Lords Sitting of 1 December 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister of Works and Planning whether he has any statement to make in regard to the machinery to be set up for the Central Planning Authority.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, the Government have been giving consideration to the recommendations in the recent Reports of the Committees presided over by Lord Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Uthwatt in regard to the constitution of the Central Planning Authority. Both Reports rightly attach great importance to the correlation of Government policy in regard to town and country planning with the policies that are being pursued in agriculture, transport, industry and labour, public utilities, etc., policies compendiously described by the Scott Committee as "national organization" and by the Uthwatt Committee as "national development", and both recommend the appointment of a Cabinet Committee for the purpose under a specially nominated senior Minister as Chairman.
The Government fully accept the need for such correlation. It would not be appropriate for me to say anything at this stage which might bind this or future Governments to final acceptance of the Committees' views that this correlation could best be carried out by a Committee of Ministers presided over by a senior Cabinet Minister. It is also relevant that, as the House is aware, the consideration of future policy in reconstruction matters is already proceeding under the supervision of a Committee of Ministers presided over by the Paymaster-General, though all decisions of major importance arrived at by that Committee are submitted to the War Cabinet for their approval. In the initial stages it will naturally fail to that Committee to deal with preparatory work which will be carried out during the war for bringing
328
a national policy in regard to the control of the use of land (including town and country planning) into close accord with the general economic and social programme.
With regard to the machinery for the control of the use of land and the administration of town and country planning, the Government have come to the conclusion, after giving full weight to the views expressed by the Scott and Uthwatt Committees, that in a matter so vitally concerning the lives and interests of everyone in the country the fullest measure of direct responsibility to Parliament must be maintained, and that executive responsibility must rest in England and Wales with a Minister of Town and Country Planning and in Scotland with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In view of the increased responsibilities which will attach to the post of Minister of Town and Country Planning in future, and of the importance of the Minister being able to devote the necessary time and attention to his task, the Government have decided to ask Parliament to constitute a separate Ministry of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales under a separate Minister. This Minister will be a member of the Ministerial Committee already referred to. His main function in association with the Departments concerned will be to ensure that the translation of the agreed national policy into terms of land use and physical development is conceived as a single and consistent whole.
While they have not felt able to accept the recommendations of the Scott and Uthwatt Committees for placing the main responsibility for the control of town and country planning in the hands of a permanent Commission the Government fully recognize the value of a permanent body of this kind as part of the machinery of the new Ministry. In their view there will be important functions for which a permanent Commission, acting under the Minister of Town and Country Planning, would be the most appropriate body, in connexion, for instance, with the acquisition of development rights, if some such scheme were to be adopted. There are no doubt a number of other matters such as the management of property which could be usefully delegated to a Commission. In the legislation to be submitted to Parliament, therefore, the Government contemplate

329
making provision for the appointment of such a Commission to assist the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I would like to ask one small supplementary question on the very important statement which has just been made by my noble friend. That is whether we can look for the introduction of the Bill giving effect to this announcement in the near future.
LORD PORTAL: My Lords, I think I can answer "Yes" to that question.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the nationality of children born abroad of British fathers; to make special provision for the naturalization of persons rendering service in connexion with the present war; to restrict the making of declarations of alienage in time of war; and to extend the power to make regulations under Section nineteen of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): My Lords, I beg to move that the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Cork, be in Secret Session.
Moved, That the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the Lord Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery) be in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne).
The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the fact that they have accepted that the first and principal object of a maritime Power is to obtain and maintain the command of the sea, the House can now be assured that the Navy has been supplied with all the aircraft in
330
numbers, type, armament and with all the technical equipment that the various naval commands consider essential in order to. attain that object; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to protest against the proposal on the part of the Government to take the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name in Secret Session. It was not my intention to ask for any confidential information, nor was it my intention to impart any that I might have come by. I had not intended to refer to anything that has not either appeared in the public Press or been said by public men on public platforms. Having the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House I deem it my duty to bring before your Lordships any matter of which I may have knowledge and which appears to have relation to the public interest. In this Motion I have asked for an assurance which might allay a certain amount of public anxiety. It is no good an assurance of this sort being given at all if it is only to be given within these four walls and cannot be mentioned outside. It had been my intention to send a copy of my remarks to the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty in this House so that he could look over thorn, and if the Admiralty had any objection to any of them they could be erased. But as I happened to buy an evening paper and to see in it that this debate was to be taken in Secret Session, the wind was taken out of my sails and I have not adopted the course of action which I formerly had in mind.
It is my right to speak here on these Service matters, although theoretically, because of the rank I hold, I am still on the Active List. I feel it deeply that the Admiralty could not trust me to mention naval matters in this House without gagging me, and having this Motion debated in Secret Session. If I am fit to speak on these matters surely more trust might be placed in my discretion. My desire is, of course, to use to the best of my ability the experience which I have gained, in the better part of a life-time spent in the Navy, and to express views which I have formed as the result of that experience. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, when Prime Minister, laid down, I am to give the benefit of my experience, for what it may be worth, to your Lord-

331
ships. In the circumstances, I think I ought to be trusted to introduce a Motion of this sort without it having to be taken in Secret Session.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am rather sorry that the noble Earl should take exception to this Motion, and I must say that I am a little surprised because I have always regarded him as a sort of apostle of secrecy in this House. It is only a few weeks ago that he moved a Motion in regard to matters concerning the safety of convoys. He, very rightly, and naturally, raised certain points, and I think that at that time he expressed the view, which we all held, that it is absolutely essential that nothing should be said publicly in this House which would be of any value to the enemy. Now he proposes to introduce a Motion which deals in terms with numbers, types, armament and technical equipment of aircraft available to the Navy.
Let me assure the noble Earl that he is under a complete misapprehension if he thinks that the reason the Government wish the Motion to be taken in Secret Session is that they do not trust him or have any fears regarding the propriety to the occasion of what he is going to say. I need hardly assure him that such a thing never entered the minds of the Government. We have absolute confidence at all times in the noble Earl's discretion. But even though the noble Earl has no intention of saying anything of a secret or confidential nature, I think it is inevitable—and, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, who represents the Admiralty in your Lordships' House, will agree with me in this—that the Government reply, if it is to be of real value, should contain material of a confidential nature. The chief weapon which the enemy is using against us at the present time is the U-boat, and there is nothing which they are so anxious to find out as the details of our defensive weapons. Equally there is nothing which it is so important that we should keep from them. The Government have considered this question with the very greatest care, and they are convinced that it is essential to discuss this matter in secret. I feel sure that the House Will agree with that view. In view of the explanation which I have given, and of the assurance I have given the
332
noble Earl, that nothing was further from the minds of the Government than to suggest that he would be likely to say anything unsuitable or indiscreet, I hope he will see his way to accept this Motion.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Earl withdraws and agrees to his Motion being taken in Secret Session I should like to support his protest. It is quite true, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has told us, that in Secret Session the Government spokesman is freer to make statements of interest in reply to the Motion, and can say things which are not meant for the public ear. But unfortunately our experience—or certainly my experience—of Secret Sessions in your Lordships' House is that that particular advantage very seldom manifests itself. I myself have had to move a Motion asking questions in Secret Session, and I did not find that I got an answer which could not have been made perfectly well in public or published in the public Press, nor did it, for the great part, answer any of the questions which I endeavoured to put. I feel that there is a great disadvantage in this tendency to go into Secret Session whenever there is any criticism of the conduct of the war. It is a great disadvantage that those who are anxious about these things, and who look to Parliament for investigation and for satisfactory assurances to allay their anxiety, are unable to have their case expressed publicly. It can be done perfectly well without injury to our war effort, if the words which should be used—and only those—are used. But if the reply is not given with the freedom, under conditions of secrecy, that it should be, we gain no advantage from the Secret Session whatever. I am afraid that that is the tendency, and if we are have a Secret Session to-day I hope that the Government spokesman will make a great effort really to give us some information which could not be given in public.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I think that this is the third time that the House has been confronted will a Motion of this kind on a topic of this character. I know that on two previous occasions I myself raised objection, and I have the fullest sympathy with the two noble Lords who have just spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, put the position exactly when he said that the reply which he obtained on the last occasion contained substantially

333
nothing more than he would have obtained if it had been given in public. I dare say that that will be true to-day; very likely it will be, and, if I were the Government spokesman, I think that I should take that line myself. It does not follow that technical details will be made public, and clearly they should not be; but all of us who are outside these controversies, as I am, know that for a long time past, in the Press and elsewhere, there has been considerable controversy as to the relations between the different Services in regard to the matters indicated in the Motion, and it seems to me that it would be only wholesome and reasonable that they should be discussed publicly and frankly. I am sure that the noble Lords responsible for this Motion are to be trusted absolutely to say nothing which will help our enemies. Of course, if the Government insist that they cannot give a reply except in Secret Session, then, so far as I am concerned, I should advise my friends to accept their decision. But I think that it is a mistaken decision, and we regret it very much.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, if I am in order I should like to support every word that has fallen from the three critics who have spoken. I want to say only a word about a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, raised, and that is to the effect that we gain absolutely nothing from Secret Sessions. I think that one of the objects which we wish to gain is to induce the Government to take certain remedies for a certain situation; and we realize that our pressure, our prodding, is likely to be much more successful if public opinion is influenced. At the present time, however, although we have great ability, great courtesy and great kindness and cordiality from the Front Bench, we have no member of the War Cabinet there, and I imagine that this is the first Government in the history of the country which has no member of the operative Cabinet—I know that there are Ministers of Cabinet rank—on the Front Bench of the House of Lords. That is an additional reason why the debate should be held in public.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, as a Back-Bench member I should like to say that I strongly support the protest against a Secret Session. The noble Viscount who leads the House pointed out that the enemy may get certain advantages from
334
any confidential matter which is given away, but I would remind your lordships that we in this country get our advantages from the democratic basis of our government, and that we depend upon the support and knowledge of the people of this country to carry through this war to success. Now, if there are complaints, if there are matters which are liable to criticism and which can and should be corrected, if there is a Secret Session there is no public opinion behind the Government to help them to correct these things that no doubt they would wish to correct. Therefore, if we have a public debate, and members are trusted not to give any advantage to the enemy but, by voicing what is wrong, to give an immense advantage to the democratic foundations of our government, it would seem to be advisable not to have Secret Sessions.
Let me give one instance in support of my argument. We had a complaint by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, of the publication of the destination of cargoes. The Government at first appeared to treat the matter without any seriousness—the debate is open for any member of the House to read—and the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, only in a supplementary answer, as I understand it, agreed that something more should be done. But what has been done? On Saturday last I was in a certain port, visiting a factory, and I saw crates labelled to a place abroad. The managing director of the firm told me that he had telephoned to the Ministry of War Transport protesting against being ordered to put the name of this place on these crates of vital war material, and he had been told to mind his own business, and to put on the crates not only the name of the place to which they were consigned but also the name of the ship, the port of sailing and the date. If the results of a public debate are so feeble, how much more feeble will be the results of a debate in Secret Session! I hope very much that this demand will be resisted.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I feel a very great personal interest in this matter, because, like the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, I also have frequently been compelled to speak in Secret Session upon matters which I wished to bring to your Lordships' notice. I should like to say, in support of what the noble Earl has said, that so little have I ever felt any wish to bring forward secret and difficult matters

335
that, like the noble Earl, on one occasion I sent a copy of my speech to the noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, so that he might have the opportunity of seeing everything that I proposed to say. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that, in deference to his view, I agreed to omit certain matters from my speech. Certainly in any matters which I have ever wished to bring before your Lordships' House I have never had the slightest desire to introduce anything which might affect public security, or to give any information of value to the enemy.
I have taken the trouble, however, to examine the reasons which have been put forward by the Government from time to time for holding debates in secret, and they are very interesting. One of these Government statements is that "any debate in which the Government are unable to state the true facts is misleading and damaging" Those of us who have had experience of debates in another place may be excused for asking in what debate have the Government ever stated the true facts about any matters which might have been in any way damaging to themselves? If this reason is to be admitted—that a debate in which the Government may not state the true facts is misleading and damaging—then all debates will cease. Another reason given was that "if statements were made which could not be answered by the Government, a false impression would be created." Do the Government always answer statements? That is not my experience, and I think that it has not been the experience of other noble Lords who have spoken in another place. Another reason given was that "the Government must ask for debates on these matters in secret, because it is impossible to allot, a partial picture to be given." Do the Government never deliberately allow a partial picture to be given, or give it themselves? Anyone who imagines that a Government, when their actions are severely in question, are actuated solely by the wish to give the true facts, to answer all statements, and to be impartial—anyone who believes that is the sort of man who would play cards with a total stranger in a race train on the way to Epsom.
It is really useless to debate certain matters in secret, such as shipping, shipbuilding, aircraft production or the
336
Fleet Air Arm. It is useless to debate these matters in secret, because the Government will not move without the pressure of public opinion, and a very strong and forcible public opinion, behind them; and if public opinion cannot express itself on views put forward in debate then debate is sterile. As regards the general principle involved in secret debates and in secrecy, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the secret debate is being used by the Government deliberately as a political device to stifle debate on matters which are awkward for the Government. The secret debate is being diverted from its legitimate purpose in order to serve political ends. The country now realizes this and thoroughly distrusts the procedure of which we are having an example to-day. The country diagnoses very accurately that something is wrong when this procedure of the secret debate is constantly resorted to on matters which are of first importance, not to the Government but to the people, because it is only the reputation of the Government which is at stake, whereas these are very issues of life and death to the public.
I am quite sure I shall have the support also of all who have attended secret debates when I say that little has ever been said in the course of them which could not perfectly well have been shouted from the housetops. If I may say so, I personally hold very strong views about secrecy and secrets. Unless one is called upon to deal with secrets officially I think it is very foolish to wish to know them. It is very much better not to know them. I know that secrecy and secrets have a great attraction for a certain type of mind. Certain people think it enhances their importance to be able to give a great appearance of knowing secret matters. I remember there was once a superintendent at one of our dockyards who always used to be followed about by his coxswain carrying a red dispatch box. We were very much impressed by this, and we imagined that the dispatch case contained dark secrets, such as the designs of the latest cruiser. But one day it happened that the coxswain dropped the box; it flew open, and all that came out of it was the latest copy of the Sporting Times. And similarly one has often noticed on the occasion of secret debates, when the high priests of the Government have opened their Joanna

337
Southcott boxes, that what comes out is extremely disappointing.
But the serious aspect is that this procedure of secret debates is the very negation of democracy. It is widening the fast growing rift between the Government and the people of this country. If your Lordships decide to debate in secret on vital matters involving nothing secret, but in which possibly criticism of the Government is involved, it will be a matter of very great regret, and one of which the country will take notice. When have our people ever failed to respond to the truth in a dangerous hour? Who can point to one instance in our history of such a failure? But we can point to many instances of defeat and other evil results following from concealment of the truth and from a dose of soothing syrup. A democratic country cannot function in an atmosphere where people know that grave matters are concealed from them in order to serve political ends. Yet that is the only message which can go out to the country from such proceedings as are taking place here to-day. I can see the matter in no other way. I believe in democracy which exists upon Parliamentary debate being available to the public, and I regret very much the resort to a. procedure which I can only compare to Star Chamber methods.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I listened with great deference to the contentions of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, and I am sure we all feel that if possible this debate should not be held in secret, but there is of course a good deal to be said on the other side. We do not want to do anything which would help the enemy. Might I make a suggestion? I think there is a precedent for this, because when there was a Motion brought forward in the House in the earlier part of the war by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, part of the debate was held in Open Session, but when we came to a point where certain matters had to be discussed which it was not felt should be made public, the House went into Secret Session. As a serving officer of the Fleet Air Arm I am sure that serving officers in that Service, while they would like this debate to be held in the open, would feel that if the Government thought that that was not possible—not even part of it—they should bow to their decision.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we have had the opinions of many noble Lords on this question of Secret Sessions this afternoon, to which of course the Government and everybody else will give due weight, but I must confess that I did not find the arguments completely convincing. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, said that we had listened to a good many secret debates in the past and in his view there was nothing in the Government replies or any of the speeches which could not have been said in public. That of course is a matter of opinion—some of us will hold one view and some another. I remember a debate in secret not long ago on a question of shipping, and I think there were things said, both by my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield, who replied for the Government, and other noble Lords who spoke, which were much better said in private than in public. Then Lord Chatfield went on to say, with intelligent anticipation, that there would be nothing in Lord Bruntisfield's speech to-day which could not be said in public. I do not know how the noble Lord knows that. I understand from Lord Bruntisfield that there are things he has to say which could not be said in public.
LORD CHATFIELD: If I might interrupt, I should like to say that at the end of my speech I said I very much hoped that the noble Lord who was replying would take this opportunity to give us information which could not be given to the public ear. I may also say that the information given in Secret Session when I asked a question myself, which we were told could not be answered in public, was always information in reply to questions which I had riot asked, but which was thrown into the speech of the noble Lord who replied in order to make some contribution to the subject.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Yes, but the noble Lord was really pressing all the same for a Public Session. He said that if there had to be a Secret Session he hoped that some information would be given which could not be given in public, but what he wanted was a Public Session. I can only tell the House that I understand from my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield that he has things to say to-day which the House ought to know, and which it would not be possible for

339
him to give in public. The Government, as the House knows, are anxious to give your Lordships as much information as they can; but clearly that information must be limited by the conditions under which the debate is held. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred to democracy. He said that democracy—I am paraphrasing his words—rested on the free expression of views. That is perfectly true, but it is equally true that the success or failure of democracy must depend on the decent restraint of Parliament in time of danger and difficulty.
Lord Winster made a similar point. He took exception to a view which had been expressed by a Government speaker in an earlier debate in which the latter said it would be impossible for the Government to put the full case in Public Session. That is perfectly true. If Lord Winster had been, as some of us have been, Ministers sitting on the Front Bench, he would know that one of the greatest difficulties is to put the full case to the House without lack of discretion in war-time. I remember complaints arising out of the situation in Libya being made by the noble Lord and others suggesting inaction on the part of the Government. As the event showed, a tremendous body-blow was then being prepared; only Ministers could not say in public what was being prepared. Therefore it is clear that in war-time there has to be a willingness on the part of Parliament to accept a certain limitation of free opinion if the enemy is not to be helped. I would say to Lord Winster that I thought it a little unworthy of him and of this House that he should suggest that the Government were only actuated by a desire to conduct a political manœuvre., I do not think that that is the sort of thing that ought to be said in this case. He suggested that the object was to conceal the truth from the people. Let me make it perfectly clear that the object of the Government is to conceal the truth from the enemy, not from the people. That is the reason the Government are asking the House to sit in Secret Session this afternoon, and why I am very much afraid I must adhere to the decision of His Majesty's Government and press my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SWINDON GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1942.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPREME COURT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SECRET SESSION.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Strangers will withdraw.
Then, in pursuance of the Resolution that the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the Earl of Cork and Orrery be in Secret Session, the Official Reporter withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—A.R.P. Palace of Westminster.
The Committee sanctioned the appointment and rate of pay of firemen for fire guard duty in the Palace of Westminster as recommended by the Fire Committee.
2.—Gratuity to Widow of Doorkeeper.
The Committee were informed of the death of Thomas Patten Scarborough, a doorkeeper in the Department of the Black Rod, on August 12, 1942, after 16 years' service, and sanctioned the payment of a gratuity to his widow under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1909.
3.—Gratuity to Widow of Custodian.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under Superannuation Acts, 1887 and 1914, to Mrs. Trudgell, widow of Harry Trudgell, Custodian, who died on October 17, 1942. Mr. Trudgell had completed 20 years' service at the date of death.
4.—Residence—Palace of Westminster.
The Lord Great Chamberlain informed the Committee of proposals for the occupation by the Lord Chancellor of the flat until recently occupied by the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
5.—Estimate 1943
The Estimate for 1943 was laid before the Committee and approved.
6.—Sub-Committees.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was reappointed as follows: The Earl of Lucan, the Lord Hare (Earl of Listowel), the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed as follows: The Marquess of Crewe, the Earl of Ilchester, the Earl of Onslow, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Macmillan, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that the first Report of the Select Committee be considered and approved. I have only one observation to make, and that is with reference to the Library Sub-Committee. I understand from my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, that as he has a great many preoccupations at the present time he finds it difficult to attend meetings of this Sub-Committee. Lord Southwood has intimated that he would be willing to take his place, and I therefore venture to move the Report, with the substitution of the name of Lord Southwood for that of the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and agreed to; and that the Lord Southwood be named of the Library Sub-Committee in place of the Lord Hare (Earl of Listowel).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

QUESTION POSTPONED.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, whether any agreement has been reached, or is under negotiation, with the United States of America, for the estab-
342
lishment, after the war, of a World Bank entrusted with the right to issue and recall the currency and credit of this country, said: My Lords, I suggest that it would be more convenient to your Lordships if the question which stands on the Paper in my name could be taken on a later day. May I, therefore, withdraw it now, in order that that may be done?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that of course is for the House to say. I am quite ready to give an answer to the noble Lord's question.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, as there are one or two other noble Lords who, I understand, have some observations to make on this matter, perhaps it might be more convenient if the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack could agree that this question should be taken one day during the next series of sittings.