DEFENCE REGULATIONS (CONTINUANCE)

HC Deb 23 October 1950 vol 478 cc2589-637

Motion made, and Question proposed,

5	That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
SCHEDULE
Defence (General) Regulations, 1939
	Regulation two BA (Control of explosives).
10	Regulation sixteen (Stopping-up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal and generating stations).
	Regulation twenty AB (Amendments of National Registration Act, 1939).
	Regulation thirty-three (Exemption of certain women from Acts relating to midwives).
	Regulation forty-two CA (Unlawful gaming parties).
15	Regulation forty-five A (Issue of identity cards to seamen).
	Regulation fifty (Power to do work on land).
	Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of H.M. forces).
	Regulation fifty-five C (Restrictions on registration of new clubs).
20	Regulation sixty C (Amendment of s. 4 of Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act. 1926).
	Regulation sixty CC (Power of officers of Post Office to require production of identity cards).
	Regulation seventy-six (Handling and conveyance of ammunition etc. in ports).
	Regulation eighty-two (False documents and false statements).
25	Regulation eighty-three (Obstruction).
	Regulation eighty-four (Restrictions on disclosing information).
	Regulation eighty-five (Entry upon and inspection of land).
	Regulation eighty-seven (Permits, licences, etc.).
	Regulation eighty-eight (Fees for permits, licences, etc.).
30	Regulation eighty-nine (Use of force in entering premises).
	Regulations ninety to ninety-three and ninety-five to one hundred and five (which contain general, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).
	The Third Schedule (Manner of instituting proceedings).
Other Defence Regulations
35	Regulations seventeen E and twenty of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940.
	Parts I, II, III and IV, Regulations twenty-one, twenty-five A, twenty-six, twenty-eight A, twenty-nine and thirty, and Schedules I, II, III and VI of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.
40	The whole of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.
	Regulations one, two, three and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.
	Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.
45	Regulations one and three of the Defence (Industrial Assurance) Regulations, 1943.
	Regulations one and two of the Defence (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Regulations, 1940.
	Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.
50	The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
	The whole of the Defence (Trading With the Enemy) Regulations, 1940.
	The whole of the Defence (War Risks Insurance) Regulations, 1940, the Defence (War Risks Insurance) (No. 2) Regulations, 1940, the Defence (War Risks Insurance) (No. 4) Regulations, 1940 and the Defence (War Risks Insurance) Regulations, 1945.
55	The whole of the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations, 1941."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 10, to leave out Regulation sixteen (Stopping up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal and generating stations).

I am sure the Home Secretary will recognise this issue because we have dis-

it before, although it was some time ago and I expect he is still occupying the same position on the Council for the Preservation for Footpaths and Highways, and things of that sort. I make no apology for raising the question of the retention of this Defence Regulation again tonight. I do so for the reason that there are ample powers, both under the old Highways Act and the Quarter Sessions procedure and new powers under Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act for closing highways where that is necessary to be done.

This regulation, which was altered slightly in 1946, gives power to the Minister of Fuel, if he considers it necessary for the purpose of working opencast coal or constructing or extending an electricity generating station, to order the stopping up, or diversion of the highway. I ask the Government whether it is really now necessary to retain the regulation in that form. When we last discussed it I was given an assurance that where any permanent stopping up was to be done it would be done by Act of Parliament. The then Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department said that on 26th November, 1947. The stopping up of a highway for an electricity generating station is not likely to be of a temporary character, nor is it likely to be something which has to be done in a great hurry, because the plans for an electricity generating station will take a year, or it may be two years, to prepare.

Therefore, I fail to see any reason why this Defence Regulation should be retained, in the first place dealing with electricity generating stations, when the Government have power both under the Town and Country Planning Act and the Highways Act to secure the stopping up of a highway and a footway if that be necessary. It seems to be a duplication and it is a duplication which also deprives individuals of the right of making their protestations. If it goes under the Town and Country Planning Act it has to be approved by the Government and, in the course of approving development for a generating station, the matter of a highway which is to be extinguished can be taken into account. Therefore, I contend that at any rate as far as electricity generating stations are concerned, the retention of this power by the Minister of Fuel and Power is really unnecessary and I ask him to say that it will be given up.

In regard to working opencast coal—which I thought was to draw to a conclusion fairly soon—there may be a case for a temporary closing of a footpath and re-opening when the fuel has been extracted, but, in view of the assurance given by the Under-Secretary in 1947, I ask on how many occasions since 1947 use has been made of this Defence Regulation and whether in fact any use of it has been made for closing a footpath or highway in connection with an electricity generation station. I hope I have made the point clear and I think the onus is on the Government to satisfy us that this Defence Regulation is really necessary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot see that there is any case for the retention of this power as far as generating stations are concerned. No one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary how long it takes to erect or extend a generating station. There can be no conceivable urgency for stopping up a highway in connection with it and, therefore, there can be no possible argument for doing it otherwise than by the normal procedure.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

There is a good deal in the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and seconded by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). In point of fact this regulation is being used in only one case. That is the case of Stewart Street Power Station, Manchester, and in six months' time, when that is completed, this regulation so far as electricity power stations are concerned can be dispensed with.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

Will it?

Mr. Robens

The hon. and learned Gentleman did concede the position in regard to opencast coal because of the problems of footpaths being opened again as speedily as possible, and it would not be possible to restore opencast sites if we had to go through all the procedure of making a new highway. I hope that on that understanding that we shall not use this regulation in another new case in relation to electricity power stations and only want to retain it in connection with opencast coalmining, I hope the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Captain Crookshank

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman means that the power can be withdrawn or does he mean that it will be withdrawn? The two words do not mean the same thing.

Mr. Robens

The intention was that it would be dispensed with.

Captain Crookshank

Then it will be withdrawn. Even so, could the hon. Gentleman go a little further and say when this Stewart Street, Manchester, power station came into the picture? It is quite definite that my hon. and learned Friend was assured in 1947 that this procedure would never be used when there was a case of a permanent alteration—or was it subsequent to 1947? Is this a temporary one, I am not quite clear?

Mr. Robens

No, it is not a temporary one, but it started out as a temporary one and subsequently the local authority felt it would be better that that street should be closed and another highway made which would be more suitable. In consequence, whilst this has been going on, the local authority have been constructing a new highway to take the place of Stewart Street so that in that case Stewart Street will be permanently closed, but a new highway will be available. It would be quite correct, as the right hon. Member suggested, that at the time it was not intended that it would be used for permanent closing of a street but only subsequently when the local authority looked at this and realised the complications, it was decided to make it permanent. But it will not be used again for an electricity power station.

Captain Crookshank

I can quite see that and I am sorry to cross examine the hon. Gentleman, but the assurance was quite definite that where it was intended that temporary stopping up should become permanent. there must have been a moment of time when that was decided— where it was intended that a temporary stopping up should become permanent, there could be no objection to using the normal procedure either under this Act or the old procedure of Quarter Sessions, and he is prepared to see that it will always be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 2008.] But apparently it was not done and when assurances are given between Ministers and those who sit on these benches it is disturbing to find that even on one occasion this has not been carried out.

8.30 p.m.

There may be some explanation beyond this, and if there is the hon. Gentleman will no doubt communicate with us. Obviously we cannot at this stage go on cross-examining each other. It looks, on the face of it, as if a ministerial assurance was not carried out. As regards the future, it is very satisfactory to find that the Parliamentary Secretary does not anticipate that there will be any more cases and that in fact within six months or so this part of the regulation will be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 12, to leave out Regulation twenty AB (Amendments of National Registration Act, 1939).

This Amendment is moved to raise the whole question of identity cards, which is a matter of real importance, because they seem to be, and as a matter of fact for many years past they seem to have been, completely useless. Their origin was a long time ago. They were a wartime expedient but even then it was admitted that, because of the fact that there was no photograph attached, and they could be easily forged, they were not really of very much value.

Then there came a time in the course of the argument when it was said that, "Of course, you would not be able to get your food ration card unless you could produce an identity card," and that as deserters from the Forces ex hypothesi would not have identity cards, and would not be able to get ration cards, the fact that they were deserters would emerge and they would be caught. While that may have been a tidy theory no one knows better than the Minister of Labour that it did not work out because there are still in this country thousands of men who are deserters, and who presumably have somehow had something to eat in the last four, five or six years. So that argument in favour of the identity card is not a very strong one.

As a matter of fact the Government have themselves repeatedly said that they do not think that there is very much use in them. The most recent quotation I have before me is an observation made as recently as 27th June last during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Maintenance Orders Bill [Lords]. The Home Secretary then stated: The National Register and the Identity Card are alien to the English way of life, and I hope also to the Scottish way of life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th June, 1950; c. 55.] Presumably he meant to infer that the sooner we got rid of them the better.

I should like to know why we should continue this regulation and give this power. Perhaps I might, while speaking on this regulation, refer to another Amendment which I and some of my hon. Friends have put down really with the intention of calling attention to the same matter. It is in line 21, to leave out Regulation sixty CC (Power of officers of Post Office to require production of identity cards). If I do so now, we shall not have to speak separately on the subject. That Amendment to which I referred gives officers of the Post Office power to require the production of identity cards—they do not have to do so but they may ask for their production—when persons go to a Post Office and wish to draw money out of the Post Office Savings Bank. I suppose that procedure was adopted when more importance was attached to the value of identity cards than is now the case.

I remember that there had been a tremendous number of forged withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank, and judges and magistrates were particularly critical at the ease with which that could be done. This device was adopted as some safeguard. The records show a considerable drop of such forged withdrawals as a result of the introduction of the permitted use given to the Post Office counter clerks, if that is the only practical reason which anyone can produce today as to why identity cards are retained, it is out of proportion to what is achieved because the number of men and women who are employed looking after the National Register and the identity card system must mean a considerable expenditure to set against the possible forged withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank.

There might be other ways of guarding against such withdrawals. The step I have mentioned was adopted as a quick remedy at the time. If the Post Office were asked to address themselves to the question whether they could not think of some other way of dealing with this risk, I am not sure whether even the production of a food ration card would not be equally good. Like the identity card, the ration book does not contain a photograph and it might just as well have been stolen as might an identity card. There are plenty of other possibilities.

We therefore raise the issue as to what these cards are really for today. The Home Secretary, like myself, does not think much of them. He thinks they are alien to our way of life. The occasions on which one is asked to produce them must be very few. I certainly have never been asked to produce mine to anybody, and I dare say that the normal run of law-abiding citizens are in the same position. On the other hand, any Government paper—if that is what we may call it—which ordinary people have to keep and look after is to many of them a great anxiety and worry. They wonder whether they have lost it, or where they have put it. All this may have been necessary at the time they were introduced, but, as I say, the original reasons are somewhat wrapped in obscurity.

I hope that justification can be made today for this regulation, and that, if not, the Government will say that this is the time to let it go. I do not expect that they will agree to let it go now, but perhaps, like the other regulation we discussed, we can get an assurance that it will be withdrawn within six months, which will be quite an advance on the present situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

An odd thing about the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is that although he was apparently moving the deletion of this particular regulation, I do not think he has actually said a word about it. He has, quite fairly, no doubt, spoken about the 1939 National Registration Act and quite naturally used this opportunity of inquiring of the Government about it; but I would point out that, in fact, the regulation makes certain minor modifications in that Act, and the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word about it, although he moved its deletion.

So far as the Act itself is concerned, it is true that on many occasions my right hon. Friend and other Members of the Government have expressed their general dislike of this form of procedure, and this matter has been under consideration for some time; but it is a difficult problem, because in fact these identity cards do serve quite a number of useful purposes which would have to be served in some other way if the identity cards were to be withdrawn. For example, the Ministry of Food find them very useful indeed in connection with the issue of ration books. The Service Departments find them of value for some reasons already mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Also, identity cards are found to be extremely convenient as an identifying factor in the National Health Service to check the lists of doctors, and they serve other purposes. If the National Registration Act were to be withdrawn at any time, we would have to find some other form of registration to take its place.

These are clearly matters that we have to consider, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this matter is being very carefully considered by the Government. But we have to find some alternative way of collecting the information and making the checks that otherwise are effected by the use of our present identity card system. Not that we are particularly enamoured of the system as it stands. It is simply the practical problem of how we can ensure some efficient control by other means. I cannot, therefore, give any sort of undertaking about the future of this regulation which is a modification of the original 1939 Act, but I can say that the matter is under careful consideration by the Government.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, Northfield)

The hon. Member will observe that under paragraph (4) these officers have the powers to ask for the production of an identity card and if that identity card is not produced an offence under the Act is committed. First, may I ask whether any prosecutions have taken place, and secondly, whether police officers are in the habit of taking advantage of paragraph (4) of Regulation 20?

Mr. Blenkinsop

I should explain that paragraph (4) is no extension of the powers provided in the 1939 Act. The regulation merely ensures that proceedings for failure to produce an identity card shall be taken in the locality where the original request to produce the card is made and not perhaps in some fardistant part of the country, as was the position before this regulation was introduced. There have been proceedings. There is no extension of police powers in this regulation.

Mr. Blackburn

I am not dealing with the question of the 1939 Act. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) did not deal with the actual provisions of this paragraph. I assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I believe it to be the practice of police officers in certain circumstances to go up to people and ask them for their identity cards. I am glad to see that the Minister nods his head. That is far more serious than the question of whether people should have identity cards or not. I can well imagine that it may be a good thing to have identity cards for the various purposes referred to by the Minister. That is one matter, but a much more serious matter is that there should be an obligation upon a citizen to carry an identity card, and that obligation is contained in paragraph (4) of Regulation 20 AB.

If a person has not got his identity card and he is asked to produce it, he is served with a notice. I know of people who have been served with a notice requiring them to produce an identity card. If they do not produce an identity card, is it the practice to prosecute? The Minister says that it is the practice. I submit that the matter becomes a little more serious. The fact is that, the Home Secretary himself having said that he dislikes the whole business of identity cards, nevertheless it is the practice of police constables in London in certain circumstances to ask people for their identity cards. If they do not produce their cards, apparently they are prosecuted.

Mr. Blenkinsop

If the hon. Gentleman will give way, the first thing I want to make clear—apparently he is still not clear about it—is that this power of the police officer to require the production of an identity card is a power which was included in the 1939 Act. It is not a new power provided by this regulation.

Mr. Blackburn

I appreciate that.

Mr. Blenkinsop

A moment ago the hon. Gentleman said that he was dealing purely with the regulation and not with the Act. Apparently, that is not so. As I understand the position, he is concerned with the Act. It certainly can be the practice of the police to ask for the production of an identity card. They have done that in the past and undoubtedly it has been of great value to them to be able to do so. But clearly it is only when this state of affairs is linked with some misdemeanour that there is much likelihood of an actual prosecution taking place. Therefore, there is no reason at all why the hon. Gentleman should raise this matter at this stage. The whole question of the use of identity cards is one which is under consideration by the Government. This power to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is one which is part of the 1939 Act.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has been properly informed. I could give him details of a case in which somebody was approached. I am not authorised to give the details here, but I am prepared to give them in private to the Home Secretary. Somebody was approached by a police officer and questioned. It was decided that no charge would be preferred against the person concerned, but afterwards at his home a notice was delivered under paragraph (4) of Regulation 20AB requiring him to produce his identity card at a police station. I know that that is so, and I think the Home Secretary should give an undertaking—I think this matter is of some importance—that police constables will be told that, where they are considering preferring a charge against a person and later decide not to do so, they might then produce a form—they have a standard printed form—under Regulation 20AB requiring the person concerned to produce his identity card.

I ask for that statement from the Home Secretary because he quite rightly said that he does not like the whole business of identity cards, but I can accept the fact that they may well be necessary and convenient for certain purposes. What I am objecting to is that, on the face of it, in certain circumstances an offence is committed because a person is not carrying his identity card. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary at this very moment is not carrying his identity card.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Blackburn

I very humbly apologise to the Home Secretary, but I venture to suggest that most people in the House do not carry their identity cards, and certainly I have been asked to inquire whether the Attorney-General—

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

Certainly, I have mine; it has a special colour.

Mr. Blackburn

I find myself that I have not got my identity card with me, but I think it will be agreed that it should not in any circumstances be regarded as an offence for people not to carry their identity cards, and I am merely asking the Home Secretary to give an undertaking that prosecutions will not take place against persons who are found not to be carrying their identity cards.

Mr. Ede

I do not detract in any way from what I said in June. I do not think that the carrying of identity cards is a thing which one would like to see made compulsory any longer than is necessary. With regard to what the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) has said, after all, this works two ways. Sometimes, the production of an identity card will prevent the temporary arrest of a person while his address and identity are being checked, and I do not think it unreasonable that, if there is any doubt, a person should be asked to produce his identity card, and, if unable to do so, be given notice to produce it within two days to a police station, though not the station with which the police officer who served the notice is concerned.

I would certainly view with very considerable disfavour any oppressive use being made by the police of this system, and I should like to have particulars of the case to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, because I am quite sure that no one would desire that the police constable should say, "Very well, we did not catch him on that; now, let us see if we can catch him on the other." That is not my experience of the way in which the police generally act.

Mr. Blackburn

I agree.

Mr. Ede

I am quite sure the police themselves would desire that any suggestion that one of their number has acted oppressively should be investigated.

Mr. Blackburn

I was not suggesting that in this case any oppressive action had been taken. As a matter of fact, the gentleman concerned did not produce his identity card, and no action was taken against him.

Mr. Ede

Then, what is all this fuss about? I gathered that it was a case where a prosecution had occurred. No? Then, I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I am quite sure that a number of other hon. Members in the House gained the same impression. I am very jealous of the reputation of the police forces in matters like this. I know that the police themselves do regard with disfavour any breach of the standard they try to set of helping and protecting the good citizen in matters of this kind.

Mr. Blackburn

The reason I asked for an assurance on this matter was that when I asked earlier whether any prosecutions had occurred in respect of failure to produce identity cards, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health sitting next to the Minister nodded his head, as if there had been.

Mr. Ede

If there is a breach of the law, and a contumacious breach of the law, I could not then—

Mr. Blackburn

rose—

Mr. Ede

It might be contumacious in certain circumstances, and I am not going to give a general answer that might cover a particular case which even the hon. Gentleman might feel was one in which a prosecution ought to be undertaken. What I have said is that if the hon. Gentleman will give me the particulars of the case, which is very different from what I thought it was when he first mentioned it, I will have it investigated.

Mr. Blackburn

indicated dissent.

Mr. Ede

The hon. Gentleman said at first that he would give the particulars; now he nods his head in a negative fashion.

Mr. Blackburn

rose—

Mr. Ede

I declined to rise while the hon. Gentleman was speaking because I wanted him to develop his case fully. I have given way to him two or three times and he has only run away two or three times from the statements he made.

Mr. Blackburn

On a point of order. In view of the Home Secretary's accusation, may I say that when I sat down I thought the Home Secretary was interrupting. I gave way on the basis that I thought he wished to intervene.

Mr. Ede

I do not want to carry on this controversy, but after the hon. Gentleman sat down, I turned to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and asked whether I should reply to that point, and there was a quite distinct interval of time. However, I will undertake to see whether any oppressive action has been taken. I will investigate any case brought forward, but I cannot give the police instructions that they should ignore breaches of the law.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

The regulation says that a person may be required to produce his card to such person and at such place as may be prescribed. Of course, if the person in question refuses to give any particulars about himself, obviously his convenience cannot be considered and should not be considered; but is it the practice, if a man has no identity card, and states where he lives, that the prescribed place is then one reasonably convenient to him?

Mr. Ede

I have made some inquiries into this, and I understand that the person is asked what police station would be the most convenient, or it is left to him to say where he will produce his identity card.

Amendment negatived.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 13, to leave out "Regulation thirty-three (Exemption of certain women from Acts relating to midwives)."

As one of my hon. Friends is going to speak to this Amendment I shall do no more than formally move the deletion of this regulation. Here, again, it was only to deal with an emergency. Supposing in a particular area there were insufficient midwives, then the local authority could make certain arrangements. One would presume that was due to the possibilities of disruption owing to evacuation or bombing. But time has gone on, and there have been a great many changes in the situation of midwives throughout the country, and, of course, there has been time for a number of them to be trained.

I do not know whether this was one of the original regulations—it was S.R.&O. 1939—and one would have thought that sufficient steps were now possible for regularising midwifery. Alternatively, if there is any need for some special provision for dealing with emergencies in the general run of things, then this is just one of the cases where we might consider taking it out of this body of regulations and making it a permanent statute.

Dr. Hill (Luton)

I understand that the persons covered by this regulation are those who, under Section 5 of the Mid-wives Act, 1936, gave up practice, or who were required to give up practice with compensation. In general, they were a class of person whose experience was insufficient to enable them to justify their continuance as midwives, or who brought their experience to an end in return for compensation.

The period allowed for applications for compensation in return for relinquishing the midwives' certificate was three years. If action were taken under this regulation now, it would mean recognising as a midwife someone who had not practised midwifery for 11 years. If action has been taken under this regulation, then it has been specified in respect of such persons as have been recognised as midwives under it. It has been specified what conditions they shall observe and for what period.

The point I want to put specifically to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether, at the present time, there is any justification whatever for so diluting the midwifery service by the recognition of persons who, by the nature of things, cannot have had any experience as mid-wives or maternity nurses for 11 years. If the answer is that, of course, it is not proposed to exempt further persons, then the obvious question arises why the Amendment should not be accepted. If the answer is that its continuance is necessary, in order to continue the exemption of persons already covered by it, then I confess I find that difficult to understand, because of the reference to the conditions which have been attached to exemption. One thing that is needed, above all, is an assurance that this regulation will not be used for the purpose of recognising as midwives persons who gave up their certificates in return for compensation and have not had experience in midwifery for 11 years.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I am glad to be able to clear up some of the difficulties in the mind of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). As he rightly says, this arises out of the Midwives Act, 1936, which provided for compensation to be paid to mid-wives who surrendered their certificates within three years of the date of that Act. This Regulation only refers to those who voluntarily surrendered their certificates, and not to those who, in another Section, were required to surrender them.

Dr. Hill

Oddly enough, the reading of the Section which is the important thing, refers to voluntary relinquishment, but a side-note to the Section refers to Compensation to midwives ceasing or required to cease practice.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The Regulation refers to subsection (1) in the operative Act which does deal purely with those who voluntarily surrender their certificates. The point is that no new midwives are being brought into practice under this Regulation, nor have there been any for a number of years. There is a steadily diminishing number of midwives to which this applies. In 1947 there were 76, in 1948 65, in 1949 61, and although I have not a detailed figure before me, I understand that this year there has been another drop. There are no new additions, and gradually year by year there are retirements.

It is still the fact that the local authorities concerned are anxious to retain the services of these individual midwives who, very far from having had no experience during the last 11 years, have been in constant practice and have done extremely valuable work, who came back into midwifery work when there was special pressure during and immediately after the war and who are still urgently needed in those particular areas. I would assure the hon. Member that as the numbers are steadily diminishing each year, there is no doubt that before very long this will cease to have any effect at all. There would, therefore, be no particular point in including any special provision here for any amendment of the Midwives Act or anything of that kind. This is of a purely temporary character and will naturally cease as the midwives concerned retire from service.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford, North)

I am very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that this regulation is not intended to apply to those midwives who were required by the supervising authority to surrender their certificates. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is correct in his interpretation of the Act of 1936. I am bound to say that my impression of Section 1 (1) of the Act which is referred to in the regulation was that it referred not only to midwives who voluntarily surrendered their certificates but also to those practising midwives who were required by the supervising authority to do so.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I referred to the Act to refresh my mind just before I entered the Chamber. There are succeeding subsections which refer to those who are required to surrender their certificates. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Hutchinson

I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that, because that explanation makes this regulation more acceptable than it otherwise would be. It is, however, a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that we should still by emergency powers regulations be making it possible for midwives who have surrendered their certificates more than 11 years ago to return to the practice of midwifery. I should have thought that the present situation with regard to the supply of midwives was such that it is still necessary for those engaged in the practice of midwifery to have retained their certificates. I should have thought it would have been better for an Amendment to be made to the Midwives Act and for this matter to be put upon quite a different footing from that on which it is left by the regulation.

The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the situation is likely to improve and that in course of time—he seemed to suggest it would be a very short time—the situation would correct itself and it would no longer be necessary for mid-wives to surrender their certificates under the Act. I hope that may be so, but I am bound to say that I think it would be much more satisfactory if we were either to decide now that nobody but a full qualified midwife who has been in practice as a midwife since 1936 should be allowed to continue service for a supervising authority, or else we should recognise that it is not possible to staff these services with fully qualified mid-wives and make an amendment to the Public Health Act accordingly.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 14, to leave out Regulation forty-two CA (Unlawful gaming parties)."

I must confess to certain personal affection for Defence Regulation 42CA, the one affected by this Amendment, because, as the Home Secretary, I notice, recalls, it was an order made under this Defence Regulation by him which was the subject matter of the only successful Prayer of the 1945 Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the circumstances. However, this regulation would seem to have very little connection indeed either with the defence of the realm against foreign enemies or with the setting up of the Socialist State, which are, I understand, the arguments used, with rather varying emphasis, to support the continuance of these regulations in general; and, indeed, the only connection I can see between those considerations and this regulation is that, under the level of taxation imposed in the Socialist State, it is only by gambling that it is possible to obtain an income without having it all taken away by taxation. Possibly that is the connection.

But it really does seem to me that one has only to look at subsection (1), with its definition of unlawful gaming parties, and at the procedural paragraphs later on, to deem it to be, whatever its merits, not the sort of subject matter which one would expect to be dealt with by Defence Regulations. It surely is the sort of subject which, if it is to be dealt with at all, should be dealt with by statute, as part of the regular law of the land, and I am fortified in that view and that expectation by certain words spoken by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), who, very nearly five years ago, when speaking from that Box, said: A certain number of the regulations … have proved to be so useful that Parliament will probably be asked before long to agree to their being permanently placed on the Statute Book—for instance … Regulation' 42CA."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 242.] Well, that was five years ago, and the expectation of the then Under-Secretary of State that this would be done "before long" does not appear to have been very fully justified.

None the less, it seems to have been a right expectation, and I hope we shall hear that it is the intention of the Government that this should be dealt with in the proper way. I do not know whether they are waiting for the result of the Royal Commission which is at the moment being presided over by a very distinguished former occupant of the Front Bench below me, Mr. Willink. It may be that that is the argument.

If that be the position, then I believe we shall not find it necessary to protract this particular discussion very long; but if, on the other hand, it is the Government's view that this matter should be dealt with over a long period simply by the procedure of Defence Regulation, I must say that that is a view from which most of us on these benches, I think, would most emphatically dissent. It is in the hope that we are to hear that the hope of the then Under-Secretary of State five years ago is a little nearer to being justified than it was then, that I beg to move.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I should like to take the opportunity to ask a question of the Home Secretary in reference to a matter I know that he will not remember; but some six months ago I wrote to him about a case that occurred in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, Central, where, on certain premises—I think the Liberal Club, actually—a group of people were accustomed to play whist, and had played it for very many years. They were told that they were transgressing the law, and the chief constable had to point out to them that there might be penalties as here prescribed. I think they would come under subsection (3, c)— ten or more persons … present at any party at which any game of chance or of chance and skill combined was played or intended to be played. The Home Secretary wrote and told me that in his view the chief constable was quite right to warn any people who played games of whist for a prize organised for them by any association if when playing they were not constant to their opponents; that is to say, that they moved from seat to seat as the game went on.

He then hoped that the position would be clarified by legislation at some time within the reasonably near future, and I am taking this opportunity of pointing out to him something which I am sure he knows very well: that there must be hundreds of thousands of people who are interested in this matter, who know nothing whatsoever about roulette tables or any instrument that might be confiscated, as mentioned in the rest of this regulation. Could my right hon. Friend tell us when he thinks we shall get this matter regularised; and will it be in the reasonably near future?

Mr. Hutchinson

Will the Home Secretary tell us why a gaming party which is unlawful in England is apparently not unlawful in Scotland? Apparently this Regulation does not extend to Scotland. There may be some good reason for it, and I am sure we should all be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would explain what the reason is.

Mr. Ede

On this occasion we have achieved home rule for England. That is the first answer. Secondly, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for his views on the matter. The warning to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), alluded has nothing to do with this Defence Regulation at all. I see present a number of lawyers who practice the law in one form or another, who will know that for many years the question of the legality of whist drives has from time to time come before the courts, and has nothing whatever to do with this regulation.

I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pretty well diagnosed the situation with regard to this matter. I had hoped to introduce legislation to deal with this subject, but the appointment of the Royal Commission on Lotteries, Betting and Gaming made it appear desirable that we should wait until we had their recommendations before producing comprehensive legislation on the matter. The need for continuing this regulation for the next 12 months is increased by the possibility that there will be a considerable number of foreigners over here in connection with the Festival of Britain. I think it is well known to the House that this regulation was originally passed so that we might protect troops visiting London and other big cities from the activities of certain people whom I am quite sure no hon. Member would desire to defend in the way they carry on this particular business.

It is desirable that I should point out that in the Metropolitan Police District in 1948, 52 warrants were executed, from which 47 successful prosecutions were obtained. For the current year, up to the present 15 warrants have been executed and 15 successful prosecutions have resulted. I think the numbers themselves indicate that the police have been reasonably successful in reducing this evil in London, and I hope the House will consider it desirable that they should still be armed with these powers.

9.15 p.m.

As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has said, when the order was produced I owned up at the time to the House that it was worded rather more strongly than, on reflection, I thought that the needs of the case required. On that, I accepted the hon. Member's Prayer. He was the only person to pray successfully during that Session. To that extent, he is entitled to take a paternal interest in this matter, and I am quite sure that he is not concerned with defending people at whom this order is aimed. I hope that the House will feel that there is a reasonable ground for continuing this Regulation temporarily, and that we may be given these powers for the next 12 months.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment for not having heard his speech or some of the subsequent Debate. It seems to me that this regulation is one of the worst examples of delegated legislation that there has been. I am not concerned with defending people who pursue nefarious practices in gaming houses, but this regulation gives the police an enormous power of arrest without warrant on extremely flimsy grounds, which could be—I do not say that it has, because I do not know—very mischievous indeed in its operation.

It seems to me that if it is thought desirable—and I have never been satisfied of the need for it—to give to the police the power of arrest without warrant in certain circumstances of this kind, which they would not have in cases of serious felony, it is not one of the things that ought to be done in this way. I am a little surprised that those who have been so very enthusiastic earlier this afternoon about the general principle and its possible abuse, when they have in front of them a particular example of what I think is certainly an extreme use of power by delegated legislation, not to be justified by the general considerations that governed our general Debate this afternoon, should miss an opportunity of making representations about it.

I do not think the House realises what powers a police inspector would have under this Regulation. Prima facie any 10 people playing cards are guilty of an offence against the Regulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think so. Subsection (c) states: Evidence that 10 or more persons were present at any party at which any game of chance or of chance and skill combined was played or intended to be played, shall be evidence that the party was an unlawful gaming party unless"—

Hon. Members

Read on.

Mr. Silverman

I will read on but I prefer to stop there for a moment. I shall not evade the other point. It is quite true that it goes on to allow the defendant to prove that it was not a gaming party, but by doing it in that way a serious alteration of our criminal law is made. The mere fact that 10 persons in one room are assembled for the purpose of playing bridge constitutes an offence, unless they discharge the onus upon them of proving what the section allows to be proved as a defence. It may be right to do that, but I am sure it is not right to alter a principle of our criminal law by delegated legislation in that way.

When we go on to read the Clause, we find that if an inspector of police has reasonable cause to think that an offence is being committed, he may enter the premises and arrest anyone he finds there without applying for a warrant. It is going a long way indeed to give an inspector of police the power to enter premises and arrest anybody he finds there, leaving it to them to prove their innocence before the magistrate the next morning. I do not think powers ought to be used to make serious alterations to the criminal law in minor offences.

I appreciate that the Home Secretary says it is proposed to bring forward legislation on the gaming laws as soon as it is practicable to do so. Therefore, it is not a matter of very great principle if the present power has been in existence for some years and it is extended for another 12 months. In these circumstances, I would not ask the House to divide, although it is in this field, rather than in the field of industry and commerce, that we should have regard to the use the Government make of the powers given to them by Parliament.

Mr. Walker-Smith

It is very gratifying to find the hon. Member so outraged at the practice of putting the onus on an individual to prove his innocence. Will he remind the House of what his attitude was in the recent case of red petrol, when the onus was put on the individual to disprove his guilt?

Mr. Silverman

It is a perfectly fair question. I thought that that was justifiable. The presence of red petrol in the tank of a vehicle raised a presumption of guilt, and it was quite reasonable to call upon the owner or the driver to prove his innocence. But I do not think the mere playing of cards raises such a reasonable inference of guilt.

Mr. Ede

May I, by leave of the House, point out that the hon. Member made the same point when this matter was previously before the House? I had hoped that by now this would have been given legislative form. My hon. Friend is generally so correct on matters of detail that I am sure he will not mind if I point out that the officer has to be not below the rank of superintendent to give the certificate on which entry is made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Despite the attempt of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to provoke me, I do not think, in view of what the Home Secretary has said, that it would be right to press this Amendment. It ill-becomes the hon. Member, who took no steps to raise this question, to rebuke us, who took the trouble to put an Amendment on the Order Paper, for lack of interest in the subject.

Mr. Speaker

I would point out that the hon. Member has no right to speak again.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for having been led away by the provocation which came from the hon. Member opposite. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 18, to leave out "Regulation fifty-five C (Restrictions on Registration of new clubs)."

The history of this regulation since the war has been rather similar to that of the regulation that we have recently been discussing, for on 20th November, 1945, this House was told by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), that the reason for the carrying forward of this regulation into peacetime was that bogus clubs were likely to be promoted during the re-settlement period in an attempt to prey on the demobilised members of the Forces. That may have been one reason, but not the whole reason. Another former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department told us in November, 1947—that is, three years ago—that the Government thought that permanent provision should be made instead of these Defence Regulations.

This is quite a simple regulation. I should have thought it would have been comparatively simple to take this regulation out and replace it by a Bill, althought I dare say it might have provoked a certain amount of comment from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). Knowing that he has strong views on this subject, I should like to assure him that we have put down this Amendment not to secure the immediate repeal of this regulation but with a view to ascertaining what are the Government's intentions with regard to it. Three years ago they stated that permanent provision should be made, but none has been made as yet. What is the position? I do not think there is any Royal Commission on clubs sitting at the moment. There was a Royal Commission on gaming, but it would be interesting to know—I think this House is entitled to know in view of what has been said—what are the Government's views with regard to replacing this regulation by permanent legislation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) thinks he has drawn me into this Debate, but I want to assure him that I speak irrespective of his own contribution because I feel that the Opposition have no case at all, either in the modified suggestion now being made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or in the terms of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know what the Government are going to do about clubs generally. It is rather late in the day for the Opposition to worry themselves about that, because we have been dealing with the matter and, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, a Royal Commission has dealt very explicitly with the subject, and has recommended what should be done about clubs, particularly bad clubs.

9.30 p.m.

The regulation that we are discussing, I agree, does not cover the whole club question, and I am not attempting now to bring in the whole question of clubs and the supply of liquor in them. It is true that for many years it has been well known that there are certain types of clubs so disorderly in character that Parliament has been confronted with the necessity to pass legislation dealing with the issue. We have failed to do so in the House of Commons. I am sorry to see that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) is not present, because on the first occasion I came into this House in 1924, a quarter of a century ago, he introduced a Clubs Bill. This was discussed and received the support of a considerable number of the Members of the Labour Government of that day, but nothing came of it. I was much impressed with the terms of the Bill, and later I introduced one and submitted it to the Royal Commission in evidence and had it accepted as a necessity. In fact, I was one of the few witnesses whose evidence was accepted in toto with regard to the club evil.

But still this went on. Hon. Members opposite had no more to say on the matter except in the days when they had Sir John Simon as their Home Secretary in a National Government. He admitted that something would have to be done, but nothing was done until in another place members of the party opposite produced evidence of the scandalous character of the drinking clubs in certain parts of London. So, at last, something had to be attempted. Even then, after it had been proved that there were clubs with spyholes, electric warning bells and barbed wire, that there were clubs with criminals and prostitutes run for the purposes of criminals and prostitutes—this all on the evidence of members of the party opposite—still, despite the interest which hon. Gentlemen now have in the matter, nothing was done.

It was left to my right hon. Friend, during the time he was Home Secretary, to give body to the propositions in this regulation. A regulation was introduced which has had extremely beneficent consequences. Clubs of the character I have referred to can now be dealt with by the police, in view of the failure of this House to deal with them; or, at any rate, attempts can be made by the police in the form of insisting that the law shall be kept where a magistrate has had a complaint made to him. In my judgment that has had a completely good result.

Mr. Speaker

I understand this regulation deals with restrictions on registration of new clubs, and not with what has been happening in clubs already in existence and how the law applies to them.

Mr. Hudson

Then I will confine myself, Sir, to the new clubs. Having described what the old clubs were like, and how disgraceful offences were committed in them, I am profoundly thankful that the Home Secretary has been successful in limiting the places I have dealt with. I hope that we shall stand firmly by this regulation. Indeed, I would like to have said to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen that this is a good example of the capacity to deal with an evil through delegated legislation where is has not been possible to produce more general legislation that we needed.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is not a very good advertisement for his own cause, for, although he is sober, he could not read what is in the regulation we are discussing and Mr. Speaker called him to order.

Mr. Follick (Loughborough)

But my hon. Friend got in a good one.

Sir H. Williams

All the things the hon. Member for Ealing, North, was talking about could be dealt with if this Defence Regulation were wiped out. What we are talking about is whether the regulation should continue, and I see no reason why it should be continued. If a club is ill-conducted, it is struck-off. If a reputable body of people want to register a club, why should they not be allowed to do so under the law which has been in use for many years? Although hon. Members talk about it, none is desirous that the law should be altered. In general, I do not see why a body of decent citizens, members of the Labour Party, perhaps— and there are lots of Labour clubs up and down the country—if inspired by Socialist motives, should be able to get together and, in accordance with the law, drink as much as the law will allow them.

Mr. Remnant (Wokingham)

I hope the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) was not speaking from firsthand experience, or necessity would be the mother of another Defence Regulation. I preferred the argument of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who seemed to regard the Defence Regulations as a period of test and trial. I submit that there can be no dissension from the view, which I support in this Amendment, that the time has come when the provisions of this regulation should be made permanent by legislation. There can be none of us, not even the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who would wish to do away with the three provisions for the restrictions on new clubs, namely, the proof of genuine need, the necessity for inaccurate information to be corrected and the question of the bona fides of the promoters and officials.

Although the whole question of clubs is a very thorny one, I submit to the Home Secretary that the time is rapidly arriving when he will have to grasp that nettle extremely firmly. I have no doubt he will agree with me that if he decided to do so, he would receive plenty of advice intended to be helpful from a great many directions, even on such thorny problems of why it is that clubs can provide music and dancing on Sundays while "pubs" cannot. I support the Amendment on the ground that the provisions have been fully tried and proved and should be made permanent.

Mr. Ede

Here, again, I regret that it has not been possible to produce permanent legislation on this matter. I regret also that I was not able to deal with it in the Licensing Act I promoted, because it would have so widened the scope of the Measure before Parliament that, as I am quite sure the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will agree, it might have made it impossible to get that Measure through at that time.

This regulation is aimed at one of the defects of the law relating to clubs. When there is a successful prosecution of a club and its officers for breaches of the law, the building in which the club is conducted is placed under an inhibition by which those premises cannot be used as a club for another 12 months; but, no matter how guilty the parties may have been, how flagrant their defiance of the law may have been and how little they conform to the description of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), of the people who want to form clubs, they can get together the next day, put 5s. down and a book of rules and start a new club very near to the premises that have just been placed under the inhibition. I am sure that that is a breach of the general intention of the law which no one would think desirable.

What happens under this provision is that the police can object, but their objection is not final. If the promoters of the club think, for one reason or another, that this action on the part of the police is harsh, they can appeal. May I give the House the history of what has transpired since the end of the war under this provision in the Metropolitan Police district? In 1945 there were 28 police objections and five appeals, none of which was successful. In 1946 there were 36 objections and eight appeals, two of which were successful. In 1947 there were 20 objections and five appeals, none of which was successful. In 1948 there were 13 objections and six appeals, none of which was successful. In 1949 there were six objections and one appeal, which was successful.

The drop in the number of police objections shows that the police are administering the regulation with reasonable consideration for the needs of the community, and the fact that so few appeals—only three during that period—have been successful reinforces that point. I would hope that it may be possible to introduce legislation that will enable the House to consider the whole of this very difficult question of the registration of new clubs. I do not think it is a provision that ought too long to be continued merely in a regulation, but I am quite certain that if no power exists, either by Statute or by regulation, there might be a crop of the undesirable kind of clubs that I have indicated—really the successors of clubs already declared illegal—which would make the work of the police and other social workers very difficult.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

With the leave of the House, I should like, before asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, to make it quite clear that we were not seeking to have the regulation made ineffective or cancelled. We put down this Amendment with a view to finding out what were the prospects of having it replaced by a Statute. I entirely agree with the final remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 27, to leave out "Regulation eight-five (Entry upon and inspection of land)."

It seems to me that this Amendment raises a somewhat larger general issue than any which has been raised on the previous detailed Amendments which the House has been discussing. I say that not withstanding that if one looks at the bound volume of the Defence Regulations this one has the innocent heading "Administrative Provisions." If one looks at the regulation, however, it will be seen that it confers very big powers indeed. Perhaps I might read the first few lines. It states: Any person authorised by a competent authority may, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority,—

1. (a) enter on any land for the purpose of exercising any of the powers conferred by or under any of these Regulations;
2. (b) enter on any land and inspect the land and any article thereon for the purpose of determining whether, and, if so, in what manner, any of those powers are to be exercised in relation to the land or that article;"

and (c), which I understand relates more to defence matters, and therefore is perhaps a little less objectionable. But the regulation as a whole, as I understand it, goes a long way beyond facilitating defence arrangements. It confers a general power of entry upon land for any of the purposes dealt with by any of the Defence Regulations, and as such it is extremely wide; and does seem to raise some considerable issues of principle.

9.45 p.m.

I suppose we must abandon the idea of the sanctity at any rate of a man's private house from the entry of officials of the Government. That seems to be disregarded in circles now predominating in this country though it is very dear to a great many people in this country still. All the same, to go to the other extreme and to concede to Government Departments this general power of entry is a matter that at least calls for detailed justification. I hope that in a discussion on this Amendment some serious attempt may be made from the bench opposite to justify the taking of the very wide powers in general.

So far as sub-paragraph (c) is concerned, which links up with regulations having a definite bearing on defence, I do not stress the matter very far. Obviously, we have to give Defence Departments considerable rights of entry upon private property in order that they shall effectively carry out their duties. I do not think that in the present circumstances—although it may have been so in easier international circumstances—that there can be any great dispute about that. But when it comes to authorising Departments having nothing whatever to do with defence to enter it is a matter which calls for detailed justification.

There is a subsidiary issue of some practical importance which arises in the words I read to the House. A person who is authorised by competent authorities who desires to exercise those rights of entry has to produce: some duly authenticated documents showing his authority. No doubt that is done. But surely it is equally true that in a great majority of cases the citizen upon whose property entry is so sought to be effected is not aware of what a duly authenticated document is or looks like. It is no use saying that it will be in the prescribed form, or that it will be in the usual form of a somewhat dirty bit of cardboard with a crown at one end and an illegible signature at the other, because the ordinary citizen does not know what it looks like.

There would be no difficulty whatever for any imposter to produce some such document as I have described and to put it forward as the necessary document. The ordinary citizen, and I am not sure that even the Attorney-General himself, might have some difficulty in knowing on the spot whether it was a genuine document, genuinely giving such power, or whether it was a forgery. There seem to be objections on practical grounds that this power of entry should be exercised on so unreliable and irregular a basis. If it is desired to retain this power of entry, some more effective means should be devised of advising the citizen whether it is a genuine exercise of right of entry which, if the citizen obstructs, he is, under another regulation, subject to criminal penalties, or whether it is an ingenious attempt by a criminal to obtain entry without difficulty.

There is a practical problem, and it would make it very much easier both for officers of the Government exercising their legitimate functions and for the police in detecting crime if some clear, unambiguous method of establishing the right of entry could be provided. That is a subsidiary issue. The main issue of principle is the giving, at any rate to the civil Departments, of this right of entry at all in time of peace. Before this House can agree to that, it must surely be justified by a Minister of the Crown and shown to be really and seriously necessary.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have always regarded this regulation as one of the most obnoxious that we have in this country. I should like to refer to the question of what is a competent authority under this regulation. Paragraph (2) explains who is a competent authority by referring us indirectly to Regulation 49. No doubt the House will be interested to know that a competent authority for the purpose of entering upon land as envisaged by this regulation is either a Secretary of State, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, the Minister of Fuel and Power, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Production, the Minister of Supply, the Minister of Food, the Minister of Aircraft Production, the Postmaster-General or the Minister of Works.

All those various Departments of State have power under this regulation to enter upon private property. Not only that. I would draw the attention of the House to paragraph (2) which provides that: A competent authority.… any of those mentioned in the other regulation— may, to such an extent and subject to such restrictions as it thinks proper, delegate its functions under paragraph (1) of this Regulation to any specified persons or class of persons. Ever since this regulation came into force a large number of inspectors and various other persons have been authorised to intrude upon private property. It is about time this regulation came to an end. I should be glad to hear exactly what is the justification for it at present.

A good deal of point has been made in this Debate to the effect that these regulations are needed for economic planning or for national security. I cannot see how it is necessary, either in the interests of economic planning or of national security, for the average individual, the ordinary householder, to have his home and property invaded albeit by notice. It used to be said that an Englishman's home was his castle. I have noticed that that can no longer be said. I hope that this regulation will go.

Mr. Grimond (Orkney and Shetlands)

The party to which I belong took exception earlier today to the general trend of legislation which trenches both on the rights of the individual and on the rights of Parliament. My party would be open to criticism if we did not now lend our support to the Amendment. It seems that this regulation gives the widest power to officials of a variety of Ministries to enter upon land and property. It even appears to allow them to do so without the actual knowledge of the man to whom the property belongs. If the intruder happens to be challenged by the owner, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out, he can probably escape any close check on his credentials by producing a bit of paper or referring to a regulation which few people will know about or be able to examine.

So far as these regulations are necessary for the purpose of defence, of course we must accept them; but it seems now that, having barred the front door of the Englishman's castle, we are gradually forcing open the back door, and that many officials can now penetrate into a man's property without any real check on the need for their invasion. I daresay that the argument will be put that this power will seldom be used. In a case of this sort where we are concerned with the rights of the individual, even if the power is used only once or twice, it is surely the business of Parliament to protect the individiual against entrenchments of this sort on his ancient and fundamental rights.

The Attorney-General

I cannot help thinking that there is some misunderstanding on the part of hon. Members opposite in regard to the scope and purpose of this regulation. We on this side are at least as jealous as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) and his friends of the ancient and most important doctrine that an Englishman's home is his castle, and I would have conceded at once, if it had been put to me from the other side, that there are some Statutes, by no means all of them of recent origin, in which there are powers of entry, the necessity or desirability for which may still be argued.

I certainly did not think it would be said that the very limited power of entry in Regulation 85 would come quite within that category. If hon. Members opposite will look at this regulation and the other regulations in this volume, I think they will agree that they really have put forward in this Amendment a classic case of swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat. The hon. Member for Henley pointed out that power of entry could only be used by one or other of the persons in the list of eminently respectable authorities set out in Defence Regulation 49, but it cannot even be used by even these resepectable authorties except for one of the limited purposes contained in Part IV of the General Regulations.

The necessity for these regulations has not, I think, been seriously put in doubt in the whole course of our discussions in the House today. It is not in doubt, for instance, that Defence Regulation 50, enabling competent authorities to do work on land, is still necessary. The military authorities must be entitled in existing circumstances, for instance, to carry a petrol pipeline over land to an aerodrome, but it is said that, while that is necessary, they must have no power under Defence Regulation 85 to enter upon the land in order to do work upon it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being quite fair. He will recall that I conceded the case of the Defence Departments for defence works, which is the example he is now quoting.

The Attorney-General

What the hon. Gentleman conceded was the power under paragraph (c) of this Regulation. I am not dealing with paragraph (c), but with the earlier paragraphs of Regulation 85. Paragraph (c) is one under which, particularly in connection with aerodromes, something in the nature of a right of way is established on a more or less permanent basis. I am dealing now with the case where entry has to be made on land for the limited purpose of doing certain work upon it, and, after that work is done, entry is no longer necessary, except for repair or maintenance or something of that kind.

Then, it is conceded—and I have not heard it seriously contested this afternoon—that Defence Regulation 50A, in regard to taking water from land, is justifiable in existing circumstances. One can think of such a military necessity at the present time. "You may take water from land," say hon. Members opposite, "under Regulation 50A, but you must not enter on the land under Regulation 85 (c) in order to do it." Then, it is not in doubt—really, these are serious arguments, and this is the purpose and the only purpose of these Regulations—it is not in doubt that the power to requisition land and chattels must be retained for the present, but it is said that, although these powers are necessary, people must not be entitled under Regulation 85 to go on the land to inspect it and see whether it is the kind of land or chattel that it is desirable to requisition.

These are the classes of case for which this particular Regulation is used. It is correctly described in the Defence Regulations as administrative. Perhaps a better word would have been ancillary or incidental. It is a power which is incidental to the main powers under Part IV, the requisitioning powers, the powers of doing work upon land and the powers of dealing with essential supplies. Unless there was the power of entry upon the land, it would be quite impossible in practice to operate the substantive regulation to which Regulation 85 is incidental.

10.0 p.m.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Henley that one could find a great many powers of entry under different statutes and regulations about which legitimate argument would be possible, but I ask the House to believe that this power under this regulation is really essential to the working of Part IV of the General Regulations themselves, that it is incidental to that, and that it is indeed a diminishing power and not one of which I, at any rate, have heard any complaint at all.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

While recognising that for certain purposes it is necessary as long as we have Defence Regulations to have a power of entry upon land, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not really dealt with the whole field which this regulation covers. Land includes buildings, as he will agree. Indeed, the definition Regulation shows that land includes buildings and houses. Therefore, in considering this Defence Regulation we are considering a power of entry into something much more than just agricultural land for the purpose of laying a drain pipe or something of that character. We are here considering the right given to any person authorised by a competent authority really to enter any house in the country. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the power under the regulation as drawn does go as far as that.

The Attorney-General

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me that, I certainly agree. Subject to giving certain notice, the power goes as far as that, provided the house or building is one which can be requisitioned or on which work may be done under the substantive regulations, and that the power of entry is required in that connection and that connection only.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I think that paragraph (a) of this regulation is pretty general. It says: enter on any land for the purpose of exercising any of the powers conferred by or under any of these Regulations. It could hardly be more general. If it was a case of unlawful gaming under Regulation 42c in a club in, for instance, the Home Secretary's constituency, I imagine that any person authorised by a competent authority would, under this paragraph, be able to enter any house to find out whether 10 or more people were playing bridge or whist, or whatever games they play in those parts, and that this regulation would cover it; but I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at it again, because the definition of land is wide enough to include all houses. The wording of the regulation would seem to cover the exercise of any power under any of the regulations, and so would, I should have thought, cover the case of unlawful gaming, or, indeed, of a supposed registration of a new club. I think we ought to hear clearly from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it has that wide application before we pass from this regulation.

The Attorney-General

By leave of the House, may I just say that I will certainly look at that, although I do not think it has the wide application which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. For instance, if one looks at the last regulation which we were discussing about the unlawful gaming parties, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the express power of search is provided there. What Regulation 85 deals with is the case where there is already a power under one or other of the regulations, and they are mainly in practice in Part IV. That power can only be exercised by entering upon land. That is what paragraph (a) of Regulation 85 says— for the purpose of exercising any of the powers conferred by or under any of the Regulations there may be entry upon land. It is no good having the powers under the substantive regulation unless one can enter land, or it may be a building in some cases, to enforce it. This really is an incidental power. I will certainly look at it again, but I give the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, the assurance that this is not commonly used, and it is not a power of which one sometimes hears complaints.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I should like to comment briefly on what the Attorney-General says. I was rather surprised to hear him whittle away the effect of this regulation. In the first place, he said it could only be exercised by comparatively few people.

The Attorney-General

Comparatively respectable people.

Mr. Walker-Smith

There is a list of these comparatively respectable people in Regulation 49, starting of with a Secretary of State, the Minister of Fuel and Power, and so on. I am bound to say, with all respect, that, so far as the present Government goes, infinitely the two most respectable appear to be the Minister of Production and the Minister of Aircraft Production, who are specified in that regulation.

Be they respectable or not, there is a very large number of these competent authorities, and by a duly authenticated document they can give anybody, without restriction, the power to exercise the right of entry. So it is a very wide power in that sense. The House has spent most of the afternoon in stressing how very wide are the powers given by regulation under Part IV. The Attorney-General says that the House is agreed that these regulations were required.

What was stressed from this side of the House is that, in so far as any of these regulations are required, they should be in a permanent statutory form, and if that were done, then surely this right of search could be put in permanent statutory form with safeguards that would be appropriate for its permament form. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned requisitioning. That is a case in point; if it is to be permanent or semi-permanent, it should have a code or procedure to cover it and that code should include necessary safeguards for the right of entry under Regulation 85.

Sir H. Williams

I think this goes very much further than the Attorney-General indicated. It is not limited to competent authorities. Paragraph (2) refers to "Specified persons or class of persons." The whole of the staff of a Department could be a class of persons. They could all have the power of entry.

This right of entry can be used for any purpose anybody desires. A person who enters the premises may say, "I want to enter the premises because I want to requisition them," but that may not be his purpose at all. It may be a purpose under Regulation 88A, where a justice has to be satisfied before it can be done. If the Ministry of Food suspect that an offence has been committed in a grocer's office, they can send one of their minions along with a view to requisitioning. He can use that entry to find whether an offence has been committed under one of the innumerable regulations of the Ministry of Food. So it can be abused if there are bad people about.

Regulation 88 says that no female may be searched except by another female. Regulation 88A says that no woman may be searched except by a woman. When the Attorney-General has time to spare, perhaps he will tell us what is the difference between a female and a woman.

The Attorney-General

We will talk about that later.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 29, to leave out: Regulation eighty-eight (Fees for permits, licences, etc.). This regulation is described as an administrative provision. It is the provision under which a fee of up to £5 can be charged for any permit, licence, certificate or other document for the purposes of these regulations. There are two points, one of principle and one of practice, that it seems worth while to consider.

First of all, on the point of principle, if a licensing system and an elaborate system of controls is to be maintained, it must be assumed in favour of His Majesty's Government that licences, permits and so on are only granted when it is in the public interest that they should be granted. That is the only possible justification for having such a system at all. If, therefore, in the interests of the public a licence is granted, there having been compulsion to apply for it, it seems wrong in principle that the successful applicant should have to pay a fee. The amount admittedly is not likely to be large. It cannot be more than £5 under the regulation, but it seems doubtful in principle whether the State should be allowed to use as an instrument of taxation a system of controls which purports to be set up for another purpose.

Secondly, on the practical aspect, I do not know whether hon. Members realise how many licences, permits and so on are issued nowadays. I would commend to hon. Members who are interested the figures which are given in Appendix II of the Report of the Herbert Committee on Intermediaries, where the really startling size of this affair is set out in very considerable detail, Department by Department. For example, with respect to the Board of Trade one finds there are 300,000 applications for import licences and 728,000 for export licences. When one looks under the same Department for applications for licences for raw materials, the figure is 850,000.

The number of these documents which permit people to do things which in the normal way they would do without asking anybody's permission is very large, and that adds a certain significance to the question of the desirability or otherwise of charging a fee when they are permitted to do so. It is a form of disguised taxation, and it is a form of taxation upon those people whom it must be assumed have been given those licences because it is in the public interest that they should have them.

The matter seems worthy of a little elucidation. If we could be told the amount of revenue which the Departments raise in this way, it would be of some relevance to the size of the problem, and I should also like to hear from whoever is to reply some comment on the small, but I think not unimportant, issue of principle which arises.

Mr. Hay

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay)

As has been said by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), this is a small administrative provision, and I think there is just the same case for it today as there was when it was introduced at the beginning of the war.

The real purpose of this power was to create some deterrent against the careless use of permits, licences and so forth which would give rise to requests for renewal. It was, in fact, a measure—no doubt a modest one—of public economy. It does, of course, involve some expenditure of manpower and materials to produce the unfortunately large number of permits and licences which the hon. Member mentioned. It has in fact been used in practice almost entirely in the case of food ration cards lost by the users and, therefore, needing to be renewed. Hon. Members will realise that the food ration card is not entirely simply what one hon. Member described today as "a small and dirty piece of cardboard," but is a quite complicated document; and we all know from experience that there is a certain cost involved in its production.

10.15 p.m.

It has been found, therefore, to be desirable that there should be a certain deterrent to frivolous or careless loss of ration cards. The Ministry of Food in practice cannot refuse to issue a new ration card to somebody who has lost the old one, because without the coupons, after all, the citizen cannot obtain essential foods. Therefore, for that quite simple reason, it has been found desirable in practice to charge a fee, I think of one shilling, in certain cases for the renewal of ration cards.

That was found to be desirable when food rationing was first introduced. If it was so, then I do not think there is any reason to believe it is not so now. I think we might have argued at the beginning whether it was desirable to have this-power for this purpose or not; but surely, if it was found useful or necessary at the beginning, there is, so far as I can see, no reason for abandoning it so long as the permits, licences and ration cards, to which it gives rise, are still in force. I think as long as the licences and permits and so on, are still in force, which arise from the various regulations which the House has accepted today, are still in force there is exactly the same case for this small safeguard for public economy which there was when they were first instituted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, if what he says has force—and I think it has with reference to food ration cards—why is power preserved in the regulation to charge a fee for every form of licence?

Mr. Jay

I gave food ration cards as an example because I understood it is in that case that the power has been mainly used, but, of course, it is not the sole case on which the question of deterrent against careless or frivolous uses arises. It is only the principal case.

Mr. Hutchinson

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any fee is payable on an import or an export licence?

Mr. Jay

It could in fact be charged, of course, under this provision if it were found necessary, but, so far as I know, it is not normally done.

Captain Duncan (South Angus)

Will the hon. Gentleman take a look at this in the hope that next year this nutcracker can be abolished? It seems to me to be quite unnecessary for the simple case—the sole case—of the lost ration card to have a Defence Regulation of this kind. If that is the only case, surely the small loss of revenue would be so small as to make it not worth while continuing the elaborate process which has to be gone through with the extra paper and business required in charging extra fees. It seems to me a piece of completely unnecessary Government interference, and I hope that, if it cannot be abolished tonight, it will be next year.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 30, to leave out "Regulation eighty-nine (Use of force in entering premises.)"

Regulation 89, for the benefit of those who have not got the latest edition of these regulations, published in 1948, reads as follows: Where, by virtue of any of these Regulations, a person has any power to enter premises, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of exercising that power. I am sorry that the Attorney-General is absent at this moment, because I think it would have been useful to the House to have heard his views upon this regulation. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that this power of using force to effect entry is not limited to entry effected under Regulation 85, which we have just been discussing, but includes entry under any of these regulations. I also ask the House to bear in mind that the entry to which we are referring is not just entry into a field, but may be entry into any kind of dwelling-house, large or small, by night or by day.

One finds that under this regulation power can be given whereby if any hon. Members opposite on going away for their long holiday leave their houses locked up, on 24 hours notice there can be a breaking into their homes, using as much force as may be necessary, and the Home Secretary could not do anything about it, nor could the police do anything about it because it would be lawful under this regulation. In these days, although in certain circumstances the power of entry is no doubt justified, it seems to me to require some explanation if the Government want to retain this power of using force to effect entry when under the regulation entry can be effected into a private dwelling-house on so short a notice as 24 hours.

I can imagine what would be said if people come back from their holiday, find their house broken open and report it to the police, only to be told, "Oh, that was all right. That was a forcible entry effected by some representative of some Ministry for the purpose of ascertaining whether that Ministry wanted to take over and requisition your home." That could be done under this regulation. I am giving that illustration to indicate the scope of the regulation. We ought to be extremely careful about the powers we give of effecting forcible entry. I would even suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the power of forcible entry should at this time be restricted to the hours of daylight. It seems very wrong that a person could find someone breaking into his house in the middle of the night and think he was a burglar, only to find, that: he was someone authorised to break ire because 24 hours notice had been given. I do not know whether the Home Secretary will seek to justify the retention of this Defence Regulation, but I hope I have made my doubts about it clear.

Sir H. Williams

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to carry the point made by my hon. and learned Friend a little further. Under Regulation 88A no notice is required to be given if one of the competent or incompetent persons appointed by the competent authority can get a magistrate to issue a warrant. That apparently can be used at any time of the day or night, and force can be used to enter. Suppose somebody using a jimmy—I think that is what they are called in professional circles —[HON. MEMBERS: "Jemmy."] Hon. Members opposite are better acquainted with these things than I am. Suppose a person were using one of these instruments for the purpose of entering premises which they have authority to enter and a man passing by, thinking he is being a good citizen, takes steps to restrain the person from entering the premises by force.

What is the position of the honest citizen trying to prevent what he regards in day-time as housebreaking and at nighttime as burglary? The only time during which there was a forcible entry into the flat in which I live, there was no one on the premises. Those who made the entry found £100 worth of stuff belonging to my daughter, and the police never refound it. That was in daylight. When I see someone breaking in to premises what shall I do? Many of us might be landed in great difficulties if someone was making improper use of these powers. A large number of premises in London are unoccupied for a substantial period of the day, and we may have grave results arising unless there are greater safeguards contained in the Regulations than there are at present.

Mr. Hutchinson

The surprising thing about this regulation is the terms in which it is drawn. A person authorised to enter the premises may use such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of exercising that power. The regulation does not require that he shall take any previous step before he exercises that power. He is not required to allow some period of time to elapse or to serve any notice on anyone. It may be that he cannot find anyone on whom to serve notice. He is not even required to post a notice on the premises which he desires to enter for a prescribed time before the power of forcible entry arises.

The Home Secretary is no doubt aware of the powers of forcible entry in other cases. The person to whom power of forcible entry is given is required to take some preliminary steps to satisfy someone that he is not able to get in by the normal means. He is required to serve a notice, or even to post a notice on the premises, and to allow it to remain there for a prescribed time. Under this regulation, there is nothing of that kind at all. As soon as the power to enter a premises arises the person who is authorised to enter is authorised by this regulation to use force to effect his entry. I submit to the House that that is wrong.

If some power of forcible entry is considered necessary, it ought not to be a wide power of this character. It ought to be restricted in some well-known way by which the power of forcible entry is normally restricted. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us that if this regulation is to be continued in the future it will be continued in different terms from those in which it comes before us today.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede

We have heard some alarming descriptions of what might happen under this regulation. After all, it has been in existence for some 11 years, and I have never heard of any complaint that it has ever been used in a single case in the way that has been conjured up before our imaginations tonight. After all, having passed Regulation 85, it is essential that we should be able to insure that the powers given under that Regulation can be carried out. When we were discussing Regulation 85, the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manning-ham-Buller), instanced the case of an unlawful gaming party. May I point out to him that if this regulation were restricted to daytime, it would be practically inoperative so far as an illegal gaming party was concerned, unless it had been conducted for so long a time that the sun had risen on the people who had assembled in the dark. In fact, for that purpose it would still be essential that the powers should exist throughout the night as well as the day.

All sorts of conceivable mischiefs have been conjured up with regard to this regulation. In practice, they have never arisen. I do not think they are likely to arise. It is the lawyers' habit of dealing with the conceivable rather than with the probable that gets us into the kind of argument we have heard against this regulation. I think the same applies to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson).

I rejoiced when I read this regulation and thought I had to defend it. Here was a form of words that was completely understandable. I was not going to be questioned about what paragraph 3 (a) in the light of paragraph 7 (b) could mean. This regulation does give a clear and quite concise power. During a long experience in circumstances where the abuses that were suggested might conceivably have been justified during the stress of war, it was found that these abuses never in fact occurred. I suggest that, having passed Regulation 85, it would be simply foolish not to arm the person authorised under Regulation 85 with these powers given under Regulation 89. I am quite sure of this, that in any case where an abuse of the kind that has been suggested this evening occurred and complaint was made, the Department concerned would see that the officer who had been guilty of such an abuse would be suitably dealt with.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question again proposed.

Captain Crookshank

I should like to make one point before we agree to this Motion. In the comparatively short debate we have had on the Amendments, the Opposition have succeeded in making the point which they set out to make, namely, to bring home to the Government and to the House the need for looking through all this body of regulations, before the period when the matter has to come before the House again. We have made our point because more than one Minister has said he will look at it again. The Home Secretary was good enough to say that he would see whether this could be put into permanent legislation; the Attorney-General said he would look into the wording of one of the Regulations—and so on.

Of course, it would have been possible, and I know hon. Members opposite know it, to have raised a debate on every single one of the lines of all this Schedule. Naturally, we did not wish to trouble the House in detail like that, because we merely wanted to establish a certain principle. I hope, therefore, that it will not be held against us by the Government that we have not protested about some of the others. Just to illustrate what I mean, in the second group—in which we have not put down any Amendment—called "Other Defence Regulations," there are several that I would urge the Government to look at, particularly Regulations (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939. That is a series of regulations which allows aliens to become members of the Armed Forces of the Crown, and not only so, but they can be enlisted without taking the oath of allegiance.

Mr. Ede

They are not covered by this Motion.

Captain Crookshank

Yes, they are. I do not want to discuss them, but I should like to make three points. All these could have been discussed, and that is why it is all the more incumbent on the Government to look at them in their own time. On the two regulations which allow an alien to be enlisted and to become an officer without taking the oath of allegiance, I would say that I know why it was done in war time, and though I do not think that it is necessary in peace time, if it is I do not see why it should not be incorporated in the Army Annual Act. The whole of the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations refer to women employed in medical corps and nursing services, and states that they should be considered to be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. There are also various provisions about them. The Army Act has to be passed every year, and I would ask the Minister to see whether, if these provisions are required, they should not forthwith be put into the Army Act, and if the next year they are not needed, they could be taken out.

The other point is a little different. One of these regulations is the Defence (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Regulations. That enabled the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, to be changed so that the number of Under-Secretaries could be varied from time to time. I do not think that anyone objects to that: certainly none of the present Under-Secretaries does. This was done under regulation, but the extraordinary thing is—and there must be some error here—that that Act has been recently amended. It was amended in 1947 to enable the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to be appointed. It is mysterious why, when there was this legislation, someone did not think that that was the obvious occasion to make permanent what had been done, and had been accepted as useful, by regulation.

I hope, therefore, that Ministers will see that there has been something in the criticisms we have been making. I hope, also, that they are grateful to us for not having prolonged the Debate to the extent we could have done had we been so minded. We thought this length of Debate would serve to reinforce the plea I made earlier in the day that, irrespective of the general aspect of the regulatory system, all these things should be looked at before we are asked to deal with them again.

Captain Duncan

I should like to support what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has said in urging the Government to go through these regulations with a fine tooth comb before next year, not only for the reasons he gave, but also for the reason that I believe the Government could save an enormous amount of money in the administration of the regulations. Whatever extra money is spent from now onwards, and the prospect of extra taxation in next year's Budget, means that it is obligatory on the Government to take every possible action to reduce expenditure in other directions. If the regulations were gone through with a fine tooth comb, and as many as possible got rid of and others dealt with by proper Parliamentary procedure, there would be an economy which would be of benefit to the taxpayer.

Sir H. Williams

I was prevented from being present earlier, but I was not, unfortunately, a Member when the Act of 1947 was passed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fortunately."] If I had been present it would have been a much better Act. It would have been a worse Act if I had failed to convince the Government that I was right. Therefore, that is a stupid intervention. If Members look at the Order Paper, they will see that roughly half the Defence Regulations, assuming that this document is up to date—it is two years and 10 months old—have been allowed to be discussed. We have not had the opportunity to discuss the other half, because some of them run under the 1945 Act and others under the 1947 Act.

It seems thoroughly unsatisfactory that we should have an opportunity of discussing and seeking to amend only half of these regulations. I ask the Home Secretary to look into the point, to see that in future all these regulations shall be open to discussion. If I had followed the 1947 Act, I might have known the reason for this, which seems to me to have no relation to commonsense. I make a sincere appeal that the matter shall be put on a tidy basis.

Mr. Ede

May I say, on behalf of the Government, that we do not begrudge the time that has been given to this Debate? I think that the Opposition have shown a very just sense of proportion in the way they have dealt with the matter. We realise that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) could have carried out his threat of last Thursday and moved an Amendment to each of these regulations.

Sir H. Williams

It was a promise and not a threat.

Mr. Ede

He made it as a promise, but I realised that it was a threat.

I hope the House will agree that the Debate has been conducted from this side in the spirit of trying to demonstrate the need for close Parliamentary examination from time to time of this type of legislation. We are now engaged on a most careful survey of the whole of this field, so that we can determine what are the matters that ought to be embodied in permanent legislation and what are, like the one or two with which I have dealt, excrescences on this form of legislation, the need for which was demonstrated by certain wartime requirements. The need probably existed before, but war-time circumstances forced the matter into public notice.

I will also see that the various points made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about some of these Defence Regulations dealing with the Services and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, and so on, are carefully investigated with a view to taking the necessary steps to get each of them embodied in some appropriate statute. There is nothing more annoying when one is trying to study a specific subject, than to find that something which may be comparatively trivial but in the light of that study assumes great importance, is hidden away in some statute that does not appear to be connected with the subject in question.

I was responsible for promoting the Act of 1947 when it came before the House, and comparing the Bills with which I have been associated with those with which the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was associated when he was supporting a Government, I doubt whether his presence here would have made the Bill better when it became an Act judged by the standard his own Government set with regard to their Measures.

I would like to thank all hon. Members of the House—

Sir H. Williams

Would the right hon. Gentleman mind answering my point?

Mr. Ede

I thought it had been covered—

Sir H. Williams

No. My point is that some of these regulations are open to discussion because they operate under the Act of 1947. Those that operate under the Act of 1945 cannot be discussed in the way we have discussed the others today.

Mr. Ede

I know the point and I had hoped that was covered in the general answer I have given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough. I desire to thank all hon. Members of the House; the Opposition for the brevity of their speeches, and my hon. Friends behind me for the absence of theirs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.