FIRST SCHEDULE

HC Deb 20 November 1947 vol 444 cc1410-65

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, to leave out "five."

Perhaps we might also discuss the following Amendment, in page 8, line 8, to leave out "First and Second Schedules," and to insert "Second Schedule," because the First Schedule mentioned here was similarly revoked by the same Act. The word "five" refers to Regulation 5 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939. That regulation has already been revoked by Section 28 (4) of the National Service Act, 1947, and, therefore, the word "five" is not necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 8, leave out "First and Second Schedules," and insert "Second Schedule."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Mannmgham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 34 to 36.

We are now proceeding to consider the regulations contained in Part II of the First Schedule, which are to be continued in force until 31st December, 1948. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary told us that he had put these various Defence Regulations into different compartments after giving the matter—I think he said—long and careful consideration. I must confess I am a little puzzled why he made some of his decisions, and we have put down this Amendment because we should like to hear, in particular, why it is that Defence Regulation 31A—which gives the Minister of Health power to make arrangements for the provision of food or lodging or both for persons transferred under an evacuation plan"— is to remain in force until 1948.

Speaking from recollection, I think that during the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman said that there were still some children and civil servants who were lodged in pursuance of an evacuation plan. We should be glad if we could be given some information about that. How many children are still evacuated? Is it proposed that there should be any further evacuation prior to 1948? How many civil servants are still evacuated under a plan? Is it proposed that they shall remain evacuated until 1948? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will say, but I hope he will be able to tell us that in both instances the numbers are small. The efforts of the people of this country on whom evacuees were billeted during the war, and who carried that heavy burden throughout a long period, should be commended, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would commend them. The time has now come, surely, to say that there should be an end to evacuation, and that persons should be relieved of having people compulsorily billeted upon them? I hope we shall have a full explanation of why the right hon. Gentleman desires to retain this Defence Regulation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)

As has been said, the power to make regulations of this sort will expire at the end of next year. Obviously, we are not dealing here with a very serious position; but it is serious in this respect. If the powers expired at the end of this year, a very large number of poor people would find themselves in difficulty. There is still billeting, on a diminishing scale, of course, and we need these powers so that we can waive certain billeting charges when we do billet. If the powers were not handed to us, then the full charges would have to be met by the persons upon whom the billeting took place. The main reason for this power is that there is still a large number of homeless children. When the new Bill becomes law—we hope it will in this Session—deprived children will be handed over to the custody of the Home Secretary under the new enactment for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be responsible. These powers will then be no longer necessary, and they will expire. Of course, if they are unnecessary before the end of the year, they will be revoked before the end of the year. The Committee can take it for granted that unless we have these powers, we shall not be able to look after these children until they are taken over by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I am a little puzzled, because Regulation 31A deals with the provision of lodging for persons transferred under an evacuation plan, whereas Regulation 22, which deals with billeting, retains the power of billeting until 1950. As I understand it, Regulation 31A applies only to the lodging of persons transferred under an evacuation plan. Is it the case that all these homeless children—and one sympathises with their plight—were evacuated under an evacuation plan?

Mr. Bevan

The answer is that at the time when they were evacuated they had parents, but that the parents were killed, and now they are orphans they have to be looked after.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I thought that might be the answer. It is as well to get this matter clear, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I hope that the time will soon come when we find adequate provision made for these children without having to exercise the powers of this regulation. In view of the explanation, which satisfies us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out line 37.

The purpose of this Amendment is to raise a similar probing inquiry. I think that we are entitled to ask why Regulation 32 is to be continued until 1948, particularly in view of the recent legislation dealing with hospitals. Surely, if the powers contained in this regulation were wanted until the end of 1948, they ought to have been included in the new Measure. I cannot recollect whether they were included or not, but I am puzzled to know why this regulation, dealing with hospitals and ambulances, should be continued, when it was only recently that we passed the National Health Act.

Mr. Bevan

I am obliged for this inquiry, which gives me an opportunity to make the position clear. There are a number of hospitals which are still run under the Emergency Hospitals Scheme, and in them there are some 10,000 patients who would be turned on the road immediately if we had not these powers. When the new Act comes into operation next year and these hospitals are assimilated into the new scheme, these powers will no longer be necessary, and they will naturally expire.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He will appreciate that this Amendment was not put down with a view to trying to take away these powers, but in order to obtain information. In view of the fact that we regard the explanation as satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert: Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of His Majesty's Forces).

This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in page 9, to leave out line 31. The purpose of these Amendments is to take Regulation 52 out of Part III and to put it into Part II. This regulation provides for the use of land for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces. This matter has been the subject of considerable debate and discussion, and I do not propose to summarise or remind the Committee of the arguments. I think I am right in saying that inquiries have been held, reports promised, and all sorts of undertakings given that the use of land for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces would be regulated and restricted at a fairly early date. If that is so, one wonders why this regulation has been put into Part III, rather than Part II, where it would expire on 31st December, 1948. Surely, another year is long enough for His Majesty's Government to determine to what extent they want to retain in their possession land which was used for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces during the war. Surely, the matter could be concluded within a year and this regulation, which has caused so much dissatisfaction in Norfolk and elsewhere, could be brought to an end.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart)

In replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. It is unusual for a junior Minister, in the third Session of a Parliament, to ask for the indulgence of hon. Members on the grounds that it is the first time he has had the honour of addressing the House, either as a House or in Committee. It is true that I have on occasions suggested "That this House do now adjourn," and that I have made other brief remarks. I can only hope that what I have to say on this occasion will result in as rapid agreement as have the few remarks I have made at other times.

The question at issue on this Amendment is whether this regulation should continue in force until the end of 1948, or until December, 1950. It is a regulation which gives force to any orders enabling the Government to use land for the purpose of military training. I do not think it will be the wish of the Members in any part of the Committee to cause a serious hiatus in military training. We have, however, to consider whether this hiatus could possibly be avoided if this regulation were to come to an end as early as December, 1948. It is the intention of the War Office, with the other Service Departments, permanently to acquire such land as may be necessary for the purpose of military training as soon as possible. Once that is done the exceptional powers wielded under the regulation would no longer be required.

The question naturally arises as to how long it will be before the permanent acquisition of such land as is needed for military training can replace the emergency powers springing from this regulation. Before such permanent acquisition could occur, there would first have to be the issue of the White Paper on Service Land Requirements which has very frequently been referred to in this House. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence referred to this matter at Question time yesterday, and expressed the hope that this White Paper would be issued with a short period. Its issue has inevitably been delayed by the recent reconsideration of the size of the Armed Forces. That was an inevitable delay. When it is clear what lands are required it is important that the War Office should not proceed in an arbitrary manner to acquire land without careful consideration of the needs of local authorities, private interested parties, other Government Departments and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a year would be long enough for His Majesty's Government to determine the matter. If it were simply a question of arbitrary determination a year might be sufficient, but before the permanent acquisition occurs it is our practice to consult with the local authorities, and other interested parties, and put the proposals before any Department of the Government that may be interested. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a speech in February of this year, said that before there was any major acquisition a public inquiry would be held. It is because we are so anxious not to proceed in this matter in an arbitrary way, but with careful consultation, that we can reasonably claim that it is bound to be longer than a year before we can completely replace the exceptional powers for using land by a permanent acquisition of such land as is required for military training.

It is not the intention to make use of the powers contained in this regulation by acquiring any further land beyond what is already held under orders arising from it. At present that is a total, if we consider the three Service Departments—and a small quantity under the control of the Ministry of Supply—of some 670,000 acres. It is not the intention to add to that figure, but we are convinced that if we proceed in a reasonable manner, and have regard to all the interests involved, the process of permanent acquisition is bound to be slow. If this regulation were to lapse at the end of 1948, it would lapse before we had been able to replace it by the permanent acquisition of the necessary land. There would, therefore, be the serious risk of a dangerous hiatus in the military training of the Forces. It is for those reasons I ask for the rejection of this Amendment.

Mr. Digby

I would like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the way he has acquitted himself at the Despatch Box, despite a very long vow of silence as a Government Whip. I am very glad to see he has not suffered, as his exposition could not have been clearer. He rightly said that it was important that there should be continuity of training for the Forces. We would all agree. But he will appreciate, too, that the agricultural community has to plan ahead as well, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the country on account of these areas of land which are taken over by the Service Ministries. The agricultural community needs to know as soon as possible where it stands, more particularly on account of the urgency of food production at present and other difficulties which make it more than ever necessary to plan ahead. I hope he will hurry up, and that agriculturists will know, as early as possible, what land will be permanently retained and what they are likely to get back.

I am not quite clear whether paragraph (1, c) is still in force under this regulation. Last July, I asked a Question about the closing of highways, and I received a reply that there were over 1,500 highways in this country which were closed to the public. I gather most of them were closed under Defence Regulation 16, which is being modified in this Bill. I would like to know how many are now retained, or are to be retained, under Defence Regulation 52? A great deal of inconvenience is caused to the public, two years after the war, by the closing of these highways. This is another matter on which I hope the Service Departments will make up their minds quickly.

Although this Defence Regulation refers to the use of land, I gather it also refers to the use of sea. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. There is an area of sea just off the coast in my constituency which the Service Departments intend to take over for bombing and other firing practice by planes of the Ministry of Supply. That matter is now under consideration. I was therefore particularly interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that no new orders would be made under Defence Regulation 52. I am wondering if that means that he is undertaking that this stretch of sea in which I am interested will not be taken under this regulation, and whether other powers will be sought if necessary. It seems wrong that, two years after the end of the war, control of a completely fresh area of land or sea should be taken by a Service Department when they already hold such a large amount in proportion to the size of the Forces.

7.30 p.m.

Finally, on the question of land which is held under this regulation we have, in Dorset, the Purbeck Hills, an area which has been retained for a very long time. The original understanding was that it would be derequisitioned. Not only does the holding of it deny the land for agricultural purposes but it also causes great hardship to hikers and others who wish to walk from one spot to another along the beautiful line of sea coast. We are wondering what decision will be reached on this matter. While appreciating the difficulties of the Service Ministers, that they must plan their training ahead, I beg the Under-Secretary to remember that other people have to plan ahead too, more particularly the agricultural community.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I would like to emphasise what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby), particularly from the point of view of food production. We have had the very valuable statement from the Under-Secretary that no more land is to be taken under this regulation. But 670,000 acres is a great deal and it is quite clear that the ultimate requirements of the Government must be very far short of that figure. I appreciate that a considerable proportion of this acreage is not land which would grow any very large crop but, nevertheless, every little counts these days, and I want to ask the Service Departments to release all the land they possibly can in time for next year's crop. It is obvious that the situation for our people will be very serious next year, and every possible step should be taken to make certain that any derequisitioning occurs sufficiently quickly to allow full cultivation of the land so derequisitioned.

Mr. Gallacher

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman urging the Government to take over all the land of the country, and allocate the maximum amount for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Reid

The hon. Gentleman probably has not much of this land in his constituency, and does not appreciate the point I was trying to make. It might well be that a very large amount of this acreage would, normally, be released fairly early next year, but not soon enough for the farmer to make full use of it during the coming cropping season. I hope that the Service. Departments will give the farmer or occupier of the land advance information, so that plans can be made in time, and that they will give up every possible acre sufficiently early to allow full use to be made of that land for food growing next year. If the hon. Gentleman can say that the Service Departments will do these two things I think that that will be as much as we can ask of the Government for today.

Mr. M. Stewart

I have listened with great interest to the valuable suggestion that whenever we are considering releasing land we should bear in mind next year's crop, and give advance information. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) will not expect me to make a precise statement as to the procedure we can adopt in every case, but we shall pay careful attention to the point which has just been made. In reply to the hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby), it is correct that there is still power under this regulation to stop up a highway. I cannot tell him the number of highways that have been stopped up for the purposes of the Service Departments, but my recollection is that it is very small. I think I am correct in saying that, technically, this regulation would apply to the use of sea as well as land, although the number of occasions when that has any relevance must be quite small. The hon. Member mentioned the Purbeck Hills, a case which illustrates the difficulties under which we are labouring. We have the claims of military training, agriculture, hikers, and aesthetic considerations at the same time, and it is because there are so many balancing claims that it is important not to rush into permanent acquisition.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

After the hon. Gentleman's excellent maiden speech, followed so quickly by an excellent second speech, it would indeed be ungracious to divide the Committee on this matter. We have no intention of doing so, but we hope that the White Paper which has been promised for so long will soon be published, so that we can arrive at a final solution of this difficult problem. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade the military authorities to disgorge some of the land now in their possession. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert: Regulation fifty-five C (Restrictions on registration of new clubs). It may be for the convenience of the Committee, Major Milner, if we discuss this Amendment with the Amendment to this Schedule in page 9, to leave out line 32, as I think it is consequential.

The Chairman indicated assent

Sir J. Mellor

The purpose of this Amendment is to transfer Regulation 55C from Part III of the Bill to Part II, to secure that this regulation shall continue only until the end of 1948 instead of the end of 1950. This is not a matter which should be dealt with by regulation any longer. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the provisions in the regulation. It may well be that those provisions, or something similar should be permanently enacted, but this should be a matter for statutory provision and no longer for regulation. I think it most probable that the law as it existed in 1942, before this regulation was made, was inadequate for the purpose of ensuring that bogus clubs did not flourish in too great numbers and too easily. However, I do not wish to examine that point tonight. I suggest that it would be quite appropriate that this regulation should be permitted to continue for, say, one more year to enable the Government to examine this question carefully and introduce whatever legislation they deem to be necessary. This regulation provides that the police can object to the registration of a new club on certain grounds, including the existence of adequate facilities in the neighbourhood and incomplete particulars in the application.

They can also object on the ground that the people who propose to manage the club are not of the most desirable character. The applicant can appeal against police objection, and it is provided in Paragraph 3 of the regulation that the court shall if satisfied that the objection is unreasonable, but not otherwise, authorise the registration of the club. The regulation also provides for police inspection of the club before registration is effected.

I ask the Government what is their real motive in desiring to continue these provisions by regulation. I am prepared to assume that it will be generally agreed that some such measures are necessary, though, I repeat, that it is our contention that it should be done by Statute. Do the Government consider that these restrictions and measures of control should be continued merely because of the emergency? Do they consider that the pro-visions of Regulation 55C are exclusively related to the emergency, or is it, in the view of the Government, desirable, sooner or later, to have amending legislation? Do they consider that, at the present time, apart from the special circumstances of the emergency, the law as it stood before 1942 is adequate for the purpose. As I have endeavoured to make clear, I do not wish to express any opinion on the merits, but I am extremely anxious to ascertain what is the Government's policy, and, in my submission, if they do not take the view that the reason for continuing this regulation is solely related to the emergency, they ought to be prepared to come to the House with a Bill which can be fully debated, so that we can then put on the Statute Book a measure which will be appropriate.

I know that that would be highly controversial. Anything touching the licensing laws is always controversial, but not, I think, on party lines. It would be a matter which would be regarded as of great interest by the House, and, therefore, I feel that we want some guidance from the Government as to what is their policy. Do they want to keep on this regulation merely because of the circumstances arising out of the emergency, or are they keeping it on with a view, sooner or later, of enacting in permanent statutory form some similar provisions. I feel that we ought to know. I submit that if they take the latter view and intend to introduce permanent legislation, we should have it in the course of the next year, and I think that it would be quite long enough to continue in force this regulation until the end of 1948. This is a matter which the House should have an opportunity of debating. It is not a matter of party controversy, and it is the kind of thing upon which the experience of the House should be brought to bear, in order that we may get legislation more suitably adapted than emergency legislation can possibly be. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a full answer to these points.

Mr. Digby

This is not the kind of regulation that we like to see continued for three years, unless we can be given by the Parliamentary Secretary a good explanation as to why it is necessary. I do not know the reason why the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, is not considered sufficient, and why it is considered necessary to place all these additional powers in the hands of the police. It is not a principle which I like unless there is a very good reason for adopting it. Is it necessary before any club can be started at the moment that the names of all the persons who have joined, or who wish to join, should be furnished to the police? I do not fully understand why that is necessary. I can understand that in time of war it was necessary to check up on matters of this kind, but now that the war has been over for two years, I think that we need a serious explanation before we are asked to accept these provisions for another three years.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the hon. Members who raised this matter and for the manner in which they have discussed it. I am nearly in agreement with all the points put by both hon. Members. In answer to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the Government think that permanent provision should be made, and will have to be made, on those lines. As the hon. Member said, this provision was made in 1942, and it was made very largely in order to economise in manpower, particularly in the police force. Nevertheless, it is true that the old law was inadequate in several respects. I should detain the Committee a long time if I tried to explain all the adequacies and inadequacies of the licensing laws. I will only mention two points. Firstly, if a club was closed, it was very easy for it to open up again the next day under another name, and, secondly, it was exceedingly hard because of the lack of any power on the part of the police, to enter and obtain the evidence necessary to prosecute.

The only point on which I may differ from the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field is that I do not think it will be possible to introduce permanent legislation before the end of 1948. It is, as I say, desirable that permanent legislation should be introduced to deal with clubs, but as the hon. Member said, this is a very controversial subject. There are many interests involved, and there are, of course, in addition to the interests of the authorities and of the police, the interests of the temperance societies and the club associations, and those are very often in conflict. It is a very difficult matter to introduce and obtain agreement upon a consolidating Measure relating to clubs, and it would be misleading the public and the Committee if the Government were to suggest that they could bring in successfully such a Bill before the end of 1948. Therefore, it has been considered desirable to put this in Part III of the Schedule, to expire at the end of 1950.

The only other thing I wish to say relates to the question of whether there is any substantial objection to the present regulation continuing for that length of time under the present procedure. If it were really oppressive, I should think that there was great point in what had been said, and the suggestion that it should be included in Part II instead of Part III, but it has, in fact, worked well. There has been, so far as I am aware, no substantial complaint about it. It has been welcomed by the courts which, after all, are impartial in the matter, and it has certainly continued to be extremely economical from the manpower point of view. Admittedly, the situation is not the same as it was in 1942, but we all know the difficulties of the police, and I think that is a justification for continuing it at this time as one of the emergency aspects of the regulations. It does, in fact, enable the police to save a great deal of manpower.

Mr. Digby

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why is it necessary for the police to have the names of all members of new clubs?

Mr. Younger

I do not think it is all members; it says that if they become or agree to become members of the club. That, of course, is the moment before the club is registered and they are presumed not to be casual members, but members interested in its formation. Therefore, they are a guide to some extent of what the character of the club will be.

I do not think that any substantial complaint has been made of the use of the powers, which have been found useful and beneficial and we have met with the approval of the courts. There is, of course, provision for an appeal and there have been a number of appeals, some of them successful. In view of the fact that there is no prospect that permanent consolidating legislation can be introduced in sufficient time to ensure continuity for the regulation, I ask the Committee to leave it in Part III. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams

I am astonished when I listen to speech after speech from the Government Front Bench. They always seem to give as one of the reasons why they should keep on these regulations until 1950 that it is to avoid controversy. The Under-Secretary has told us that we cannot deal with it now because it would be a controversial subject. Legislation dealing with registration of clubs at the present time would be controversial, but surely that is no reason why we should keep this regulation in force for three years. I should have thought that that was one of the reasons we should keep it only for one year and not three. Then next year, if it is necessary, and the Government are unable to find time for legislation of this kind, they could enact this regulation for a further year.

After all, it is admitted that this is a war-time regulation and everyone admits that it was adopted then largely to meet circumstances which arose through the shortage of manpower. It does, as the Under-Secretary said quite fairly, help the police at a time when they are short of men and facing certain difficulties. That is the main reason why it should continue, and I do not disagree with that at all. I do not think it is an unfair reason to put forward. Are we sure, however, that it is necessary, simply because of that, to keep this regulation on for another three years? That is the whole point. That is an argument which has been advanced again and again today, because the Government have repeatedly said: "We must pass this regulation into law until 1950 because it is not convenient to deal with this subject at the present time." We ought to be more concerned with the interests of the ordinary people of the country than with the convenience of the Government's programme.

For the reason that this is a matter to which Parliament ought to address itself, I support the Amendment. There are a great variety of clubs, but I have no wish to get on to that subject at the present time, because I might find some forms of clubs of which, for instance, the Minister of Health and I might approve, and there are other clubs about which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and I might disagree. I might dislike one form of club and he another. I might dislike a temperance club, or he might like it. On the other hand, we might find ourselves in trouble because we would both like one, of which someone else would take a different view, particularly someone on this side of the Committee. Op this particular occasion I think the Government should give way. They have been pretty tough all day. They have not done much to meet our point of view.

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has not got any point of view.

Mr. Williams

I see the Home Secretary looking at me, and I would say to him that in my opinion it would be an excellent thing if he would give us a chance of discussing this thing once again next year. I have no wish to do it, but I know a vast number of people in this House would like to have a prolonged discussion on it. They do not happen to be present now, but they would like to join in a Debate on this subject next year.

Mr. Gallacher

Where are they?

Mr. Williams

I do not know that I could really define where all of them are at this very moment, but it is conceivable that one or two of them are having dinner. I ask the Home Secretary to say that he will accept this Amendment because I do not think it will do any great harm. It is one which could be put into the Bill and it would do the Bill good. From the look of this Amendment, I am not altogether certain, but I think I would have the fullest and heartiest support of the Minister of Health for my proposition if I pressed the Government on it.

Sir J. Mellor

I appreciate the carefully considered answer which the Under-Secretary of State gave and also the manner in which he gave it. I am sorry I cannot respond to his request, because this is a matter on which the Government intend to legislate, and they should legislate on it in the course of the next year. It would be a highly controversial Bill but it would be, for a change, a Bill on which the ordinary party cleavages would not apply. It would do the House a world of good to have a Debate on a Bill of that sort. I do not think the Government ought to grudge the Parliamentary time. It is the kind of matter on which the collective wisdom of Members would be of very great value. Therefore, I am sorry that I cannot withdraw the Amendment, because I consider this regulation ought to be dealt with in the way I have suggested and that legislation should be introduced before the end of 1948.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out "thirteen."

We now turn to a rather different part which deals with jurors at trials. Regulation 13, which is found on page 220 of the Defence Regulations, provides that: No person indicted for treason or felony shall have any right of peremptory challenge of jurors. That means that a prisoner cannot challenge a juror without giving a reason for the challenge. Before this Defence Regulation was made, any person charged with high treason could challenge, without giving any reason, no fewer than 35 jurors, and in cases of murder and other felonies he had the right to challenge 20 times without giving any reason. I do not know on how many occasions in recent years that right has been exercised. I cannot call to mind with any degree of clarity any particular occasion on which it has been exercised, although I have a hazy recollection of hearing of it being done some years ago. Whether or not it is normally made use of by accused persons, there is a strong case for its retention, if not perhaps to the same extent as heretofore. Let me put this hypothetical case to the Committee. Supposing the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—

Mr. Gallacher

Keep me out of it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I will take another entirely hypothetical case. Suppose I had the misfortune to be charged with the offence of felony. Suppose that the first person who walked into the jury box—the offence having a slightly political tinge—was the hon. Member for West Fife.

Mr. Gallacher

You are well away.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I would not like to take a chance on it, in spite of the hon. Member's assurance. I should feel grave doubts whether I could rely upon his coming to the right conclusion on a matter of that sort. Be that as it may, I can well see, in all seriousness that in years to come, although I hope that all racial feeling will diminish, there may be occasions when a man accused may have very strong objection to a particular person sitting as a juror, and also a strong reason for not disclosing his ground for objection in open court. There is a great deal to be said for the idea that, on a limited number of occasions, a man who is charged with a serious offence should be able to say, without revealing something in his private history—perhaps he has quarreled with the individual—"I object to that man acting as juror at this trial."

I appreciate that this subject will also come up for consideration upon the discussion at some stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, which will receive its Second Reading shortly. At the same time I think it is right to take this opportunity of putting this argument before the Committee in the hope that, if we do not succeed in moving an Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position and will himself move an Amendment, not destroying the right of peremptory challenge but possibly reducing the number of occasions on which it can be exercised.

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the indication of his views on a subject which will be fully discussed upon another occasion. He will not expect me tonight to enter upon the merits of this case. As he has stated, a provision covering this matter appears in the Criminal Justice Bill, which we are to start debating at the end of the coming week. Therefore, there will be a full opportunity for thrashing this matter out. The reason the regulation was originally introduced was, of course, strictly practical and material, and did not go to the roots of the merits of the question because of the grave administrative difficulties sometimes involved of summoning a panel of jurymen and having to keep a reserve to make up for possible challenges. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there would be considerable objections upon manpower grounds to calling a large and unnecessary reserve of jurymen. As the matter has to be finally decided in so short a time, I think it would be unreasonable to expect that a regulation which has existed for some time should lapse. In fact, it is very likely, even if it lapses at the end of the coming year, that it would leave only a month or two at the very most before it would be overtaken by the permanent provisions of the Bill. It seems much more reasonable to ensure continuity by keeping it on for just that time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The hon. Member has put forward a case for not carrying the Amendment, but he really has not dealt with the substance of the argument which I addressed to the Committee. I hope that he will say two things before we pass from the Amendment: one, that the views which I have expressed will be carefully considered between now and the discussion of the question on that Bill, and, secondly, that if it is decided, as I hope it will be, to retain in a limited form the right of peremptory challenge, to give an undertaking that in that event this Regulation 13 will be revoked before the end of 1948. If he will give that assurance—

Mr. Younger

I have no difficulty whatever in giving that assurance.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out "fifteen A."

Again this is a matter which will come up, I think, for consideration upon the Criminal Justice Bill. It is wrong in principle that a jury in a murder, treason or treason felony case should be allowed to disperse, and meet and talk with all kinds of people. We do not know what has been said to them or who has spoken to them. One realises the necessity in wartime and that this had to be, but I hope that this is one of the regulations which we shall see brought to an end long before the end of 1948.

Mr. Younger

This is precisely the same point as arose on the previous Amendment. It will also be dealt with under Clause 28 of the Criminal Justice Bill. Perhaps I can give an assurance, in advance of being asked to do so, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view on this matter will be taken into account. The immediate need for this regulation, as opposed to the need for it to be incorporated in the permanent law of the land, is the difficulty of accommodation. It proved difficult in the war and the difficulties are scarcely less at the moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the same argument that I addressed to him on the previous Amendment in favour of continuing this regulation until the matter can be incorporated in or overtaken by the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 12 and 13.

This Amendment refers to identity cards. The purpose of the Amendment is to challenge the continued necessity of this document. The identity card may be compared to a passport, which is issued to the citizen of this country when he travels in a foreign land. I think the comparison is not without value in arriving at a fair estimation of the purpose of this document. Prima facie, the traveller has no right in the foreign country. He is not a native member of the community, and unless he is accompanied by documents which show his origin it has been the custom to regard him as a little bit suspicious. Therefore it has been the practice of Governments to issue to their citizens who travel in a foreign land this document which has declared the holder to be a citizen of his country, and has asked for the protection of everyone with whom he came into contact. The document has been signed by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

On general principle, and without going into the overriding temporary necessities, the idea should be that a free-born member of the community is entitled to go without let or hindrance in his own realm. He should not be under the necessity of proving his identity or of producing a document to vouch that he is an ordinary British citizen. We can only justify the continuance of the identity card system by alleging certain special conditions of a temporary character. During the war and before the war it was expected that the incidence upon our towns and cities of aerial bombardment would compel large-scale diffusion of population and of industries into regions of the country to which they had hitherto been strangers. It was anticipated that the great upheaval of the population would make it necessary to provide the ordinary citizens with a document of identity whereby in those strange communities to which they were sent by force majeure and not by their own will, they could prove to their new neighbours who they were, and thus avoid sudden suspicion being directed against a stranger who was posted to a new community. With the added stringency of wartime, rationing had to come in, and it was also thought that a rationing system would be helped by the production, in a strange community where a man was not known, of an identity card. Those were the reasons which brought the system into being.

Now that more than two years have passed since the end of the war, we ought seriously to consider whether the time is not overdue to get rid of what was an innovation introduced in order to meet a temporary set of conditions. There is no doubt that they are troublesome documents to some people. They frequently get lost, involving the owner in difficulties of one kind or another simply because he has not got a certain piece of paper. Law-abiding citizens who live in one community are particularly prone to lose them because they are known by all their neighbours and do not carry the cards. The dishonest man—the spiv, as he has been called—is generally possessed, I am told, of five or six different identity cards which he produces at his pleasure to meet the changing exigencies of his adventurous career. So in the detection and prevention of crime no case can be made out for the identity card. I understand that this is also a matter which is being touched upon in the Criminal Justice Bill, but I offer it as my opinion that the unjust are possessed of many identity cards whereas the just are frequently placed in positions of embarrassment by temporarily losing them.

The argument advanced on Second Reading—I conceive it to be the main argument for the retention of these troublesome documents—was that as long as rationing persists they are necessary. I do not believe it. We were told in the House the other day that there are 20,000 deserters still at large. How have those 20,000 persons contrived to equip themselves with food and clothing? Ex hypothesi they cannot be possessed of valid, honest identity cards, but that has not prevented them from sustaining themselves with food and clothing themselves with raiment without those documents. Therefore, as a deterrent to the evasion of the rationing arrangements the case is proved that they are of little or, at the best, of speculative, value. That they are necessary for the operation of a rationing system is certainly open to doubt. There was rationing of food in the war in which I was privileged to play a part, but there were no identity cards. History therefore proves that they are not necessary for a rationing system. If we made the food rationing card the document of identity for purposes of food and clothing rationing, we could now dispense with the identity card.

8.15 p.m.

Now that the population have been given an opportunity to settle down in their own habitations, I submit that the time for these documents has passed. They served a useful purpose during the war, and I remember, when I was Post-master-General, making an Order which asked for the production of an identity card for certain withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank. It gave the clerk power to ask for production of an identity card if a person came into a post office with a Savings Bank book for a withdrawal demand. The reason I made it sprang from the same wide and unnatural diffusion of the population necessitated by war. It was also to meet the difficulty which people might have of making remittances from distant parts of the country, and in order that the postmaster might issue up to £10 on demand, if he was satisfied of the person's identity and circumstances. That was a concomitant of the times when there were a lot of people about who are not with us now. It was necessary to take certain steps to prevent frauds on the Post Office Savings Bank. But I do not believe that is necessary today. The Post Office Savings Bank could get on perfectly well without asking for production of identity cards. This is an age of paper, and the paper daily grows more voluminous. We should do as much as we can to simplify life, and restore it to its ancient freedom, and absence of formality. We should restore to the citizen the dignity of his rights and privileges, without the necessity for the production of a piece of paper to prove who he is.

Mr. Bevan

With the general point of view which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed I am in entire agreement. I believe that the requirement of an internal passport is more objectionable than an external passport, and that citizens ought to be allowed to move about freely without running the risk of being accosted by a policeman or anyone else, and asked to produce proof of identity. It is evidence of a stable society that we can be exempted from interference of that sort. Therefore, I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on that issue. Indeed, ever since I have been in my present office I have been modifying demands made on the citizen in respect of the production of identity cards, and have issued modifying regulations from time to time. Everyone will admit that the identity card is a little onerous on the individual citizen.

However, it is not necessary for me to argue whether identity cards are involved in the present Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing something hopelessly irrelevant to the present position. If this Amendment were carried, all that would happen would be that the citizen would be subjected to the inconveniences from which I have exempted him. The identity cards are issued not under the regulation challenged here, but under the original National Registration Act. If the Committee carried this Amendment, the situation would be simply that the identity card would be encrusted, festooned and surrounded by the irritations of the war days. Therefore, I am rather astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have delivered his homily upon the virtues of freedom from this sort of interference. I want again to press the point that the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to restore all the irritations surrounding the identity card when it was in its full panoply.

What we have done progressively is to attenuate its evils until now it is almost a popular document. Indeed, if we accepted the Amendment, the citizen would be subjected to very great inconveniences. For example, it would be impossible to determine—though it is now stated on the identity card—whether a person is or is not an alien, and he would be called up for service. We would not know a man's nationality until he was called up. Therefore, a very large number of people would be hauled up to the Armed Forces, and, having been hauled up, it would then be discovered that they were not liable for service. Further, it would be impossible, except by the regulations which we are retaining, to issue temporary ration cards. Once a ration card was issued, it would be a permanent ration card until its renewal. Therefore, a lot of people would be receiving rations to which they were not entitled, because under the existing powers we give temporary ration cards.

These powers are necessary. I am assured by the Registrar-General's Department that identity cards are invaluable in checking the issue of ration books. People have to satisfy the food authorities that they are the persons for whom the ration books are intended. A great deal of fraud is prevented in that direction. I could go on for a long time to emphasise the various ways in which the innocuous use of the identity card facilitates the existing situation, but that would be merely pushing at an open door. What is the use of arguing the merits of this proposition tonight, because the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that we ought not to make the identity card a source of irritation? His Amendment would make it a positive source of irritation and, therefore, I think it would be wise in the interests of his own case that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams

The speech we have just heard has really been a wonderful one, as a complete condemnation of the whole Bill. The Minister would agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) is a pretty careful Parliamentarian, as is the Minister himself. We have been considering many regulations, and it is extremely difficult for the Opposition to know all about them. The Minister very fairly admits that. What has happened in this case? We have gone through the Bill and we have seen this regulation which is one of many regulations, and my right hon. Friend put down the Amendment, quite obviously by mistake, to go back to the original use of identity cards. None of us wants that. It is a mistake which any Opposition might make at any time. I think that the Minister was quite justified in making the point. I do not think that he did it unfairly, but it is no argument for keeping identity cards.

Mr. Bevan

This is getting a little hard. What I have been trying to say is that, if the Amendment is carried, it does not abolish the identity card but restores a worse identity card.

Mr. Williams

That is exactly what I was trying to say. I was saying how fair the right hon. Gentleman had been in saying that it was taking us right back to the old original position. I am sorry if I confused the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Gallacher

Is the hon. Member supporting the Amendment or opposing it?

Mr. Williams

The hon. Gentleman will hear about that in due course. It is quite clear that this Amendment, in its present form, is not the Amendment that is wanted here, but, on the other hand, it does raise the question of the identity card. It is now pointed out that the identity card is necessary for food and for other things. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual political skill, did not say that the Minister of Labour might want it. That may only be my own naughty idea, or it may not, but, at any rate, it does seem to me that it might be one of the uses of the identity card in the same way as food, and I see no reason why it should not be asked for.

There is a further point. If the Government insist on retaining the identity card, what they are really telling this country is that they expect rationing and all that sort of thing to go on for three years. Surely, they could reduce it to one year and let us go into it once again next year. I know that is most unpopular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they do not like these discussions, and I know that, if I developed that argument too far, I might get into trouble with some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would like to refer to the interruption made just now by the hon. Gentleman who is the representative of the Communist Party—

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Gentleman is just making a filibuster.

Mr. Williams

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to call me a filibuster but, if he is telling the Committee that I am not pleasing to the Government, I am very glad, because I am not here for the purpose of pleasing the Government. The question I am trying to decide is how I shall vote on this Amendment in the event of a Division.

The Deputy-Chairman

I thought the purpose of the hon. Gentleman rising was to indicate to the Committee how he proposed to vote.

Mr. Williams

I rather thought that that was one of the points in my rising, and, possibly, that is why I say that I had come to the question how I might vote. Quite clearly, the Amendment does not really do what it seeks to do, and, now that the matter has been discussed, I am suggesting, without wishing: to curtail the discussion in any way, that, when the time does arrive, it might be useful and practicable for my right hon. Friend—and it might be quite easy for him, and this is a usual thing in this House—not to divide the Committee on the matter but to withdraw. I do not think I need use any long argument on that matter. From the universal attention which I have received from hon. Members opposite, it is apparent that almost every right hon. or hon. Gentleman on that side of the Committee, and, indeed, every hon. Lady, wanted to get up and support me on this matter.

8.30 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

There is a great deal more in this matter than appears on the surface. I remember, in the old days, that the S.P.G.B. used to regard the S.D.F. as a revolutionary party at half cock. Tonight, we have the Minister of Health, also a revolutionary at half cock. He cannot understand the Amendment because he says that if we carry it, we shall be back to a worse position than if we allowed the Government proposal to stand. The right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that this Opposition do not want the public to be increasingly doped by diluted Socialist and totalitarian legislation. What he desires is that we should get back to the crudity of these wartime regulations. The public are continually finding out that the diluted Socialist, the S.D.F. as against the S.P.G.B—and I know that the Home Secretary does not know what the S.P.G.B. means; it was a very correct organisation which would take up the position that I am taking up against the Minister of Health tonight—

The Deputy-Chairman

I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that, so far, he has not spoken a word on the Amendment.

Sir W. Darling

I was endeavouring, with undue elaboration, because of the simplicity, ignorance and innocence of the Committee, to lead up to the main argument, which is that I would sooner have the Opposition Amendment because it is crude and rude, and because it would bring sharply and plainly to the public mind the imposition which the carrying of identity cards involves. It would not be a diluted proposal, such as is the Government's proposal modified by the generous reformist sympathies of the Minister of Health; it would be a crude, harsh, staggering blow in the face of those who have been accustomed to liberty. Therefore, I stand for this Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)

Are we to understand from what he says that the hon. Gentleman is more ruthless than his hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), and is prepared to torture the British public in order to further his political prejudices?

Sir W. Darling

I am not a reformist like the Minister of Health, but, in this matter, I am a revolutionary. We either abolish the identity card or make it reappear in its original crudity and its effective denial of freedom. The Minister of Health said that he preferred the attenuated body to the full-blooded body. This weakening of his taste is the first mark of the decline of his character. I had always looked upon him as a full-blooded man, but today he has expressed his desire for the attenuated rather than for the full-blooded. In those circumstances, I will vote against him.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he has repeated himself many times over.

Sir W. Darling

I have still something to say which is not repetition. I say that these cards, which we would rather intensify than abolish, have produced spivs, drones and eels. They have produced them, not eliminated them. The contention of the Minister of Health seems to be quite beside the point. He should make this hard rigid rule implicit upon every member of the public, and he should abolish it altogether. This halfway Measure is unworthy of him and unworthy of the Government.

Mr. Jenning (Sheffield, Hallam)

I did not intend to intervene until I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that there has apparently been some misunderstanding about this Amendment. He proceeded to tell the Committee that he did not want to make the life of the people in this country irksome, and he disagreed with the carrying about of an internal passport. I am not quite satisfied yet that my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is going to accept all he said, but I do feel that because he suggested there has been some misunderstanding in this Amendment, the Minister's arguments for not withdrawing the identity card were not satisfactory. He admitted himself in the first place that he did not want to worsen the irksome restrictions we now have in the country. If he is to have this regulation for three years—and he is against it in principle except that it has some point in connection with food, etc.—surely, a better case has been made out on this matter than on anything else, for the carrying on of this regulation for one year only and not three years, to give him the opportunity to see if the position changes within that time. The Minister himself is against a good deal of it, except for those points, and yet he does not offer the Committee a restriction on the limit of three years.

Mr. Bevan

I am quite sure that there is no misunderstanding here. What is before the Committee is not the National Registration Act, 1939. What is before the Committee is the power given under the Bill to the Minister of Health to modify the application of the Act of 1939, and make the identity card progressively less irksome. This is what we have been doing, hut if the Amendment were carried, that power would be taken away and the irritation would all be restored.

Mr. Jennings

That is exactly the point I was trying to find out from the Minister. What a helpful suggestion has he made? He has criticised the Amendment, and says if this Amendment is accepted the position will be worse than ever. He knew the objections, and has not put forward any proposition to meet them.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I wish to say a few words in reply to what has just been said. It is a very important subject, a question of policy, and I do not think the Committee or the House would seek to evade the question of the principle at stake by any quibbling about the precise terms in which the Amendment has been drafted. The fact is that this regulation, which would be struck out by this Amendment, is one which we passed last year in a modified form in the Measure, of which this is the successor. It was in effect adapting the identity card system of the National Registration Act, 1939, to peacetime conditions, and my argument is directed to the inapplicability of this document, in peace-time conditions.

Mr. Bevan

Which document?

Mr. Morrison

The identity card.

Mr. Bevan

I say with all respect that the Act of 1939 remains, and it is not challenged. It is not now before the Committee. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing, and he ought to admit it, is challenging the power to adapt the Act of 1939 to peace-time conditions.

Mr. Morrison

I am aware that that is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, but my argument to the Committee is somewhat different. I hope he will listen to the argument. The position is that last year we made certain modifications to this regulation, designed for one year only to preserve the power to vary the National Registration Act, 1939, with regard to identity cards. My main argument on policy, which is not to be evaded or defeated by any narrow legalistic or artificial construction, it that we ought now to consider the abolition of these documents.

Mr. Mitchison

On a point of Order. Is this a matter which is before the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to continue his argument.

Mr. Morrison

I am obliged, Mr. Beaumont. In my submission, this matter is before the Committee. If I had thought the right hon. Gentleman would adopt this line of argument in saying, "If we accept this Amendment we intend to do nothing about the main point of principle", I should not have moved it, but I should have expected something more from him. If he had said, "We will accept your Amendment and take steps to remove this anomaly altogether from our system by repealing the relevant provisions of the National Registration Act," we should have accomplished something. But as the right hon. Gentleman stands on what I consider to be a legalistic point of view, and throws himself back on the provisions of the obsolete 1939 Act, there is nothing to be gained by pursuing the matter further.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 14.

This Amendment refers to Regulation 22 which is concerned with the wartime powers of billeting people upon other householders. The matter has been frequently referred to, and it is not my desire at this late hour to detain the Committee by repeating arguments which are familiar to them, but I think it might be of some assistance if I were to summarise what I conceive the position to be. This question of billeting by compulsion persons upon the households of other persons has always been a very sore point with our democratic and freedom-loving people. In the struggles which established the present position of Parliament in our Constitution it was one of the major grievances against the King that the power of billeting was used in an oppressive manner by the Crown to inflict hardship and, therefore, to punish persons whose views were distasteful to the Crown. It was after a long constitutional struggle that the power to billet in time of war, and in certain cases in time of peace, was hedged about with very strict legislative safeguards and with every provision for compensation and payment of charges in proper cases.

During the war there was a sudden removal of masses of the population from one area to another, and in the time that. was available under the stress of war it was impossible to arrange by contract suitable accommodation for those people. That being the circumstance of the time, these wide powers of compulsory billeting were taken. It was always obvious that among the many grievances of war this was one, and the chief sufferers from compulsory billeting were the housewives. When, added to their daily task of looking after their own menfolk, they have to cook, wash linen, make beds and look after strangers who are thrust into their homes, it is only with a sense of profound loyalty and public service that they put up with this added labour and intrusion. I think in these days of peace we should review this matter again. Surely, it should be our duty in this Committee to protect the homes of the people from this sort of invasion and intrusion? This exordium may be a little thunderous for the purposes that remain in this Bill, but I think it is wise for us to have the background of these provisions in our minds when considering their particular application at the present time.

8.45 p.m.

In the Debates on this subject last year, and again this year on the Second Reading of the Bill, the argument was advanced that it was desired to maintain this Regulation 22 simply to give validity to the remaining cases in which it was necessary to billet people at the present time; and two categories of persons were mentioned, first the civil servants who had been extruded from the Metropolis and not yet reabsorbed, and certain young persons who were the victims of war and who had to be cared for by local authorities in various places. I should have thought that two years after the war ended would have been long enough for us to find accommodation for all the civil servants and the children by peaceful means without compulsory billeting. The prospect that this regulation holds out to us of a continuance of these abnormal powers—these extra-constitutional powers—until the end of 1950 is one that must be appalling to the people of this country. Surely, it cannot be considered by the Government that a few outlying cases—the driftwood cast up on the beach by the storms of war—are sufficient justification to retain in their entirety these immense powers. This is not the way to deal with a temporary situation, such as this, which is, we are told, all that it amounts to.

I should be the first to agree that the "difficulties of war must be dealt with by both sides of the Committee in a reasonable manner having regard to the actual facts of the situation. I say, however, that it is not necessary for the Government to retain in days of peace these wide powers in order to deal with cases, be they of children or of civil servants, which arose out of the last war, which ended two years ago. I hope we shall get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman which will enable us together to come to some solution of this difficulty. I ask him, therefore, if he will tell us the extent of this problem of billeting civil servants and children. Can he give us any idea how many children still remain, for whom it is impossible to find accommodation without his arming himself with these very great compulsory billeting powers? Will he tell us, too, what is the position as regards the civil servants and the provision of accommodation for them? I understood many of them were coming back to London, and that the necessity for the compulsory billeting of them was, a least, a declining necessity. What is the extent of that problem? Is there any way in which we may solve it without arming the Government with a continuance of these powers? We shall be ready to consider anything to meet the actual difficulty that does exist, but I say that, taking a steam hammer to crack a nut—

Mr. Gallacher

We need a steam hammer to crack the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison

—is a very trite method of finishing a temporary and vanishing problem.

Mr. Bevan

The right hon. Gentleman labours under a disadvantage—a disadvantage not merely political, for that is shared by his hon. Friends behind him—but the disadvantage that he was not present when a colleague of his spoke on an earlier Amendment tonight which was directly relevant to this one. His hon. Friend withdrew the Amendment after the explanation which I gave. The right hon. Gentleman has launched a frail barge to carry a very heavy cargo. He has made a terrific attack upon these powers, but the right hon. Gentleman should have tried to show that these extensive powers have been improperly used. The full powers are needed in a few, and a dwindling number of cases. That is the difficulty all the while. What hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should do is to try to show, first, that the powers are unnecessary; and, secondly, that if they are possessed by the Government, they are being used to an unnecessary and vexatious extent. Now, they have not proved the first point. The right hon. Gentleman, surely, allowed himself to use very improper language when he talked about the victims of war bombing as "driftwood"?

Mr. Gallacher

He will find plenty of driftwood at Claridge's Hotel.

Mr. Bevan

I explained earlier—and his hon. and learned Friend accepted the explanation and withdrew his Amendment—that at the present time there are large numbers of children in this country who were evacuated.

Mr. Osborne (Louth)

How many now?

Mr. Bevan

Perhaps the hon. Member would permit me to make my speech in my own way. Those children were evacuated during the war, and the point was put to me, quite properly, by his hon. and learned Friend, that surely the time had come when those children should now have been restored to their former homes. That is a perfectly proper point. But a large number of the children who were evacuated were orphaned when they were away. They are the "driftwood" that we have to look after—2,500 of them.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make a point of prejudice over a perfectly proper simile. I said that these remaining cases were the driftwood of the tempest of war. I used it in no derogatory sense in speaking of these victims of war. I hope that, in fairness, the right hon. Gentleman will refrain from crediting me with any desire to be in any way harsh towards, or to underestimate the sufferings of, these people. It was a perfectly proper simile.

Mr. Bevan

I am within the recollection of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman did load his argument with many generalisations about interference with the liberty of the people, about the unpleasant character of billeting people at the present time, and about people resenting having others billeted upon them. The fact of the matter is that a very large number of those people upon whom evacuees were billeted never felt the stroke of a bomb, and, so far from regarding themselves as the victims of war, very many of them were delighted to have children from war-damaged areas billeted upon them.

Mr. Morrison

Of course they were, and gave them a welcome.

Mr. Bevan

The right hon. Gentleman now suggests that they were the victims. We have to find places for these children—2,500 of them. We are still their guardians, and the Government propose to remain their guardians until proper authorities can take charge of them. We are making preparations, and before very long my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept guardianship of these deprived children under special legislation. Furthermore, when the National Assistance Bill has been carried into law, every assistance will be given to people who have been injured and who require domestic care. Therefore, we are bound to have these powers until those two Bills have assimilated the problem. Also, there are 150 nurses who are billeted at the present time, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think rather more about what might happen to the patients if those nurses were not there, and to the persons upon whom the nurses are billeted—because they are paid. In addition, there are some civil servants still evacuated.

Sir W. Darling

How many of them?

Mr. Bevan

About 1,700. Every Member in the Committee knows very well that we have lost an enormous amount of property in London. Indeed, it has been the policy of the Government—and I should have thought this would have the support of the Opposition—as far as possible, to bring about dispersal of the Civil Service into the Provinces. Therefore, we have to retain the powers of billeting for a while, but their use is diminishing as the problem recedes. It is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest, within a very short time after such destruction as we have suffered, that it is possible for us to give up these powers immediately. They have not shown that the powers are being improperly or too extensively operated, but what they have tried to do is to make the maximum political prejudice out of the situation.

Mr. Frank Byers (Dorset, Northern)

I agree with what the Minister has said about the necessity for billeting powers, and I was very glad to hear that this was a diminishing problem, and that he wanted these powers for only a short time. I merely rise for an assurance. If I were working a system of direction of labour, as the Minister of Labour is doing, I should require very strong powers for billeting. There will be movement involved, and there will be the obligation, having given a man a direction, upon the Minister of Health to find somewhere for him to reside. I should like an assurance, because the Minister of Health is the Minister responsible for billeting, that this is in fact a diminishing problem, and that these powers are not being retained because the Government are retaining the powers of direction of labour.

Mr. Bevan

Certainly, it is not proposed to use these powers for this purpose.

Mr. Byers

In that case, is it the intention to direct people and not to find them accommodation?

Mr. Bevan

That is a different issue entirely.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

I thought that the Minister's indignation was really rather excessive, and I do not think he himself would consider his constitutional doctrine to be maintainable, in a more thoughtful moment. He told us that it was the duty of the Opposition to show that the powers whose continuation hon. Members desire are unnecessary; but surely that cannot be the right view. It cannot be the right view to take that the Executive ought to have all the powers, even those which, on the Executive's own showing are much greater than they directly or immediately need, unless such powers can be shown to be unnecessary. That is an exact reversal of the onus of proof which has always been taken in these matters, I will not say only in this country, but in every other country which has the happiness of constitutional government. The Minister explained to us that there were 4,000 persons for whom the Government are at present responsible. I think I am getting the arithmetic right—

Sir W. Darling

2,500.

Mr. Pickthorn

I think I am getting my arithmetic right, in saying that it is something under. 01 per cent. of the whole population for whom the Government are responsible, as the right hon. Gentleman said, until the proper authority can take charge. Does he really mean to tell us, that in order to make sure of the lodging of that very small number of people, it really is necessary to have absolutely unlimited powers of compulsory billeting; because this really is an unlimited power of billeting. And billeting can be a really serious grievance.

I hate to intrude personal experiences, but in my own house, since before the war began, my wife offered a part of the house, and from that day to this day there have always been one or two or three strangers living in it without any compulsion at all. However good they are, and however well they behave and all the rest of it, that is really a very heavy additional tax, which does not appear in the financial returns of His Majesty's lieges and compulsory billeting is very different from yielding to what appears to you to be a patriotic or benevolent case for sheltering one or more persons in your house. Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what proportion of these 4,000 people it is now necessary to use compulsion, what proportion of this 4,000 would he apart from compulsion, be left with on his hands? That is his problem, it is in order to deal with that small number, not the whole 4,000 but such portion of the 4,000 as could not be got in either by reasonable commercial bargaining or by appealing to people's willingness to help, it is in order that those few people should be accommodated that the Minister is asking for unlimited billeting powers until 1950.

We have it on high authority that there will be no housing problem by the time we come to the next General Election. I do not know when that will be; it cannot be later than 1950 and if the housing problem is so fast tapering off, indeed ending so rapidly, that it will not be here when we have the next General Election, is it absolutely necessary to retain absolutely unlimited powers of billeting and to rely on the assurance of the Minister that it is to be used only for a few orphans? That is the argument which has been put to the Committee. I ask the Committee to believe that that argument ought not to be taken seriously and that the indignation with which it was presented is an outrage on the intelligence of this Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If any justification were needed for this Amendment, it could be found in the Minister's attitude. He is asking in this Bill for enormous powers, powers which might have been necessary in wartime, and were then only very jealously given. He has sought to justify these powers by suggesting he was entitled to them unless we could show that they were improperly used. That is really intolerable. No House of Commons worth its salt will give a Minister sweeping powers unless and until that Minister has made in perfectly clear there is a real necessity for them.

Whatever the Minister may say, the powers are powers which strike at the heart of the domestic life of this country. They entitle the Minister, by force of law, to intrude into any household any person whom he may select. That household has, under penalty, not only to accommodate but to feed the people imposed on them. That power is one that cannot be given by any self-respecting House of Commons to any Minister without really serious argument being put forward as to its need. The only argument the Minister used was the need to accommodate 2,500 evacuee orphans. Is it beyond the capacity of the Minister and his Department to arrange for the accommodation of 2,500 children without taking billeting powers over the whole United Kingdom? Is there any more undesirable method of accommodating children than by compulsory billeting? If the Minister had any idea of the resentment which is caused by compulsory billeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—I ask hon. Members who interrupt, to contemplate their own reaction to compulsory billeting in their own houses.

Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)

We have had some.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Surely orphan children should be the last people to be exposed to compulsory entry into other people's houses. Members who have any knowledge of the problem of dealing with orphans know that before the war arrangements were made for thousands of children to be accommodated without any compulsory powers being used at all. They were made by mutual agreement, they were made by free arrangement, and the foster parents welcomed them. Will any Member suggest that it is better, when dealing with the accommodation of children, to use compulsion rather than voluntary means? Is it suggested that a problem which before the war Ministers could solve without any difficulty, that of arranging foster parents by voluntary agreement, is beyond the power of the right hon. Gentleman, with his persuasive tongue? I have said and thought many things against the right hon. Gentleman's capacity, but at least I have never suggested that. It is no use Members opposite indicating indignation, unless it is that they are so fond of compulsion that they like to expose even children to it. Surely, compulsory billeting is the wrong method of dealing with the accommodation of children. That is the only argument which has been adduced by the Minister in support of his claim to be given powers of compulsory billeting for the next three years. An argument such as that is really an insult to the Committee, and the only answer to it can be given in the Lobby.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I would like the Minister of Health to deal with one or two other points when he replies. He tells us that this is a diminishing problem. Well, we have had some experience of change of policy by this Government in the use of Defence Regulations. We understood that when Regulation 58A was continued this Government regarded the direction of labour—

The Deputy-Chairman

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now getting outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Reid

I was trying to point out that there is every possibility of just such a change of front with regard to billeting. Observe the problem. The Minister cannot build houses. There are hundreds of thousands of people, and more coming along every day, who want accommodation. There is the problem of directing labour from one part of the country to another. Will he tell us at least this: that so long as he is a member of the Government, under no circumstances will this regulation be used for any further class of persons beyond those for whom. it is used at the moment? I realise that one of the main objections to having vast powers of this sort on the Statute Book is that governments may change, or change their policies. The result is that Ministerial assurances have no permanent validity.

The least I can ask the right hon. Gentleman to do, therefore, is to promise this Committee that he will not remain a Member of any Government which uses this regulation for any new class of billeting. If he will do that, he will have done all he can do, short of withdrawing this regulation. [Laughter.] It is no good Members opposite laughing; that is implicit in what he said, but it is not yet explicit. Let the right hon. Gentleman make it explicit. Members sitting behind him seem to think it rather a game to get regulations through this House, and then use them for quite different purposes This is a game which they have played once, but they are not going to be allowed to play again. I do not think they have yet realised that there are people in this country who regard a change of front of that kind as something approaching the discreditable. I should have thought that they would have been very willing to try to avoid further discredit in the use of this power.

Will the right hon. Gentleman observe what he is taking power to do, and what any change of front of this Government, or any other Government, may bring into full operation tomorrow?—and as the crisis deepens there is every temptation to do it. He can require any person—subject to rights of appeal, it is true, but they are very limited—to give accommodation to any person, adult or child, and not only accommodation but also food and attendance. Accommodation, food and attendance may be forced as a duty on any householder in this country with regard to any spiv or drone who is directed into labour. That is what the right hon. Gentleman asks power to do. Does he say that that is a power which this Committee ought to give to any Government?

Why not limit this order to those purposes for which he requires it? That would be a proper way of legislation, unless the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that he appears to do—I hope that he does not—that the Government ought to have unlimited power, and that power ought only to be taken away from them in circumstances where it can be proved that it could only be wanted in a single case throughout the United Kingdom. That is a complete reversion of constitutional theory and a complete denial of what we understand by freedom. The question of children has come up. The right hon. Gentleman himself said an hour or two ago that responsibility for the children was to be taken over this year.

Mr. Bevan

I did not say this year.

Mr. Reid

Well, before the end of 1948—this Session—and he did not require the other Defence Regulation which specifically deals with children beyond the end of 1948. Why then does he want this regulation to deal with children for a further period beyond that for which the other regulation is required? If there is any reality in this scheme which is to be brought forward, that the children are to be managed under some other scheme before the end of 1948, then the whole of those 2,500 children go right out of the sphere of this regulation before the end of 1948. The prolongation for a further two years to 1950 is not required for the children. That is implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said one-and-a-half hours ago. Perhaps he will explain why that is necessary?

The only other people are nurses and civil servants. Is it really suggested that these enormous powers are required—he is taking over, after all, full responsibility next year for the whole of the hospital services and for most of the services with regard to nurses—to get nurses into the proper places in the country? Is it really suggested that this problem of billeting civil servants cannot be solved for another three years? I wonder what the civil servants will think when they hear that for another three years it is necessary to keep powers of compulsory billeting, because they will not have any homes of their own. I see the Financial Secretary here. I wonder how the civil servants feel about the way their new masters are treating them, and the prospects held out to them of compulsory billeting for another three years? This Defence Regulation is, I think, the most stringent regulation in the Bill if it is used, as it can be used, for the purpose expressed in the regulation. Why cannot it be amended, if it is wanted at all? It would not be difficult to amend it on the lines on which the right hon. Gentleman has said he wanted it. It would be perfectly easy and there would be no difficulty. So long as we have a Government which, tumbling into ever-deepening crises, change their mind and use Defence Regulations for purposes for which a few months before they said they would never use them, we must be careful. We cannot afford to put powers of that sort into the hands of this Government.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

Many of the hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite were not in the Committee at all for most of the evening. In fact, so much importance did the party opposite attach to many of these regulations, which they call important, that there were not more than three or four Members on the opposite Benches.

Mr. Pickthorn

And the same on the other side.

Mr. Bevan

There were twice as many here. In fact, the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who spoke with such synthetic indignation a moment or two ago, has only been in the Committee a very short time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—

Mr. Bevan

No, I will not give way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a right hon. Gentleman to make a direct personal and inaccurate attack upon an hon. Member, and when that hon. Member desires to correct him on a question of fact, decline to give way?

The Chairman

Whether he gives way or not is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman himself. We are in Committee and the hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity later to reply if he wants to.

It will be within the recollection of my hon. Friends here—

Mr. Bevan

I said that the hon. Member had been in the Committee very little.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to be fair to my hon. Friend, who has given this matter almost constant attention and if the right hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see the number of topics on which my hon. Friend has addressed the Committee.

The Chairman

In any event this discussion has very little relation to the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

I will at once admit that the hon. Member was present in the Committee far more than his hon. Friends—

Colonel Dower

And more than the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan

—because very few of them were here. That was my justification for referring to his synthetic indignation, because if hon. Members attach such improtance to these powers and become so indignant in five minutes about one, it would be expected that their attention would be more assiduous. The fact is that hon. Members opposite have on several occasions this evening found that what they thought were barbs had blunt points, and that they were not pulling up matters that they thought they were pulling up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was quite usual for Governments to get powers for some reasons and use them for others.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

This Government.

Mr. Bevan

If there are any British Governments that have had powers for certain reasons and used them for opposite reasons, it is the Governments of the Tory Party. In the whole of our experience they got power by lie after lie, and, in fact, it is very well known to everybody today that in the art of deceiving the public to obtain power, the Conservative Party have been pastmasters.

Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)

Lie after lie.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan)

Here is somebody else who has just come in.

Mr. Bevan

There is another right hon. Gentleman who has fluttered over the political scene with faithless love for the past 20 years. I warn his hon. Friends not to attach too much importance to his fealty, because he has deserted on more than one occasion.

Mr. Maemillan

Lie after lie.

Mr. Bevan

It is correct. He said it, on more than one occasion, and the consequence is—

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

On a point of Order. Can we have some argument which is related to the Amendment?

Mr. Bevan

The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that they cannot take it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to insist that I should enter into a contract with my right hon. Friends who are Members of the Cabinet and say that I would remain in the Government only upon certain assumptions. I certainly am saying that it is not the intention of the Government—

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

At present—

Mr. Bevan

—to use the powers. No Government can ever talk about hypothetical situations. Of course they cannot. No Government ever can, and a Government ought never to be asked what it would do in a certain set of hypothetical circumstances. What we are saying—and hon. Gentlemen must remember that what is under consideration at the moment are powers conferred upon the Coalition Government—

Mr. Pickthorn

It was before.

Mr. Bevan

If the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) would restrain himself for a moment, and only for a moment—we know he cannot do it for more than a moment—

Mr. Pickthorn

Who cannot take it?

Mr. Bevan

These powers were conferred upon a Coalition Government in war time, and are being exercised to a decreasing extent, to the extent that the problem itself is decreasing. Indeed, I think I am entitled to say that my own view about billeting and about the obnoxious character of unnecessary billeting, can surely be demonstrated by the fact that, even in the worst period immediately after the end of the war, when men and women were being demobilised people all over the country to take them in hundreds of thousands, in millions, from the Forces, we did not use these powers for billeting. [Interruption.] I say that we did not use them although we were in very difficult circumstances. In fact, in 1945, so far from using these powers, which were alive, far more alive than they are now—

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

Why have the powers?

Mr. Bevan

We never used them, because everyone in this country recognises that there is nothing which causes more resentment and domestic disturbance than imposing one family or one person upon another.

Mr. Byers

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when we demobilised, I think it was, more than four million people, not one of them was directed, and that now they are going to be directed. Can the right hon. Gentleman work industrial conscription without the power of billeting?

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member is becoming obsessed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite rightly."] We are not dealing at the moment with industrial conscription. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is part of it."] It does not exist, except in the perfervid imagination of the hon. Gentleman. There is only one way in which to test the bona fides of a Government or a Minister when they ask for certain powers, and that is to examine how they have used them in stressful conditions. These were not used by me in 1945 or 1946. They were not even used last year when there were very distressful conditions in London, and they are not even being used now when there are thousands of families in London living in very bad conditions. We appealed in 1945 and 1946 for families to share their homes with returning ex-Service men. In that appeal we got no assistance whatsoever from anybody on the other side of the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman and one of his hon. Friends asked why we could not get foster fathers and mothers for these 2,500 children, and why we should not hawk them around the country and try to persuade people to take them in. Has anyone for a moment faced the administrative consequences of taking these 2,500 children around and trying to persuade in temporarily, not permanently, as foster children. That would mean 2,500 separate homes spread everywhere and an army of inspectors to find out what was happening to the children. The hon. Member who spoke so indignantly does not appreciate the nature of the problem. There are 30,000 deprived children in Great Britain, of whom many are put out into homes as foster children. Why did we have the Curtis Report? We had it because we found that it was impossible to provide sufficient trained inspectors to see how the children were being used. The reason why I am angry is that hon. Members opposite, anxious to make political capital, would sacrifice the welfare of these war orphans merely in order to score a political point. [Interruption.] That is what is behind it. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment: Does he agree with his hon. Friend that the way to provide for these 2,500 children is for Ministry of Health inspectors to take them from place to place, street to street and home to home until people will take them in?

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I do not think any hon. Friend of mine ever made that suggestion.

Mr. Bevan

Oh, yes, he did. That was the only constructive point, if it can be called a constructive point, in the speech of the hon. Member. That is exactly what he said. He went on to underline it and said that before the war it was a normal thing to put children out.

Mr. Morrison indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan

That is exactly what he said. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to repudiate his over-enthusiastic follower, he may do so. That is exactly what the hon. Member said, and that is what I am resisting. I say that until it is possible for us to create proper homes for these children—

Mr. Morrison

How long will that be?

Mr. Bevan

Much shorter than it would be if hon. Members opposite had the job. While it is perfectly true that the party opposite did not embark on billeting before the war, they starved whole populations out and made them move to other areas. If hon. Members want to know what it means to force people away from their own homes into the homes of other people, let them read the reports on Dagenham, Slough and Hayes between the war years as a result of their driving Welshmen, Scotsmen and men from Durham to live in the South and South East of England.

Mr. Gallacher

Hundreds of thousands of them.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

One thing that annoys me is to hear the humbug from the Opposition. We have therefore decided that these children are the wards of the Government, and that they are to be kept in circumstances in which they can be properly looked after until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can assume their guardianship and build proper homes, in which they can be properly supervised.

I have been asked about civil servants who are being billeted. They are being billeted in definite places in definite towns. We know that if every civil servant had to make voluntary arrangements in constricted circumstances the result would be that they would be fleeced, and the Government would be fleeced. At the moment, the arrangements made are not resented, but if we entered into voluntary arrangements in a definite number of places, we would be handing helpless civil servants over to householders to be fleeced. We will not do that. These are powers which we require at the present time and insist upon obtaining, because not to do so would be a dereliction of the Government's duty.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I rise for one purpose only, and that is to reply to the personal attack which the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to launch upon me. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that such indignation as I might have displayed in my last speech was synthetic because I had not in fact been very much present during the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill. I will merely put the Committee in possession of the facts, and leave it there. Discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill began shortly after seven o'clock yesterday evening. From that period, until the beginning of the Adjournment, a little after 11 o'clock, I was in my place, with the exception of five minutes. This afternoon discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill began approximately at a quarter to four. I was in my place then, and continuously from then until between 25 minutes past and half past seven. I was back in my place a little before half past eight. Those are the facts. Whether those figures compare favourably or unfavourably with the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not altogether care, but I think it is right, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that these facts should be on record, and that the right hon. Gentleman should, in face of those facts, have the opportunity of withdrawing the observations he made.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Sir J. Mellor rose—

The Chairman (Major Milner) rose—

Hon. Members

Order.

The Chairman

Sir John Mellor.

Sir J. Mellor

I apologise if I did not sit down immediately you rose, Sir. I did not rise to continue the Debate, but to express the greatest disgust at the conduct of the Minister.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order—

The Chairman rose—

Mr. Gallacher

Is there anything in the Amendment to entitle the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) to refer to "disgust"?

The Chairman

Order. I shall have to order the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to leave the Chamber if he does not restrain himself.

Mr. Gallacher

What is an "expression of disgust"?

The Chairman

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) was not addressing himself to the Amendment. If he wishes to do so, I will call him.

Sir J. Mellor

I think I am entitled to suggest that the arrogant way in which the Minister of Health has treated the Committee—[Interruption].

The Chairman

Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee must permit me to conduct the Debate. They should allow any hon. Member on either side to say what he has to say, and give the Chair the opportunity of hearing him.

Sir J. Mellor

I was protesting against the arrogant way in which the Minister of Health has treated the Committee throughout the Debate upon this Amendment. After my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has stated the facts and asked for a withdrawal, the Minister refuses to accord with the custom and decency of this House and to rise in his place and make apology or withdrawal. I think that this Committee will part with this Amendment on a Division in which we shall express not only our view on the terms of the Amendment but also our view on the conduct of the Minister of Health.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 89.

Division No. 31.]	AYES.	[9.37 p.m
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Blackburn, A. R.	Daggar, G.
Allan, A C. (Bosworth)	Blyton, W. R.	Daines, P.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Alpass, J. H.	Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)	Bramall, E. A.	Deer, G.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Brook, D. (Halifax)	de Freitas, Geoffrey
Attewell, H. C	Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Delargy, H. J.
Austin, H. Lewis	Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Diamond, J.
Awbery, S. S.	Burden, T. W.	Dobbie, W
Ayles, W. H	Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Dodds, N. N.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Callaghan, James	Donovan, T.
Bacon, Mist A.	Champion, A. J.	Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Baird, J.	Chetwynd, G. R.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Balfour, A.	Cobb, F. A.	Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Barstow, P. G.	Cocks, F. S.	Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Barton, C.	Coldrick, W.	Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Battley, J. R.	Colman, Miss G. M.	Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Bechervaise, A. E.	Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.	Evans, John (Ogmore)
Berry, H.	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Beswick, F	Corlett, Dr. J.	Farthing, W. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Corvedale, Viscount	Field, Capt. W. J.
Bing, G. H. C.	Crawley, A.	Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington. E.)
Follick, M.	McAdam, W.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N	McAllister, G.	Royle, C.
Gallacher, W.	McEntee, V. La T	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	McGhee, H. G.	Sharp, Granville
Gibson, C. W.	McGovern, J.	Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Gilzean, A.	Mack, J. D.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)	Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)	Simmons, C. J.
Goodrich, H. E.	McKinlay, A. S.	Skeffington, A. M.
Grey, C. F.	MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)	Skinnard, F. W.
Grierson, E.	Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)	Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Sorensen, R. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)	Mathers, Rt. Hon. George	Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)	Medland, H. M.	Sparks, J. A.
Gunter, R. J.	Middleton, Mrs. L.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Guy, W. H.	Mitchison, G. R.	Swingler, S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Moody, A. S.	Sylvester, G. O.
Hale, Leslie	Morley, R.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Moyle, A.	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Hardy, E. A.	Murray, J. D.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Herbison, Miss M.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Thurtle, Ernest
Hicks, G.	Noel-Buxton, Lady	Tiffany, S.
Holman, P.	O'Brien, T.	Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)	Paget, R. T.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
House, G.	Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Hoy, J.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Viant, S. P.
Hughes Emrys (S. Ayr)	Pargiter, G. A.	Walker, G. H.
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Parkin, B. T.	Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Hughes H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Pearson, A.	Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Pearl, T. F.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Janner, B.	Perrins, W.	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Jay, D. P. T.	Piratin, P.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)	Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)	Popplewell, E.	Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)	Porter, E. (Warrington)	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Porter, G. (Leeds)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Keenan, W	Proctor, W. T.	Willis, E.
Kenyon, C.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Key, C. W.	Randall, H. E	Woods, G. S.
King, E. M.	Ranger, J	Wyatt, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Reeves, J.	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Leslie, J. R.	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lindgren, G. S.	Robens, A.	Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.
Lyne, A. W.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)	Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Baldwin, A. E.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H	Grimston, R. V.	Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E.
Bennett, Sir P.	Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)	Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Bower, N.	Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)	Nield, B. (Chester)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Osborne, C.
Butcher, H. W.	Howard, Hon. A.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Byers, Frank	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Pickthorn, K.
Carson, E.	Hurd, A.	Pitman, I. J.
Challen, C.	Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Clarke, Col. R. S.	Jeffreys, General Sir G.	Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Jennings, R.	Rayner, 'Brig. R
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Keeling, E. H.	Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Ropner, Col. L.
Crowder, Capt. John E.	Lindsay, M. (Solihull)	Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Darling, Sir W. Y.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Davidson, Viscountess	Low, A. R. W.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)	Lucas, Major Sir J.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Digby, S. W.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E A (P'dd't'n, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)	Maclay, Hon. J. S.	Wadsworth, G.
Drayson, G. B.	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Walker-Smith, D.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Eccles, D. M.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter	Marshall, D. (Bodmin)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Maude, J. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.	Mellor, Sir J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gage, C.	Molson, A. H. E.	Mr. Drew and Mr. Studholme.

Question put and agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 19 to 22.

After the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the last Amendment, it is, perhaps, hardly inappropriate that we should now consider a Defence Regulation dealing with persons of unsound mind. I hope that we shall, perhaps, have a calmer and "more informative answer to the questions which I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this regulation. For some reason, this regulation is included among the number carried on until 1950, while the rather similar Regulation 32, with regard to hospitals and ambulances, is only carried on until 31st December, 1948. When we asked the right hon. Gentleman for information about Regulation 32, he gave it quietly, calmly, and with a touch of conviction which was absent from his recent orations. I hope that in telling us why he wants Regulation 32A—that dealing with the transfer of persons of unsound mind and mental defectives—to remain until 1950, he will tell us the size of the problem with which he has to deal, and the particular reasons for such a lengthy retention. I expect that if he were only willing to admit it, the real reason for its retention is his failure to erect buildings.

Mr. Bevan

The Committee will have noticed with what restraint the hon. and learned Gentleman refrained from trailing his coat till the end of his last sentence. The reason for retaining this particular regulation is quite clear. During the war, a number of patients had to be removed from mental institutions to other buildings. Under the lunacy laws, when a person is detained, he must be detained in an identified and mentioned institution. Therefore, if he is removed to another place, that place also has to be designated and identified. It is not, in fact, only the mental patient himself who has to be certified; it is the place where he is detained that has to be certified and has to be brought under regulation. It was necessary, as I have said, to transfer a number of patients from mental institutions, which had been identified for that purpose, to other institutions and to other buildings. Many of the buildings from which they went were heavily damaged, very old, and cannot be repaired, and, as the hon. and learned Member said, new buildings will not be erected for some time. It is impossible for us to repair within two and a half years all the ravages of 50 years' neglect.

There are also a number of other institutions which were privately licensed homes. There are about 50 altogether. They are subject to the same difficulties and the same legal limitations. They have had to be taken from where they were to other places, and in those other places they have to be protected. It is impossible to restore them to where they were. Therefore, this regulation is not on all fours with the other regulation to which the hon. and learned Member referred, because, in those cases, all the services are being assimilated into the National Health Service Act. But in the cases under this particular regulation it will very often be found that they are not going to be assimilated in that way, and, therefore, this regulation is necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 26 and 27.

These Regulations 42C and 42CA, deal with war-time regulations which were made with regard to the closing of undesirable premises, on the one hand, and unlawful gaming parties on the other. I do not intend in general to dispute the fact that some control of these places is necessary on the lines of the regulations in the meantime. The doubt I feel about Regulation 42C is that A chief officer of police of any district … if so authorised either generally or specially by the Secretary of State, may, if he is satisfied … of certain conditions enter premises and carry on with his work. I move this Amendment only in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in a position to furnish the information, whether he has any expectation of permanent legislation on these matters, because it is an undesirable thing that these police regulations should continue to hover in this suspended fashion, not completely clothed with the statutory authority of law, and yet in force. If he can give me any assurance, I shall be much obliged to him.

Mr. Gallacher

At a time like this, these regulations are especially necessary. When we have a crisis such as we have, and black marketeers making quick and easy money, it is quite obvious that there are all kinds of undesirable premises and undesirable gaming. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he took over that position, which should still be in the hands of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), told us on the radio that we should organise parties and play games. He certainly did not mean the games that are referred to in this regulation and the Minister should have all power to stop the practices that flow from the black marketeering that is going on at the present time.

Mr. Ede

The question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me referred to the first of the two orders that he proposes to leave out by this Amendment. With regard to undesirable premises, the only police officer who has been given general power is the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Outside the Metropolis the chief constable of the district has to make his application to me in each case, and the Chief Constable of my own constituency has made certain applications to me with regard to this matter. This is the kind of power that is required in seaport towns, and I hope that it may be possible to introduce permanent legislation. I am quite sure the Committee would not expect me tonight to indicate any precise date. It is one of the matters with which I hope to deal on a suitable occasion, because I agree that this matter should be embodied in permanent legislation. It so impinges on the liberty of the subject that it is desirable that the House should have the opportunity, before permanent legislation is enacted, or this matter is continued much longer, to have a chance of having the matter before it fully and in detail.

The same thing applies to the Gaming Acts. They badly need consolidation. I would not undertake to attempt to do it in Committee of the whole House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] There would be too many experts about. I hope to be able to have that matter also dealt with generally, but there can be no doubt that at the moment, with the temptations which exist, it is desirable that this power should be continued. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members will know that there was a very bad case a few weeks ago in an apparently quite respectable mansion just off the Guildford-Godalming by-pass road. I am happy to say that most of the people who seem to engage in this activity are not British citizens.

Mr. Molson

British subjects?

Mr. Ede

I do not want to go into considerable refinements. I hope that it may be possible to deal with this matter again, but I ask that the powers should be continued for the present. It is gratifying to find that as far as gaming parties are concerned, the number of persons found guilty has fallen from 265 in 1946 to 168 this year. On the first of these regulations, I would say that every conviction has been upheld. There have been appeals. I think that indicates that the use made by the police of these powers has been justified, and I hope the Committee will not think it necessary to remove these two regulations from the Schedule.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for which I thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 43.

I am moving this Amendment for the purpose of elucidation. Page 9, line 43, appears to refer to Regulation 86 with regard to the removal of offices, etc. In the Defence Regulations there is no Regulation 86 at all. It seems to jump from Regulation 85 to 87. Number 86 is a complete blank. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is going to the pains of seeking to extend for another three years a regulation which, according to his own publication, does not exist, is I think a circumstance sufficiently mysterious to warrant elucidation. It is with that object in mind that I am moving this Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan)

I must confess that I shared the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety when I looked at the 1946 edition of the Defence Regulations. But I went back to the 15th Edition of 24th March 1944, to find out what it was all about and, having made considerable research, the position seems to be that the power to make orders under this regulation was revoked by an Order in Council dated 9th May, 1945. But in the 1946 Act, what I think is technically known as a saving provision was included to safeguard existing orders made under the regulation for the removal of offices established by Statute. I do not want to rely upon that technicality. In a sentence, the reason I would ask the Committee to grant this particular power is for the purpose of maintaining the general register of shipping and seamen down in my constituency at Cardiff. It is an office which is required by Statute to be kept in London. At the beginning of the war, under this defence regulation it was removed to Cardiff where it still is. It is' functioning very well, I understand, in a very good city, indeed. Most of the staff have no desire to come back to London. It is desirable, until we can amend Section 251 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that we should be given this saving, in order that we may continue to have the office down there in these times.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

It is very desirable to maintain this office at Cardiff, but is it the intention to reprint Regulation 86?

Mr. Ede

No.

Mr. Molson

I am afraid I cannot quite understand the whole of the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. The present edition of the Defence Regulations is described as containing regulations printed as in force on 24th February, 1946. The volume was prepared in the office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport tell us plainly and explicitly whether we are to understand that this is the definitive issue of the regulations which are in force? The beginning of the prefatory note says: The Defence Regulations included in this volume are those which remain in force. Are we to understand that there are other regulations which remain in force and are not printed here?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am not quite clear on another point. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport can enlighten me. The Schedule itself in which appears this entry we are questioning describes Regulation 86 as one of the Defence Regulations continued in force until Tenth of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty. As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's observations, they came to this, that although Defence Regulation 86 had been revoked, certain orders made under it were saved by a provision of the Act of 1946. That being so, is it not a trifle misleading to put into this Schedule as a Defence Regulation in force and to be maintained in force until 10th December, 1950, a Defence Regulation which the Parliamentary Secretary has already told the Committee was revoked some little time ago? It does lead—and would lead anybody reading this Schedule by itself—to the belief that a regulation is in force which, in fact, has been revoked. I see the practical point involved. Perhaps, however, before the Report stage, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport could devise a method of doing what he wants to do without leaving, apparently, a corpse in the Book of Life.

Mr. Ede

The 1946 Act revoked, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said, Regulation 86, but in the third column of the First Schedule, under the heading, "Exception, limitation or modification." there were inserted the words: The saving for orders made under the Regulation shall continue in force. I agree that this drafting that we have now in front of us is misleading, and may lead people to believe that the whole of the regulation has been revived. Of course, there is no power in this Bill to revive any revoked regulation. I shall endeavour to see, between now and the Report stage, if it is possible to find a way of making quite clear on the face of the Bill the limited extent to which the orders made under the regulation have been saved. I hope that will satisfy the Committee.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I cannot say that the whole of this mysterious matter is perfectly clear. However, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to. the Ministry of Transport have not succeeded in producing illumination, at least they have made darkness visible. Inevitably, there is something here to be cleared up. I am quite content with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will endeavour to clear it up between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 9, line 47, to leave out "eighty-nine," and to insert "ninety."

Regulation 89 has been continued in the previous line, line 46, and we do not desire this system of double entry to continue. Therefore, by leaving out "eighty-nine" in line 47, we start the succession of regulations, which are continued in line 47, at the correct number.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, to leave out "two."

The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a small drafting error. The Regulation 2 referred to has already been revoked by Order in Council in October, 1946, under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1946.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.