Lords Sitting of 7 June 1945

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Somers—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read Ia.
HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read Ia.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, the Resolutions which stand in my name on the Order Paper carry out the customary practice of the House in connexion with Private Bill legislation when a Dissolution of Parliament occurs in the middle of a Session. They are practically in identical terms with the Resolutions passed by the House when Parliament was dissolved in 1929 and 1931.
The object of the Resolutions is to permit promoters to re-introduce their Bills in the next Session at the same stage as that which they have reached in the present Session, and to exempt them from being charged new fees in regard to such stages, thus securing that the work and expense already expended on such Bills during this Session will not be wasted. I understand that similar Resolutions will be moved in another place. I beg to move.
448
Moved to resolve—
That the promoters of every Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill and petitioners for Estate Bills which shall have been introduced into or presented to this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which shall have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, or which shall be pending in this House, shall have leave to introduce or present the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than noon on the last sitting day of the present Session; and provided that all fees due by them thereon, up to that period, be paid.
That an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed.
That every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed in the case of a Private Bill by the agent, and in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill by an officer of the Department by which the Orders to be confirmed by such Bill are made, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That in case any such Bill brought from the House of Commons in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, the agent for such Bill, or an officer of the Department, as the case may be, shall deposit in the Private Bill Office after the Bill shall have passed the House of Commons and prior to the First Reading thereof in this House, a declaration stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That such Bills shall thereupon be deemed to have been passed through every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages.

449
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill which shall have originated in this House or been brought up from the House of Commons in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed.
That every certificate from the Examiners of Standing Orders for Private Bills given in respect of any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in the House of Commons, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in that House in the present Session, shall be deemed to have been given in respect of such Bill, if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, and any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of such Bill, in respect of the present Session shall be held to have been published, served and made respectively for the Bill so brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament.
That all, petitions presented in this Session relating to any Private Bill shall, if necessary, be referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within Lie time limited in the present Session, unless that time shall not have expired before it closes, in which case, in order to be heard, their petition shall be presented not later than the fourth day on which the House shall sit for business other than judicial business in the next Session.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the said Resolutions.

PORT GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Common.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
2.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH): My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is a short Bill, but it is set in the midst of great events and is a part of a wider policy towards Burma. Your Lordships will probably think it appropriate if I outline briefly the background against which the Bill needs to be considered. The great success of the astonishing campaign of the Fourteenth Army, which has liberated the greater part of Burma earlier perhaps than many people expected, made it a matter of immediate necessity to make provision for the future government of liberated Burma. The policy to be followed was, therefore, set forth by the late Government in a White Paper on Burma which was laid before Parliament on May 17. There can be no doubt, and there need be no misunderstanding, about the objective of the policy of His Majesty's Government. It has frequently been declared, and it has been repeated in the White Paper, that that objective is the attainment by Burma of Dominion status as soon as circumstances permit. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, Dominion status is in fact the status which we enjoy in the United Kingdom and carries with it not only the privileges of independence but also the practical advantages of membership of a world-wide Commonwealth. That is the position which we wish Burma to attain.
Nor need there be any doubt that we wish her progress towards that position to be rapid as well as orderly. That progress has certainly not been made easier by the Japanese war. The invasion of Burma, three years of occupation by the Japanese Army, great military operations on land and in the air, have left a trail of destruction across the country. The entire economy of the country has to be rebuilt and the political and administrative structure needs to be reconstituted. Those are the conditions which have to be faced now in Burma. They do not alter our intention to assist Burma to

451
reach her constitutional goal as quickly as possible, but they do require that the stages by which that goal should be reached should be designed to meet the exceptional circumstances created by the war.
As your Lordships will have seen from the White Paper, four stages are contemplated. They can Abe outlined very briefly as follows. First, there is the period of military administration, which is now in being in those areas which have been liberated. It is not possible to fix a definite date by which the military administration will be replaced by the civil administration, as that must depend upon the progress of military operations; but we can hope that the Government of Burma will have resumed its task in Burma before the end of the year. The second stage will come when civil administration is resumed and it will be a transitional stage during which the Government of Burma will prepare for the reintroduction of the constitutional regime of the Act of 1935. This stage will require the temporary extension of the present emergency form of Government under which the government of Burma has been carried on since December, 1942. It is this temporary extension which requires legislative action by means of the Bill now before your Lordships.
When it is possible to hold a General Election in fair conditions, the third stage will be reached. The emergency form of Government will come to an end and there will be a restoration of self-government under the Act of 1935, with a Legislature and an Executive responsible to it. It will then be for the representatives of the Burmese people themselves to bring about, by agreement amongst themselves and with His Majesty's Government, the fourth stage of Dominion status—Dominion status, that is, for Burma proper, the Shan States and other scheduled areas remaining under a special regime, until they desire otherwise.
Those are the stages very briefly outlined by which it is proposed that Burma, in spite of the interruption to her political progress caused by the Japanese invasion, should reach her constitutional goal. It will be seen that this Bill is concerned only with the second stage—
452
the transitional stage—and I now turn to the provisions in the Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that the Act of 1935 contained emergency provisions designed to meet a situation in which the Government of Burma could not be carried on in accordance with the normal provisions of the Act. Section 139 is the relevant section of the Act and it is similar to Section 93 of the Government of India Act under which the Government of certain Provinces in India has been carried on for some time. The maximum period during which the Government can be carried on under this section is limited by the Act to three years and as the section was invoked on December To, 1942, the present emergency form of Government must cease to exist in December of this year unless amending legislation is passed.
With the disruption which has occurred of political life in Burma, it would clearly be impossible to revert at that time to the normal provisions of the Act and it is therefore proposed to extend the period. Subsection (I) of Clause I of the Bill permits this extension for three years more. I would like to make it clear to your Lordships that this extension does not mean that the emergency form of Government must continue until December, 1948. We hope, indeed, that before then it will be possible for the Government of Burma to restore the electoral machinery to working order and that internal conditions will permit fair elections to be held as the first essential step in restoring the full operation of the other provisions of the Act of 1935. This period of three years is, in fact, a precautionary period within which it is hoped it will be possible to hold elections and so establish a normal régime.
The factor which must govern the length of this period is the time which it will take to produce conditions in which elections can be held and there are some practical difficulties which are bound to take some little time to overcome. For instance, the main voting qualification has disappeared as the taxes, the payment of which forms the main qualification under the Act of 1935, were repealed by the Legislature and no substitute qualification had been provided before the invasion. No doubt that is a matter which can soon be remedied. But new electoral rolls will, in any case, have to be made. At the best of times this is a more pro-

453
longed business in Burma than we are accustomed to in this country, but with the destruction of records, the dislocation of communications, the movement of population during the fighting and the depletions of the Government services which have taken place, there can be little doubt it will take a considerable time. Those are examples of the practical difficulties which have made it appear prudent to allow for as long as three years for the preparations which will be necessary before the normal Constitution can be restored.
The first purpose of the Bill, then, is to provide for the extension of he emergency form of Government. The second purpose of the Bill is to take power to liberalize this emergency form of Government. Subsection (2) provides that this may be done by Orders in Council which will be subject to the approval of Parliament. The object of this provision is to enable the Governor to obtain the greatest possible measure of Burmese co-operation during this period by, for example, forming an Executive Council in which not only officials but also non-official Burmese can be included, and by setting up an interim Legislative Council enjoying a wider measure of popular support. The Governor is most anxious to make the fullest possible use of these powers and to do so at the earliest possible moment, as he wisely desires to secure the co-operation of Burmese of all Parties for the tasks of reconstruction from the outset. Those are the two purposes of this Bill and T hope your Lordships will agree that they will help to provide a practical basis on which the Government of Burma can begin the great tasks of reorganization which await them when they return to Burma after an absence of more than three years.
During that time the Government of Burma have remained in being and have been hard at work planning both for immediate rehabilitation and for longterm reconstruction. Your Lordships will wish to hear something of these plans for restoring the economic life of Burma. I will not go into great detail but will endeavour to give an indication of their main features. The restoration of rice and of timber production on which the economy of Burma so largely depends are clearly of special urgency. Plans for these are complete in all their main details and the procurement of the necessary
454
equipment is being rapidly proceeded with. Plans for the restoration of transport and communications both by land and waterways have been worked out and capital equipment for them and for public utilities is being obtained. Consumer goods also are being acquired to meet the essential needs of the population. The first steps in the restoration of normal life are of course being taken by the Civil Affairs officers of the military administration and, since many of these are members of the Burma Civil Services, close co-ordination between their initial steps and the plans of the Government of Burma can be expected.
All these projects involve expenditure by the Government of Burma and, as that Government have at present no resources of their own, His Majesty's Government have agreed to make available the money required. Long-term plans deal with such matters as the supply of credit to the cultivator, the restoration of land to the cultivator, the development of medical and public health services, the extension of education, and the improvement of local administration. On all these matters it will be essential that reconstruction should proceed in accordance with Burmese ideas and it is here that it will be so necessary to associate Burmese of all shades of opinion with these plans before they are finalized and therefore at the earliest possible moment. Side by side therefore with the plan of the White Paper for the political advance of Burma must be placed these plans which the Government of Burma, with the assistance of His Majesty's Government, have prepared for the restoration of the economic life of the country and which they hope to implement with the co-operation of the Burmese people. I feel sure your Lordships will look upon both these projects with the greatest sympathy.
Burma has suffered in this war, not through any action of her own, but at the hands of the aggressor of the East. She has given no assistance to the enemy except for a mere handful of her large population and most of these later turned against Japan. Many more have fought for long on our side and have rendered most valuable service to our troops, particularly the tribesmen of the hills. The welcome which our troops have received as they liberate Burma has been genuine and most friendly. Burma has indeed a

455
very strong claim on our sympathy and on our assistance. We are trying to meet that claim, so far as our resources enable us to do so, by the help which we are giving her for her economic restoration and by assisting her to attain the position of a Dominion as quickly as possible. The policy for her constitutional advance was drawn up by the late Government. All Parties in that Government contributed to it. It will retain, we hope, their full support. It is a flexible policy. It does not depend on a rigid adherence to dates. It depends more than anything else on the co-operation which will be given to it by the Burmese people. We hope that it will be accepted by them as the best method of attaining their desires quickly and in an orderly way.
I feel sure, too, that your Lordships will wish that good luck will go with the Governor of Burma when he returns to Burma and with those, both British and Burmese, who have stood by him during these difficult years. Few Governors of His Majesty's territories have had to meet such catastrophic events as Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. It would be fitting and just if his service to Burma during her tribulation were followed by the satisfaction of setting her successfully on the road to recovery. I ask your Lordships to give assent to the Second Reading of this Bill and, if your Lordships will agree, perhaps we could secure the remaining stages of the Bill to-day also. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —( The Earl of Scarbrough.)
2.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am glad to be the first speaker this afternoon to be in a position to congratulate the noble Earl opposite on a double event—a rather rare occurrence in our debates here—his maiden speech as a member of your Lordships' House and his maiden speech as a representative of the India and Burma Office in the new Government. After the really admirable speech to which we have just listened I am sure I can say that the House hopes to hear the noble Earl speaking again on many future occasions, and that he will receive an equally attentive hearing whether he speaks in an official or a private capacity. That does not imply any forecast about the future. The
456
people of Burma are fortunate in securing as Under-Secretary one who has already served an apprenticeship in India, and particularly at a time when we are expecting new developments in policy to be laid before Parliament. My noble friend's quick grasp of a new and complex subject is shown by the exposition to which we have listened of Burma policy, and I would like, if I may, to congratulate him both on the policy of the White Paper and the Bill which he has submitted and also on the manner in which he has presented them to your Lordships' House.
These plans for the future of Burma are, as I know from the months I had the honour of spending at the India and Burma Office, the outcome of a long period of incubation. During this period an immense amount of detailed preparatory work has been done by the officials serving at the Burma Office and on the Governor's staff. I feel that a word of praise and thanks is due to those conscientious and industrious civil servants to whom the people of Burma will owe much for the good start they are likely to make as soon as the Civil Government is able to go back. The approval given to this policy by the Cabinet and its generous acceptance last week in another place are due primarily to the really inexhaustible patience and pertinacity of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe there is no member of the present Cabinet more sadly misjudged by the general public than the Secretary of State for India and Burma. This really extraordinary misconception is partly due to his own old-fashioned indifference to Press publicity and partly to the Indian habit of personifying in the Secretary of State everything they resent in British rule. But I am certain that when, in days to come, history will be written, it will be found that among the illustrious incumbents of the India and Burma Office none had a keener intelligence or a more genuinely progressive mind than the present Secretary of State. This Bill and the policy that lies behind it will rightly be credited among his solid achievements.
Few of us had dared to hope that the liberation of Burma from north to south, by the fall of Rangoon, would happen before the monsoon season, and I should like to associate my noble friends on these Benches with the tribute paid by the

457
noble Earl opposite, in his opening remarks, to the gallantry and endurance of the ordinary soldiers, British Indian, Ghurka, or African, fighting in difficult country under terrible tropical conditions, and to the skill and daring of the Generals and officers who led them. A short while ago we had a first-hand account of the exploits of the African troops from my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, and all the reports indicate that the campaign in Burma has been one of the most arduous and brilliantly executed campaigns of the whole war. Its early and successful conclusion has made it possible for your Lordships to discuss the future of Burma this afternoon.
Everyone recognizes, I think, that no scheme for the attainment of self-government and Dominion status in any part of the Empire can hope to succeed without the close and continuous cooperation of the local inhabitants. I was very glad that the noble Lord opposite emphasized that point. I think he said —it my memory is accurate—that the effectiveness of this policy would depend upon the co-operation of the Burmese people. This whole programme for the rapid advance of Burma to independence within the Commonwealth does rest upon the basic assumption that this co-operation will be forthcoming. The Government's proposals have not had an entirely favourable reception, either at home or overseas and the scheme could be wrecked if irresponsible criticism were to persuade the Burmese population to be either actively obstructive or to indulge in passive non-co-operation with the British authorities. But I believe that many of the misgivings which have been expressed have been due either to a genuine misunderstanding of the Government proposals or to hopes that have been raised beyond what is immediately practicable by the re-establishment of national government in liberated countries more politically mature than Burma.
We must do our utmost to convince the Burmans that we are utterly sincere when we talk about early self-government. We all want them to Le as free from outside interference as Canada or Australia or any other Dominion just as soon as this can be done without causing anarchy or economic chaos. We are willing for the Burmans to start discussing their final Constitution end, presumably, the terms of the treaty they
458
would conclude with His Majesty's Government before the pre-war Parliamentary regime has been restored, and directly a National Legislative Council has been selected to assist the Governor with his plans for reconstruction. Sir Stafford Cripps, in the course of his speech in another place last week, said that these discussions and negotiations might eventuate within three or four years in full self-government, and this forecast was not contradicted by the Secretary of State when he wound up the debate. We are surely justified in asking the Burmans to exercise patience and self-restraint during the short time we believe to be necessary for orderly progress to unfettered home rule.
I hope that one of the problems that the body that drafts the new long-term Constitution will consider will be how to secure an Executive responsible to the Legislature but nevertheless sufficiently stable to be efficient in the discharge of its administrative duties. No one who has followed the working of Parliamentary institutions in Burma between 1937 and 1942 can be satisfied by the then relationship between Ministers and their colleagues in the Legislature. But the Westminster model is by no means the only example of successful democratic institutions, and I believe that the American and Swiss systems might be studied with advantage in adapting the machinery of democracy to conditions prevailing in oriental countries.
There is one other point I should like to emphasize in this scheme for rapid advance to self-government in Burma. The autocratic rule of the Governor will lapse immediately a General Election has been held, and he is under a statutory obligation to arrange a General Election as soon as conditions in Burma make it possible. My noble friend opposite explained with great lucidity, I thought, the precise obstacles that lie in the way of a General Election at the moment and that will have to be removed before a General Election can be held. I should like to emphasize that this is a statutory obligation and that the Governor will not be in a position to exercise his free choice. According to Section 139 of the Burma Act, he can only govern by Proclamation so long as he is convinced that the Government of Burma cannot be carried on according to the provisions of the Act, which, of course, prescribes among the

459
essentials of the Constitution a Burmese Legislature and a responsible Ministry.
But I can see nothing high-handed or derogatory to Burma about a short period of direct rule, during which the Burmese leaders will be brought into partnership with the Governor, to tide over the interval that must elapse before a General Election can be held. After all, this is exactly what has happened in France. Until the autumn elections General de Gaulle will continue to govern France through a Ministry appointed by and responsible to himself, and with the assistance of a Consultative Assembly which acts in a purely advisory capacity. But Burma has no national leader like General de Gaulle who can command the support of the people as a whole, and we cannot allow any political faction to seize power before all the inhabitants of the country have had a fair chance of choosing their own Government. I cannot, for my part, see anything unreasonable in asking Burma to accept a transitional period of direct rule which will safeguard the future of the Burmese people from aspirants to political power—just such a period as the liberty-loving French have found indispensable in their own well-established democracy.
I do not think it can be repeated too often that the success of this scheme ultimately must depend on our capacity for winning the good will of Burma from the outset. It will, in this connexion, be highly desirable for us to obtain the support, not only of the old-timers who helped us before and during the war, and to whom we owe more than we can ever acknowledge, but of many of the young men who have risen to positions of political or military leadership in the Anti-Fascist Organization or the Burmese national Army. They represent new and important elements in the national life of Burma. I therefore hope that there will be as wide an amnesty as possible for those who helped the Japanese in any way during their occupation of the country. Let us not forget that the responsible Burmans who helped the Japanese did so because they thought that it was the best way of serving their own people, and not because they were in the least well-disposed towards Japan.
I should only like to say this in conclusion. This Bill, and the White Paper policy for economic reconstruction and
460
political advance in Burma, mark a turning point in the history of a British Dependency with a much larger population than any of the Dominions. They promise the biggest step forward since the 1935 Act. The speed with which this policy can be carried through will depend on whether we can secure the confidence and co-operation of the Burmese people. We have one great asset in the personality of the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. He comes from County Cavan, and this is, perhaps, why he has more understanding of national feeling than the ordinary phlegmatic Englishman. He is devoted to the Burmans as well as entirely sympathetic to their political aspirations, and I greatly hope that whatever Government may be in power after the General Election they will appoint Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith to preserve the continuity of his fine work for Burma. I am sure that our more responsible critics will realize that there is no practical alternative to a policy which has the support of the House of Commons and of all three Parties in the State. If they really have the welfare of the population of Burma at heart, they will surely encourage the Burmans to give their whole-hearted cooperation to this scheme for the economic reconstruction of their devastated country and for the swiftest possible advance to full nationhood. I hope your Lordships will give your support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
2.43 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, may I add to the words of the noble Lord who has spoken, my very sincere congratulations and appreciation of the speech which the noble Earl opposite made? It is no doubt the very able and sincere tone of that speech which prompted the noble Earl who has just spoken, also to speak in such generous terms of the colleagues with whom he has been recently associated. The approval which the policy of His Majesty's Government, outlined in the White Paper, has had in another place and in the country generally, is, I suppose, universal. If, therefore, I have to make certain comments I should like the noble Earl to believe that they are not made in any way as criticisms of the policy but rather to point to one or two dangers which may arise in its application.
With the policy I think we must all be in agreement. The difficulty is that

461
what we believe to be the right and probably the only course will not necessarily be believed elsewhere to be as sincere as we know it to be in this country, if only for the reason that the pi ogress of the Burmese Constitution towards the goal of self-government for Burma as an independent Dominion in this Commonwealth is in the four stages to which the noble Earl referred. There must inevitably be a danger that when this progress is marked by no less than four stages, the delays at each stage in moving from one to another may seem intolerable and possibly deliberate. It is therefore my object to urge the Government—or whatever Government may be in power- -to be as speedy as possible in moving from stage to stage. That seems at least to be an elementary precaution. That has been emphasized in another place and referred to by the noble Earl in hip opening remarks, but it is a point which cannot be too often stressed.
The four stages concerned are the military administration now set up, the administration by Proclamation under Section 139 of the Burma Act, the restoration of the 1935 Constitution and, Emily, self-government and independence as a Dominion. The first two stages are entirely within our power to determine. They will depend obviously, to some extent, on the degree of co-operation between the Governor and the Government of Burma and the Burmese people, but the first of these two stages—namely, the military administration—lies even more in our power in determining whether or not the organization of the Burmese people has reached a sufficient point of development to enable us to get on to the discussion of a future Constitution. If I urge that the period of military administration should be brought to a standstill and should give place to the second stage as soon as possible, I do so because I wish to take an action which will convince the Burmese and others that we intend these four stages to follow one after the other as rapidly as possible.
I do not think anyone in your Lordships' House will wish to accuse me of any hostility to military administration and Military Government. I am aware of their necessity and of their competence to deal with a situation left behind after a conquering Army has entered a territory. Indeed, I can think of instances where a
462
Military Government could, with advantage to the people of the country, have been carried on rather than to give place to civil administration. The position in Burma is somewhat different in that we have in India—if it is not an impertinent way of referring to it as in partibus in fidelium—a Governor and a Government. The noble Earl has referred to the fact that the military administration contains a very large number of former Burmese civil servants, but is it not inevitable that the very existence in the military administration of these civil servants should have the effect of making them look over their shoulder to the Government of Burma in India, and is it not human for the Government of Burma in India to be somewhat irked by someone else conducting an administration which they must inevitably feel they could do better themselves?
Military administrations are transient things and ill-equipped to consider long-range constitutional developments and political opinions. There is, moreover, inevitably in any military administration a tendency on the part of those who conduct it, not always to put military considerations first and civil considerations afterwards, but sometimes to put military considerations first and the rest nowhere! I have some experience of that myself, and it is in the light of that experience, and in these circumstances, that I would urge that the military administration be terminated, if not forthwith at any rate within a term to be measured by weeks and not by months. If it cannot be terminated everywhere in the whole of the Burmese territory which has been reoccupied, it should at any rate be terminated in as much of that area as is possible, leaving certain areas where military operations are still in progress possibly under military administration, but with the closest contact with the Burmese Government in Rangoon.
In point of fact Burma has been liberated, either by the ejection of the Japanese or by their elimination; and, although ports and airfields must inevitably be used for the prosecution of the campaign, and certain Burmese resources in labour and natural resources will be required by the Commander-in-Chief, there is nothing in the way of sedition and unrest—or at least, so it would appear from the White Paper—which would justify the continuation of a military administration. Indeed, the White Paper and the noble

463
Earl's remarks suggest that so far from there being any widespread unrest, sedition or difficulty in the conduct of military operations from Burma as a base, the reverse is the case. If we have been disappointed—or rather, I should say if we had been disappointed —by the behaviour of certain elements in Burma in the early days, these disappointments have evidently to a large extent been not only mitigated but removed by the conduct of many of those Burmans themselves who, after closer contact with Axis doctrines and Japanese practices, have perhaps thought that association with ourselves was preferable in the interests of their people and their country.
I believe not only that this is the case but, judging from information from other sources, which is available no doubt also to your Lordships, that in point of fact there is a very considerable enthusiasm for nationalism in the very best sense abroad in Burma at the present time, a movement among people who hitherto have taken little part in their own affairs and shown little interest, but who have now devoted not only themselves but their lives to the liberation of their country within the measure of what they could do. It is to capture that spirit that I urge that the speediest possible action should be taken to go from the first stage to the second stage, and from the second stage to the third stage, and to remember that the third stage is not the final goal but merely a stage on the way to that goal—a goal which has been stated in the White Paper and reiterated by those who have spoken for His Majesty's Government.
I believe that the method which has been adopted to state the policy of His Majesty's Government, however much we may be in agreement with that policy, savours a little of what I and other noble Lords have had occasion to observe in statements of policy dealing with over-sea matters in the Empire—in other words, of doing good by stealth. Sir Stanley Reed in another place made a point to which I should like to refer, namely, that this outstanding event, the capture of Rangoon months before it was expected, in circumstances which do the utmost credit to the Fourteenth Army, and which liberated almost the whole of Burma and gave it back to the Commonwealth, was heralded not by any statement
464
by His Majesty's Government, not by any Minister, not by any event with any dramatic quality about it or by any publicity, but by the publication of a White Paper. If that is not doing good by stealth, I do not know what that expression means. It is the stealth by which this good is done which inevitably must lead to suspicion such as has already been engendered, and which must be encountered abroad So long as these ways are pursued. It is not too late to take some action and make some statement which will rectify the feeling, which many people must have, that if our policy is to be outlined in a White Paper and put forward in a somewhat hole-and-corner way, there must be something suspicious about what we say we are going to do.
I come back, therefore, to what I said before. The first and most important thing to be done is to produce by some action an event, even if it be only the termination of military administration, which will convince the Burmese and others that the policy which the noble Earl and others have outlined is in fact a real, sincere and vital policy on the part of all of us in this country. That is vital if we are to avoid the misunderstandings in Burma which have arisen in India, and if we are to avoid not only trouble but possibly active hostility on the part of those very people who helped to eject the Japanese from their country themselves.
There is one last point which I should like to make. The noble Earl has referred, perhaps inevitably, in somewhat general terms, to the financial assistance to be given to Burma. It is not quite clear to me from what he said whether the financial assistance which (to use his own words) is to be made available will be in the form of a gift or a loan, or upon what scale it is to be. No doubt that will appear in the Papers and Bills which will be laid hereafter. Whatever form that assistance may take, it must be adequate. We must do what we can. What we can do, however, must be limited. I hope that neither in this country nor elsewhere has the Treasury been held out to the Burmese as a kind of widow's cruse, upon which they can draw not only for the necessary rehabilitation of their country but for that development which must in fact come out of Burma's resources at long last, and be found by the Burmese, with the assistance

465
which men of other races can supply of things which the Burmese themselves lack. It is by that co-operation between the Burmese and others that development will take place, and that the resources necessary must for the most part be found.
Here it is very necessary to dispel from the minds of those who have it in Burma and elsewhere the idea that the Burmese, or indeed the people of any other country in that stage of development, are sufficient unto themselves, and do not require assistance from elsewhere. That me ins on the part of the Burmese and of all others equally the acceptance of the necessity of give and take in the right sense of that expression, and not in the sense so frequently given to it not only in Burma but elsewhere, that "give and take" means "you give and I take." I trust that this Bill and the policy of which it is the outcome will be accepted by your Lordships' House, and that whatever can be done to expedite development and lead to a happy ending of Burma's problem will be done.
2.59 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords: I hope I may be forgiven if I approach this subject not so much in the light of what has been said in this House as in the light of criticism of this measure which has been voiced in the outside world. I think that that is very important because, like the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I regard this as a very signal occasion. It is the first occasion on which we have had to deal with one of our possessions which has been liberated from the grip of Japan, and it will be taken in the outside world as an earnest of our own future policy in regard to our Dependencies. I should like to join with Lord Rennell in regretting that an occasion in our history as signal as this has not been given greater publicity or surrounded with all that manifestation of its importance that we should like to have seen. I venture to repeat here a remark that was once made in the American House of Representatives, that it is a pity to put your head in the sand, because by doing so you inevitably exhibit to the world what is after all the seat neither of your intelligence nor your conscience.
From that I pass to some of those outside criticisms, for I do not find, from what I have been able to read or to learn,
466
that the support given to this measure is quite so universal as has been assumed here. I see that in part of the outside world at all events the question is asked: Why, when you have liberated this country, do not you give full effect to what, after all, is the intention of the Atlantic Charter, that liberated areas should be at once free to choose their own form of government? I think that that criticism is due partly to an over-simplification of the facts, and partly to a real misunderstanding of the situation. I think it is not generally appreciated by those who voice that criticism that there must be some difference between the situation of liberated countries that were formerly independent of outside control, and of those countries which were subject to political control because in the latter case there is an intimate connexion between the Power which formerly controlled them and a responsibility on its part for seeing that the stages by which they can approach the full expression of self-determination are orderly and well arranged and follow a course that will give the most satisfactory results.
Further, I think that criticism is also due to one of these outstanding difficulties that we have in terminology. In American circles at all events there is only one word that is fully understood in this connexion, and that is "independence," whereas we speak of "self-government." It is a problem, I understand, that has caused a good deal of trouble lately at San Francisco. It is difficult perhaps for others to appreciate our own standing in this matter. Independence, after all, is a clear-cut constitutional term; self-government within the Commonwealth expresses relations that are not entirely constitutional, are certainly not well defined, and perhaps are rather psychological than formal or technical; and it is always difficult for us to convey to others any conviction of our determination to give to our former Dependencies the substance of self-government, unless we use the word "independence."
That is the kind of criticism that has been levelled against this measure in part of the outside world. But may I take also what evidence we have of local reactions to this measure? It is difficult to speak of them with any certainty, for I understand that the full terms of the White Paper have hardily yet been published in Burma itself, but I am referring

467
in particular to what was said on the subject in two articles recently published in The Times. I have no doubt that your Lordships will have read them; they were interesting and full of information. The general tenor of them is that on all sides in Burma there is a demand for immediate independence, and that is particularly strongly felt by the organization of which we hear so much, the Anti-Fascist Organization. But I felt myself when I read those articles, and I think some of your Lordships must also have felt, that they were not perhaps quite realistic. It must be very difficult indeed in the circumstances of Burma to form any opinion of what is the mass feeling on a subject like this. There must be a tendency to attach importance to certain sections of opinion with which you come more closely in contact, and I feel myself that undue importance has been attached to the feelings of the Anti-Fascist Organization and the various bodies for which it is said to stand. After all, when we are told that the Anti-Fascist Organization was fighting for the Japanese, not from any dislike of us, but because of its desire for immediate independence, it appears to me that it has been guilty of some confusion of thought at the least. To believe that fighting for the Japanese is a way of securing independence sounds to me somewhat paradoxical, and one might be justified in the feeling that it might be difficult to acquit this section either of mental or of moral obliquity in this matter.
I feel therefore that we must not attach too much importance to the expression of that particular section in favour of immediate independence. I particularly noticed that in their programme they have two somewhat outstanding items, which again leads me to have some hesitation in accepting them as good guides to general opinion. One of them is the confiscation of landlords' estates, and the other is the abolition of indebtedness; both of which measures of course are, to those who understand the circumstances of Burma, directed almost entirely against Indian investors and Indian landlords. But though one may have some hesitation in believing that in Burma itself, generally speaking and throughout the mass of the population, there is this strong determination to secure immediate
468
independence in its fullest sense, yet I fully realize, with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that there is a very strong feeling of nationalism in Burma. It has probably gained strength during the war, as feelings of this kind gain force in war. I think we can have only one answer to this feeling, and that is a steady determination not only to pursue our own programme of granting Dominion status but —even more important—to lay the firm foundations for that status in social and economic progress.
I think that the fact that this is so essential adds force to the arguments for a transitional form of Government. Quite apart from the very lucid argument that the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, used in introducing this Bill, I feel myself that some interim form of Government is necessary for two further reasons I think it is necessary because it is clear that there must be a very considerable amount of expenditure from the British Exchequer on rehabilitation and the like, and also a considerable amount of expenditure in compensation for what are known as "denial orders." But also it will be necessary for the Burma Government to utilize its own credit for raising loans. A great deal will depend, therefore, on the immediate stability of the Government and the promise it gives of a firm and effective form of administration.
Let me remind your Lordships that Burma starts with a debt of something like £ 40,000,000 to India, and, speaking on behalf of India, one would be very unwilling indeed to see any steps taken that might imperil that investment. It represents the cost of the railways, irrigation schemes and the like, which were formerly undertaken when Burma was under the management of India and which have now passed into the hands of the Burmese Government. But the post-war reconstruction will also require a very considerable expenditure of private capital from external sources, and there again a great deal will depend on the form of administration and its efficiency during a period of interim Government.
I join with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in saying that whatever doubts we may have had about the attitude of some of the sections in Burma, there certainly ought to be no weakening on our part of our determination to introduce, as

469
soon as possible, a status equivalent to that of the Dominions, not only in pursuance of our own promises, not only on the merits of the case itself, but also in the interests of our reputation in the outside world. I should be glad, with Lord Rennell, to see as early a determination as possible of the period of Military Government, though I realize that that may not be so easy as at first sight seems. For two reasons: there are still in Burma, I understand, strong pockets of Japanese, and further, those who can recall the history of the original settlement of Burma after the Burmese wars, will realize how many lawless elements, large elements of what we call dacoits, there exist in Burma itself.
I hope also that during that period of interim Government some serious steps may be taken to try out or prepare Burma for those alternative forms of Government of which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke. It may very well be that ultimately our Parliamentary form of Government, or something on the same model, is the only form of Government which will give satisfaction to the people with whom we are dealing. That may very well be so in the future, but no one, I think, could deny that the experience of Burma, in particular, under a form of Government which followed our Parliamentary model was not a very fortunate one. I have no wish to rake up old and somewhat unpleasant history, but it certainly has been a picture not only of great political instability but, I regret to say, also of much moral irresponsibility. If, therefore we can find an alternative or induce the Burmans to devise themselves any alternative which will give them a more stable executive, less liable to the kaledioscopic changes that have overtaken previous Ministries, a form of Government which may provide a more effective and responsible form of administration, that would be all to the good.
Then, again, I hope that when it comes to the final stages it may be possible to arrange some form of treaty or understanding that will preserve Indian interests in Burma. The history of Burma has always been linked up with that of India. There is, as I think I have pointed out, a very large Indian investment in Burma. Indeed, from such calculations as one is able to make in a subject that is always somewhat obscure and in which it is difficult
470
to obtain precision, it is possible that Indians have invested something like £ 55,000,000 in Burma against a little over £ 40,000,000 invested from British and other foreign sources. Not only are trade relations between Burma and India of importance to both, but Indians may, I think, be very well justified in feeling some apprehension about the course which relations between political Burma and India have taken of recent years. Remember the movement against Indian immigration; remember the rioting that took place directed against Indian labour; nor can one fail to be aware, from such contacts as one has had with Burmese politicians, that there has been a very strong movement for the confiscation of the large holding which Indians have acquired in the lands in lower Burma. I think that the figures show that in lower Burma in particular something like two-thirds of the land was brought under cultivation by Indian capital, and a considerable part of the land, perhaps one-third, is still in Indian hands. Therefore it is a matter of the very greatest importance that some arrangement should be made, whether by treaty or otherwise, that will secure Indian rights in Burma.
There is just one more point. We may all hope that very particular care will be taken over the arrangements forecast by the noble Lord regarding the fate of the Shan States and the Karims. They are people who have never been ready to accept any form of political subjection to the Burmese, and they are some of the people who, from the first, have supplied the backbone of the Burmese Forces. Their ways of life are entirely different from those of most Burmans. It will be necessary to make some kind of arrangement under which they can retain their independence. That will not very willingly be accepted by the Burmese. Nevertheless, it is the point on which I think we ourselves must lay the greatest importance. I would only add this: that I think we shall all watch with the very greatest attention and with, indeed, some anxiety, the course taken by the interim or transitional Government in Burma. It will express itself in Orders in Council. Orders in Council in that particular form must be seen by Parliament, and I hope Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that the objectives to which I have alluded are actually being attained.
3.19 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I would like to add my word of respectful congratulation to the noble Earl who introduced this Bill this afternoon. At the same time, the fact that he has introduced this Bill does call attention to the curious situation which sometimes arises by the movement of the political machine, for only a matter of a few days ago my noble friend who sits just below me (the Earl of Listowel) might have introduced this Bill. Therefore we have had the curious position this afternoon of hearing two speeches, both intended to introduce the Bill to the House. In that matter I want to offer an expression of sympathy to my noble friend the Earl of Listowel. He slipped into saying one or two things which I do not think he would have said had he spoken before the hurried political transition caused him to be in the place where he sits on this particular occasion. I imagine, for instance, that his former chief will have heard with great gratitude the tribute he paid to him, but he forgot that others might hold a different opinion. I also think there must have been a slip when it was suggested that the Burmese who assisted the Japanese were actuated by motives of assisting their own country.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hate to interrupt my noble friend. I only want to say that I did qualify my remark by saying that some—I was not speaking in general terms—of the Burmese were actuated by patriotism.
LORD AMMON: I certainly accept at once my noble friend's correction and go on to remark that I imagine that Quisling and other people who will be on trial shortly will seize on this remark as a means of defence when they have to appear before their judges. I find myself almost wholly in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his criticism of this Bill. I imagine that if it had been brought forward in any other period in Parliament, it would have met with a good deal more opposition than it is likely to meet with at the present time. I very much regret that we have not had the courage, when restoring Section 139, to restore also the grant of full independence and so allow the Burmese to realize their ambitions. After all, as some of us are aware, long before the war broke out there was a strong agitation for independence on the part of the Burmese.
472
Some of us were then sitting in another place and experienced a good deal of that agitation. The Burmese have fought for their freedom and I think we might have shown a greater measure of confidence than we have done in them. This Bill seems to be framed as an invitation to delay, because the prospect of real freedom seems to be put off to the Greek Kalends.
Whatever measure of good there may be in it has been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell On other occasions I have supported him in pointing out how often the Government fail to give proper publicity to their intentions and how very often they do the right thing in the wrong way. The result has been that there has been criticism from other nations and a good deal of dissatisfaction among the peoples who were themselves particularly concerned. This doing good by stealth may be all right as a copybook maxim, but it does not help very much in the promotion of good understanding, or in the rightful appreciation of the efforts of this nation. I hope that some attempt will be made to hasten as much as possible the status preceding full independent government. I am concerned about this because it is in line with a matter that I ventured to raise in your Lordships' House some time ago in regard to a totally different part of the world—namely, Newfoundland. That country had asked for independence and a series of excuses was put forward to delay that independence and the return of the country to full self-government. If that sort of thing can be done with a wholly white population, how much more difficult is it going to be to give full freedom to a native population such as the one we are now discussing.
There is one point that I do not quite understand. It seemed to me that the noble Earl was suggesting when he introduced the Bill that at a certain stage there was to be another Government within the Government. As I understood him there is going to be a sort of interim Council at the same time as the military ate in control. My conviction is that that sort of thing is not going to lead to harmony or good government because it will tend considerably to delay the granting of full independence. There is only one other point I wish to raise. I want to ask the noble Earl what is meant by the reconstruction of Burma's ideals and the granting of financial help from this country.

473
Does that mean we are going to add to the burden of their indebtedness, or does it mean that they are going to look upon the British Government as a milch cow to which they can always come to get relief from their financial difficulties? If so that will constitute a further and even more dangerous obstruction to full independence for them. For what measure of good there is in the Bill we shall agree to its passing this afternoon. At the same time, I mist enter a caveat and say that I should not have taken that view a short time ago. But now that this Parliament is on it; death-bed it may be essential to get some of these Bills passed into law at a pace much faster than that to which otherwise we should be inclined to agree.
3.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to this most interesting debate, which we nearly missed owing to the unfortunate mistake of the Lord Chancellor, may I make an observation on a matter which has not been touched upon but which I believe is very important. Before doing that, may I also, if lie will allow me, give my personal congratulations to the noble Earl on attaining that position on the Government Front Bench and on his speech this afternoon. I have a special reason for doing that. For some years he and I were colleagues in the House of Commons representing adjoining divisions in the City of Hull. We both have had our ups and downs politically and we are now facing each other across the table and I desire to wish him well in his future political career.
I speak with great diffidence on the subject we are discussing this afternoon because this House is plentifully decorated with ex-Secretaries of State, ex-Viceroys and ex-Indian Governors, and I would not venture to speak on this Bill about any of the details of administration in any of our Eastern Dependencies. I think, however, there is something that requires to be said on this most important occasion when we are marking a tremendous milestone in the constitutional development of His Majesty's Commonwealth. Let me first of all put the peg so to speak into the wall on which I wish to base these brief observation I wish to speak upon the political effect of the White Paper on the Bill and also the noble Earl's speech and the speeches of
474
other noble Lords to-day on the other areas of combat in the Pacific. This is the point to which I wish briefly to refer.
Your Lordships are aware that the Japanese as a parallel to their military campaign have waged an intensive campaign of political warfare along lines which they considered would be effective in Eastern Asia and Asia generally. They have, fortunately for us, accompanied it by a very tactless, brutal and corrupt rule wherever their soldiery has obtained a foothold. As was pointed out by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel and by the noble Earl opposite those Burmese who were inclined to welcome Japanese conquest as a path to liberation were very soon disillusioned; but the political warfare has had certain results in certain parts of the East and the campaign is by no means over. We have just won in Burma a truly remarkable victory. It must not be forgotten that we have defeated the largest field force the Japanese had in the whole theatre of war. The two Japanese Armies in Burma were the most numerous, and I believe the most heavily equipped and the most highly trained of all their field forces. The exploit of defeating them and of winning the race to Rangoon against the monsoon will always live in the annals of our military history as a tremendous exploit. But we still have a long way to go in Malaya; and in Borneo where we are fighting with the aid of the Australian Armies, and also in the territories of our Dutch Allies.
A great deal must depend on the future action of the local population. The Japanese line, as your Lordships know, has been first of all to try to humiliate in every way and to hold up to derision and contempt all Europeans in order to destroy the prestige which European races, and ourselves in particular, have enjoyed in the East; and, secondly, to make all kinds of promises of complete independence and of full co-partnership in their precious East Asia co-prosperity area. As the noble Earl reminded your Lordships, this had a little success in Burma. How is it to be counteracted? It has partly been counteracted already by military defeat for the Japanese. Military defeat loses more "face" for the Japanese than the beastly humiliation of white men and women before the native population, which has been one of

475
their methods of destroying our prestige, has cost us in "face." Another answer has been the splendid bearing and fortitude of the unfortunate Europeans who have been exposed to this horrible treatment.
Then there has still to be counteracted the spurious offers of complete independence to all the peoples of Asia, including those in the British Crown Colonies. It is in that light that I ask your Lordships to consider the White Paper, the Bill itself and the very eloquent speeches of the noble Earl opposite and my noble friend the Earl of Listowel. As to the White Paper and the Bill itself, I would like to support the plea already made by my noble friend Lord Ammon and other noble Lords for some occasion being found to put a little more warmth into our attitude, something that will be understood by the millions of our fellow citizens in Burma who will not read the White Paper even if it is translated into the vernacular languages but will be told by their own leaders what are its contents.
This is the sort of thing I complain about. If your Lordships will look at paragraph 23 in Part I of the White Paper you will see that on April 18, 1943, the Secretary of State stated that it was the aim of His Majesty's Government to assist Burma to attain complete self-government within the British Commonwealth as soon as circumstances permit. If you turn to paragraph 6 of Part II you will find this sort of thing:
"The ultimate objective of His Majesty's Government will be that representatives of the Burmese people, after reaching a sufficient measure of agreement between the various parties and sections, should draw up a Constitution of a type which they themselves consider most suitable for Burma, taking into account not only the British but the other various types of Constitution in democratically governed countries. What the machinery for this should be will be a matter for discussion and agreement with representative Burmans."
That sort of note has been written in India for the last twenty years and more. Its language is perfectly correct and orthodox, but it does not convey the same sort of meaning as, for example, the fine statement of the American President when the American troops landed in the Philippines that the people of the Philippines would be granted their immediate independence. There is a tremendous difference here
476
between our own and the American approach to similar subjects. The aim may be sound and, as I say, the language of the White Paper is perfectly correct, but why could not the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State have made a great proclamation by radio in eloquent language, which both of them are capable of using, explaining what we are going to do for Burma?
In the White Paper we have left many apparently inevitable safeguards and checks and delays which only arouse suspicion about our good faith and give an opportunity to agitators who want to discredit our policy. I agree with my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, that it is most important that the Burmese people should do their best to collaborate and to use the time to the best advantage between the various stages of putting this policy into operation; but cannot we give a little more encouragement, show a little more warmth and give a little wider welcome to a future Dominion? This is the sort of thing we could have done: we could have stated that we would transfer the administration of Burma at once to the Dominions Office. That would show at any rate that we mean business. We could at once have given them the titular position of a Dominion, the ceremonial position of a Dominion to Burma. In the East tremendous store is set on what we call symbols of sovereignty and self-government and on words and titles. Then we could go on to deal with the safeguards to which I dare say all reasonable Burmese would agree. From the point of view of propaganda I hope the language of the Burma Office will be different in future. We have to counteract Japanese reflections on our good faith in all Asiatic countries for the sake of the men who still have military tasks ahead of them in Malaya and South China and the other parts of this vast area yet to be liberated from the horrible tyranny of Japanese militarism.
3.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, before making a brief reply to some of the points raised in this debate I should like to thank your Lordships for the consideration shown to me and the reception given to this Bill. I would particularly like to thank the noble Earl opposite, Lord Listowel, for his

477
very kind remarks and the strong support he has given to the Bill. The fact that he assisted in the preparation of policy lent weight to his words. The noble Earl made a suggestion that consideration of the future Constitution of Burma should begin before the normal Legislature is brought into being. As was pointed out, I think in another place, there is no reason whatever why discussion should not begin during the period of the emergency form of Government. He also suggested that not only should those elder Burmese who have stool by us so nobly during past years be taken into consultation but also the younger element which is now coming to the front. I think I can assure him that it is the desire of the Governor of Burma to bring in all shades of opinion including that of the newer element.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, pressed us to push on as quickly as possible from stage to stage, and he asked in particular that the period of military administration should be brought to an end as soon as possible. I think I can assure him that both the military authorities and the civil authorities wish the military period to come to an end as quickly as possible, and also that it is not necessary that the whole of the territory of Burma should be liberated before that can be clone. He also asked for further information about the nature of the financial assistance to be given to Burma by His Majesty's Government. A good deal of money made available will, no doubt, be self-liquidating. Consumer goods, for instance, will be sold to the public and the cost recouped. No doubt, also, some of the equipment will be sold to firms and the cost, at a later stage, recovered. Otherwise the advances made to the Government of Burma, as the Secretary of State pointed out in another place, are loans without interest and with no fixed date or term of repayment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, I was sorry to note, thought that this Bill invited delay. I would respectfully point out to him that there is, in any case, bound to be legislation to prolong the emergency form of Government, and we are in fact qualifying it by providing, even during the emergency stage, for some advance, and the association of the Burmese with the Government. I can assure him and other noble Lords who pressed that this
478
stage should be brought to an end at the earliest possible time, that there is no desire in any quarter that it should be prolonged any longer than is necessary for preparing to hold elections. I feel that I must repeat—lest the Government's policy may be misunderstood—that there are, in fact, very real practical difficulties in the way of hurrying up the preparations for elections. We can be confident that the Government of Burma, when they return, will do their best, though with rather small Government services, to push on with those preparations. Again I thank your Lordships for the reception given to this Bill.
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.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Lord STANMORE in the Chair]
Clauses I to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Works.
5.—(i) Where there are Government war works on the land, the power of acquisition shall be exercisable if those works were constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the Crown or some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land and, in the opinion of the Minister, either—

(a) the value of the works ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be preserved either for the Crown or the said other person, his legal personal representatives or his successor in the carrying on of a trade or business in connexion with the carrying on of which he incurred the expense in question; or

(b) the right to use the works (whether then or thereafter) ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be preserved or secured either for the Crown or for some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land, and the case is not one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts apart from this Part of this Act; or

(c) the right to determine the use to which the works are put (whether then or

479
thereafter) ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be secured for the Crown, and the case is not one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts apart from this Part of this Act.

(2) In any such case as aforesaid the power of acquisition shall extend not merely to the site of the works but also to any contiguous or adjacent land which, in the opinion of the Minister, must be held with the site of the works if the works are to be properly utilized and maintained.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved to insert at the end of subsection 1:
"Provided that any use to be determined in pursuance of the right thus secured is a use designed to keep the works available or adaptable for war purposes or for the purpose of preparation for war."
The noble Earl said: I think that perhaps I owe His Majesty's Government an apology because, on the Second Reading of this Bill, I did not have the opportunity of indicating the lines upon which my noble friend Lord O'Hagan and I proposed to move certain Amendments. But, if the Government's legislative time is short, the pressure is equally ha rd on the private individual. I should like to say that this Bill, which is the child of the Caretaker Government, has suffered some most excellent surgery—plastic and otherwise—in another place, which has greatly improved it. But it is still, I think, capable of improvement. It brings to one's mind the old catch:
"If the caretaker is busy taking care, who is taking care of the caretaker's daughter?"
With regard to this particular Amendment, I do not think that any words are necessary to commend it to your Lordships. In general it is designed to clarify what is obviously the intention of the Government so that there will be much less chance of mistakes in litigation being made.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I do not think that any apology is needed from the noble Earl for not having told us in the debate on the Second Reading that he was going to move these Amendments. There has been plenty of time to consider them, and there is one of them which has favourably affected the Government, as I will say in due course. But it is not this
480
Amendment, and the reason is this. The Amendment seeks to limit the words contained in paragraph(c) of subsection(I) to cases in which the "use" is "a use designed to keep the works available or adaptable for war purposes" and the like. No doubt in many cases that will be so—in the case of aerodromes and so on. But it is not the only case which has to be covered. As I explained on the Second Reading, and as I think your Lordships then generally agreed—at least I heard no dissent of any kind—there will be instances where we would wish, or might want, to use their powers of purchase for a different purpose. It is not only a matter of the war potential. For example, when you are considering what is the appropriate disposal of war factories—and this is a very important part of the Bill—war factories built up by public money, and it may be erected on an area which is not actually owned by the State, you will have to think not only of possible war potential but also of the needs of the export trade. It may be made to ensure that a factory shall really be devoted to this purpose and therefore it is quite deliberate that this provision takes the wider form. I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, but I am rather deeply disturbed that a wider interpretation was intended. I had not, from my previous conversation with those who were present in another place, understood that at all, but if that is the case I am personally rather deeply disturbed. Owing to the congestion of business, however, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Reference to Commission of proposals to acquire land or rights
8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, before proceeding to acquire compulsorily by virtue of this Part of this Act any land or any easement over or right restrictive of the user of any land or to discharge or modify under this Part of this Act any restriction as to the user of any land or as to building thereon, the Minister shall publish, in the manner hereinafter specified, a notice of his proposals, specifying the grounds

481
thereof and a time, not being less than three months from the date of the publication, within which written notice of objection to the carrying out of the proposals may be sent to the Minister.
The said notice shall be published as follows, that is to say, the Minister shall—
(c) cause to be published a copy thereof in such newspapers, if any, and in such other manner, if any, as appear to him to be appropriate,
and the Minister shall also cause to be deposited with the said local planning authority a map identifying the land, and the authority shall permit that map to be inspected at all reasonable hours without payment.
3.52 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "if any" in both places where those words occur. The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment. It is not merely a question of drafting; some of us feel that it is important that there should be no question of the Minister being able to get out of the necessity for putting the advertisement in the papers and so on, as is indicated in paragraph (c). It is with that object that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("if any") in both places where those words occur.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, if I follow it correctly, that the Amendment of my noble friend would really make it mandatory to have a newspaper insertion and to provide no qualification to that general practice, but if he will consider it he will see that in regard to the subject matter that is not quite appropriate. There are many cases, of course, in which Parliament requires information to be published in newspapers as a condition of something going on, but while publication in newspapers may in many cases be appropriate, let us imagine the case where the Government are buying from a single owner, where no other interests are involved at all, and where no question of amenity arises. What would be the object of making an announcement in the newspaper even supposing that the newspaper would provide the space to print it? It would have no object at all. The only reason for giving an announcement in the paper is that third parties are affected.
482
As for the second part of the Amendment, which I think we might, with your permission, take at the same time because it is a very similar point, if it is examined closely it will be seen that it does not mean quite what it says. The second Amendment would seem to produce the result that even if publication in a newspaper had taken place the Minister would unfortunately be compelled to think out some other method of publication as well. I do not think that that can be intended. The broad consideration is really that in this question of legislation there are instances where it would be quite unreasonable to put upon the Minister concerned the obligation of making a published advertisement. Very many cases, of course, would arise in which it was absolutely essential to do it. I think the Minister might well be trusted to make a proper use of these powers, and if he does not he would soon hear about it either in this House or in another place.
LORD O'HAGAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Powers of Minister on receipt of report of Commission.
(5) Where the Commission report either—

(a) that land consists of a dwelling-house; or

(b) that land consists of the whole or part of a building occupied with or a garden or park of a dwelling-house and that it could not be severed from the dwelling-house without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the dwelling-house; or

3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph (b) of subsection (5), to leave out "the whole or part of a building occupied with or a garden or park of a dwelling-house" and insert "a building occupied with a dwelling-house or a garden or park of a dwelling-house or part of such a building garden or park." The noble Earl said: In view of the conversation I have already had with my noble and learned friend opposite I shall not move this Amendment on the understanding that he has something else to say on the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will my noble friend move the Amendment so as to put it in order?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, leave out from the first ("of") to ("and") in line 19, and insert ("a building occupied with a dwelling-house or a garden or park of a dwelling-house or part of such a building garden or park").—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This was the Amendment of the noble Earl to which I referred when I first spoke and he has said that I gave him the information in advance that we might do something here, which may save the labour of long explanation. To put it briefly, the two noble Lords have bowled the Government out on this point. The language of the clause is not quite what it ought to be and bears an interpretation against which there might be protest. If the judges ever had to interpret it they would have a strong leaning in favour of making it sensible but if it is strictly read it is not quite right. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment I will move an Amendment so that the subsection will read:
"Where the Commission report either—

(a) that land consists of a dwelling-house; or

(b) that land consists of the whole or part of a building occupied with or garden or park of a dwelling-house and that it could not be severed from the dwelling-house without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the dwelling-house; or

(c) that land which would be adversely affected by the acquisition of an easement or other right or by the discharge or modification of a restriction is a dwelling-house or the whole or part of a building occupied with or garden or park of a dwelling-house, and that the acquisition of the easement or right, or, as the case may be, the discharge or modification of the restriction, would seriously affect the amenity or convenience of the dwelling-house."

That puts right this subsection. It is not very clear as it is. If my noble friend will withdraw his words I will thank him for calling attention to the matter and ask that the Amendment may be made in the form I have suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the first two Amendments which are necessary in this case. These minute omissions will have the effect of making the clause satisfactory to everybody.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out the first ("a").
Page 9, line 26, leave out ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
4.1 p.m.
Clause 11 [Principles on which Commission are to act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 11, subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 46, leave out ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Temporary continuance of stopping up, etc.]:
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of the conversations which I have had with some of the more learned of my noble friends, I do not wish to move the two Amendments to Clause 21 standing in my name.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 5o agreed to.
4.3 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, at the beginning of Part X, to insert the following new clause:
Registration in local land charges registry.
".—(1) As soon as may be after a decision to which this section applies has been made, it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land affected by the decision or any part thereof is situated, or, if that land, or any part thereof, is situated in the City of London or any other part of the administrative County of London, by the proper officer of the Common Council of the City of London or of the London County Council, as the case may be.
(2) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority for the purposes of this section as soon as may be after the decision has been made to notify that fact to the proper officer of any other authority by whom it is required to be registered as aforesaid, and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
(3) The decisions to which this section applies are the following:

(a) where the Minister has formed an opinion under Section 5 or Section 6 which renders the power of acquisition exercisable,

(b) where the Minister has made an order under Section 7 discharging or modifying any restriction,

(c) where the Minister has decided under Section 8 (2) not to proceed with any proposals,

(d) where the Board of Trade have given a certificate under Section 8 (5),

(e) where the Commission have made a report upon any matter arising under Part II or Part III of the Act,

(f) where the Minister decides to proceed with the exercise of any compulsory powers otherwise than in accordance with the report of the Commission,

(g) where any order is made by the Minister of War Transport under Part III of this Act, or

(h) where a compulsory purchase order is made under Part V of this Act.

(4) The appropriate authority for the purposes of this section shall as the case may require be the Minister exercising the particular power, the Board of Trade, the Commission or, in the case of an acquisition by a local authority, that local authority.
(5) The power conferred by subsection (6) of Section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this section, and in this section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made in exercise of that power."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move in the form of a new clause, is one which I trust will be understood to be for the general benefit and satisfactory working of the Bill. It is to enable notice to be given of these various transactions which can be effected under the Bill, so that, when the land or real estate comes to be dealt with, the purchaser or the solicitor acting for him will not be put to very great difficulty or have it made impossible for him to find out what clogs under this Bill there are on the property in question. The clause has been carefully drafted, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell me that it will be accepted. Short of that, I would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are now quite a number of Acts already on the Statute Book, and I fear that perhaps we may be threatened with more, under which various Government Departments will have rights in the interests of the public of acquiring certain powers in regard to different portions of the land of the country. The acquisition by the
486
Government of those powers must of course make a considerable difference to the use which can be made of the land, if not to the value of it, and unless those peculiar attributes of the land can be discovered and made known without much trouble, it will put a great deal of difficulty in the way of transactions in real estate.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of it from a political point of view, but I think it will be generally agreed that in the matter of housing, which is one of the most important matters before the country, difficulties of this kind in the way of the disposal of real property are likely to interfere with the free activity of those who are doing their best to deal with the land in this way for the public good. If the noble and learned Viscount cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I should be grateful to him if he would assure the Committee that this matter is receiving very careful attention; because, as I have said, this question arises under other Acts as well. I would go so far as to suggest that if he cannot deal with the difficulty or the evil by accepting this Amendment, the whole matter should be looked into with a view to the possible introduction in future of some short Bill which would make it necessary for all these clogs upon land to be registered in such a way that the purchaser or his solicitor can find out the position without difficulty or waste of time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 9, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Hemingford has put this matter, which is a very important one, before the Committee with remarkable brevity and with his usual moderation I recognize entirely that there is a serious point involved. I cannot accept the Amendment, and indeed I think that the way in which the noble Lord spoke showed that he hardly expected that I should; but it is worth while looking at the proposal for a few minutes, because I do agree that it raises a question of some general importance. What he seeks to do by this Amendment is to require registration in the local land charges register of all Departmental decisions to acquire land, or any right over land, under Part II of this Bill, as soon as those decisions are made, and to register every subse-

487
quent stage in the machinery set up under that Part of the Bill; and in some cases there are no fewer than three stages.
The noble Lord said—and he speaks with great knowledge—that it would be a convenience to those who professionally advise owners of land if there were a more complete record of what is contemplated or done. I really do not think, however, that this particular instance of that difficulty—the instance suggested by this Bill—is a very strong one. Under the Land Clauses Act, if I remember rightly, there is no obligation to put on the local land register the notice to treat. That is a stronger case, because, of course, there the land may appear to the observer to be land which, for all he knows, has nothing unusual about it; but here we are dealing with land and buildings which anybody who looks at them can see have been the subject of Government interference during the war. Somebody's field has had an enormous factory put on it, which did not grow up in the night like a mushroom; somebody else's ground, which may have been good agricultural land, has been torn to ribbons by making it a tank training ground. The cases with which we are dealing here, therefore, are cases where the party concerned, and certainly his very prudent and well-advised solicitor, may very easily suppose that there is something which might prevent a complete title being given.
There are one or two cases in the law where we do stipulate that there shall be put on the register of land charges what amounts to a sort of warning. I think that there is one in the Town and Country Planning Act. That, however, is in very special circumstances, in connexion with a particular form of speedy acquisition. I notice that my noble friend referred to housing. There we have a very strong case the other way, because, if I understand the matter rightly, the general rule is that compulsory purchase orders are not registered at any stage, and, in the case of the Housing and other Acts where compulsory purchase takes place on a large scale, nothing at all is registrable at any stage.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount has not misunderstood me. I was looking rather to the position after the houses had been built, and thinking of the acquisition of
488
small pieces of land by private enterprise for the purpose of building houses upon that land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to exaggerate the matter, particularly as my noble friend has been so entirely reasonable. All that I would say is that as things stand we have a great bundle of Statutes which in different ways authorize compulsory acquisition, and certain steps in that process might influence a prospective sale or purchase, but in most cases there has not been found any means by which you could put a notice of all these things on the local land charges register. How many additional entries would have to be made if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted it is difficult to calculate, but the Committee will see that the first thing that it is suggested should be put upon the land register—this is a carefully drafted Amendment —is indicated in the words "the decisions to which this section applies." The decisions include a decision
"where the Minister has formed an opinion under Section 5 or Section 6 which renders the power of acquisition exercisable."
It would be a very odd state of affairs, I think, in which you would put upon a register open to inspection, "Please note that the Minister of such-and-such a Department has formed this opinion." You can hardly do that. And there are other instances I could take.
But I do myself very sincerely agree with the noble Lord in what I think was the real substance of his remarks. I think it would be very likely to the public advantage if time were found to have a more general consideration of this subject, because it does not apply only to this Bill; and while, of course, I cannot give any undertaking which binds the Government, either this or any other, for what it may be worth I venture to assure my noble friend that I myself would be in favour of trying to get some general inquiry set on foot which would deal not only with this but with other cases which are quite outside this Bill altogether. I rather suspect that my noble friend, with his usual acuteness, put down this very long and elaborate Amendment really with the purpose simply and solely of getting that consolatory declaration. Having made that statement I will not say any more except that I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he said, but I am afraid I was rather more guileless than he gives me credit because I certainly had not perhaps realized how strongly he would oppose this particular Amendment. But at least I am very grateful to him for what he has said about the subject generally, because, admittedly, the question which arises in this particular Bill does arise in a great many Acts of Parliament, and in the end I trust something may be done which would be even more satisfactory than the acceptance of this Amendment now. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Power of Ministers to defray cost of rehabilitation of land in certain circumstances.
52.—(1) Where land has been damaged by Government war work done thereon or by Government war use thereof and either—

(a) a person has, in connexion with proposals for the acquisition of the land by virtue of Part II of this Act, given an undertaking in pursuance of a report of the Commission to deal with the land in a particular manner with a view to the total or partial rehabilitation thereof; or

(b) in the opinion of a Minister it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be dealt with in a particular manner with a view to the total or partial rehabilitation thereof,

the Minister may undertake, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he may specify, to make good to any person interested in the land the whole or any part of any expenses incurred by that person in dealing with the land in that manner, in so far, in a case to which Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, applies, as those expenses exceed any sum paid or payable under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that section in respect of the damage.
4.14 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had given Notice of three Amendments in subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "may," where that word fist occurs after paragraph (b) and insert "shall"; to leave out "or any part" ["whole or any part"]; and to add to the subsection the words "and shall have power to pay those expenses by instalments."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the three Amendments which stand in my name. Clause 52 (1) provides in effect among other matters that the
490
Minister has a discretion in the public interest to make a payment over and above the maximum amount of compensation that can be awarded under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. In this connexion I may remind your Lordships that on the 14th December, 1943, there was a very interesting debate in your Lordships' House on the amount of compensation that could be awarded for damage done to requisitioned agricultural land, and on that occasion it was pointed out that in the case of agricultural land, in fact in the case of all land, the compensation under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is limited to the value of the land. The matter is actually governed by Section 2 (1) (b) and the second proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Further, in the course of the debate on the 14th December, 1943, it was emphasized that the limitation of compensation might operate peculiarly in certain cases. For example, an acre of agricultural land worth £20 might be requisitioned but at the end of the period of requisition it might cost £200 to rehabilitate that land. Under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the landowner will only recover £20.
If I read Clause 52 (1) correctly, and if I apply that subsection to the example which I have just given, the position is as follows. The Minister may say to the landowner, "I need not help you at all unless I wish to do so, but in this case the necessary circumstances exist and I have a discretion to help you. I exercise that discretion and I grant you x-pounds." x-pounds may be £5 or £10, or it may be substantial amount, such as £50, or it may be the whole balance, £180. In my view that is not quite fair to the landowner. In those cases where it is the opinion of the Minister in the public interest that land should be rehabilitated, I think that the State ought to pay the whole cost of rehabilitating the land.
There are numerous cases, of course, where rehabilitation will not be necessary. There will be numerous cases where rehabilitation will be prohibited by the cost. Some of your Lordships may know the County of Yorkshire. I have been informed that there is an area of moorland in Yorkshire twenty-five miles long and twelve miles wide which has been entirely ripped up by tanks. The Govern-

491
ment in the national emergency, have taken the soil and the heather off that moorland entirely. It will clearly be impossible to rehabilitate that land. The answer is, "Let nature do its work and in the course of ten years or so the heather will grow and the land will be restored for the grazing of sheep." That is a classic example of where rehabilitation is not necessary. But in the ordinary case of agricultural land I think that if the Minister is of the opinion that it is expedient in the national interest that the land should be rehabilitated, then the State should pay the whole of the cost of rehabilitation, and not leave the unfortunate landowner in peril of having to pay some money, possibly a lot of money, out of his own pocket.
So far I have been dealing with Clause 52 (1) (b), but let me invite your Lordships' attention to paragraph (a) of that subsection which speaks about "an undertaking" and at this point we must refer back to Clause 10 (2) which reads as follows:
"Where land is proposed to be acquired on the ground that it is desirable in the public interest that the whole or some part thereof should be dealt with in a particular manner with a view to the total or partial rehabilitation thereof, the Commission may, if they think fit, report that the land ought not to be acquired if such person as may be specified in the report undertakes in writing to the Minister within a time so specified that he will take steps so specified within times so specified for the total or partial rehabilitation of the land or that part of the land, as the case may be:
Provided that the Commission shall not specify a person under this subsection as a person to give an undertaking unless they are satisfied that he has sufficient rights in the land and in any other relevant land to enable him to carry out his undertaking."
Then the proviso to Clause 10 (3) is even more important because it implies a penalty. It reads as follows:
"Provided that where such an undertaking as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection is given but is not carried out, the Minister may then proceed with the acquisition of the land."
The position is this. We are not dealing with the rehabilitation of half an acre of kitchen garden, but we are dealing with cases which may involve the rehabilitation of a thousand acres of land. The landowner may be actuated by a sincere desire to rehabilitate the land, but as far as I know landowners in modern
492
times are not individuals with inexhaustible bank balances or inexhaustible credit. It may well happen that after a few years the landowner and his bank balance become worn out, whereupon he cannot carry out his undertaking, and the Minister will then be entitled, under the proviso of subsection (3) of Clause 10, to enter upon the land and to acquire it. That, in my respectful submission, is another argument why the State should pay the full costs of rehabilitation in those cases where the Minister is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be rehabilitated.
If my Amendments are accepted—and I do not think they will be—the power of the Minister will not be weakened at all. It will still be open to the Minister in every case to say whether or not, in his opinion, it is expedient that the land should be rehabilitated at all, or that it should be rehabilitated in a particular manner. There is no question or suggestion of any individual landowner dictating to the Minister in any way whatsoever. Those are the substantial points in the Amendment.
The part of the Amendment which deals with the power to pay by instalment is subsidiary but, I hope, not without merit. Let me take a concrete example. Suppose I have 100 acres of land—in point of fact I have not; I have about a third of an acre in Scotland, and I had some railings but the Secretary of State took a fancy to the railings some years ago and I have never seen them since. But suppose, for the purpose of argument, that I have 100 acres of land worth £ 2,000, and at the end of the period of requisition it costs me £ 5,000 to rehabilitate that land. So far as the £ 2,000 are concerned I can go to the Claims Tribunal under the Compensation (Defence) Act and get that money. So far as the £ 3,000 are concerned, however, I am entirely in the hands of the Minister under this Bill. Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that the Minister is very kind to me and agrees to grant me the whole balance of £ 3,000. As I read the Bill, I shall not be reimbursed a penny of that £ 3,000 until I have spent the whole of the £ 3,000 out of my own pocket. Now I am very l0th to say anything about the War Damage Act, 1943, having been animadverted upon very severely for having mentioned it, but I do ask the Gov-

493
ernment to allow the landowner to be paid by instalments in the same way as a person is entitled to a payment of cost of works by instalments under the War Damage Act, 1943. I must apologize for having spoken for so long, but it is rather difficult to deal with this intricate matter in a few minutes. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Meston.)
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has no reason at all for suggesting that he has occupied time needlessly or at too great length. On the contrary, he has explained a very difficult subject, if I may say so, very clearly, and I sincerely envy him the nimbleness with which he can pass straight from one clause, to another in this decidedly complicated bundle of clauses. At any rate in one thing he is right: he said he anticipated that his Amendments would not be accepted, and I am afraid that that is so.
This is rather an interesting variant really or the sort of question which not infrequently arises when details, of Acts of Parliament are discussed. In the old days, when I was a Law Officer I had many times to explain, as other lawyers have had to do, where you should say "must" instead of "may." On the other hand, this issue is raised in quite a different connexion from the way in which it is ordinarily debated. What my noble friend seeks to do, as I think he has made very clear, is this—I will just put it in a sentence. He wishes to alter the provision that is now in Clause 52 by which the power given to the Minister is a discretionary power. The Minister may make this full payment but, as it stands, the Minister need not give any undertaking at all and, if he does, it may be limited in amount and may be hedged around with conditions. To that my noble friend seeks to put the simple and superficially attractive alternative to cut out all that cackle and just say the Minister "must."
But some consequences would follow if you made this provision obligatory, which I think should be mentioned. It would, in the judgment of the Government and those responsible for this Bill, be quite wrong to provide that the Minister should
494
have no discretion in the matter. It is true that, as my noble friend proposes it, the clause would be restricted to cases where the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that the work which the landowner is doing ought to be done. That is quite true. But it does not at all follow that the landowner himself ought to do it. In place of that, it may be that you would get, for instance, the situation dealt with by the Minister purchasing the land under Clause 6. That may, in some cases, be the most convenient course. Suppose that the particular piece of land is not like my noble friend's tenure in the Kingdom of Scotland but is part of a larger tract belonging to a great number of small owners. It would be a most inconvenient arrangement that each small owner must, out of his own resources, make the necessary restoration and rehabilitation and then ask for the cost from public funds. The proper course there is provided for in the Bill. Whoever owned the area and however many people owned it, if a great area has been damaged on an extensive scale and remedial works are required, it may very well be that Clause 6 is the right clause to use. Take another case. The Minister, under Clause 29, is given power to do the remedial work himself. That: may be the more convenient course. There is a further objection, if I might just mention it—not in the least in any spirit of severe rebuke; we must discuss these things in the most friendly way across the table.
As to the second Amendment put down by my noble friend stands, it has this effect: that the Government have to make good the whole of the costs incurred by the landowner—so far as it is not covered, I mean, by the compensation. That would mean that the landowner could spend as much money as he liked. He has merely to send in his bill and say, "This is what I have spent and now you must pay it." No doubt my noble friend would adjust his Amendment to meet that difficulty, but that is how it stands.
I really think, on reflection, we had better leave the Bill as it is. I remember this point being raised before by another member of this House in reference to a particular piece of land in, I think it was, Midlothian. The sort of way in which I apprehend Clause 5 will work is as follows. In cases where it is right, proper and fair that the public funds should be

495
used to indemnify the owner completely, I think the Minister may be trusted !o use his discretionary power, as of course he ought to do. Parliament will certainly bring him to book if he does not do so. But if you were to give the Minister, not the right and the duty to exercise discretion in the matter but some absolute Parliamentary order that he must do it, I think my noble friend's nimble mind will see that there are cases where that really would not be right. Therefore I offer the assurance, as far as I may about another Minister, that I am sure he will use his power, as in fairness we must recognize it must be exercised, with discretion. I hope with that explanation my noble friend will feel he has done a useful service in bringing forward this Amendment and that he will withdraw it. As to the other small point raised in the last two Amendments in his name on the Paper the Minister is perfectly free to give his assistance as he thinks right in the payment of expenses by instalments.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the explanation he has given of the position. I must confess that it is a very complicated matter. There may be one or there may be many private individuals who take in hand any rehabilitation of land, and in view of all the difficulties I think it is best to leave the clause as it stands. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Interpretation.
"war period" means the period during which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is in force;
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in the definition of "war period," to omit all words after "period," where that word occurs for the second time and insert "from the commencement of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, until the date on which that Act expires or the date of the expiration of six months after the termination of hostilities with Japan, whichever of those dates is the earlier." The noble Earl said: I regard this Amendment
496
as one of some considerable importance. I am not unduly optimistic of the reception it will get from my noble and learned friend opposite, but I think it is of great importance that the threat in Clause 14 of the Bill should be of the shortest possible duration and that is covered by the definition of the war period in the Amendment that I beg to move.
There is at present an uncertainty which is extremely bad for all those concerned and it can lead to great injustice for two reasons. Unfortunately, we have no guarantee that there will not be a state of minor war going on for many years. If that is so a war period may drag on almost indefinitely. Yet there would be no reason for carrying on the operations of this clause during that period when otherwise things could be cleared up. On the other side, there is also the possibility that in legislation by good intention, which this is, there will arise a Mini3ter who knew not Joseph and who will be delighted to have the war period carried on for some time because that would give him extra powers. Therefore to confine the war period either to six months after the cessation of hostilities with Japan or to any earlier date seems to me a reasonable Amendment and one that is of great importance to all the people affected by the land which may be requisitioned under the purposes of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 41, leave out from the second ("period") to end of line 42, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend's Amendment does not really make very much difference except that it provides against the possibility that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1939 shall continue in operation for more than six months after the termination of hostilities against Japan. I agree that it is no good prophesying. I think it is perhaps true that the German war, or at any rate the German fighting, did end rather more suddenly than was the expectation of some people, on a clear cut date. We cannot be certain that the same will be true of the Japanese war. Still, I think the better argument really is that we should leave the clause as it is. The words that are proposed in the Amendment are really objectionable on the ground of uncertainty. The period of two years beyond the war period is a very

497
reasonable proposal. I do not think it has really been challenged. We have got now to go through a process, as it were, of unwinding what has been wound up.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I was not referring to the two years period.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I agree, but when you put the whole thing together I think the clause as it stands is best, and I do not think I should care to alter it in this respect. After all, the noble Earl has had the very unusual success this afternoon of compelling the Government to confess it had written something down very badly. One has to be very careful on these occasions of triumph not to overdo it. I would therefore, in all good temper, ask my noble friend to rest on his laurel.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In the circumstances I would accept my noble friend's invitation to rest on a small and rather prickly laurel, and I would wish to say that I am doing so mainly because an improved, but still not perfect Bill is better than no Bill at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

INCOME TAX BILL.
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a bulky looking Bill. It consists of eight Parts, seventy clauses and three schedules. None the leas I think I can commend it to your Lordships quite briefly and without referring much, at any rate to the text. It really is a very important Bill and represents a measure of Income Tax reform which for a very long time has been asked for from many quarters. It has often been urged that in computing profits for the purpose of Income Tax allowance ought to be made for capital expenditure on assets which are used up in earning the profit. In times past in another House when I was a Law Officer I dealt with similar proposals in various forms with such arguments as occurred to me, but to-day at this distance of time I am free to say that I think
498
there is a great deal to be said for the taxpayer in this connexion.
The principle as yet has received a very limited application in our Income Tax system through the allowances made. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer we increased the allowances for wear and tear of plant and machinery. This Bill extends that principle to other substantial assets both in town and country—buildings, structures and the like used in productive industry, including agriculture and including mining. I think there will be no difficulty in obtaining agreement in your Lordships' House that that is a very just and proper development. Another thing in it, which I have more than once heard commented on in your Lordships' House as desirable, is that the Bill provides that a trader can write off, in computing his taxable profits, the cost of patent rights which he has acquired for the purpose of his trade. A patent only lasts seventeen years and it seems only proper that he should be able to write off that expenditure during that period.
This taxation reform is specially appropriate now and I imagine my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have had this very much in mind because, although it is to the prejudice of the revenue, it is designed to help industry in undertaking modernization and re-equipment which is so essential for post-war reconstruction and for a revival of the export trade. Therefore, in spite of our very heavy burdens and the natural desire of the Treasury to gather in all they can, it has been thought right, and I imagine your Lordships would think it is right, to make this important change. In the matter of allowances in respect of buildings, the Bill draws a broad distinction between what is non-productive and what is productive and creative. Nobody should be misled into thinking that if the proprietor of a dog-racing track puts up an additional stand he will get any further writing off under this Bill. It applies to creative industry. In respect of allowances for machinery and plant, which includes as I have said mining and agriculture, new allowances will accrue to the benefit of all forms of industry, whether productive or not.
That is the broad scheme of the Bill. Perhaps I should shortly state what the different Parts of the Bill do. There are

499
seven Parts. Part I provides in the case of capital expended on the construction of new industrial buildings and structures, including for example, such things as canteens set up for the welfare of industrial workers, for an initial allowance equal to 10 per cent. of the cost. That will be given as and when the expenditure is incurred. As for the rest of the expenditure there is to be an annual allowance of another 2 per cent. which will write off the whole of the balance of the expenditure in 45 years. It will apply to capital expended on reconstruction of existing buildings as well as expenditure on brand new buildings, and that should be of material assistance in enabling those engaged in productive industry to equip themselves with new factories. As regards existing buildings the initial allowance will be made only on expenditure incurred after April 5, 1944, but the allowance equal to 2 per cent. per annum will, in general, be given after an appointed day to be fixed under the Bill. To give a simple illustration of a factory which is twenty-five years old now, the taxpayer will get henceforward in respect of this from the appointed day a 2 per cent. allowance for each of the next twenty-five years.
LORD REA: On his original cost?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is right. My noble friend would be the last to trap me by an interruption, but I believe that is right. Part II provides for an initial allowance equal to 20 per cent. of the cost of machinery and plant. This allowance will be given also in respect of machinery or plant which a person acquires after April, 1944, if he still owns it at the appointed day, but in such cases the allowance will be 20 per cent. of the residual value as at the appointed day, that is, the cost less any Income Tax allowances already granted. This should be of substantial advantage in permitting the replacement of the old equipment by the most up-to-date equipment and will stimulate the process of discarding old machinery and installing new machinery.
Part III provides for the grant of initial allowances and for the writing off by way of annual allowances of new capital expenditure in connexion with the discovery and working of mineral deposits. It has long been a matter of complaint that this
500
form of enterprise, which is necessarily rather chancy, does not get sufficient protection and assistance under our Income Tax law to-day. If I understand it rightly, and I think I do, it will apply to a British company registered here even though it is mining abroad. It is not merely a question of looking in these islands for minerals which may not be there, though I hope they are. In the case of existing mines the annual allowances will enable the writing off of a proportion of the capital expenditure corresponding to the deposits which remain to be extracted. It is manifest, I think, and we are all entitled to rejoice over it, that this provision will be a great help not only to those engaged in the mining industry at home, but also to those British companies which undertake mining activities abroad in the face of world competition and so contribute materially to the welfare of the people of this country.
Now we come to agriculture and forestry, which are dealt with in Part IV. Where the owner or tenant of land, which is used either for agriculture or for commercial policy, incurs any capital expenditure on the construction of new buildings or other works for the purpose of husbandry or forestry, and that expenditure cannot be taken into account in the existing maintenance claim, he will be able to claim an allowance spread over a period of ten years. The benefits of this proposal will be felt not only by landowners and farmers but also by the workers, because it will relate also to expenditure on the building or reconstruction of farm cottages. There can be little doubt, I think, that these proposals must be welcomed as a substantial contribution to the well-being of the agricultural industry, and of the importance of that industry I need say nothing in your Lordships' House.
Part V deals with the writing off of expenditure on the acquisition of patent rights and will, it is hoped, make traders more ready to take up new inventions with a view to their development. Part VI of the Bill extends the provisions of Part IV of the Finance Act, 1944, which provided special allowances in respect of expenditure on scientific research so as to grant a corresponding relief in respect of certain payments made for this important object before the appointed day. Part VII of the Bill extends the exceptional depreciation allowance to cover

501
cases where the assets are retained in the business jut their value on the date determined by Parliament is less than the net cost. Substantially the effect of this change is that in all cases of assets provided for war purposes the loss in value resulting from war-time use will be wholly allowed for Income Tax purposes.
Speaking from what is now a fairly long experience I may say that I have seldom found that when one expounds a measure relating to Income Tax before any assembly it is greeted with enthusiasm by the prospective taxpayers. But I think this Bill really is the exception. It is true that the House of Commons has the primary responsibility in connexion with the imposing and regulating of taxation. The assent of this House is necessary unless indeed we would bring upon ourselves the extreme penalty of the Parliament Act. But generally speaking your Lordships' privilege is not so much (to frame and carry tax legislation but merely to pay the taxes which it imposes, along with the rest of the population. In the present case I hope that your Lordships will receive this Bill with enthusiasm and give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor,)
4.52 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion that this Bill should be received with enthusiasm shall certainly have a response from me of at least modified enthusiasm. This is a useful Bill. It contains most valuable provisions designed to bring about substantial amelioration of conditions, sometimes harsh, under which industry in this country has for many years been labouring. I welcome in particular the provision for agriculture and that in respect of scientific research. Both of these provisions should be most helpful in promoting the objects which are in mind. I notice that the noble and learned Viscount pointed out—as is, of course, true—that the provisions of this Bill are prejudicial to the revenue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in the end. I think.
LORD NATHAN: I think he would have wished to have qualified that by saying that they were prejudicial to the immediate revenue, but that, I hope
502
and believe, they will be beneficial if a long view—which is the view we ought to take—is taken.
Broadly speaking, this Bill, into the details of which I do not propose to enter, deals with industry of one class and another, but it by no means exhausts the possibilities of reform in the tax law. It leaves unaffected, for instance, provision for the relief from taxation of certain reserves of companies and others, a matter which I, when a member of the House of Commons, and others, have raised on a number of occasions in another place. We then used to receive rather unsympathetic replies from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, but in the freedom in which he finds himself to-day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to show that he has changed his views in one respect. Perhaps he has changed them in another also. I believe it to be of importance both to industry and to the commercial community in general that there should be further consideration of the provision with regard to reserves. There is one further matter which is giving rise to a good deal of difficulty and apprehension in the present days of high taxation. That is the position of privately-controlled companies and of private partnerships in regard to taxation when their position is considered relatively to that of companies. That also is a matter to which, I feel, attention should be given in the not-too-distant future.
On behalf of my noble friends, I welcome this Bill, and I wish to make one further comment upon it. Here we have, as the Lord Chancellor has said, a very long Bill consisting of, I think, some seventy clauses and three schedules. It covers altogether some sixty-seven pages. In a way it is a difficult. Bill to follow. Its provisions are complex, but I must say frankly that I think that in this Bill the draftsman has been far more successful then he often is in Tax Bills in putting before us the provisions of the Bill with a very fair degree of clarity. I would congratulate the draftsman of this Bill in that respect.
The rules of your Lordships' House are so flexible that perhaps, although it is not strictly germane to this Bill, I may be allowed to refer to another matter relating to tax. Whilst this Bill may, as

503
I have said, be held to be a Bill the provisions of which are described with a fair degree of clarity, it is a Bill which has to be read into the whole of our existing tax legislation. It is when the practitioner or the taxpayer is under the compulsion of reading these provisions into the general frame of the tax legislation that real difficulties arise. Our tax legislation fills many Statutes—some of them of the utmost complexity—which have given rise over a long period of years to an infinite amount of litigation. As long ago as I think 1927—that is nearly twenty years back—the Government of the day was so oppressed and impressed by the fact that it set up a Committee, a very distinguished Committee, on the codification of the tax law. That Committee sat over a considerable period of years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nine years.
LORD NATHAN: Yes; for no fewer than nine years. It was not until 1936 that it was able to report. The Committee consisted of busy men, of very distinguished men experienced in the matters under review, and in the end they produced a most valuable and voluminous Report, accompanied by a number of volumes of illuminating evidence. They also produced, if my recollection is right, a draft Bill codifying the law as to tax. Time and again, when I was a member of the House of Commons, I raised the question of what the Government of the day was going to do with the outcome of these long, strenuous and public-spirited labours. For one reason or another—perhaps the complexity of the subject, perhaps the strain placed upon members of the Government—it was not found possible to do anything. At least nothing has been done, but it is really a matter of very great public importance. If is of the first importance that the taxpayer, or, at all events, the practitioner who advises the taxpayer, whether in the legal or accountancy profession, should be able to understand without much doubt what is the law relating to tax which affects every citizen, and that tax legislation should be found in a compendious volume, in one document.
At this hour I will not delay your Lordships by expanding upon this matter, but I will say that it is of great public
504
importance that something should be done. This Committee was set up nearly twenty years ago and reported after nine years' labours. Since then many Acts of Parliament have been passed involving additions to an already complex system of tax law. I wish to make a suggestion to the Lord Chancellor, if I may respectfully do so. On looking back I am not at all sure that a committee for the codification of the tax law was one best suited to meet the problem. I would venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he might consider setting up a Committee or asking the Law Reform Committee to undertake, as a first step, but only as a first step, the consolidation of the tax law. Consolidation is, of course, very different from codification. When we have before us, under one cover, the consolidated tax law it will be opportune to set up a committee for the codification of the tax law. Consolidation would impose a great strain on the draftsmen but would not involve taking up any important Parliamentary time. Codification will take a very considerable time—it cannot be done by draftsmen alone—and for that purpose it would be necessary to set up a committee. That would be a very important first step and would ease the position of the practitioner. In the first instance we might have a Consolidation Act and I put forward that suggestion to the Lord Chancellor in the belief that action in that direction would be very much in the public interest.
5.4 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think it is appropriate that someone from these Benches should express their very unusual satisfaction with the Income Tax Bill. This is a matter on which I fought in my early days in the House of Commons some forty years ago, and in my later years I had a similar experience in regard to derelict farm buildings and cottages. I think it is only fair that we should recognize that the Government has at last made a start in the right direction.
5.5 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I wish to say a very brief word with reference to that portion of the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount which dealt with the part this Bill will play in assisting industry to re-equip itself. I certainly welcome anything in the Bill in that direction because there is no more important task

505
than the re-equipping of plant and machinery. Under the system of free enterprise, by which many of our industries have been carried on, they have fallen into a shacking state of inefficiency owing very largely to the obsolescence of their plant and machinery. In the cotton industry not nearly enough of the looms are automatic, the mining industry is under-mechanized and our once great ship-building industry had, before the war re-established the building yards, fallen into a shocking state of repair. During the war the State has had to spend £ 6,500,000 on introducing up-to-date and efficient plant and machinery to the yards. In this matter of machinery for our great industries we are shockingly behind the United States of America and that must, of course, be disastrous for our chances of recovering our export trade and)f regaining our competitive capacity in world trade.
I cannot respond to the noble and learned Viscount's invitation to receive the Bill with enthusiasm because the words "Income Tax" always plunge me into the deepest gloom, and in any ease I do not understand enough of the I cannot feel enthusiastic about a Bill with which I am imperfectly acquainted, but in regard, to that matter of industry I most certainly welcome a Bill which does anything to help in that direction.
5.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will reply very briefly as there is important business to follow this which I know some of your Lordships ore a waiting. I thank those who have spoken and those who have been silent for receiving this Bill with what I might call modified rapture. I do not think I need make any other comment except to refer to the important suggestion of Lord Nathan in reference to the question of progressing with Income Tax codification. This is a very remarkable story. The Commission took nine years and produced a series of Blue-hocks, and they did, as he correctly said, append to their Report a suggested Bill. It is important to realize that the Bill which they appended was not putting into a single document the Income Tax law as it now stands, or then stood. On the contrary, it was a new scheme of Income Tax doubtless intended to produce equally good results, equally good from the revenue point of view, and for all I
506
know very much better expressed. It did not contain a great deal of new matter, and I do not think that your Lordships will want any description of it, beyond that it abolished that always entertaining but somewhat difficult distinction between Schedules A, B, C, D, and E, or however many there are. To undertake that as a piece of legislation would really be a herculean task; but it is far from the case that nothing has been done about it; the Report has been carefully studied in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, and no doubt elsewhere.
My most recent occupation, apart from presiding in this House, has been to preside at the hearing of appeals at your Lordships' Bar; and that strongly confirms me in the view that our present Income Tax law is in some respects complicated. I should naturally like it very much if all the creases were ironed out; but that is a tremendous task, and one which could not be undertaken by any Government, however energetic and determined, in the present conditions of pressure. The noble Lord referred to the fact that when he was in another place he asked questions on this subject. I happen to have a copy of one before me, which was answered on August 3, 1939, by Sir John Simon, who said:
"I fully appreciate the importance of a complete codification of the Income Tax law as soon as is practicable. So long, however, as the present pressure of affairs continues, I can see no possibility of finding sufficient Parlamentary time to deal with legislation on this complicated subject."
That was at any rate frank.
While it is most regrettable that so many highly-skilled and devoted men should not see the fruit of their labours—and I as much as anybody regret that—it is the case that sometimes quite a considerable time elapses before you can do what you wish to do. After all, the Commission was appointed only in 1927, but I seem to recollect an Act of Parliament which received the assent of this House in the year 1911, and which said that the reform of your Lordships' House did not brook delay, or words to that effect. This is one of the cases where we have to proceed as well as we can, but without much hope of achieving a great result very quickly. I will, of course, convey the suggestion which my noble friend has made to the proper quarter. It would not be for the Lord Chancellor to appoint

507
such a committee, but I will see that the Treasury are informed of the suggestion. I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill through the rest of its stages, so that we can get on with the Scottish Bills.
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.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
5.12 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION FOR RATING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FORESTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee acccordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Reconstruction of Forestry Commission.
(2) At least three of the said Commissioners (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") shall be persons who have special knowledge and experience of forestry and at least one of the Commissioners shall be a person who has scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE,THE EARL OF CARLISLE, on behalf of Viscount Bledisloe, moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "five" for "three." The noble Earl said: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who is unable to be here to-day, to move the
508
Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper. Before referring to it, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my noble friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his appointment, and of wishing him every success, which I am sure he will achieve. I do not propose to detain the Committee, because my noble friend Lord Bledisloe spoke at some length and with great clarity on Tuesday on this subject. I shall only add, therefore, that it seems to me a matter of common sense that on a Commission of this importance at least half the members, which means five, should be persons with special knowledge and experience of forestry. I should have liked to see the number seven. I hope that my noble friend, if unable to accept the Amendment, will at least assure the Committee that when the Commission comes to be chosen a knowledge of forestry will be regarded as of paramount importance in deciding who the members of the Corn-mission shall be.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: On this important subject there are a few more words which ought perhaps to be said. The Government are very modest in asking that only three out of the ten Commissioners should have a knowledge of forestry, and that only one of those three should have "scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry." I therefore support the Amendment. The forestry industry will be growing very rapidly in the days to come, and the work of the Commission will increase considerably. This is a time when their status ought to be raised, and the Commission and the Government ought to welcome an increase in the number of Commissioners who have a knowledge of the subject. It is very important that the Commissioners should go round the country from time to time and see what is going on, and keep in touch with State and private forestry. I am sure it is widely hoped that a number of them will be able to do this with knowledge and experience. There will be wide disappointment among those concerned with forestry if the number of members of the Commission with knowledge and experience is limited to three. I hope that the Government do not intend to

509
make that limitation, and that, in spite of the limitation laid down in We Bill, they will always see that at least five, and preferably seven, of the Commissioners have a knowledge of the subject.
To save time, I should like to say now that we hope and expect in Scotland that our representation will be considerably increased. As the Committee are aware, there are at present only two Commissioners for Scotland, whereas the acreage of our plantations will in future be very nearly 50 per cent. It is very important, when the Commission is reconstituted, that the Commissioners Should understand the requirements of State ant private forestry, and should pay adequate attention to the 3,000,000 acres in private ownership. In the past the relationship between woodland owners and foresters in private service on the one hand, and the officers and foresters of the Forestry Commission on the other, has been very good; but it has been acknowledged that the Forestry Commissioners, with the best will in the world, have not been in a position to give that full attention to private woodlands that is required, nor have they been able to supply the information which is often needed. I hope, therefore, that, even if the Government are not able to accept this Amendment, they will give an assurance that it is their intention to do all that is necessary for State aril private woodlands.
LORD GLENTANAR: I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute longer in supporting this Amendment, especially after what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I endorse all that they have said. It is impossible to have too much expert and experienced knowledge in the task which the Commissioners will have to undertake, especially in achieving a greater measure of success than has bee-, possible in the work of the Forestry Commissioners during the period between this war and the last war in seeing that the interests of forestry, considered purely as a timber-producing industry, are properly married with the interests of agriculture, amenity, preservation of the soil, and all else that has to be taken into consideration. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted and that the number of these specially trained and experienced Commissioner; may be increased from three to five.
5.20 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (THE EARL OF ROSEBERY): should like to thank my noble friend who moved the Amendment in place of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I am grateful to him for his good wishes, which I shall endeavour to deserve, but I am afraid, in spite of that, that I shall have to resist the Amendment. I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding by the noble Lords who supported the Amendment, because it is not in the least intended that there should not be learned and efficient men on this Commission. The Commission is intended to be an efficient instrument for the execution of the Government's forestry policy, but if it is to be efficient it is important that the Ministers concerned should have freedom to choose the best men for the job. I am sure the noble Duke remembers that in the Act of 1919 there was no general provision for the inclusion of forestry experts in the Commission, except that it required, as the present Bill does, that one member should have "scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry." Beyond that the only requirement in the Act was that there should be two members with knowledge of Scottish forestry. This was primarily designed for the protection of Scotland, and that protective measure is not now considered necessary. But I can assure the noble Duke that he has a not unsympathetic person in the present Secretary of State for Scotland when he asks that there should be a stronger representation of Scotland on the new Commission.
Other points that the noble Duke raised will be dealt with, I think, more faithfully in the Bill which we all hope will be passed in the next Parliament—a Bill for which, after all, this Bill is only intended to provide the machinery. I should like to say, in conclusion, how pleased I was to read in the newspapers to-day that His Majesty had conferred Peerages on Sir George Courthope and Mr. Quibell. I am not quite sure whether because they leave another place they necessarily retire from the Commission, but I am perfectly certain that they will be of the greatest assistance here in forestry matters.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

THE "PALESTINE POST."
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I beg to put the first question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the distribution of the newspaper the Palestine Post has been prohibited in camps in the Middle East despite an agreement reached with the military authorities; and if so, why.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I have made inquiry, and I am informed that it is not a fact that this newspaper has been prohibited in camps in the Middle East.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I beg to ask the second question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the police in Tel Aviv have prevented the sale on the streets there of the Palestine Post until such time as the Middle East Mail is also available.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, no it is not the case that the police have prevented the sale of the Palestine Post in Tel Aviv or in any place in Palestine.

DEATH SENTENCES IN GREECE.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I beg to ask the third question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will represent to the Greek Government the inadvisability of carrying out the sentences of death passed on three men in connexion with killings
512
during the recent civil war in view of the present state of feeling in the country and the possibility of violent repercussions.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): No, my Lords.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to make, for the convenience of the House, a statement on business next week. I think I ought to apologize to your Lordships for not having made it at the beginning of the sitting, when there were more Peers present. We propose on Monday, June II, to meet at the usual hour of two o'clock, when the principal business will be the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Provisions) and the Finance Bills; and the further stages of Bills at present before your Lordships. On Tuesday we propose to meet at three o'clock instead of the ordinary hour, in order to facilitate the attendance of those of your Lordships who will be present at the ceremonies in connexion with the presentation of the Sword of Honour to General Eisenhower. On that day we shall take the remaining stages of the Finance and Local Government (Boundary Commission) Bills, and the Second Reading of any Bill or Bills which may have come up to us from another place on Monday.
On Wednesday we shall meet at two o'clock, when we hope to be able to take the Second Reading of the Family Allowances Bill from another place. There is business on the Paper for that day in the names of Lord Winster and the noble Earl, Lord Cork, and I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is proposing to initiate a debate on India that day, so we may look forward to a very full Parliamentary day. On Thursday we shall deal with a Bill which is expected to come here from another place to deal with the difficulties caused by the holiday season in certain parts of Lancashire and Scotland in connexion with the forthcoming General Election, and with the remaining stages of other Bills. There is also a question on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. On Friday we shall meet probably at some time in the forenoon for the purpose of

513
passing the Appropriation Bill through all its stages. This will be followed by a Royal Commission to deal with the various Bills which have been passed through Parliament and which are awaiting Royal Assent. The Prorogation of Parliament will then follow. May I remind your Lordships before we adjourn that we meet to-morrow at half past eleven?

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

REIGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that some of the Petitioners had no locus standi before them, and the opposition of the other Petitioners having been withdrawn.
Read and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 6th of -February and Thursday last discharged, and the Bill committed.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
The King's consent in respect of his land revenues and in right of his Duchy of Lancaster signified, and the Bill reported with Amendments.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.