sank to a lower depth than ever it had done in our history, but, because of the mighty contribution made by our fellow-countrymen during the war, our standing is now higher than it has ever been. I believe that this good will will reflect itself in thousands, maybe millions, of people visiting this country in order to see the base for the operations in the European War. It is to be expected that thousands of Czechoslovakians, Frenchmen, Norwegians, Dutch, and many others— [Interruption] — yes, and Russians, as the hon. Member rightly reminds me, will want to come. This is a serious

  1259
  problem, and I thought we were approaching it in a serious way, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to underline Russia like that, nobody is more pleased than I am. This standing, as I say, will reflect itself in an increase of visitors to our country, and, therefore, in my view, the representatives of all seaside resorts, and centres like the Lake District, ought to be getting together in order that we can plan to meet this enormous good will which prevails throughout the world towards our country. That would be equivalent to an export trade. It is one of which other countries have taken advantage in the past and which we have neglected far too long.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks: May I, in the moment that
  1260
  remains, express, as I feel sure all who are deeply interested in this subject will wish me to do, our wholehearted appreciation of the attention which the Minister has given to this problem? We have had the benefit of a very closely-reasoned argument, which has quite clearly been the subject of great preparation, and in the presentation of which the Minister was 10th to depart from his text. We would like to say how grateful we are and how much we hope that this Debate may be the forerunner of a considered policy for the assistance of the coastal areas.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.