CLAUSE 6.—(Saving for, and power to revive and amend, existing Acts relating to civil defence.) (Hansard, 3 December 1948)

§ Mr. Younger
I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out from "force," to the end of line 28.
Perhaps it would be convenient to deal with this and the next three Amendments in lines 29, 32 and 33. These Amendments are designed to meet the anxiety which was expressed in Committee concerning the provisions in this Clause relating to the revival, if necessary, in an amended form of the provisions of the earlier Civil Defence Acts. The House will appreciate that as the Clause stands, any provisions which are revived may be revived with adaptations. They may be amended or extended. They may be repealed, and if repealed a new Clause may be substituted. The view was expressed that that gave much too wide a power. These Amendments are designed to meet what my right hon. Friend hopes will be the wishes of the House in this respect. If the Amendments are accepted, the position will be that the former provisions may be revived, and there may be made in those revived provisions any such Amendments as appear to be required for certain clearly specified purposes.
The Amendment in line 32 specifies that the Amendments may be such as are required to adapt them to any changes which have occurred since the passing of the said Acts either in the law 2323 or in the relevant circumstances, including, in particular, any actual or apprehended developments in the forms of warfare. That, I think, makes it clear that the Amendments could not amount to new provisions but would merely be such as were required to bring the provisions which were made before 1939 up to date in the light of existing circumstances.
In the Amendment to leave out line 33 and to substitute a new paragraph (d), the important word is "comparable." It will still be possible to repeal a provision and to substitute a new one, but it must be to substitute "any comparable provision" for "any provision." I hope the House will feel that that narrows the possibility of altering the old provisions to what is strictly necessary in order to bring them up to date.

§ Sir J. Anderson
As the Under-Secretary has rightly said, this group of Amendments deals with something which we on this side of the House regarded with great concern and on which we commented both on Second Reading and in Committee. At the conclusion of the Committee discussion on this Clause the Home Secretary threw out a suggestion that there might be consultation before the Report stage. These Amendments are the result of that consultation, and I think I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we regard the Amendments as effectively meeting the criticisms which we had to offer.
As the Under-Secretary has explained, there is no longer under the Clause an opportunity to introduce any subject matter foreign to what has appeared in previous enactments. There is a specific provision enabling those enactments, the Acts of 1937 and 1939, to be brought up to date so as to take account of changes in the law, of which there have been several and which are material in this connection, and changes in methods of warfare. In the proposed new paragraph (d) there is the useful and significant word "comparable," which I think ensures that provisions which are being discarded shall only be replaced by provisions of a similar or comparable character. In these circumstances, I ought to express, through the Under-Secretary, to his right hon. Friend, our appreciation of the care and consideration given to this matter, and our agreement with the proposed Amendments.

§ Mr. Howard (Westminster, St. George's)
The Amendments will make a great improvement, but I want to enter a very emphatic protest against the lack of opportunity which we have had to consider them. I received the Bill yesterday morning. I did not receive the Amendments which we are now considering until I myself collected them from the Vote Office just before the House was beginning its business. I did not receive them by post.
These Amendments alter the provisions, but the original provisions gave to Ministers of the Crown powers wider than I have ever seen in a Bill before. The words about which I am still worried are "actual or apprehended" in the Amendment to line 32. I agree that the other Amendments substantially meet the points which were raised, but I should like to know what is the safeguard given by the word "apprehended." I have heard a good many speakers on many subjects in this House, and I have heard an enormous number of apprehensions expressed by hon. Members which I think a good many other hon. Members would have regarded as totally unjustified.
It is still going too wide to permit the Minister to exercise his discretion to insert—in fact, to promulgate—new legislation merely because he in his own mind considers that some particular apprehended development in the form of warfare may justify him in doing so. Therefore, while I consider that the Amendments go a long way to meet the point raised on this side of the House both on Second Reading and in Committee, for myself, having carefully safeguarded my decision on this specific point, I want to make it quite clear that I am still not satisfied that the safeguards are adequate. Moreover, I wish to repeat that I protest most strongly at the inadequate time which has been given us to consider these important matters.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard), in what he has said. These Amendments confer very considerable powers. With regard to the Amendment in line 32, I support what my hon. Friend said that there are a great many ways in which "actual or apprehended developments" might take place. This is very wide indeed. We have had almost no time 2325 at all to consult on this matter. We have had no legal advice as to what precisely this means in the Bill and I say, therefore, quite frankly, that however much some right hon. and hon. Members may be satisfied, up to now at any rate, I do not feel entirely happy on these points. It gives the Minister powers which may not always be well used. We realise the difficulties which may be caused, but I protest very strongly against the provisions we are making in these four Amendments. I hope most sincerely that in another place they will look very carefully, with the highest possible legal knowledge into what these Amendments mean and that they will have ample time to discuss them. I do not wish to make trouble over these Amendments, because I think they are, on the whole, genuine attempts to meet our point of view, but I myself am certainly not at all satisfied with the position.

§ Mr. Peake
This is a matter upon which consultation did of course take place on the suggestion of the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and myself have given very careful consideration to the terms of these Amendments and, as no one can foresee precisely the forms of attack from which we may have to defend ourselves in the future, we think these words are as fair as any which the right hon. Gentleman could reasonably give in limiting the powers which he will take for Civil Defence in the future. I hope my hon. Friends behind me will be satisfied that these matters have been very carefully considered and that, so far as we can be satisfied, we are satisfied about the position. Of course, I share their disappointment that they were not able to see these Amendments sooner. This is perhaps a matter which might be raised on some other occasion. Perhaps it would be more convenient if Amendments to Bills which are coming up on a Friday morning could be circulated in advance as soon as they are put down at the Table.

§ Mr. Younger
With the leave of the House, perhaps I could say a few words in reply to the points raised by hon. Members opposite. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) for his remarks. Of course, the 2326 Home Secretary appreciates that there has been very little time for hon. Members to consider these Amendments. I would, however, say that it was made quite clear on the Committee stage what our proposed procedure was, namely that there should be consultations, and that there were only three days—rather less than three days, in fact—in which these consultations could take place and Amendments could be put down. I think there was no objection in any quarter of the House to that procedure, and I am afraid it was inevitable under that procedure that there should be, at the best, only a very short time during which hon. Members could consider the Amendments. As the right hon. Member for North Leeds has said, very careful consideration has been given to this by my right hon. Friend and his advisers, and by representatives of the Opposition, and I think hon. Members will appreciate that in the limited time available my right hon. Friend did everything that could be done to ensure that this was properly considered.
If I may deal with the one point of substance which has been raised, it is on the third Amendment, about this question of "apprehended developments." In view of the uncertain state of our knowledge about possible forms of attack, I doubt whether anybody can really object to a provision which allows the Secretary of State or the designated Minister, whoever he may be, to take into account, in training Civil Defence workers, apprehended as well as actual methods of attack. It would be quite impracticable to put in a provision which prevented him, in training, from taking into account apprehended methods of attack. I think, on reflection, hon. Members will see that there is no objection to that.

§ Mr. Howard
The Under-Secretary states that there were only three days. What does he mean?

§ Mr. Younger
On the Committee stage it was made quite plain when the further stage of the Bill was to be taken and at that time everybody knew what the time available would be.