Lords Sitting of 6 June 1945

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORE CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PORT GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL.
2.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 22.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) Where, within the time limited for the taking of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943, ah action is brought to recover damages independently of the said Acts in respect of an injury or disease giving rise to a claim for compensation under the said Acts, and it is determined in that action that—

(a) damages are recoverable independently of the said Acts subject to such reduction
402
as is mentioned in subsection (1) of the foregoing section of this Act; and

(b) the employer would have been liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943;

subsection (2) of Section twenty-nine of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, (which enables the court, on the dismissal of an action to recover damages independently of the said Acts, to assess and award compensation under the said Acts) shall apply in all respects as if the action had been dismissed, and, if the claimant chooses to have compensation assessed and awarded in accordance with the said subsection (2), no damages shall be recoverable in the same action.
This subsection shall apply, with the necessary adaptations, in ally case where compensation is recoverable under a scheme certified or made under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943, Or under the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Byssinosis) Act, 1940, if the scheme applies Section twenty-nine of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, or contains any provision similar to that section.")
Clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 28 to 33.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments, and I shall deal with the first two Amendments together. A very few words of explanation only are required from me. Your Lordships will remember that the main object of the Bill is to make a very desirable and much overdue change in the law, so that where a person has suffered injury through the negligence of another, and sues that other for damages, he shall be able to recover at any rate some damages even though he, the plaintiff, is shown to have contributed by his negligence to the accident. That is the law as between ships, but, oddly enough, it is not the law as between motor cars, or, which perhaps is more important, between a person crossing the road and a motor car. Many cases have arisen in which great injustice, in my view and in the view of many other people, has been done, and it is high time that we changed the law. That we are doing, and the House of Commons entirely agree. That part of the Bill is wholly uncontroversial.
When I introduced the Bill in your Lordships' House some months ago, however, there was a Clause 2, drawn in terms which had been recommended by a Home Office Committee presided over by the present Solicitor-General when he was a private individual. That Clause 2 was really to the effect that the Bill should not apply in cases where the claimant was

403
a workman who was injured by an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. I am free to confess to your Lordships now that I myself never quite saw why it should not apply to a workman in those circumstances, and I had to exercise some ingenuity in assuring your Lordships and some other people that the general proposal to change the law of contributory negligence was a very just thing to do, and then, coming to the second clause, say that it should not be done in the case of a workman injured by an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. In the Committee in the House of Commons a proposal was made to change this Clause 2 in the way in which it appears in the Paper now before your Lordships. The clause is put into a form which is the form in which I myself should have liked to see it in the first instance, and I am glad to say that in the meantime the Home Office Committee have reconsidered the matter, and no longer stand by their first approach to it.
The nature of the provision will be this. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, if a workman meets with an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, he has a choice of two alternative remedies. If he thinks that he can prove against his employer, independently of the Act altogether, that the employer must pay him damages because of negligence—for example, failing to fence machinery—then, quite apart from the Act, he can claim a lump sum, and it may be a very large lump sum, in damages, and if he proves his case he will get it, and that would be the end of the matter. The Workmen's Compensation Act went on to provide, however, that if he failed to enforce his right independently of the Act he could still have the alternative, subject, perhaps, to paying costs, of claiming what was due to him under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which does not depend on any question of negligence at all, but simply on this: "I am a workman, and I was injured in this way by an accident which arose out of or in the course of my employment." It makes no difference whether the accident was unavoidable or whether it was nobody's fault or the employer's fault or, generally speaking, even whether it was the workman's fault.
404
I propose now that we should accept these Commons Amendments, which will make a corresponding provision in this Bill. They will still keep alive the right of the workman to make a claim against the employer independently of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The workman's contributory negligence, however, will not defeat the whole of his claim, but merely give him a reduced sum. That is already provided, but we then go on slightly to modify the terms of the Act, so that the workman, if he finds that he is going to get only a very small sum, shall be entitled at that stage to say: "I will not take that, but will make my claim under the Workman's Compensation Act." That is an entirely sensible provision. It has commended itself, I am glad to say, to all parties, and I have no doubt that the House of Commons was perfectly right to make this change in the Bill, which was accepted by the then Attorney-General on behalf of the Government, and which has my warm approval. We are all, therefore, happily at one, and I think that we may congratulate ourselves on having originated in this House, and on now, I hope, passing into law, what is unquestionably a most beneficent change, which will secure more justice to thousands of people who at present are deprived of their compensation, I will not say by a technicality but by a very ancient provision of the Common Law, which should not last any longer. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 4, line 16, at end, insert as a new clause:
Provisions as to Northern Ireland.
("—(1) If the Parliament of Northern Ireland pass an Act similar to the provisions of this Act, Article 21 of the Convention contained in the Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, shall have effect as respects courts in Northern Ireland, subject to the provisions of the said Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
(2) This Act, except the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")
Clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these Amendments to Clauses 5 and 6. I have taken

405
the other two Amendments together, because although technically the matter is dealt with in four separate Amendments, the first two have to do with the same point. There are, however, there other Amendments which relate to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. If they pass an Act similar to the provisions of this Act, Article 21 of the Convention contained in the Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, shall have effect as respects Courts in Northern Ireland, subject to the provisions of the said Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is purely for the purpose of giving Northern Ireland the opportunity of coming into line with the new British law. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL.
2.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is another quite short Bill of which I move the Second Reading. It is a Bill which has come to us from the Commons, after careful examination and debate, unaltered in any respect from the form in which it was introduced. Indeed, there was no Division at any stage in the other House and I do not suppose there will be any difference of opinion here. The matter arises in this way. Your Lordships will know that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, the first of which we introduced just as the war was breaking out, have in them always the principle that they shall not last for more than twelve months, and consequently the Act has from time to time been extended for a further year by Addresses moved by both Houses requesting this prolongation. As things now stand, the Emergency Powers Act will expire on the 24th August (it is mentioned in line 16 of page 1 of the Bill). I remember an earlier debate in which my noble friend Lord Reading took part, in which we discussed at some length and in detail how for Regulations could come to a complete stop the moment that the fighting with Germany was over and I then expressed on behalf
406
of the Government, and I repeat, my strong general agreement with my noble friend's main thesis, which was that we ought not to keep these things up a moment longer than we could help. But, in point of fact, some of the Regulations, as everyone recognizes, must be kept up for some time—for example, the Food Regulations or the Regulations about clothing; for otherwise, of course, as long as supplies are short you will have no means of securing what I may call a fair sharing out. No one disputes that that is so.
What, then, were we to do in this situation? If we were to let the Act drop next August we should be completely deprived of any power to regulate anything at all, and I think it will be admitted that that would be quite wrong. We have, I am glad to say, got rid of a very large number of these Defence Regulations already since the end of the fighting with Germany—I think altogether eighty-four of them. I particularly want to point out to my noble friends on the Opposition Benches that we have already got rid of the Regulations which in any way affect individual freedom. What are we to do? If we were to move now for an Address from both Houses of Parliament—and of course that would no doubt be carried—the result would be that the present apparatus would continue for at least a year, for there is no power under the Statute to get an extension by Address for less than twelve months at a time. We think, and I myself strongly think, that that is too long. We ought not to leave this thing without the chance of altering it so long as that. Therefore what we propose to do, and what the House of Commons have unanimously approved, is to extend the Emergency Powers Act for a further period of six months, which would give time for what has always been contemplated—for a very full and careful examination of the whole subject as soon as ever a new Parliament can deal with it. A Bill for that purpose, called the Supplies and Services (Transitional Provisions) Bill, has been introduced into the House of Commons but there has never been any debate upon it and there is no time, of course, for an extended examination of it.
The principles of the Bill, which we entirely stand by, and I am sure any Government which succeeds this one will stand by, are, first, that you should

407
devise better Parliamentary control over Regulations, and, secondly, that you should have the opportunity of a general examination of the remaining Defence Regulations to see which are really necessary and which are not. That cannot be done in the course of the few remaining days of this Parliament. As a result, the course which has been taken is not to put an automatic stop to all the Defence Regulations, which would be most injurious to the public interest, and which would mean that food and clothes would be at the mercy of those who could spend most, whereas they ought to be fairly distributed as long as supplies are short—not to do that, not to attempt to extend the Act by an Address by both Houses of Parliament, which would extend for twelve months, but to give an assurance, which I am authorized to give, that the first opportunity will be taken so far as this Government is concerned (and I am sure by any other Government in the new Parliament), to consider the whole circumstances, among other things to consider what are the proper measures to take to make Parliamentary control more complete over these Regulations. I really do not think that there is any proper area of dispute about it. I therefore do not spend any more time in explaining the matter, and beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chancellor if he can give an assurance that in respect, of economic controls this Bill as it stands could not be challenged in the Courts?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is always a certain difficulty in a matter of this kind for an individual who sits on the Woolsack who may ultimately preside over legal proceedings in a matter of law. But I am advised, quite confidently, that the powers of challenge are not in any way either diminished or enlarged by this proposal. My impression strongly is—the matter has been again and again discussed—that the Judges will take the view that they are not concerned in carrying on the government of England, but that they are trying to apply justice, and justice according to law. It is for that reason, of course, that some of these cases which have been brought on appeal
408
to the higher tribunals have not succeeded. There is nothing in this proposal that would alter that situation at all, and I am quite confident that there is no danger by this Bill of creating an anomalous situation in which Regulations will have to be made which are contrary to law.
2.20 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the question which my noble friend Lord Addison asked has been answered by the Lord Chancellor and as I understood him the danger of challenge in the Courts is neither increased nor diminished by this Bill. I think that is the fair summary of the rather involved answer given by the noble and learned Viscount. In other words, it leaves matters as they are. It is not for me to discuss the legal side of these things—that was discussed in another place in a very interesting debate, which I read with great pleasure (I am only sorry I was not there) between my right honourable friend Sir Stafford Cripps and the present Attorney-General.
What is a fact, however, is that the Coalition Government, which has just given way to the present Caretaker Government, I presume with the advice and concurrence of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, decided that it was necessary to bring in a special Bill. That special Bill was introduced by my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison and is obtainable in the Vote Office, but according to the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor there is not time to take it before the Dissolution. This Bill dealt with the following among other matters: the Defence Regulations were to be carried on or extended for the purpose of providing
"a sufficiency of [goods] essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution; the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as a result of war."
Your Lordships will see that the important words here are "as a result of the war."
Now when the present Defence Regulations were introduced in 1939, as those of your Lordships who were present know,

409
I and some of my noble friends had comments to make on them. Lord Temple-more, as always, explained them with great lucidity, and said they were for the prosecution of the war. I gather that the question of my noble friend Lord Addison is whether, for example, Regulations needed for the proper control of building materials for working-class cottages could be said to be necessary for the prosecution of the war now going on in the Pacific. That, I understand, is the legal conflict, about which I would be the last person to attempt to give any sort of opinion. The fact is, however, that the late Government, some distinguished ornaments of which are now in the present Government, including the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, did consider that this Bill introduced by Mr. Morrison was necessary, but it is not being proceeded with because we are told there is no time.
I am bound to say, much as I welcome the General Election which is five years overdue in this country and which I believe we should have had some time ago, and I have said so frequently, this whole question of control is so important and a proper settlement of it is so vitally necessary for the future arrangement's of the life of the people of this country—I know the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, opposite will be the very first to agree with that—that we should have postponed this General Election for the time necessary in order to get that Bill through. Without it we are going to have chaos at the end of six months and the new Bill, or some similar measure, will have to be rushed through then.
Now the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill—and I agree that a lot of legislation has been thrust upon us in these days and time is short—said that this is quite a short Bill; that there was no Division upon it in the House of Commons and that he did not expect any difference here. My Lords, this Bill affects the whole economic future of the country. There was a sharp difference of opinion in the House of Commons and there is a sharp difference of opinion here. I am profoundly disappointed that the Lord Privy Seal is not present. I had hoped that Lord Beaverbrook would introduce this Bill and explain what he considered would be the future policy of his friends, if they remain
410
in office, with regard to Controls. He would not have said this was a short Bill which would create no differences here, as the Lord Chancellor did. At any rate, he is a brave man. He is blunt and makes his points clearly. He would have come here and talked about the iniquity of all these Controls and Regulations and the wickedness of making women stand in queues to buy fish, etc., etc. We should have had something to chew on and should know where we were. Lord Beaver-brook is trying to have this Election fought on this very question, and he is succeeding, as I hope he will, and we will try our best to see that he does. Are we going to return at the end of the six months to the "pull-devil-pull-baker," "the-devil-take-the-hindmost" policy of free competition, a free hand for the entrepreneurs, a good time for the rich and a bad time for the poor, or are we going to continue the Regulations and Controls which even the Lord Chancellor admitted are required?
The Lord Chancellor referred to a very important speech by the Marquess of Reading a short time ago and said that he agreed that all these Regulations should go as soon as possible; that not a moment longer than necessary should they be kept in being, and that he thought a year was far too long. This is the first explanation we have had—we could not get it in the other place—as to why the six months' period has been chosen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If you will forgive me, you will find that the Home Secretary explained that if you proceeded by Address you would necessarily have to extend for twelve months and no less, and that is the reason why we should endeavour to adopt this course.
LORD STRABOLGI: He did not suggest that twelve months would be the end of all these Controls and Regulations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Neither did I.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Lord Chancellor said he thought a year was too long. However, I do not make too much of that point. I have far more serious things to say than that, I can assure the noble Lord, and I shall be glad if he will address himself to them. The Lord Chancellor said that of course we cannot at this moment sweep away all these

411
Controls and Regulations because otherwise there would be difficulty about food and clothing. There are other important matters arising to which he did not refer. There is the question of furniture, which is tremendously important for the young people who are trying to set up house as the soldiers are demobilized, and so on. There is a tremendous shortage of furniture in the country and prices have rocketed. Is it suggested that that shortage can be got over in six months, with all our heavy commitments in the Pacific? Then there is the whole question of the building problems and the equally important control of building materials. The Lord Chancellor hopes, apparently, that in six months this will all be freed, and then the building materials will go to luxury flats, cinemas and the rest of it—he does not suggest this but this is what would happen—while the people who want houses, who have had their own houses destroyed or who have got married since the war, can whistle for them.
But there is something more which is equally important. There is the whole question of foreign exchanges. Does anyone in this House really suppose that in six months, or in twelve months for that matter, we can allow the exchanges to run wild? People cannot be allowed to export currency from this country or buy foreign currency as suits their immediate commercial interests without any control. I do not think there is the least chance of it. None of your Lordships would argue that for a moment. Then there is the important series of Regulations which deal with imports and exports. In theory, like others of my noble friends, I am in favour of free trade and I always have been, but it is impossible to allow free trade at the present time. There are shortages of certain primary and essential goods in this country, but there is a far worse shortage of certain of the goods and materials in countries abroad. If you allow free exports you get enterprising merchants buying up these goods and paying any price for them in order to get a vast profit on selling them in foreign countries where there is a worse shortage. That would go on to a tremendous extent for a short, hectic period. To think that you can allow a free export market in this country within six or even twelve months is grotesque. Nor
412
can we allow the import of all sorts of luxuries wholesale into this country.
We have therefore to have these special Regulations. If that is really, as I hope it will be, the issue on which this Election very largely is fought we all welcome it. We have a case to argue there in which we have the greatest confidence and in regard to which we have no doubt whatever of the judgment of the people when it is properly explained to them. Of course, with people who have been troubled by the necessary Regulations during the war to deal with shortages, who have had to stand in queues and to count out coupons, fill up forms and all that sort of thing, you can for five minutes gain their cheers and applause by saying" Sweep it all away; get rid of all this bureaucratic interference." But when you show them the real situation and make plain to them the awful results that will follow, I have no doubt whatever of the judgment of the population in this country.
The Lord Chancellor referred to the sweeping away of a large number of Regulations dealing with personal liberty, such as 18B and so on. That is of course true. We have done that. That was done by my tight honourable friend Mr. Morrison, who rescinded about 84, I believe. He of course got rid of those restrictions as soon as possible and as far as they can be got rid of we all welcome that; but it is a question of choosing between the basic needs of human beings and the limitation of the profits of enterprising merchants, who of course have a tremendous harvest to reap in the following months. If we have to choose between those profits and the necessities of life for our people then we must choose the interests of the life of the masses of our people in the most difficult years that are ahead. Not for six months or twelve months, but for two or three years, we shall have to watch the food market situation in this country and abroad; and the exchange situation of the world also. All your Lordships know that. We will have to continue these Controls, because the truth of the matter is we are like the man who had hold of the bear's tail. He had to hold on to it and he could not let go.
As a result of the economic events beginning with the economy exercised by the Nazis in Germany and the general

413
shortages that have resulted from the war these Controls have been forced upon the United Nations. In the United States they are just as rigidly controlled as we are. We cannot avoid that situation. I repeat that it really is not a real explanation of this Bill to say it is just a short Bill and that there will be no difference of opinion upon it. We think the original Bill, which I have ventured to describe to your Lordships, should have been considered and carried through Parliament; otherwise we should have continued the present Controls for twelve months. If it was found that twelve months was too long for certain Regulations, then you could have had a repeal Bill or other methods of getting rid of them. I do not know if my noble friends will invite your Lordships to divide on this Bill. We do not often have Divisions in this House; but if we do not have a Division I hope the Lord Chancellor and noble Lords opposite will realize that we consider this short Bill as raising very important questions a high policy on which we have opinions that differ very much from the opinions of the Party opposite.
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I share the regret of the noble Lord who has just sat down at the absence of the Lord Privy Seal. If Lord Beaverbrook had been here he could have given a reply to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi who has taken exception to his general advice on the subject of Controls. I am sure he would have given a very breezy speech which would have helped to blow away the odour of dissolution that now pervades the Chamber. In his absence I would address a few observations to your Lordships on this Bill. We had a debate a few weeks ago on the general subject of Controls opened by a very brilliant speech from my noble friend Lord Reading, in which the present system of war-time Controls was vigorously denounced and an early end of it was asked for. In fact, however, my noble friend Lord Reading, and indeed all of us, realize that the disappearance of these Controls, or some of them, must be gradual. It cannot all be done suddenly by a stroke of the pen. It is like a rope that is gradually wound up very taut upon a drum. If it is suddenly released, the rope may be allowed to slip off, and the effect may be very disastrous.
414
Undoubtedly, in the present economic condition of the country, with many commodities, foodstuffs for example, in short supply and with a rapidly expanding demand, if we were to abolish straightway the system of rationing and the control of food prices, those prices all would soar and the cost of living would rapidly rise. The working classes then would clamour, and rightly, for higher wages to meet that situation and we should have the old vicious spiral of prices and wages chasing one another. Meanwhile, those who were in a position to benefit from that situation would be able to make enormous profits, especially in those increasing number of industries which are in the hands of monopolies or of cartels. The principal effect of all this would be disastrous for our people. Similarly, with regard to the great programme of housing, if all Controls were straightway abolished building prices would immediately rise very greatly and we might find ourselves in the position that we were in at the end of the last war when my noble friend Lord Addison was in charge of the house building programme. He was then faced with a situation of that kind. On the one hand, there was the country clamouring for the immediate provision of houses and on the other hand prices rising to excessive levels so that when the time came, if I remember rightly, and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, he was compelled to provide ordinary working-class houses at a price approaching £2,000.
LORD ADDISON: No, not that much. The usual figure was £1,000 to £1,200 for a working-class house.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Perhaps the figure I have quoted was a propaganda one. I was not at that time concerned for I was not "on in that act." The noble Lord says that the usual figure was £1000 or £1,200. Occasionally £1,200 was the amount that would have to be provided for a working-class house. That cannot be permitted. A Bill of this character is essential and I am sure your Lordships will rightly pass it. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi and those with whom he acts says this Bill is quite inadequate and that the Controls which are really necessary should be applied not only in the case of foodstuffs and building materials, but also to other matters to which he has referred. He says the

415
Government ought to have proceeded at once with the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill which had been introduced into the other House. If these powers are inadequate and if the Government are not acting with sufficient firmness, the responsibility will be theirs, and if the evil effects that he has described do in fact occur owing to this Bill being insufficient the Government, if they still survive, will speedily suffer, or if they do not survive their memory will be regarded with obloquy.
This is only a short-term Bill and, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said, probably any Government in the next Parliament would be ready to proceed with the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. That major Bill does include most necessary provisions, first, for a thorough review of all the war-time Regulations and the discarding of those that are not absolutely essential, and, secondly, the establishment, as the Lord Chancellor has said, of adequate Parliamentary powers to control the making of Regulations of this kind. At the moment of the outbreak of war both Houses of Parliament, in a single day, are compelled to give what is, in effect, a blank cheque to the Executive because the sphere is so vast and the urgency is so immediate that it is impossible to exercise any effective control; but if war-time Regulations have to survive for even a few months in the period of peace Parliament ought to resume its authority and survey with scrupulous care what has been done and provide for the closest scrutiny of any measures that are continued. This Bill will carry us on for a period of six months and I should think that within six months the major Bill should certainly be taken. Therefore I do not appreciate the reason for Lord Strabolgi's fears that these disasters will occur if, before Parliament is dissolved, this other major. Bill is not passed. Six months will take us to the end of the year and no doubt by the end of the year Parliamentary opportunities will be given to deal with the matter in a thorough fashion. My noble friends and myself support the Second Reading of this Bill.
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, with considerable trepidation I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount
416
on the Woolsack a question arising from what the noble Viscount has just said. I was in the other House for a long time and I know that when it comes to competition to get things through the House of Commons it is often a very difficult business, but if this Bill called the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill is a good Bill, it is very hard to see what is the reason for not passing it now. That can easily be set at rest, if the noble and learned Viscount would reply to the very simple question I venture to ask. Can the Controls made possible under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill be legally imposed under the terms of the present Bill?
2.44 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to make a short reply to what has been said, and I will take first the question just addressed to me by the noble Viscount. The object of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, broadly speaking, is not so much to cut down powers as to re-define and reshape them in view of the problems that will arise immediately in the post-war period. The reason why the Bill is not proceeded with this Session will be quite apparent, I think, if I may so far detain your Lordships as to read the title of the Bill. Simple Bills are described in two or three lines, but may I read the title of this Bill since it is suggested that it might quite well be passed in the few remaining days of this Session?
LORD STRABOLGI: No, I did not say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was referring to my noble friend Viscount Stansgate. The title of this Bill is a very long one. It is a Bill
"to provide for the application of certain Defence Regulations for purposes connected with the maintenance, control and regulation of supplies and services besides the purposes for which Defence Regulations may be made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940 "—
your Lordships will notice the words "besides the purposes"—
"and for the continuation of Defence Regulations so applied during a limited period notwithstanding the expiry of the said Acts; to make provision for securing more effective Parliamentary control over Defence Regulations and orders and other instruments made thereunder; to provide for applying during a limited period certain powers of the Minister of Supply for purposes similar to those for

417
which Defence Regulations may be applied and otherwise for amending those powers; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
I can assure my noble friend, speaking with complete candour, because I have had a good deal to do with preparing the Bill, that it is a Bill which will necessarily require most considerable and careful debate and that could not possibly be done in the few remaining days of this Session.
If I may for a moment turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would say that though this is a non-elected House, listening to him I almost thought that rumours of an impending election must have reached the noble Lord. I am not complaining; I think it rather a good thing that we should have a slightly more active exchange of views than in ordinary times. The noble Lord said it would be necessary for those who take part in the campaign to place the matter properly before the people, and his speech gave an example of how he proposed to do it. I must therefore take the earliest opportunity, with great respect, of correcting him.
He seems to have got it into his head —I cannot imagine where from—that I was making a statement that there would be no need for any Regulations after six months. I never made such a statement. I think it extremely probable, and indeed that is the very object of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, that we shall have to continue—it nay be in some modified form—necessary Regulations for a longer time. It was still more amazing that the noble Lord thought it a good thing to complain that this Bill should only operate for six months when it ought to be for twelve months. That is a most striking example of the attitude of the noble Lord and of the Labour Party for whom he speaks. That seems to be that there should not be a taking off of Controls as soon as they become unnecessary, but that it should be provided as a minimum that they should be extended for another twelve months at the very least. The Government view is quite different. We could, quite easily, extend Regulations for twelve months now by getting an Address in both Houses of Parliament, but it seemed, and seems, to us a very unfair thing to do. It is much better that the Government coming in after the Election, whatever that Government
418
ment may be, should find they have not got a long period of time in which to use this old machinery as they like and must turn at once to the consideration of what are the proper amendments to make.
Like other Bills, this Bill is due to the co-operation of many people, and very good and friendly co-operation it was. I am grateful to Mr. Morrison for the part he took in it, but I am equally grateful to the present Attorney-General, who took an even greater part. There is no good, even on the eve of a General Election, in trying to label legislation as the production of one man.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did nothing of the kind. I said it was the work of the whole Coalition Cabinet and I specially mentioned Lord Woolton and himself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought my noble friend singled out Mr. Morrison.
LORD STRABOLGI: I referred particularly to the part my noble friend Lord Woolton had played. I said that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was a joint effort. We will leave it at that. I think it was a very good example of cooperation under the great leader of the country. I wish there was more of it. By this Bill it will be possible for six months to maintain essential Regulations, and within that period, whoever is responsible in the next Parliament, there should be a review of the situation. This is a revision of Parliamentary control which, to my mind, is very essential and it ought not to be postponed any longer than is absolutely necessary. It is quite impossible to do the whole thing in the next few days, I am sorry to say, and therefore we are extending the authority which is necessary for a short time, and before that short time has elapsed I do not care what Government is in power, I am confident that it will have to enter into these questions which were proposed to be dealt with under the Bill which for the moment has had to be dropped. I am sorry to have had to detain the House by giving this explanation, but I should much regret if anyone on the Opposition side of the House were to remain under a misapprehension concerning it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down would be mind answering the question which I put to him. I asked whether the

419
same Controls which were possible under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill could be lawfully imposed under the terms of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some of them certainly.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, but can all of them?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not like to say that. I do not know if the noble Viscount has closely examined the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, or even if he has got a copy, but there is in it, I think, some provisions which may be needed specially for the future. But I do not myself know of anything which cannot be done as far as the same powers go. I have been moved to add these observations because Lord Strabolgi seemed to think that nothing could be lawful after the war was over except something which is made for the purpose of the war. That is a common misunderstanding. The purposes which can be served by the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 included this: "for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community." I am advised, and believe, that there is no question at all that we could lawfully continue necessary Regulations under that.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of May 29), Bill read 3a, and passed.

WATER BILL.
2.54 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 36 [Duty of statutory water undertakers to accept guarantees from local authorities]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, three Amendments stand in my name on the Paper to-day. Your Lordships will have observed that the first two Amendments to Clause 36 merely have the effect of removing words from one part of subsection (2) to another part of subsection (2). I am advised by
420
Parliamentary Counsel that this makes the reading of the Bill somewhat simpler. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 36, at end insert (" or until the expiration of a period of twelve years, whichever first occurs,".)—The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 41, leave out from ("area") to ("and") in line 42.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Procedure for making Orders, approving agreements and making and confirming by-laws]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The third Amendment, which deals with the First Schedule of the Bill, is to leave out "fishery board or." I am advised that it is unnecessary to include these words as they are already expressly covered by similar words which appear in line 21. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 24, leave out ("fishery board or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL.
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, this Bill is an enabling Bill and it is one designed to facilitate Government action in securing, where necessary, redistribution of industry. Your Lordships will remember a period in the middle thirties when there was severe unemployment in this country, and you will recollect that this unemployment showed itself in its most acute forms in those parts of the country that were almost entirely dependent upon one industry. In a mercantile country such as ours, it is inevitable that, from time to time, the demand for its products should vary, but it does not necessarily follow that the decline in our

421
trade will vary equally all over the country. Obviously, our aim should be to secure in each locality that there is some balance of trade. Those areas especially afflicted by trade decline in the thirties indeed presented a very sorry sight. The same set of circumstances often operated to create unemployment among all the wage-earners in a family at the same time, and there was very little left for those people to do except to wait in idleness until the economic wind changed. And sometimes it was a very long time in changing.
We called these places Special Areas, and your Lordships will remember that Commissioners were appointed to deal with them. But for some time the economic wastage continued and it was deplorable. I saw it at close quarters for, along with my noble friend Viscount Portal, I was one of those who had the responsibility for deciding in which way Treasury money that was allocated for the restoration of industry in these parts of the country should be spent. I therefore speak on this subject with some experience. I speak about it, too, with some feeling for the desperately bad conditions under which the people in those districts at that time were living. We did find that we could do something. We found that we could introduce new industries into these depressed areas, even though, in fact, they were unattractive places to industrialists. Naturally, the longer mass unemployment continued the more unattractive they became. Mainly philanthropic in its outlook that relief process was really characteristic of British methods. It was an experiment, and we have learnt from it.
In this Bill, which I am presenting for its Second Reading to-day, we are proposing to utilize the experience which we gained at that time and to embark on what I regard as a positive effort against unemployment. We are seeking to take measures to prevent unemployment before it arises. In the inevitable change-over of industry which will result from the fact that we are no longer concentrating entirely on the production of munitions, we are seeking to make arrangements so that places which in the past have been unduly dependent on one industry for the provision of employment may become the home of other industries. In this effort we have the support of the industrialists, because, as a result of the
422
dispersal of industry which has occurred during war-time, industrialists have now realized how skilful, how enterprising and how adaptable are the people who live in these areas, and they are prepared to go there to start new enterprises.
I do not want to address your Lordships at too great a length on this Second Reading, but I should like to run rapidly through the clauses of the Bill. In Clauses 1 and 2 the Board of Trade are authorized to secure land and to erect on it factories and ancillary buildings, including houses for key workers. I was in South Wales recently, and was talking to some people who have taken war industries there and asking them whether they proposed to stay there. They said that they were very willing to stay, and were very satisfied with most of the labour that they found there, but it would be necessary for them to bring in specialists for their peace-time production, to live there and to teach the other workers, and the problem facing them was whether they would be able to find houses for those specialists. In this Bill, therefore, the Board of Trade are given powers to erect houses for key workers, and alternatively to help to finance trading estates on a non-profit-making basis, so that those trading estates can build factories.
But the erection and equipment of factories take time. During that time people who are engaged on the production of munitions will be released. In an effort to meet that situation, schemes for building factories in some places are already well advanced, but progress on these schemes will be delayed unless the powers to proceed with the actual work are obtained quickly. The people who have worked so magnificiently and tirelessly during the war must not be rewarded with a period of unemployment which is the direct result of delayed legislation, and therefore I would urge your Lordships to pass this Bill during this Parliament. If your Lordships will look at Clause 3, you will see that we realize that buildings alone are not sufficient, and that it will be necessary in some instances to improve the basic services. In Clause 3 financial provision is made so that communications can be improved and increased electricity, water supply and so on provided—all these things that are necessary to enable industry to function. Clause 3 makes available the finance necessary for this purpose.

423
With factories and essential services at its disposal, industry may need help to establish itself in unusual places—unusual that is for the industry concerned—and among a population where the workers are not trained for that industry. Clause 4 authorizes the Treasury to give financial assistance towards the capital requirements of industrial undertakings which are being established or expanded in Development Areas. This provision of capital replaces various types of financial assistance that were available before the war from the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited, the Nuffield Trust, and the Special Areas Fund. The provision of such financial assistance is intended to compensate industrial undertakings for any disadvantage of a temporary kind that may arise from their location in a Development Area in accordance with Government policy. I ought to say that the financial assistance provided under Clause 4 is not intended as a subsidy, but to assist in the raising of capital when this cannot he obtained from other sources on the terms that the industrialists consider necessary. It is laid down that the Treasury must in every case be satisfied that the undertaking concerned, though it may be in need of temporary assistance, can reasonably be expected ultimately to be able to carry on its work successfully. In Clause 5 we seek power to deal with those areas which have been suffering for years from the unsightly results of previous enterprise—derelict places, unattractive to the eye and not likely to allure the industrialist to go there or anybody to want to live there. We seek power to enable us to clear those sites if necessary.
The First Schedule to the Bill contains a list of the areas which have been initially selected as Development Areas. You will notice the difference of phraseology. We used to refer to Special Areas, and we sometimes called them distressed areas. My own home town of Liverpool was terribly distressed by unemployment, but was much too proud to call itself a distressed area. We are now referring to these areas as Development Areas, and I hope that that will be an encouraging change of title. The First Schedule indicates the particular districts concerned. It has been drawn up widely. It can be altered, but it will not be altered for a period of three years. Once a district
424
appears in the Schedule it will remain there at any rate for three years, which will give some assurance of continuity. The areas selected are those in which we have reason to suppose there is some danger of heavy unemployment developing unless special measures are taken. They are mainly what were called the Special Areas before the war, but they are larger; they have over 2,000,000 more inhabitants, and 1,000,000 more insured workers.
I now come to a very important provision in the Bill, Clause 9. Under this clause, industrialists who contemplate the establishment of new factories are required to notify the Board of Trade of their intention to do so. The requirement is that they shall notify intention, and this notification must be given sixty days before the contracts for building are placed, or alternatilvely before building operations begin. The purpose of this requirement is that industrialists shall tell the Board of Trade before their plans reach an advanced stage, so that on the one hand the Board may place at the disposal of industrialists information which may be useful to them in deciding the location of a new factory, and on the other hand the industrialists may be persuaded to put a factory elsewhere if it is in the national interest that they should do so.
There has been a little discussion about this clause. It quite clearly cannot do the industrialist any harm to get all the advantage that comes from knowledge of what the Board of Trade can tell him, if he does not already know. It may indeed be that when the industrialist contemplating extension realizes that it would be to the national advantage if he extended in one place rather than another, and when he finds that it would be no serious impediment to his commercial enterprise that he should do so, he will quite willingly make that change.
No notification is necessary for an extension of an existing industrial unit by the erection of a new building contiguous or adjacent to buildings already used by the same undertaking, nor is it necessary in the case of a new building with an aggregate floor space of 10,000 square feet or less. The Board, having no comment to make, have power in cases of particular urgency to permit construction to proceed before the sixty days have passed. To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be made clear that the provisions in this

425
clause do not impose any delay on industrialists. It is inconceivable that plans for the erection of a building of 10,000 square feet will not be considered sixty days before it is necessary for building operations to begin. I need not go into the details of the clauses, but I wanted to give a general picture of the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will be good enough to give it a Second Reading to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Woolton.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, this Bill, I think, demonstrates some of the disadvantages as well as some of he advantages of a Coalition Government. Had there been a Government of one Party I do not think this Bill would have emerged at all. If there ht d been a Government of another Party it would have been much stronger and much more far-reaching. No one I think can fairly claim that this Bill makes any pretence to carry out the main recommendations of the Barlow Commission, nor do I think that in practice it will succeed in avoiding those difficulties which this country faced between the wars from the mallocation, the unregulated location, of industry in certain parts of the country. This Bill is, of course, a Bill to seek to spread unemployment, if unemployment should occur. The policy of the Government, I hope, will be more concerned with preventing unemployment than with measures for spreading it if it occurs.
The noble Lord in introducing the Bill said that there had been a change from the description of Special Areas to that of Development Areas. Well, the problem still remains. What we want is not so much a change of description as a change of policy which will avoid the difficulties which were experienced in certain parts of the country before the war. It is, of course, not the whole story to say that these difficulties arose only in the 1930's; they were present with us, unfortunately, throughout nearly all the inter-war years. It is true that in 1931 the position was more acute than in earlier years, but unemployment and distress were rife in the industrially developed parts of the country throughout the whole period between 1920 and 1939. In the view of those of us who sit on these Benches the powers proposed to be taken in this Bill are not adequate
426
to deal with the problem if it should arise. We do not think that you can ultimately rely upon persuasion as to the location of industry. If the objects sought are to be attained we take the view that, if it is in the national interest, powers beyond persuasion should be taken, and I think I can find reinforcement for that view in the almost unanimous recommendations of the Barlow Commission, where they relied, if my memory serves me aright, to some degree upon persuasion but in the ultimate resort upon direction.
Moreover, not only does this Bill give no adequate powers to the Government to remove industry, or indeed in the final analysis to direct the ultimate location of a particular factory, but there is no provision at all in the Bill for giving any appropriate powers to local authorities. The location of industry cannot be effectively carried out with satisfactory results in this country without everyone realizing that it is likely to have very serious repercussions upon the whole structure of local government; and local government in its turn, in carrying out such planning as may be possible under recent legislation, will be unable to escape itself the problem of the location of industry if it is to decongest areas which are overpopulated by factories as well as those areas which are over-populated by residences.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act of last year the local authorities have some limited power to provide sites, and indeed to build factories where the need arises, because of the destruction of factories or the damage to factories in an area of extensive war damage. But beyond that the local authorities have no powers at all to direct and guide and influence the location of industry in connexion with their planning proposals. We all know—at least those of us know who have been associated with larger cottage estates outside the area of a big city—that one of the most acute problems is to get industry to go to the place or places to which labour is taken on those cottage estates, and thus to avoid excessive and unnecessary travel into and out of the particular city. The local authorities will be under an obligation to go on with that process of decanting their population, or a substantial proportion of their population—a rather appreciable proportion of their population. But the local authorities have no adequate powers to see to

427
it that industry goes to the same areas as the population.
I think it would have been wiser had the Government looked at this problem of the location of industry not so much, as I fear they have done, from the narrow economic point of view, the point of view of spreading unemployment, should it occur, as from a wider point of view as a part of the general replanning and reconstruction of the country. I fear that it may well occur that under this Bill there may be relocation of industry which does not take account sufficiently of the requirements of good, sound and satisfactory planning. My noble friends on this side take the view that this Bill is, as I have said, by no means adequate for the end which it seeks or, indeed, for the problem which may face us, but it is a start; and in those circumstances, reserving the right to move such Amendments as we might think proper at the appropriate stage, my noble friends will support the Second Reading.
3.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not feel it possible to allow the Second Reading of this Bill to pass entirely sub silentio from this side of the House. I think the noble Lord opposite, in his criticism of my noble friend's speech, did not do full justice to the exigencies of the situation. As I understand it, this Bill reaches us in this rather limited form solely because of the lack of time to debate a wider measure. I take it—this is where I differ from my noble friend opposite—that my noble friend the Lord President stands by what he said in the past about the determination of this Government, like the National Government, to see that we do get a proper measure of national planning. I think it is due to the House, if that is the case—and I am confident that it is—that the noble Lord in winding up the debate should give us that assurance, because, frankly, without some such assurance as that I should not be entirely satisfied that this Bill should go through.
My noble friend has assured us time and again in this House of the importance of a proper measure of national planning, and indeed he accepted op behalf of the Government a Motion which I moved not so very long ago advocating a policy of decongestion, dispersal and redevelopment
428
of the urban aggregations. That was accepted and stands as the policy of the then Government. It is, I believe, the policy of the Government now in power, and the policy which they intend to implement in due course when they have been reaffirmed in power, as we on this side of the House hope they will be, after the General Election.
I would like to remind my noble friend, if he will forgive me, of one or two of the things that he has said. On the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill he said the Bill would
"enable the Minister to exercise such control as will secure that both the places of the new development and the form of it will conform with the requirements of national planning… It is an essential object of the Bill that the sites for the overspill shall be chosen with full regard to the wider considerations of planning."
I think this would have been a wider measure but for the exigencies of time to which I have referred. My noble friend went on:
"The central planning authority is the Minister of Town and Country Planning… The Minister will also be the channel through which all central decisions on planning matters (whether or not those decisions concern other Departments as well as the Ministry of Town and Country Planning) will be sought and will be pronounced. There can be no doubt as to where the powers of the central authority are located."
I do not think this is the time to make too many detailed criticisms but I am not entirely happy about the extent of power which is given under this Bill to the Board of Trade or to the limitations of planning which are thereby introduced. My apprehensions will be relieved if my noble friend will assure us, as I hope he will, that this is only an instalment and that there are other measures to come along later which will complete the policy necessary to secure the carrying out of the acceptance of the Barlow Report, which my noble friend has more than once assured us is the policy of the late Government. If decongestion and dispersal remain the policy of the Government, then we must have some measure and some further powers for the central planning authority to deal with decongestion and dispersal.
The policy in this Bill is directed, as my noble friend has explained, entirely towards the former Special Areas. In my view, taken by itself, it is an unbalanced and insufficient policy. The whole policy

429
for the location of industry, to which I firmly believe my noble friend still adheres, must provide for factory buildings in overspill communities, not only in those Development Areas. It must provide for some restriction of the extensions of factories in congested towns, and so on. I do not want to elaborate the matter, but I do want to get an assurance from my noble friend that he still adheres to a policy of national planning, perhaps not entirely in the sense but more or less in the sense in which he has already given assurances in your Lordships' House.
There is one minor point on the Bill to which I would like to direct his attention because I think it is lopsided and if time permitted I would have liked to move an Amendment. I would like his comment: on it. Clause 5, to which he has referred, permits the Boars of Trade where there is a derelict area in a Development Area to go in and spend money and get it put straight for the purpose of securing that it is brought into use or for improving the amenities of the neighbourhood. Now the Board of Trade is concerned with industry, but the Government Department which is concerned with land use is the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. As the Bill stands it appears to be clear infringement of the domain of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning by the Board of Trade. If the Board of Trade were going to use the land entirely for industry, well and good, but it specifically provides that it may be for amenity. I would have liked to move an Amendment to substitute "Ministry of Town and Country Planning" for Board of Trade," at least in that particular instance. I think you are, by this provision, setting up a dual control of the administration of land use. That is what the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was set up for, and that is one reason why again I would like a renewed assurance from my noble friend that the whole policy of constructive town and country planning has not been abandoned by this Government but that they intend to give it fulfilment in due course.
3.28 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I would like to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I do sincerely hope that, small as this Bill is, the Ministry of Town
430
and Country Planning will not be left out. Really it should be brought into active consultation by the Board of Trade before they answer industrialists who, under the provisions of this Bill, notify them of, or who are discussing with them, the establishment of new factories. It does appear to me that both in houses and in everything else the much-trumpeted and belauded Ministry of Town and Country Planning is being ignored by every other Government Department much more than by the general public, the local authorities or anybody else. The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Works (of which I was once Minister), and the Ministry of Transport all regard this Ministry of Town and Country Planning as something of an academic nuisance, and that attitude has a most unfortunate result. If we are, when we come to full peace-time planning, going back upon the undertakings given and the hopes held out in the creation of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, we are going to rue the day.
Now take this Bill. It is so easy to suggest that it may be that the areas which were distressed areas after the last war will be identical with those which may be distressed in the future; but we cannot possibly say that to-day. The distressed areas in the inter-war period were mainly coal-mining areas—almost predominantly so—because owing to the great change-over from coal to oil in steamships, and many other things, there was a tremendous falling-off in bunker coal and in the export of coal. As we can see ahead, for the next few years the last industry likely to be distressed is the coal-mining industry. The whole world is short of coal. We are desperately short of coal in this country and likely to remain so. It is in the coal-mining areas, where we are short of miners and capital and everything in the coal-mining industry, that we want to produce more coal in the next ten years than we have ever produced before.
The danger after this war is that inevitably there have grown up enormous munition factories, particularly aircraft factories, in certain areas which arc now full of particular types of mechanical engineers, and there is going to be a great slump in some of those trades in those places which have been mainly producing munitions of war. The West Riding of Yorkshire textile industry will boom;

431
North Staffordshire pottery will boom. The whole world wants their products. But some of the engineering areas are likely to become distressed areas very quickly if we do not look out. Anybody who is interested in this matter, as I have been for some years, could talk at length about it. The broad question one always has to bear in mind is the tendency not merely of people in this country but in every country, certainly every civilized country, to go back to the big cities. That is true of new countries like Australia. It is true of South Africa, where I have been recently. It is true of Canada and the United States. The vast majority of workers and of people of enterprise, whatever their trade, whether they are high-class industrialists or high-grade workers or ordinary artisans, all desire to go to the big cities. There is magic in the attraction of the big city. What is the position in America? Chicago, Los Angeles and all the big cities are getting bigger and bigger. It is the same all over the world and I do not believe any Act of Parliament will stop a free people tending in that direction. The tendency inevitably is towards the great capital cities.
That is why the location of industry needs most attention round the big cities like London, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester. Those are the areas where you must have a suitable distribution between industry, amenities and dwelling-houses. You need it in those areas because they will always be the great magnet. It is a world experience that you really want provisions of this kind. South Wales, an area with which I am somewhat familiar, is not likely in the near future to become a distressed area, for industry in a considerable variety of forms has grown up there during the war. It is a very promising area. Moreover, it looks as if the coal trade of South Wales is going to be revived. If you try directly to compel any class of the community, least of all the ordinary wage-earner, to give up going to the big cities with their attractions, their companionship and the like, and compel him to start work in a derelict mining village in Durham, well, I think you are mistaken. The workers will go on wishing to go to the neighbourhood of the big cities.
That being the case, I think this Bill, helpful though it may be and temporary
432
as it is, is quite inadequate in the long run to deal with the problem which, if I may say so, is only tentatively discussed in the Barlow Report. Only the fringe of the problem was touched in that Report. A good many of us feel that it might have gone a good deal further. Therefore let us pass this Bill now, but bear in mind that we are embarking on a very much larger subject which requires a good deal more than is contained in this Bill. For goodness' sake do not leave out from this Bill the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. They have done a very great deal of work of great importance, and it really is essential that they should be brought in. There is a large number of plans, there are some planners at work in the country, and they have not yet finished their work. It would be most unfortunate if the Board of Trade, without consulting them in regard to the work they have done, gave encouragement to people to establish industries, as apparently would be done under this Bill as it is drafted to-day.
3.38 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, there is only one small point in regard to administration which I want to mention and that is in Clause 9, which the Minister was good enough to explain to us very particularly. I take it that one of the main objects of this Bill is to encourage new industries in these Development Areas. There is one thing here which some of the industrial people may look at somewhat askance—namely, the necessity of having to give sixty days notice before they can make their arrangements or start on their work. I quite appreciate the intention and the good work which may be done. The Minister referred to the fact, among other things, that the Government might persuade those who were proposing to put up these new buildings not to do so. Some people in the industrial and commercial world know pretty well what Government persuasion means.
LORD WOOLTON: I said, not to do so in those places. I do not want to stop them putting up buildings. I must not be misunderstood. I said they might be persuaded not to go to a particular place but to go elsewhere.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. That is what

433
I intended to say. As I say, I entirely appreciate the value of the clause generally and I think perhaps that it cannot be altered now. But the way in which it is worded is a little unfortunate. My hope is that those in charge of this Bill will make clear what is the intention in the future and that in administering this Bill the full sixty days will not be made use of except in those cases where it is absolutely necessary. At present the shortening of the period mealy comes from the words "such shorter period as the Board of Trade may allow." I hope it will be understood that the Board of Trade will make it a shorter period whenever they possibly can. In many of these cases the starling of work immediately without delay is one of the things to which the promoters of this industry attach very great importance.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I thank you for the general reception you have given this Bill. The noble Lord opposite and. Load Balfour of Burleigh have indicated something about which your Lordships are not in complete ignorance —namely, that when this Bill started its Parliamentary life it was bigger and it covered more ground.
LORD LATHAM: Not much.
LORD WOOLTON: Perhaps my noble friend Lord Balfour at any rate would agree that it had more clauses in it which have been taken out in order to meet a decision in another place and in order to meet the swift passage of time in the life of this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, asked me a very difficult question. If he asked me where I stood in this matter I could give him a straight answer.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: We should like it.
LORD WOOLTON: I stand precisely where I stood before. I stand where I have always stood on this issue of town and country planning, and I have not wavered in the matter in any speech I have made on this subject since I joined your Lordships' House. Perhaps you may think that I have not benefited by the amount of education I might have had from listening to the views of other people, but I am quite convinced about it. If you ask the Lord President of the Council
434
where he stands in the matter of promising legislation, it is no use anybody making promises about what this Government is going to do until we see what the next Government is going to do. Untutored as I am in political life, I think I should make a mistake if I made any promise to the noble Lord as to what will happen in the future. Perhaps, however, I might without impropriety say that since I shall be a member of your Lordships' House whatever may be the result of the General Election, the noble Lord may rely on my coming along and sitting with him on one side of the House or the other.
May I say that I think noble Lords are unduly sensitive about this young child, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning? The truth is that so many people are anxious that it should be brought in that we dare not forget it. I am sure the Minister would see anyhow that we do not. There has been a complaint that we have not mentioned the Ministry of Labour in this Bill: that surely when we are dealing with the distribution of industry labour is one of the most important things to remember. What happens in practice is that somebody among Ministers has to be responsible. We decided that it should be the President of the Board of Trade but at the same time we made a Ministerial arrangement that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should always be brought into consultation. He sits, not as a person brought in by the Board of Trade, but as a colleague with equal rights. We did not, however, think it necessary to mention him specifically in the Bill. I am very glad to see that my right honourable friend has so many friends in this House and also in another place. I do not think you need consider it necessary to amend this Bill in order to secure that the point of town planning will be taken into account in whatever decisions the Board of Trade may arrive at on the subject of the distribution of industry.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Hemingford I would say that I have in my time started many buildings. I should not have thought sixty days too long a time—and I used to work quite quickly in those days—after first deciding to build a building in a certain place to elapse before I started. If the whole of that time were occupied it would not be likely to cause much delay but there are ample

435
provisions in the Bill for the period to be less. I am certain I should be right in saying that I am sure the President of the Board of Trade, whoever he may be, will instruct his officers to see that the minimum of time should be used rather than the full sixty days. I make that statement very deliberately in order that it may be recorded. I hope I need not detain your Lordships longer either in defending the Bill or apologizing for the fact that it does not do all the things some of us originally hoped it would do. I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (THE EARL OF ROSEBERY): My Lords, this Bill, which owes a great deal to the labours of my predecessor in office, has as its chief object the application to Scotland of the main principles of the national educational policy embodied in the Education Act for England and Wales, which passed your Lordships' House last Session. But, as your Lordships are aware, the educational history and traditions of Scotland are different from those of England, and therefore the policy of the 1944 Act has to be modified and adapted to suit Scottish conditions. Moreover, some of the provisions contained in that Act are not needed in Scotland, because these particular problems have been happily solved by earlier Scottish legislation, including the Act of 1918, for which the noble Lord, Lord Alness, was responsible. I venture to think that your Lordships will have no difficulty in accepting those parts of the Bill which are similar to the provisions in the Act which was accepted by this House last Session. I am also confident that the adaptations which it has been necessary to make in order to meet Scottish requirements will present no difficulty to your Lordships.
The Bill provides that the school-leaving age shall be raised to fifteen not later than 1st April, 1946, or such subsequent
436
date within one year thereafter as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, having regard to the time required for enabling adequate provision to be made for a supply of teachers or of school accommodation to meet the needs of children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen years. The Bill further provides that the upper limit of the school age shall be raised to sixteen as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is practicable to do so.
Not later than three years after the raising of the school-leaving age to fifteen, there is to be instituted a system of junior colleges—corresponding to the institutions which are called county colleges in the English Act—for the part-time instruction of young persons after they have left school and up to the age of eighteen. The Bill also contains clauses dealing with the provision of school meals and milk, with medical inspection and treatment, with the care of handicapped children, and with independent schools, all of which are very similar to those which have already been adopted with reference to England and Wales. The Bill also aims at improving the provision for all forms of technical education, the development of which is of the highest importance to the future prosperity of the country.
The educational reforms proposed by the Bill will be brought into operation by means of schemes for the provision of primary, secondary and further education. These schemes are to be framed by each education authority for its own area, and submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration and approval. By this means it will be possible to give effect to the general principles of policy which are embodied in the Bill in such a way as will meet the varying needs of each area, and will take account of developments in educational practice from time to time. I have attempted to give your Lordships an outline of the main provisions of the Bill. There are also a number of minor changes, most of which will be found in the Schedules, which are intended to bring the existing Acts relating to education in Scotland into line with the present measure, and to pave the way for a subsequent consolidation of all these Acts into one comprehensive Statute.
This Bill lays down a general policy for the development of Scottish education,

437
and the schemes to be framed by the education authorities will provide the machinery for carrying out that policy. But, in the long run, the possibility of achieving the educational advance which we all desire will depend to a very large extent upon what happens in the school and the classroom. Parliament and the education authorities can create the material conditions, but they will be ineffective unless we can attract to the teaching profession an adequate number of suitably qualified teachers. During the war, the schools have been able to carry on, in spite of depleted staffs, because teachers who in normal circumstances would have retired have been willing to continue at their posts, and a substantial number of married women teachers have returned to the schools. With the end of tie war in Europe, many of these teachers will no doubt be thinking of giving up their wartime work, and their desire to do so must be accepted with full sympathy and understanding. I sincerely trust, however, that many will feel able to remain in the schools for a little longer so as to tide us over the period until teachers who are serving in the Forces are able to return, and until the flow of new entrants begins to reach the schools.
It is on this flow of new entrants that we must rely to supply the additions to the teaching staffs that will be needed for the full operation of this Bill. I hope that the importance of the work which they will be called upon to do for the cause of education will inspire many young men and women with a desire to enter the teaching profession: but we cannot expect large numbers to respond to this appeal unless the conditions of service are reasonably satisfactory. It is therefore, with great satisfaction that I have learnt that the National Joint Council, which has been set up to deal with the salaries of teachers in Scotland, has been able to arrive at an agreement on this important question. Your Lordships will not expect me to express an opinion on the scales of salary recommended by this Council until I have had an opportunity of considering them, but I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Council and to express my pleasure at the fact that the scales are to be associated with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, whose work as chairman of the Council has contributed so largely to the success of its labours.
438
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is most desirable that this Bill for the improvement of Scottish education should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. The numerous consultations which my predecessor has had with the various interests concerned have resulted in a substantial measure of agreement, and it is the hope of the Government that it will be possible to pass this measure during the lifetime of the present Parliament. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, when I told the noble Earl that I wished to say a few words on education this afternoon his reply was: "Oh, you cannot do that; it is an Education Bill." But I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, for this is a subject upon which I have great anxiety, and I do not know in respect of what other kind of Bill I could possibly say a few words on education. Nearly everybody whom I know well who is connected with the educational services in Scotland is agreed upon one thing. That is that during the past fifty years Scottish education has declined and fallen very considerably. It has done so, I think, not only in comparison with the education given in England but also absolutely.
I have taken a good deal of pains to try to find out the truth concerning this matter. There is one small point which has some bearing on it. The first-class men produced by own county who have risen from the bottom appear to me to have ceased a generation before my own. Up to that time we produced men of the highest eminence, but after that period I cannot recall any of really outstanding eminence. Moreover, I have taken considerable pains to inquire into the matter, and I have reason to believe that a very large proportion of elementary school boys after leaving school become, within about a year, practically illiterate. They can neither read clearly nor express their thoughts clearly, and their capacity for reading and understanding what they read is extremely limited. The proportion of those boys is very difficult to estimate, but, as far as I can make out, it amounts to very nearly one-third. That, I suggest, is a very serious matter indeed. I

439
have met no one in the profession of education who contradicts that estimate of the proportion. The headmaster of the technical branch of a very celebrated secondary school in Scotland told me, with a very grave face, that we were sending into industry lads of the calibre of an N.C.O. in the Army in the proportion of one to sixty, and lads of the calibre of an officer in the proportion of one to two hundred. He said that he looked upon the position with great misgiving.
I have discussed this with various people, directors of education, university professors and schoolmasters, and I have had various reasons given to me to account for the situation. One reason offered to me was that the boys of whom I have been speaking represent the ineducable class of boy. I do not accept that. In the first place I do not think that a boy is ineducable just because a man tells me that he cannot educate him. In the circumstances, I consider that the proportion is much too high. Indeed, having seen a great many of the boys myself, I am perfectly certain that it is not correct. Again, I have been told that these are pupils who require special care, special education. To a certain extent that may be true, but I do not think that it is the complete truth, because I find that most of these lads of fifteen or so with whom I come into contact suffer from a form of atrophy of some of the capacities which I think every child of six has in a very strong degree.
Other lads who have shown brilliance and have been very successful at school, complain to me of the great waste of time which they experienced at school. They tell me that a great deal of time is spent unprofitably. But the principal cause of the trouble is overcrowding of the classes. I think it is probably true that in our elementary schools most of the classes are overcrowded by one-third. Education authorities in many parts of Scotland have written to me, and possibly to many of your Lordships also, saying that in their view a reduction in the size-of classes is of far greater importance than the raising of the school age. I think that that must be a fact, because if your Lordships accept my figure, that the classes are too large by one-third, the raising of the school-leaving age to fifteen and the reduction of the size of classes will entail almost doubling the
440
school accommodation in Scotland. If the value of nine years under the schoolmaster is only what I suggest that it is, it is much more important to reduce the size of the classes than to raise the school age. I am entirely in favour of raising the school age when it is practicable to do so, but I do not think that it can possibly he practicable as soon as is indicated in this Bill.
I should like to see some effort made to examine critically the whole present system of elementary education. I should like to see this done by men of great educational standing, members of our universities, but not necessarily by members of the educational heirarchy. I do not say that because I have a "down" on schoolmasters; many of them are my close friends. There is a tendency, however, amongst those who practise a profession to think that what cannot be done by methods. to which they are themselves accustomed cannot be done by any other method. I understand that in some parts of England there are elementary schools which are run on experimental lines, and in fact on precisely the lines which I would have suggested if I had been worthy to be consulted. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there are any elementary schools in Scotland which are run more or less on experimental lines. I think that that is a very important point.
There is another matter in connexion with education which I think must cause the noble Earl very great concern. That is the steady rise in juvenile delinquency in Scotland, and this in spite of a system of dealing with juvenile delinquents which tends to make matters appear better than they might otherwise seem to be. I know that this matter deeply exercised the mind of the noble Earl's predecessor in office, and I have heard him talk about it very often. There is no doubt at all that the responsibility for juvenile crime must be divided between the school and the home. Every Education Act diminishes the influence of the home, and there are many other enactments which contribute to the same result. I do not want to give many examples of that but, to mention only one, there is the Statute which compels women to serve on juries, thereby inculcating the view that service on a jury is more important than looking after a family. I could give your Lordships a perfectly horrible instance of that which occurred in London to someone whom probably

441
most of you know. Anything that diminishes the influence of the family tends towards juvenile crime.
The Bill now before your Lordships appears to me to diminish the influence of the family as compared with that of the school. Clause 22 pays lip service to the duties of parents, but Clauses 44 to 6o remove the responsibility of parents for We education of their children further than they have ever been removed by any legislation of this kind before. What we really ought to have, if it could be achieved, and what I think every director of education would welcome, is local school management committees very largely made up of members elected by the parents of the children attending the schools in the area, with a few county council representatives to keep the committees straight in their relations with authority. I am sure that that would be preferable to having representatives on the local committees drawn from councils whose members are elected owing to their capacity to deal with roads and other matters not connected with education. There are other parts of the Bill which tend to diminish the influent, of the home, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with them.
Finally, I come to what seems to me to be the gist of the whole matter. That this Bill will raise the salaries of school teachers is something which I am very glad to hear, because that is very important; but I do not think that it follows that because you raise the salaries of the teachers you will get more or better teachers. The qualities which go to the making of a good teacher generally drive him into the teaching profession whatever the salary may be. In my view, teaching is a dedicated profession, and you have in the teaching profession already all those who are ideal teachers. Of the remainder, a considerable number are merely competent and efficient servants of a system, and that is all that can be said for them. There is also a small minority whom every headmaster wishes on to his neighbours if he can. If I am right in that view, increasing the salaries of the teachers, however much more attractive it makes the teaching profession, will not necessarily lead to a very much better service. It seems to me that you are only going to increase the amount of sawdust: in proportion to the amount of flour
442
in the cake. On all these grounds, I should very much like to press upon the noble Earl that he should consider what I have endeavoured to put forward. I should like to see the whole system overhauled with a view to providing better elementary education, because, if the facts are as I have stated and I have not given an erroneous estimate of the situation, I am sure he will agree that the whole system does deserve examination.
4.7 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I rise to make a very brief point, as one who has had some connexion with persons engaged in adult education. From what they have told me, I take a somewhat different view from that of the noble Lord who has just sat down about the desirability of smaller classes rather than raising the school age. There can be no doubt, I think, that those who stay longer at school do in fact come to have a greater appreciation of the value of education, and are therefore more inclined to continue that education after they have left school than are those who leave earlier. It is the common experience of all who have to do with adult education that, although during the past twenty years the numbers attending adult classes have enormously increased, that increase has been smaller proportionably among those who left school at fourteen than among those who have had a secondary education. From that I think it is possible to deduce that if education is continued rather longer, the value of that education becomes apparent to the children, and they will therefore continue it. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that that is a point which should be taken into consideration, and that too much emphasis should not be laid on the question of the size of classes. I fully understand the feelings of the teachers who have to instruct excessively large classes, and I have the deepest sympathy with them, since obviously they must feel that they are unable to carry out their task; but there is another side to the picture, and I venture to put it before your Lordships.
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, the enthusiasm and interest which my noble friend Lord Saltoun has always shown in education in Scotland is well known to me and to many others in this House. I cannot here feeling, however,

443
that one or two of the criticisms which the noble Lord has made have really been strong reasons why this Bill should be passed. I do not quite know where he got the figure of 33 per cent. for those who, one year after leaving school, were unable to read and write.
LORD SALTOUN: That was only a personal inquiry. I have examined lads and have gone round asking other people what their experience was, but I do not know what the figure is.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I cannot help thinking that that is rather a high percentage. If it were true I think it would be a strong argument for keeping these children an extra year in school. Equally, the "uneducatable" children (if that is the right word) whom the noble Lord mentioned, would have a better chance by having an extra year. The noble Lord also said he hoped that education would be examined by people of learning and understanding in Scotland. Well, I can assure him that this Bill was not brought forward without having been carefully examined, and with the help of people of great learning and understanding, and I can all the more confidently assure him that that was the case because I was not consulted myself. I appreciate his point about the school teachers, but they were not only school teachers, they were the best material that we could find.
We have now an Advisory Council in Scotland on Education of which Sir Hamilton Fyfe is the Chairman. They are at present engaged on primary education and have taken exhaustive evidence on primary school methods. I know that they will do what they can, and I sincerely hope that they will be able to satisfy the noble Lord in that respect. As regards experimental schools we have got no experimental schools as such. I made inquiries about that myself, and I am told that the Scottish Education Department, through their inspectors, are always willing to examine, and are now engaged in examining, methods of experimental education proposed by education authorities, but the wishes of parents must be taken into account, because the parent will be quick to complain if he thinks his child is being used for experiments which might result in retarding the child's progress. I think that is quite fair. It is different in the case of private schools, as
444
these can be conducted by modernized methods. I rather think there is one run in Glasgow on those lines; but I think the noble Lord will agree with me that it is dangerous to run an experimental school on its own.
As regards the raising of the school age rather than lowering the number of children in a class, I think I can answer both the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, at the same time. I think we should all like the school age raised and smaller classes as well but, as I said in my opening remarks, that really depends entirely on the number of school teachers that we have got. At the present time, in spite of the fact that we have got school teachers still carrying on who should be retiring, and other women teachers who though married are also carrying on, we are quite short of teachers, and we hope that when those who are serving in the Forces come back we shall have both the raising of the school age, which is embodied in this Bill, and also smaller classes, which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, wants. I think I have met every point raised by both noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATHENS CHIEF OF POLICE.
4.17 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is a fact that Ebert, who was Chief of Police in Athens under the Germans, still holds the same post.]
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer is, Yes. Ebert is still head of the Athens Police. During the German occupation he worked closely with British secret organizations and rendered us outstanding service.
LORD FARINGDON: Have His Majesty's Government any reason to suppose that the Germans were dissatisfied with his behaviour as Chief of Police and, if they had no such reason, is it not perhaps possible that his co-operation was a form of insurance policy?
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: I am sorry I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question.

REFUGEE DENTISTS.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the other question in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what is the number of refugee dentists at present in this country who are not allowed to practise, and whether, in view of the shortage of dentists, they will represent to the General Medical Council the desirability of granting them permission.]
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: My Lords, the number of unregistered alien dentists at present in this country is, I understand, about sixty. I shall be happy to draw the attention of the General Medical Council to the noble Lord's question, but I ought to make it clear that in dealing with applications for registration by foreign dentists the Council are bound to comply with the conditions laid down by Parliament in Sections 9 and 10 of the Dentists Act, 1878. The most important of these conditions is that the Council must, before they recognize a foreign dental qualification, be satisfied that it furnishes sufficient guarantees of the possession of the requisite knowledge and skill for the efficient practice of dentistry or dental surgery.
LORD FARINGDON: Will the noble Earl point out to the General Medical Council that a number of these dentists
446
hold qualifications which are equivalent to those held by other foreign dentists who have been permitted to practice?
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: I will point that out.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.