Lords Sitting of 5 April 1944

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

  CANNOCK DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1944.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Temple-more.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMERCIAL STATISTICS.
  LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the present suppression of commercial statistics and to the widespread belief in industrial and other circles that, in many directions, this is beyond the requirements of security; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter which is causing much concern to industry. At this time when planning is being so much discussed and is so hopefully looked forward to, industrialists, in formulating their plans, need to have all the advice and guidance which are obtainable in the ordinary way from statistics dealing with past achievements. There exists, however, almost a complete black-out of industrial statistics at the present time, and the effect of this is to deny to industrialists and others the essential knowledge to guide them in their plans. I realize that the matter has already been raised in another place, and therefore it is within the knowledge of the House that it is receiving, or at least has received, the consideration of the Ministers concerned. A member of your Lordships' House, Viscount Davidson, who has taken a particular interest in this matter and has brought to bear upon it a long experience, has been associated with the representations made to the President of the Board of Trade, and he had hoped himself to be here to-day to support the appeal which I am about to make. The Board of Trade have advised the President, I suppose, that he can allow no relaxation of existing
  400
  arrangements at present, but it is widely felt that the matter should be pursued further.
  Let me give an illustration of the great importance of commercial statistics. Surely it is arguable in connexion with the coal crisis that had the figures vital to the consideration of the industry been progressively released from the beginning of the war, instead of beng partially suppressed and then only released after a long interval, the seriousness of the situation which faces us to-day might have been modified by anticipatory action. In export trade, of course, these statistics are particularly important. While statistics have been suppressed here comparable statistics in the United States of America have been published, so that the relative sacrifice made by identical industries in the two countries is not brought into relief and that fact might well conflict with the fundamental principles underlying the White Paper. That set out, as your Lordships will remember, the fundamental basis on which it rested, though it is true it was associated with considerations of lease-lend. There are industries in this country making sacrifices which are greater than those made by comparable industries in the United States, but neither in the matter of the raw material supplied nor in exports is there any proper basis available for comparison.
  I intended to be very brief, but I hope I have sufficiently explained the underlying reasons for making this appeal. I should like to anticipate my noble friend who will reply by saying that I and others who have been instrumental in approaching the Board of Trade are fully conscious of the intense need for respecting security. I should like to add one other matter. It might be argued that a partial release of statistics, a partial lifting of the veil, might result in conclusions more dangerous than would be caused by a complete black-out. That is an argument which I anticipate by rebutting. In conclusion, I wish to say that it is widely held by industrialists and traders in general, and supported by many responsible organizations, that some relaxation would be timely, and it is in that spirit that I appeal to my noble friend. If, as I anticipate, his answer may not be very promising, I trust he will at least convey to the proper quarter the strong feeling that does exist as to the need for a review of this problem. I beg to move for Papers.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend has raised, as he is well able to do, a question of very great importance, and has expressed an opinion that the time has come to lighten what he calls the statistical blackout. There are several very tiresome things about this war—minor things in a way. One is the petrol restrictions, and another is what: we know as the black-out; but, tiresome as these are, I do not think any of your Lordships, or my noble friend himself, would advocate the lightening of the petrol restrictions bemuse, at the moment, we seem to have got even with the U-boat, nor would he suggest lifting the black-out because enemy raids are not so numerous or so heavy as they were three years ago. My noble friend may say, of course, that these ant concrete cases and that his is an abstract case on which it is net so easy to lay down rules, but I hope to show, in the course of my few remarks, the reason why the Government must really, for the moment stick to their guns.
  First of all, I should like to describe the main principles that govern the action of His Majesty's Government in this important matter. The Government are firm believers in the danger of careless talk on which they lay great stress, and which they are continually impressing on members of the Services and members of the public generally. It is extraordinary how apparently harmless information can be used to make important deductions about matters which are seemingly entirely 7mconnected. It is very hard for people who are concerned with the release of information to realize how it might be useful to the enemy. Intelligence work mainly consists in taking a mass of apparently trivial and unrelated facts and using them to build up a provisional hypothesis, and then adapting this hypothesis with the aid of yet more such facts. It is very difficult for people who are concerned with releasing information to visualize how this may aid the enemy from a hundred and one different angles. Therefore, the only way really to avoid mistakes is to adopt general rules, as regards release of information, which may seem unnecessarily strict. I am not denying that in many cases they are unnecessarily strict, and no doubt cause very great inconvenience not only to the statisticians, but also to the important business community. But there are provisions laid down by the Government by
  402
  means of which people who really require particular figures can apply for their special release, and in such a case each application is carefully considered on its merits. I must say, however, that the normal attitude is bound to be that it is better to risk inconvenience, tiresome though it may be to our traders and the business community, than to endanger the lives of our men and our Allies or to run any risk of prolonging the war.
  The next thing is that the business community have not now so much need for these statistics as they used to have. Many decisions in these matters have to be made not by the business community but by His Majesty's Government and, generally, on quite different grounds. There is no need, for instance, for business men to have access to information upon which they used to judge the world's supply and price of materials, because His Majesty's Government decide on the quantities to be imported and allocate these at controlled prices in the way that they consider most useful to the war effort. Again, there is no need for business men to have statistics to assess, for instance, the number of bicycles or kettles or hats or what you will, which it would be most profitable to market, because the output of such goods has to be restricted so as to free resources for the war. In short, the Government are the main customers to many industries and have to do the planning for them, while for others they have to decide how much is to be produced. Even in the case of exports, as the noble Lord will know, the Government licence usually determines the event, and business men have little need of statistics to enable them to judge how much they might export if they were allowed. I do not say that suppression of these statistics does no harm, and if Hitler and his advisers could not understand English I dare say it might be desirable to publish them, but as things are the need for statistics is much reduced and the reduction justifies the policy of general suppression, subject to release where that can be justified.
  As your Lordships know, in this connexion before the war the Board of Trade used to publish monthly a detailed report of imports and exports. That was discontinued at the beginning of the war, but up to 1940 they did continue to publish a summary of information regarding values of imports and exports in respect of each

  403
  group of commodities. Even then, however, it was considered that some information might possibly be useful to the enemy—for instance, figures regarding oils, fats and resins manufactured. I should like to say here that His Majesty's Government fully realize that the power of the enemy to cause loss through the use of economics to further their submarine campaign is much reduced, but the time has not yet come when publication of overseas trade figures could be allowed without damage to national interest. As regards what we are doing to give information to trades which really need it, first of all there is a quarterly publication of a number of figures regarding exports. These are mainly connected with textile industries and to a large extent with the wool industry, with which I know my noble friend is very closely connected. Then there are applications from individual firms and associations for particular purposes. They are sometimes received and if no objections by the Departments concerned are put forward the figures are made available in confidence. Therefore, it will be seen that as regards oversea trade figures the people essentially concerned can get this information, but the general picture regarding imports and exports cannot be disclosed.
  Now I come to certain statistics which have been maintained or have been introduced afresh during the war. First of all, we have what I think all you- Lordships will consider to be a very useful table. That is the analysis of the national income which is given in the Budget White Paper every year. This is an innovation and one which I think is generally approved by everybody who sees it. Secondly, we have a certain amount of information regarding the earnings of many classes of workers. This information was originally required by the Government for their own purposes. They thought that it could not possibly be of any use to the enemy, and therefore it is issued and is available to everybody. Then we have a report of retail sales, which is issued monthly. This, I think, has never failed to appear monthly since the beginning of the war. It is useful both for traders directly concerned and for students of the general position. Figures are given from time to time regarding the mobilization of our man- and woman-power and also the extent to which food needs are met from our own
  404
  production. Lastly, I must mention a very interesting special contribution which was issued recently by the Minister of Production. It was given in an answer by my right honourable friend the Minister of Production in reply to Sir Patrick Hannon in another place on March 8. That is a catalogue of munitions and arms which have been produced during the war.
  I have mentioned certain publications and returns which we have issued in order to help traders and others. I dare say my noble friend will say, "Oh yes, that is all very well, but a great many of these are disconnected and it is impossible to build up from them a comprehensive picture." I quite understand that. Nothing can be more annoying, I am sure, to the keen statistician than that a lot of the figures and returns issued should apparently have no connexion with one another; but unfortunately a series of comparable figures issued regularly would be just what the Government consider most dangerous and their value would be greatest to those very intelligent students of statistics and other matters—namely, the enemy's General Staff. Finally, I would impress upon my noble friend and the House the supreme need for caution in producing information at this moment, and we cannot, I am afraid, relax in any way our precautions in this or in other matters on the very eve of the Second Front. His Majesty's Government have great sympathy with the reasons which have induced my noble friend to put down this Motion, but I am afraid they do not regard it as a very opportune time and cannot at the moment alter their policy in this matter, nor in any other direction, pending the great events which are shortly to take place. I would say in conclusion that they are sure that the business community, who have responded so willingly to all inconveniences and restrictions during four and a half years of war, will be willing to continue their support for all measures which so nearly concern the lives of our men and those of our Allies and the successful outcome of future operations.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the degree to which my noble friend was able to foreshadow any relaxation of the present position was slight, but he wrapped up the pill with gracious courtesy as is customary with him in answering

  405
  questions. Nevertheless I think your Lordships will be satisfied that this was not an inopportune question to raise. He reminded the House that essential figures to the extent that they are in the hands the Government can be made available the discretion of the Minister, but it is only a limited extent. He then went on to refer to certain classes of statistics and it is in regard to that that, with the permission of your Lordships, I would again ask him to press for review. There are, for instance, classes of figures dealing with stock piles of commodities in the United States, which are not published by the British Government on grounds of security but are published in the United States. There does not seem to be any reason for that. The figures come to England in papers published in the United States but are considered improper for release by the Government in this country. That is a matter which I would particularly urge my noble friend to represent in the right quarter. I would add that I feel there was much in his reedy which will have served a most useful purpose and that the information given will be much appreciated. I thank my noble friend for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the present procedure and length of time necessary for the promotion of legislation intended to give effect to the execution of essential public works and especially those needed in post-war internal development; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of this Motion has been subject to some vagary on the Order Paper. It has been put on and taken off and restored and it is only right that I should explain that that came about out of consideration for the Chairman of Committees. It was hoped, very naturally and properly, flat he could be present and I am sure I am only expressing what is the feeling of every member of your Lordships' House when I voice regret that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not able to be here to-day. We extend to him great sympathy because of the fact that, owing to illness, he has seen fit to retire from his position as Lord Chairman in which he served your Lordships' House with such distinction for so long a period.
  406
  It is with very due diffidence that I appeal for the attention of your Lordships on a matter which affects procedure in this House and affects traditions which, very properly, are a matter of jealous protection by the House as a whole. I approach the subject with a full realization that, when anyone presumes to raise a matter of this kind, discretion of presentation is called for, and I am conscious that it would have been more properly clone by someone with greater legal training than I have had. Nevertheless, I think I need make no apology to your Lordships, and I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack replies he will remember that it is raised in the sincere conviction that the present situation calls for review. I hope, too, that if he can give no indication yet of the intentions of the Government, he will be able to give reassurance through your Lordships' House to a much wider circle that the matter is receiving the consideration of those who govern the procedure of Parliament. Post-war planning is so continuously now a subject for discussion when digression of thoughts from the winning of the war is permitted, that it seems not unnatural that your Lordships' House should consider by what means the machinery can be speeded up at the appropriate time to implement programmes of development and the policy which the Government have adopted.
  It is important to examine first what is involved in the preparation of these programmes. Authority is required from Parliament for a great number of projects. With the permission of your Lordships I will come later to the more particular reasons why I have raised tile matter now. It will be realized that my Motion deals with what is known as Private Bill legislation, that is, legislation concerning the particular interests and benefits of bodies of persons, including local authorities. It is difficult, often, to distinguish such legislation from public policy. Your Lordships are familiar with the cumbrous procedure which precedes the passing of a Private Bill. There must be a year or two devoted to the preparation of plans, then those plans have to be deposited in the Private Bill Office and time allowed for the presentation of Petitions, followed by the Committee and the various stages which follow. Many months are involved, and of course promotion costs are heavy. Public inquiry

  407
  is in all cases essential, and I would say at this stage that I am fully conscious that Parliament must remain insistently jealous of the rights of objectors. Past experience has been that attempts to expedite matters through delegated legislation have resulted in a retention of the old procedure, because of the reluctance of both Houses of Parliament to surrender traditional powers and insistence on the proper protection of all objectors.
  I would suggest that more General Acts are required containing up-to-date provisions governing the activities of local authorities. It is understood that the Ministry of Health, for instance, in respect of housing, have foreshadowed their intention to modify requirements with regard to objections and hearings. But their intention may well not come to fruition. Now the Public Health Act, 1933, affords an example of a measure in which all past legislation has been brought together, and it might well serve as ground on which to base an appeal for more General Acts with up-to-date provisions which, by setting on the complete grounds which should govern local government matters, might lessen the need for Private Bill procedure. I put that forward only with the idea that perhaps it would be advantageous if the noble and learned Viscount in his reply could make some comment upon it. There are, it is understood, many Consolidation Bills on the stocks, and in that connexion one remembers what one has heard in this House in recent years by way of comments on Bills under consideration. One recalls that appeals have been made that, instead of referring to sections in previous Acts, Bills might be more fully drafted so that they would complete all the requisite legislation and simplify review. With regard to a Consolidation Bill, perhaps it would suffice if what is old and merely consolidated were indicated and made quite clear from what is new and is only proposed.
  In considering this question of General Bills it will be remembered that water, gas and electricity are matters which inevitably come into the ambit of the planners, and they have, in the past, been the most fruitful cause of Private Bills. It is natural that they should be the subject of, and the justification for, this review. I would like here to suggest that water serves as a good illustration,
  408
  because when a Private Bill is embarked upon with regard to water, it is always possible for an objector to advance the theory that subterranean flows are being tapped, surface rights are being interfered with, and so on. It is, therefore, very easy to get objections. Now it appears that in this matter there is no power available for co-ordinating conflicting Bills. That is to say, two local authorities may simultaneously put forward Bills which impinge on the proposals, or demands, of each other. No one, of course, may petition by Private Bill. The only bases for petitions are either a report by a Government Department that certain pas-ages in the Bill are not in accord with existing laws or regulations, or protests by some private person or persons or corporation to the effect that their interests may be damaged. No one can go before a Committee on a Private Bill and raise objection on grounds of national interest. If anyone tried to do so he would have no locus standi. Therefore, it is natural that, at this stage, it should be asked if the reconstruction planners contemplate making any application for powers from Parliament which would afford measures of control with a view to co-ordinating interests making separate applications.
  It will be familiar to the House that in war-time procedure by Provisional Order has been very much developed. It is rapid and relatively cheap, but again it involves hearings, and here it is possible that there may be insufficient safeguards in respect of the inquiry procedure. However, I will not presume to tax the patience of the House long in going over all these matters, which are, after all, somewhat dreary and technical. There is, in fact, no necessity for me to go into them in detail. I say this because I understand that my noble friend Lord Hemingford is going to speak on this Motion. As we know, he can bring to boar a wealth of experience on these matters, and can make a great contribution to the consideration of such a question as this by the House. Therefore I will conclude what I have to say in this connexion by instancing the Humber Bridge and the Morecambe Bay proposals as examples of matters in which assistance could be given by broader indication to local powers of national interest. After all, there must be proper retention of discretion by the local authorities. I leave

  409
  the general aspect now with a full realization of the difficulty of the subject, and of the inadequacy of the way in which it has been presented. It is certainly a subject which merits great skill in presentation.
  I now ask your Lordships to consider some points which may assist you in understanding why this is being raised now. The Institution of Civil Engineers and the National Association of Public Contractors are, naturally, bodies who speak with authority, and they have presented to my noble friend Lord Portal, the Minister of Works, a memorandum which effectively sets out their apprehensions that, in the spate of work which is likely to become necessary, there is danger of delay through the mechanics of Parliamentary procedure being too slow. I do not need to emphasize how hazardous and disappointing it might well he if the speed of re-employment was in any way impaired by delay in the sanctioning of the necessary powers. This memorandum of which I have a copy draws attention to a report on Post-War National Development by the Insti7ution of Civil Engineers, which the other body supports. They cover at great length the field of potential works, and what they say should satisfy anyone how wide this field is. They refer to Report No. V of the Institution of Civil Engineers., which deals particularly with Private In order to support ray case, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence I refer to some matters in this report. The report refers to the possibility of procuring a shortening of the period normally occupied by the passage of Private Bills through Parliament, and refers to the Select Committee on Private Bills of 1930, and to the conclusions reached in the Report of that Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): Is this report No. V of the Institution of Civil Engineers?
  LORD EARNBY: Yes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I venture to intervene here, because while my noble friend will wish to take full advantage of his opportunity, what the report says is not that this interval is too long but that:
  "In view of the evidence given before the Select Committee, the Post-War National Development Committee is of the opinion that it would not be generally practicable to
  410
  shorten appreciably the period actually occupied by the passage of a Private Bill through Parliament."
  My noble friend will see, therefore, that the report to which he refers does not suggest that the period should be shortened, but says that it is satisfied that it could not, generally speaking, be shortened. He must have been quoting it, therefore, under some misapprehension.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I can assure my noble and learned friend that I was under no misapprehension. He has quoted a paragraph subsequent to that to which I have referred, and a paragraph to which I in fact intended to refer. I would not presume to come into conflict with him, and it may well be that, as is stated here, it would not be generally practicable to shorten appreciably the period actually occupied. But that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of a revision of the mechanics of the procedure as they existed at the time when this Committee sat. However, I naturally defer to any point that the noble and learned Viscount may subsequently make, and I should like to assure him that I fully appreciate the point which he has just made.
  What this Committee object to is the existence of one fixed date in the year, which is November 27, and the provision that unless a Bill completes all the necessary preparations by that time it may well be held over, with no assurance that a delayed Bill will be given a hearing. However, as the noble and learned Viscount has indicated that he is fully aware of the contents of this memorandum, I shall merely quote one of the recommendations of the Post-War National Development Committee:
  "That, with a view to the absorption as soon as possible after the war of the large amount of labour that will be rendered available, H.M. Government be urged to make arrangements that during the war and for such period thereafter as may be deemed necessary to effect the rapid promotion of public works in the national interest, Bills which are certified by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees to contain powers the exercise of which is likely to lead to the considerable employment of labour, be allowed to be deposited at two-monthly intervals throughout the year; and that after such deposit the normal timetable following deposit be followed."
  I am informed that there are good grounds for objecting to those proposals, and that they would not be practicable. Nevertheless I quote them so that the House may realize that something fundamental has

  411
  been put forward in this report. The Committee further report that they have canvassed many associations who, collectively, include in their membership many of the local authorities who would be concerned in these matters, arid, with the exception of the Association of Municipal Corporations, it appears that their proposals have received wide support.
  I understand that this matter has not escaped the attention of those in authority, and has recently been the subject of review. I feel that it would be wrong to take up more of your Lordships' time. I am satisfied that I have done what I wished to do in bringing before the House points which seem to me to be so important in the national interest. No doubt there will always be controversy as to the best means of achieving simplification of legislation, but in the national interest we should agree to some modification in the procedure. It is in that spirit that I commend this matter to the House. I recognize that it involves an alteration of traditional procedure, with regard to which this House is very jealous. I am aware that I have afforded the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply many opportunities for correcting me in what I have said, but I am satisfied that this is a matter which justifies consideration and review, particularly with a view to facilitating the provision of employment at the proper time, and I hope that he will take that view. I beg to move for Papers.
  LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, none of your Lordships will disagree with my noble friend's plea and his anxiety that anything possible should be done to expedite the execution of essential public works after the war. I venture to think, from listening to my noble friend, that he himself is not particularly hopeful that very much can be done, but there are things which quite possibly might be done to assist in speeding up Private Bill legislation generally, although in my opinion they are comparatively small matters of detail and therefore, though still worth attention, are not likely to have any very great results. The first thing we have to do in this case is to bear in mind what Private Bill legislation means, and what are the functions of Parliament in regard thereto. Private Bill legislation means the giving of special Parliamentary powers to certain specific persons—the word "person" there, of course, including
  412
  corporate bodies of all kinds—powers which are calculated to affect, and must affect, the property, interests and rights of certain other specific subjects of the realm. That is the difference between Private Bill legislation and Public Bill legislation.
  What is the result of that? The result is that the most essential duties of Parliament in Private Bill legislation are of a judicial nature. The Committee on a Private Bill has to decide between the claims and rights of the promoters of the Bill and those of the persons who anticipate that they will be injuriously affected by it. I am speaking now mainly of opposed Bills; I shall have a word or two to say later about unopposed Bills. But the necessity for that judicial hearing and judicial consideration of the rights of the parties is far more than a tradition, as the noble Lord described it; it would be more correct to say it is about the strongest and most vital of all our great traditions that justice should be done between all the subjects of the realm. Having that task before us in Private Bill legislation it is really impossible to shorten the time very materially. The whole case has to be tried as it would be tried in a Court of Law, and in preparation for the actual trial in the case before the Committee there is, perhaps, more difficult work to be done than in an ordinary case in the Courts; because Parliament has to be assured that all those particular persons who are affected, or likely to be affected, by the proposal have received due and proper notice of what is proposed, and are able to take the matter into consideration. There is the whole secret of the difficulty and of the time which is taken by Private Bill legislation.
  I intimated that I thought there were some small details which perhaps deserve attention and in which some improvement might be made. In considering those I want first to make some reference to the allegations as to unnecessary expenditure of time and the complaints which have been made by various interested bodies, and in particular to the very careful attention which has been given to this matter by the Institution of Civil Engineers, to which my noble friend referred. Their contentions have been before the authorities of the two Houses for, I think, something like four years and all those who are most intimately concerned with Private Bill legislation—and

  413
  I refer not only to members of the two Houses of Parliament but to those who assist and advise them in this way—have been most anxious to do what they could to simplify and expedite this procedure. My noble friend referred to the proposal for introducing Bills more often than once in a Session, and he also referred, very properly, to the reply to that in regard to a late Bill. I know that did not satisfy the Institution of Civil Engineers, but I think I may give an assurance, gathered from experience—and if and so far as this is not the case I feel sure that a little advice from the Government on the point would be effective—that late Bill procedure is a procedure which is not difficult to get put into operation.
  In my own experience that has been realized so much by some bodies concerned, some of the smaller local government bodies in particular, that they have been rather careless about the introduction of Bills by the stated time, and have taken the line, "Oh, well, it doesn't matter hi we are not ready; we can always get a late Bill." The result of that has been that attempts were certainly made by the Chairman and others concerned to warn people that Bills would not be accepted as late Bills unless there was good and urgent reason for them. That, I think your Lordships will agree, was a perfectly right and proper course to take. It was to meet what was likely to be an abuse of the rules and procedure of the House. But on the other hand, during the last two years there has been a particular type of Bill which over and over again was very urgent, and was in connexion with water supplies. Your Lordships know the difficulty which nearly the whole country has been in with regard to water. In every case—and they were very many—in which the question of water supply cropped up in a late Bill, no difficulty was put in the way, and the Bills were carried through as late Bills.
  I am not going into the objections to the original proposal of the Institution of Civil Engineers—the practical objections to the introduction of Bills once every two months or even once every quarter—because I think they have been generally admitted, and my noble friend, I gather, accepted them. But what I do want the House to be confident about is that the ate Bill procedure, which is certainly net complicated, can be made use of in any proper case without the slightest
  414
  difficulty whatever. Reference has been made to the difficulty sometimes of getting a late Bill through before the end of the Session and of the Bill being killed by the Session coming to an end. But there I think there is a misapprehension in the minds of a good many people who suppose that that is a rule which is never departed from. It is not a very uncommon thing, and has not been for years, for Private Bills to be carried over, and it has been done in the House of Commons; it has been my duty very often to move the necessary Motion for the purpose. That has been done in my experience in any proper case without difficulty and without serious objection. All these little matters, which are to a great extent in the discretion of the Chairman of Committees in the first instance, and afterwards of the two Houses, are matters in regard to which, I feel sure, your Lordships and my noble friend may rely that under present circumstances those powers will be exercised for the speeding up and general promotion of useful Private Bill legislation, even more than they have been in the past. Therefore, the position really is nothing like so bad as some of the critics of our procedure are inclined to suggest or suppose.
  There is another matter that has been constantly referred to as delaying the passage of Private Bills through the two Houses, and that is the length of time before a Bill is brought before Committee. There is a good deal in that objection. I can give a reason for the delay, and I shall venture to propose a cure for it. A Bill constantly has to wait for a very long time before coming before Committee because the promoters say they are not ready. They put forward as the reason for asking that the Bill be postponed that they are negotiating with opposing parties, and hope that the negotiations will be so successful that opposition will be withdrawn. That is a very good reason up to a point, but everyone who has had sufficient experience of negotiations of any kind knows that when two parties are negotiating it is ten to one that one of the parties says, "The best thing I can do is to sit tight and delay matters as far as possible." That is one of the reasons why a Bill has been again and again delayed in being sent to the Committee. My suggestion is action by the Chairmen, which has -been taken on at

  415
  least one occasion by myself, to be a little more ruthless in their treatment of the promoters, to intimate to them that the Bill will come before the Committee on a certain date, and they must be ready then, or at any rate that that is the date on which the Committee will get to work. That may sound a little rough on some occasions, but it is really the only way in which you can deal with parties who are negotiating one of whom is intentionally delaying the negotiations in the hope of profiting thereby.
  There is an Act of Parliament which should not be forgotten. It represents an attempt made after the last war to do what my noble friend wants. It is the Public Works Facilities Act, 1929. That Act proposed to supersede Private Bill legislation, as we know it, in many cases by what I may describe quite shortly as a procedure by Special Order. That was passed by the Labour Government, which had to deal with great unemployment, in the hope, very largely, of assisting works which would lead to employment, but when they came to draft that Measure they were met by the difficulty to which I referred at the beginning of my speech—the absolute necessity of judicial treatment in all these cases. The result was that the procedure proposed by the Public Works Facilities Act was so hedged about with the necessity of preserving that judicial function that it had, to my mind, no useful effect whatever. The original Act was to last only for two years. At 'the end of two years certain parts of the Act were continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but they were only certain powers relating to the acquisition of land by local authorities and, in spite of the fact of their having been preserved, I believe it is the case that they have practically never been used. I must confess that the attempt on that occasion to speed up the execution of useful works by means other than the ordinary Private Bill procedure was a complete failure. It does, however, remind us of the fact that there is an alternative to the present Private Bill procedure of dealing with these matters, and that is some form of Special Order. I think myself it might be well that consideration should be given to some step of that kind being taken.
  I should hope that possibly with the experience of the past it might be that legislation of that kind could now be
  416
  drafted which would be more successful than the ill-fated and unfortunate Public Works Facilities Act, 1929. But I do trust that if anything of that kind is done, what my noble friend referred to as tradition—the great tradition of justice between subjects—will not be forgotten, and that the very greatest care will be taken to preserve the rights of the subject in all these cases where they are apt to be invaded by the grant of Parliamentary powers to special persons. In the Public Works Facilities Act and in some Special Order procedure under other Public Acts, the judicial functions of the Committees of the two Houses on a Private Bill are replaced by Departmental inquiry. In my opinion that is a mistake. It may be unfortunate, but it is the fact that the Departmental inquiry by a Government Department is, to use a somewhat slang phrase, thoroughly fly-blown throughout the country. There have been numerous cases where these inquiries have been, from the lawyer's point of view, most unsatisfactory. They are conducted, generally, by a very excellent and experienced civil servant, who is not a lawyer, who has no legal knowledge and who, if I may say so, very seldom has more than a very small amount of what I should call the judicial mind in dealing with matters of this kind.
  I would sum up by hoping that the Government will look into this matter, will perhaps make certain suggestions in the most informal way to the Chairman of Committees or the authorities of the House as to the working of the present procedure in a way which might tend to the speeding up of urgent Bills required for post-war purposes of employment and the execution of important and useful public works. At the same time they should consider whether something cannot be done by extension of Special Order procedure, always bearing in mind most carefully that anything of that kind should be merely a temporary provision, as was the case with the Public Works Facilities Act, and that most careful attention should be given to see that opponents of proposals of this kind receive most complete and undoubted fair hearing and justice.
  There is just one other matter to which I shall refer. I said earlier in my speech that most of my remarks applied to opposed Bills. A very large number of the Bills which my noble friend has in contemplation

  417
  will probably be unopposed in that there will riot be Petitioners against them. But I do want to issue a warning against the idea that a Private Bill because it is unopposed should necessarily go through without much consideration. An unopposed Private Bill may be an extremely dangerous thing. Though it may not directly affect any particularly large body or wealthy individual who is prepared to petition against it, the Bill may have considerable effect on a very large number of small people who would be quite incapable, for financial and other reasons, of petitioning against the Bill, and indeed it would probably not occur to them to do so. Those people have to be protected by the Unopposed Bill Committees in the two Houses. The Unopposed Bill Committees have also another duty, and that is to see that those Parliamentary powers which are asked for are not in conflict with the interests of the State or the interests of the public as a whole. That is a most important duty. The Unopposed Bill Committee in the House of Commons has for a long time been a very expert Committee, the members of which have known their work and have done it very well and thoroughly. Perhaps I may be permitted to mention in passing that that was very largely due to the ate Captain Bourne, the Deputy-Chairman in the House of Commons, who devoted so much time to it and presided over the Unopposed Bill Committee for a very long time.
  It is perhaps a tribute to the work of the Unopposed Bill Committees that it is, I believe, a common saying among Parliamentary agents that they would sooner go before an Opposed Bill Committee than before an Unopposed Bill Committee. An Opposed Bill Committee is apt to deal with opposition on the points raised by the Petitioners against the Bill, somewhat disregarding the other parts of the Bill. An Unopposed Bill Committee, as its duty is, takes care to examine every part of a Bill and its work is of the greatest importance. If a Private Bill is unopposed of course it ought to be able to go through very much more quickly, but do not let it be thought that it can be passed through as a mutter of course without vary careful and judicial examination by the Committees of the two Houses. With the good will and assistance which I am sure the promoters of all Bills of that kind will have from the Chairmen and their advisers
  418
  in the two Houses, unopposed Bills, for the purpose we are now contemplating, should be able, I think, to pass within a period of six weeks, if they are really urgent and careful attention is given to getting them through as quickly as possible. In those circumstances I can only hope that my noble friend's Motion may be received by the Government with some sympathy. Although I cannot believe, for the reasons I have stated, that a great deal can be done, I hope efforts will be made to see if something cannot be done to assist in this particular matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnby must I think feel gratified that the Motion he has brought before the House has evoked the extremely well-informed and acutely reasoned speech which we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Hemingford. The truth is that this House lives a "double life," and not all of us are equally acquainted with the more secret and obscure portion of our employment. The House lives its life in public business and what it is doing in that respect is more or less reported—usually less. There is a second portion of the life of the House which is of a much more obscure, much more mysterious and much more secret character, and which is not as a rule referred to in the Press at all. I am ill qualified to reply to my noble friend's Motion because, though I had the good fortune to get into the House of Commons very young, I already was marked down as belonging to that profession which is not allowed to sit upon House of Commons Committees and never in my life, either in that House or in this, have I sat in any Private Bill Committee at all, though on a few occasions I have appeared before them. I therefore am the more grateful to my noble friend Lord Hemingford because I think he has made singularly plain what I think it will be admitted is one of the mysteries of House of Lords' procedure. House of Commons' procedure is not quite the same. The practical question, as Lord Hemingford indicated at the outset of his speech, is whether there is much to be done in the directions which Lord Barnby suggests. His Motion refers to saving time—that is my excuse for intervening in his speech—and to other details of machinery and the importance of getting these matters dealt with in Parliament quickly.

  419
  The existing position, if I may venture to remind your Lordships who know this secret life of the House much better than I do, is this—I have had to learn it up—that a Bill in this House should be deposited by November 27. No doubt there is something to be said for the view that this date seemed natural when autumn Sessions were a usual thing. But there it is—November 27 is the date, because I suppose in ordinary times the ordinary man thinks of having holidays in August and then in September and October two most arduous months of hard work have to be put in by the specialists who advise and prepare for this, Private Bill legislation. By November 27 the Bill has to be deposited and if it is deposited by that date, which is the proper date, then, in spite of what may be an enormous amount of negotiation, when negotiations have been completed and clauses have been settled, normally you would expect the Bill, even though contested, to reach the Statute Book (if it had not the misfortune to be thrown out) before the end of the Session in July. There is, however, a locus pœnitentice which has been referred to by Lord Hemingford, and I think also in a phrase used by my noble friend who spoke first, which is a very important part of our Private Bill procedure. It is the provision about what are called "late Bills." According to our rules if you are promoting a Bill you have a right to petition that the Bill should be received although it is presented after November 27. Certainly my understanding is—I am so informed by the authorities of the House and it is confirmed by what was said by my noble friend Lord Hemingford, a very great authority himself—that it is not a very difficult procedure. All that is necessary to be shown is, I imagine, that there are reasons for being late, which we all of us in private life are engaged in putting forward, that there is a prospect of getting the Bill through in time, and that there is urgency about it. The "late" Bill will then be allowed into the list of Bills aril in most cases will get through in time.
  I mention that because I want to see what alternative there is suggested by my noble friend and those with whom he has been in communication. The Institution of Civil Engineers have taken great
  420
  interest in the matter and I can well understand why. It is because the experts represented by that great Institution have themselves a vast amount of work to do in preparing plans, making calculations and all the rest. They naturally do not want to be crowded up into a little portion of the year and find themselves without adequate opportunity for exercising their talents later on. But your Lordships should realize what is the proposal under this head. I did not like to interrupt my noble friend a second time—I hope he will excuse me for doing it once—but he read a proposal from this little pamphlet of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which was, as he said, a proposal that promoters should be allowed to deposit Bills at two-monthly intervals right through the Session. That is to say, the turnstile which would be locked after November 27 would be unlocked and given another turn for twenty-four hours two months later and so again every two months. But I do not think my noble friend appreciated—I do not blame him for it, but it is a fact—that that proposal was abandoned by the Institution of Civil Engineers. When Mr. Gourley came and saw the officials of the House and other experts, it was recognized that that was not a proposal anybody could stand by.
  After all, there are other people to consider besides civil engineers. There is an enormous amount of work that has to be done in connexion with the promotion of the early Bills, interviews with opposing interests, endeavours to get slight modifications—the most intense work a Parliamentary agent has to do—and it would be very difficult to get it done if you did not give the Parliamentary agent a period of the year in which to do that and nothing else. If you had new Bills every two months the Parliamentary agent would hardly be able to get on with that work. Therefore the Institution of Civil Engineers, as I understand it, abandoned that proposal and finally suggested that there ought to be two dates in the twelve months—I suppose the date November 27 and some date in the spring.
  But is not the late Bill procedure better than that? Surely it is. The late Bill procedure, though it does not allow a late Bill to be presented as a matter of course, still allows it to be presented in proper cases without compelling the promoters to wait until two months have passed. Promoters are able to present a

  421
  Petition for a late Bill at any time during the Session, and the Standing Orders Committee can deal with the non-compliance on any day when the Standing Orders Committee is sitting. That Committee is constant session. Therefore I think it ought to be recognized that the existing arrangement about late Bills is really a better plan than the one which the Institution of Civil Engineers finally put forward. That is the conviction, I happen to know, of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to wham my noble friend made a feeling reference in which we all most thoroughly share. If the noble Earl had not been laid as de he would have been the most important speaker in this debate and would have led us all. I know that the noble considers the present system far better from the point of view of all concerned.
  I cannot help thinking that the proposals put forward on this head are connected with another suggestion—namely, that Bills ought to be more easily carried on from o le Session to the next. The answer to that suggestion is two-fold. The first has been given by my noble friend Lord Hemingford. In fact it is not at all uncommon for your Lordships' House or the other House to agree that a Bill shall be carried forward in special circumstances. On the other hand, I do not want anybody to suppose that that is a desirable procedure. There is a great deal of common sense in trying to get work of this sort clone within the limits of a Session. It may be found impossible six months later to reconstitute the same Committee and then a start would have to be made all over again. Circumstances may make it very hard on some people to have to continue their opposition over a spread of two years. There are some practical advantages in so arranging business that a Private Bill should receive both its introduction and its conclusion, whatever that is, within the same Session. Indeed, if between one Session and the next there was a General Election you might get a quite serious disturbance of the composition of Committees. I hope it is plain to your Lordships that I do not speak with any sort of attachment to what my noble friend called the "traditional procedure." In fact, I did not know the details until yesterday, but I have done my level best to inform myself by consulting the officers of the House and others specially concerned and qualified. For what it is worth I am
  422
  satisfied that our existing plan, our alternative ways of letting in Bills is a better plan than the plan which my noble friend has been led to support.
  That really is the principal matter which he mentioned, but there are other points; I will just 'mention two. He pointed out that there was an absence of locus standi to oppose a Private Bill where a matter of public policy was involved. I doubt if that is quite a complete statement. What is done in the case of a Private Bill where a matter of public policy is involved is that that matter is usually dealt with by a special report from a public Department to the Committee. My recollection of these things is rather long ago, but I very well remember being the most junior of all the Counsel engaged in connexion with a Bill to make a great dock in the Humber. One of the material things which the Committee had to consider before coming to a decision whether to grant power to make that dock or not was a memorandum from the Board of Trade in which attention was called to the various elements of public interest involved in the matter which went beyond the contest between private persons on the Bill. It quite constantly happens, as I think those of your Lordships who have ever been Chairmen of Private Bill Committees will agree, that the Chairman of a Committee sees that special attention is called to these public interests, because it is vital that exceptional rights and privileges should not be given away to private applicants if that is likely to do some injury either to other private individuals or, what is far more important, to the general public interest. I have heard in another place discussions on the Second or Third Reading of Private Bills when, of course, the House generally is charged with the public interest.
  My noble friend also referred, in a phrase only, to what he thought was perhaps a source of delay—namely, that if, let us say, competing Water Bills are promoted each has to be treated on its merits. I think it is the practice that when there are a number of competing Water Bills in a Session they are invariably referred to the same Committee who are thought to be acquainted with that subject. I do not say they are all teetotallers, but that committee is charged with the task of considering the delightful and stimulating subject of water for a whole Session, and

  423
  very likely it has four or five Bills before it. I think that that is a most practical way of saving time.
  Finally, my noble friend Lord Hemingford called attention to one or two directions—not, he thought, of very great importance or significance—in which it might be that some shortening was possible. I shall certainly take the opportunity of calling the attention of the authorities concerned to what he has said, for he speaks with very great knowledge of the subject. Certainly, let us, by all means, look into that matter and see if anything can be gained. But I feel very strongly that my noble friend Lord Hemingford is right when he says that the first consideration in dealing with a Private Bill is to take every reasonable precaution that the decision reached is a decision of justice. That is the thing that really matters. It is much more than a political controversy, whatever political opinion of the time may be in the majority, and where people are willing to put up with what they think are unfair conditions hoping that some day things will change. But when dealing with people's private rights Parliament has no moral right to take away the rights of one set of individuals, whoever they are—it does not matter in the least whether they are land owners or the proprietors of a roundabout—for the purpose of benefiting other private persons without satisfying themselves that the thing is just, and is done on just terms. Parliament has not shown itself at all unwilling to do these things, and I agree that a great deal of money has sometimes been spent.
  To do justice is, after all, the dominant consideration, and we ought not to allow ourselves, even after the war, to be led to favour changes which will introduce a risk of there being inadequate consideration of what is fair, even though it may be that time is very precious. I do not class myself as being at all the sort of person at whom my noble friend has hinted, a person who is "jealous" of existing procedure. I have seen enough of procedure in another branch to know that it can be constantly improved and I have clone my small best, in past years, to help to improve it. I have no doubt that this procedure which we have been discussing may be improved. Let us improve it on the true basis, not on the basis that we are making arrangements for
  424
  the convenience of a set of professional men, however eminent and however honourable, but that we are making arrangements which will secure in the most practical manner possible that justice is done when a claim is made, and will ensure that the decision reached is reached with due regard to the public interest.
  I am sure that the House will be grate-to my noble friend Lord Barnby for having raised this matter and also for having lifted the curtain which conceals some of the secret life of some of your Lordships from the public. I hope that my noble friend will think that my answer is neither so ungenerous nor so unkind as to fail to show that what he has mentioned is certainly deserving of attention and shall receive it.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I certainly appreciate the clement and considerate manner in which the noble and learned Viscount has dealt with this Motion, and I feel that he has given me encouragement. I recognize my own temerity in raising this matter, and I am very grateful to him for stating that it was a proper matter to bring forward. Furthermore, I am reassured by his saying that there is nothing approaching impropriety in suggesting that procedure can be improved. I am satisfied that the noble and learned Viscount is going to make recommendations in the proper quarters to ensure that these matters shall be reviewed, and with a view to improvement being effected. I would like to add an expression of my gratification that he saw fit to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Hemingford for the contribution which he made to this discussion. My noble friend is a man of ripe and exceptional experience in this matter, and we must recognize that what he says comes with authority. I suggest that his speech clothes this discussion with the distinction of responsibility which it merits. My noble and learned friend said that my main concern was to urge some speeding up of procedure and he referred to one or two other matters. If I may say so, I did not note any reference in what he said—and I regret it for I think that this is a matter which causes perplexity—to the question whether or not Parliament should prescribe up-to-date general lines of policy in local government matters. I have sought to emphasize that, in my belief, this has a particular bearing on the question of catching things at the source.

  425
  A point with which he was good enough to deal was that of the alleged absence of anyone who can go before a Committee on a Private Bill and raise objection on lines of national interest. I would hesitate to enter into controversy with the noble and learned Viscount, but I had taken the precaution of consulting some authorities and it seemed to me that the mass of accumulated experience got together in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons was in conflict, as I understand it—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding because this is a matter which is not capable of doubt. It is quite true that witnesses cannot ordinarily be called either by the Petitioner or by the opponents in cases in which they might desire to urge grounds of public policy as considerations to weigh with a Private Bill Committee. What the Committee receives is a report from a Government Department—sometimes from one Department and sometimes from another—and the report which the Committee, and every member of it, thus receives, calls attention to any considerations of public policy which it is thought ought to be reviewed, and the Committee can, if it thinks fit, itself call witnesses from the Department.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I repeat that I should hesitate to cause any discussion on that matter now, nor is it proper at this stage to raise it. I am satisfied that the raising of this matter was justified, and I feel sure that benefit will come from the patience with which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has dealt with these matters, which have caused wide discussion and concern. It was only because of anxiety regarding public employment that I raised the question. I thank him very much for the reply which he has given, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I would call attention to the fact that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are in the usual form, and
  426
  there is this year only one very simple matter which I need mention. That is in Clause 3, which contains an amendment of Section 176 A of the Army Act, which was added to the Army Act, as your Lordships will remember, last year. That section provides for the application of the Act to certain members of the Women's Forces; for example, the Auxiliary Territorial Service. After last year's amendment had been passed, the Elliot Committee recommended that members of Voluntary Aid Detachments enrolled for employment under the Army Council should also be declared to be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and that the Army Act should be applied to them. As an interim measure the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations, 1941, were amended by Statutory Rules and Orders,. 1943, No. 1554, last October to give effect to this recommendation so far as effect could be given by Defence Regulations. Your Lordships will realize, however, that it is desirable that Section 176 A of the Army Act should also be amended in the same sense, and Clause 3 of this Bill provides accordingly.
  The purpose of the proviso to Clause 3 is to continue in force the instructions which were issued by the Army Council under the provisions of Regulation 713 of the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations with regard to the adaptation and modification of the Army Act in relation to members of Women's Voluntary Aid Detachments enrolled for employment under the Army Council; otherwise the instructions would have to be re-issued. A similar provision is contained in Section 7 of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1943, which, as I have stated, added Section 176A to the Army Act.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Croft.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned.