Lords Sitting of 15 November 1945

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

GOVERNMENT'S AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a statement amplifying the references in the gracious Speech from the Throne to the future of the agricultural industry at home.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his notice. I am now able to indicate in broad outline the general principles upon which the Government's agricultural policy will be based. As stated in the gracious Speech, the Government will develop to the fullest possible extent the home production of good food with due regard to the recommendations of the Conference on Food and Agriculture at Hot Springs. The objective will be to promote a healthy and efficient agriculture capable of producing that part of the nation's food which is required from home sources at the lowest price consistent with the provision of adequate remuneration and decent living conditions for farmers and workers, with a reasonable return on capital invested. To this end the Government propose to establish as an essential and permanent feature of their policy for food and agriculture a system of assured markets and guaranteed prices for the principal agricultural products—namely, milk, fat live stock, eggs, cereals, potatoes and sugar beet. The annual price reviews instituted in February, 1945, will be continued, together with the provision for
958
special reviews in exceptional circumstances. After these reviews prices for cereals, potatoes and sugar beet will be fixed by the Government eighteen months ahead of the harvest.
The existing system of fixing prices for fat live stock, milk and eggs will be developed so as to cover the period after June, 1948, when the existing guarantees would otherwise cease to operate. These branches of food production entail advance breeding and other commitments for the farmer, and, in order to give the necessary continuous assurance of reasonable stability of prices, the Government propose to institute a new system of overlapping four-year periods with biennial reviews. For example, in February, 1946, minimum price levels will be considered and fixed for the two year period ending June, 1950, and in 1948 for the period July, 1950, to June, 1952. These minimum price levels will apply to milk, fat cattle and fat sheep, for which guaranteed minimum prices have already been announced until June, 1948, and to fat pigs and eggs. Actual prices for all these products will continue to be fixed in advance for twelve monthly periods after each successive February review.
All prices—minimum and actual—will be fixed with due regard to the need for the greatest possible efficiency and economy in methods of production. Account will also be taken of any modifications in the character of the agricultural output which may be necessary to meet changing national requirements. If it should become necessary to apply a quantitative limitation to any section of the assured home market this would be announced eighteen months before the harvest in the case of crops (that is, after a February review), and at least two years in advance in the case of fat live stock, milk and eggs (that is, after a biennial review).
Thus farmers will always know the prices for cereals, potatoes and sugar beet well before the time comes for sowing those crops. For fat live stock, milk and eggs they will know minimum prices three or four years in advance, and actual prices some three to fifteen months in advance. In all cases they will be given ample notice of any quantitative limitation which may be imposed on the assured market. The actual method of affording to the

959
farmer an assured market and a guaranteed price will be worked out for each commodity, with due regard to the system to be adopted by the Government for the procurement, distribution, and sale of all those foods—home-produced and imported—which play an important part in the nation's diet. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food has already announced that detailed plans will be worked out by the Government, in consultation with the interests concerned, to give effect to this policy. Methods other than that of direct Government purchase (for example, the deficiency payment system of the Wheat Act) will not be excluded.
Legislation will be required to amend the statutory provisions with regard to wages regulation in the light of the wartime experience of central wage fixing machinery. As a corollary to the provision of this substantial measure of security of markets and stability of prices the Government propose to take appropriate steps to ensure that agricultural land is not only properly farmed but properly managed and equipped and to promote improved efficiency in the production, marketing and distribution of home food products. Free technical advice will be made available to agriculturists to improve their farming efficiency. In order to deal effectively with the minority of farmers and landowners who fail in the responsibilities attaching to the occupation and ownership of land, the Government propose to seek powers in permanent legislation to exercise certain necessary measures of control. Such farmers and landowners will be subject to a period of supervision during which compulsory directions may be served, and in the last resort will be dispossessed if, after a reasonable period, it becomes evident that they are unable or unwilling to improve. There will, however, be a right to make representations to an independent tribunal before a tenancy is terminated by the Minister or an owner-occupier or landowner dispossessed.
Systems of marketing and distribution will come under review as part of the detailed investigation announced by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Food, to which reference has already been made. Powers will be sought to enable the Agricultural Ministers to acquire land
960
by voluntary negotiation; or compulsorily in cases of dispossession or where public ownership is the only means of securing the full productive use of the land. The Government propose to set up a Commission for the purpose of managing and developing for agricultural use land acquired under these powers in England and Wales.
Local bodies will be required to assist in the execution of this policy and to provide the industry with local leadership and guidance. In England and Wales county committees similar to the existing county war agricultural executive committees will be constituted on a permanent basis. Their primary duty will be to promote efficiency, working for this purpose in close association with the National Advisory Service which it is intended to establish in England and Wales on October 1, 1946. They will act as the local agents of the Minister in the exercise of the proposed powers of control, and undertake certain executive services; they will also be responsible for the schemes already in existence for the training of ex-Service men as skilled agricultural workers. It is proposed that these committees should continue to be appointed by the Minister but that they should be reconstituted to consist in part of persons selected by the Minister from lists of names submitted by the different sections of the agricultural industry, and in part of a smaller number of persons selected by the Minister from other sources. It is hoped that the experience of many of those who have rendered such valuable service during the war will continue to be available under the new constitution. Members of the staff of the English and Welsh committees who possess the appropriate qualifications will have an opportunity to enter the National Advisory Service. The services of others, including many of the non-technical staff, will be required in the continuing local organization that will be preserved by these committees. Somewhat different forms of local organization will probably be found desirable in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The world food shortage is extremely serious. For the time being, therefore, compulsory directions to grow sugar beet and potatoes must be served and supervision exercised where necessary over the laying down of grass so that this process keeps in step with the anticipated increase

961
in live stock, with the requirements of home grown feeding stuffs, and with the continued need for a large tillage acreage. As the world shortage of food passes, the Government intend to leave farmers normally to grow the crops which their experience, supplemented by guidance from the Advisory Services, indicates are most suited to their own land. They intend, however, to seek permanent powers to serve compulsory directions on any farmer whenever necessary in the national interest, but those powers will normally be used only in exercising control over farms under supervision or to supplement the methods of steering production already described, should an overriding need in national food supplies or national diet render this necessary. The controls exercised over the distribution fertilizers, feeding stuffs, machinery and other farm Material will be lifted or modified when supplies are sufficient to ensure free and equitable distribution.
This outline of the Government's plans for a gradual transition from the organization and methods necessary to promote maximum food production in war-time to a permanent policy appropriate to more stable conditions, will need to be worked out in detail with a view to the submission of legislative proposals to Parliament. This will be done in full consultation with the organizations representative of landowners, farmers and workers. The Government hope that with this assurance of their intentions all sections of the industry will attack their immediate tasks with enthusiasm and confidence.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in view of the extremely important statement that the Leader of the House has made, may I ask him if he would be good enough to afford facilities for your Lordships to discuss that statement at an early stage?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should be very glad to make arrangements as soon as may be convenient.

NATURALIZATION: APPLICATION PRIORITIES.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I have to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make
962
a statement on the granting of naturalization.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, in considering this question His Majesty's Government have had it prominently in mind that among the people who at the present time desire to become British subjects there are many who not only have become assimilated to our ways of life and have the statutory qualifications in respect of residence, knowledge of the language and character, but have special claims to be admitted to British citizenship. Some have served in His Majesty's Forces and have earned their share of the gratitude which we all feel to the Fighting Services. Others have contributed in civilian capacities to the war effort, including many who have rendered valuable help as scientists and technicians. Others, again, are contributing to our national strength and prosperity in various fields, including those who in the fields of commerce and industry are providing employment and assisting trade, especially our export trade.
It is accordingly specially desirable to bring to an end the suspension which was imposed in 1940 on the investigation of applications for naturalization, to resume this work as quickly as possible, and to accelerate as far as may be practicable the granting of naturalization certificates in all proper cases. The flow of applications having been checked for five years, the volume which has now accumulated is so large that if those who have special claims to consideration are to be dealt with without undue delay, there must be a policy of giving priority to certain classes of applicants. Amongst the varied classes of applicants, those whom I have already mentioned stand out as deserving special attention. If an applicant not only has the qualities ordinarily expected of a good citizen but has also given good service in the Forces of the Crown, or has made a substantial contribution in some civilian capacity to the war effort, or is by his business or profession making a substantial contribution to the economic welfare of the nation, his application for naturalization has a special claim to attention.
The number of applicants who will be genuinely entitled on these grounds to priority is large, but the number is still larger of those persons who will think that

963
they deserve priority and will make out an apparently good prima facie case in support of their claims. To prevent time and effort which ought at this stage to be devoted to the first class of application being spent on the investigation of applications which turn out after inquiry to belong to the second class will not be easy. To assist the Home Office to pick out readily those applications which are most likely to be found on investigation to be genuinely deserving of priority, it will be necessary to require applicants, or certain classes of applicants, to submit, in a convenient and effective form, evidence in support of their claims to priority. The machinery which will be required to give effect to this policy will be settled as quickly as possible and an announcement will be made as to the procedure for submitting claims to prior consideration. In the meantime, prospective applicants should not lodge their applications in the Home Office; premature applications and inquiries about the progress of applications already made will merely impede the official machine.
At the time when the suspension of naturalization was announced—November 20, 1940—there were already lodged in the Home Office about 6,500 applications. These applicants must have had in 1940 at least five years' previous residence in this country and, but for the war, their applications would have been disposed of long ago. There is, therefore, a strong case for giving early attention to these 6,500 applications. It has, however, been decided that the consideration of these applications shall not prevent work being started at an early date on other applications from those who have valid claims to prior attention on the grounds which I have mentioned.
It will, I am sure, be generally agreed that the high privilege of British citizenship should not be conferred rashly and without adequate investigations. Whatever steps, therefore, may be taken to accelerate the procedure for dealing with the great number of applications, including both those which have already been lodged and those which will flood into the Department as soon as the further announcement is made, this point will be borne in mind and consequently the work will have to be spread over a comparatively lengthy period. No pains, however, will be spared to make the
964
machinery for dealing with this task as effective as possible in the light of the considerations just mentioned.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill 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.]
Clause 1:
Power to extend purposes of certain Defence Regulations.
1.—(1) If it appears to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient that any Defence Regulation to which this section applies should have effect for the purpose of so maintaining controlling and regulating supplies and services as—

(a) to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution or their availability at fair prices; or

(b) to facilitate the demobilization and resettlement of persons and to secure the orderly disposal of surplus material; or

(c) to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; or

(d) to assist the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as the result of war;

he may by Order in Council direct that the Regulation shall have effect by virtue of this Act whether or not it is for the time being necessary or expedient for the purposes for which it was made.
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT) moved to omit the last seven words in subsection (1)—"the purposes for which it was made"—and insert "the purposes specified in subsection (1) of Section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939." The noble and

965
learned Lord said: When we were discussing this Bill before, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, said with regard to the words that were there then that he had read them four times over and, having done so, was still not quite clear as to what they meant. It is very desirable that we should at any rate be able to achieve such precision of language as makes it possible for the noble and learned Viscount to understand it after reading it four times; and, although I do not suggest that the Amendment makes any alteration in the sense, I do think it is an improvement in the language. I showed this suggested Amendment to the noble and learned Viscount, and, though I do not saddle him with any responsibility for it, I think he was inclined to take the view that the Amendment was an improvement.
The effect is to make it quite plain now that so long as an existing Regulation—and all existing Regulations, of course, have to be for one of the four specified purposes in the Emergency Powers Act—which is brought into effect by this Bill is within one of the specified powers in this Bill, that is to say, (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Clause 1 (1), it cannot be said against that Regulation that it is no longer valid because it no longer complies with one of the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act. I have endeavoured to achieve that by this Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will agree that it is an improvement in the language.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("the purposes for which it was made") and insert ("the purposes specified in subsection (1) of Section one of the Emergency -Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to disclaim the idea which has been promulgated by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that my understanding of a particular clause is of any great importance. At the same time, as he has referred to me and to my difficulties in connexion with the previous form of words, I should like to add that on a single reading I have been able to understand the words which he now proposes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power to make Defence Regulations for controlling prices.
2.—(1) The powers conferred on His Majesty by the principal Acts to make such Defence Regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in subsection (1) of Section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, shall include power by Order in Council to make such Defence Regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description, whether or not such Regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said subsection (1).
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to ask for a ruling on a point of procedure. I have an Amendment down to Clause 4 to meet a point with which the Lord Chancellor said on the last occasion that he had great sympathy, and to which he promised to give special consideration. On reflection, I am not sure whether that Amendment would not come more properly as an Amendment to Clause 2, which deals with the power to make Defence Regulations for controlling prices, whereas Clause 4 deals with the laying of Orders and Regulations and instruments. I do not want to pass Clause 2 and then find that I ought to have moved an Amendment to it. I should be grateful therefore for the ruling of the Lord Chairman or for the opinion of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor as to which is the appropriate clause on which to take my Amendment to insert a proviso.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as it lies with me to say anything, I should have thought that Clause 2 was a more appropriate place for this Amendment than Clause 4.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the right place to take it be at the end of subsection (1) or at the end of subsection (2), or at the end of the whole clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it should come at the end of the clause.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description," and insert "or charges to be made for services so long as the production of such goods or the provision of such services is inadequate to satisfy

967
the requirements of the community." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment, if it is accepted, as I hope it will be, is to give the Government power by Order in Council to make such Defence Regulations as appear to them necessary or expedient for controlling prices and charges so long as, and only so long as, the production of these goods or the provision of these services is inadequate for the requirements of the community. In short, so long as the community has sufficient goods and sufficient provision of services, the Government will not, have power to control the prices or charges for those goods or services.
In explaining this Bill, the noble and learned Lord Chancellor laid emphasis, and rightly, on the immensity of the powers which it confers upon the Government; and from 'his subsequent observations it seems clear that he was becoming increasingly perturbed at the extent and compass of this Bill and the powers therein contained. He almost gave the impression of a man who was being astounded at his own immoderation. He said that he did not want to have conferred on the Government very wide powers which the Government might use in a wholly unreasonable way. I am sure that the wish of the Committee coincides entirely with the wish expressed by the Lord Chancellor. If he feels, as he apparently does, that this clause as at present drafted does provide a temptation to use powers in a wholly unreasonable way, then the best service which can be rendered to the Government is to remove the temptation from them, and to restrain any tendency that may lurk in the depths of the Ministerial sub-consciousness to use these powers in a tyrannical or arbitrary fashion. One of the reasons which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor gave for these powers to control prices, and one of the main reasons, was, and quite rightly, shortage of supplies. He pointed out that if goods were in short supply, prices might tend to rise, and that some powers such as those proposed here would be justified. He said that so long as shortages continued the principle of "fair shares" must go on. I think that that principle will be generally conceded in present circumstances.
Of course, so long as shortages continue and the principle of "fair shares" is to
968
be continued, controls are justified; but what is the position when supplies are adequate and when the provision of services is adequate? Are controls equally justified in such an event? High prices are promoted by scarcity, and when there is scarcity prices, of course, may go rocketing. But if production is adequate, as my Amendment assumes, prices surely fall and under the marketing conditions which come into operation they find their level. Surely, in such circumstances, what would otherwise be a justification for exercising the powers of control herein described must fail. In fact, so long as there are inadequate supplies control is justified. When there are adequate supplies, control is no longer justified. It is for that reason that this Amendment seeks to provide that restraining influence which I believe the Lord Chancellor himself would welcome. I agree that it is possible to promote artificial scarcity by rings and cartels, but surely if that is feared, or if that occurred, a condition of that sort should be taken care of by a specific enactment framed to deal with it and to prevent the cartels or rings from exercising improper influence on the price level. Let there be anti-trust legislation by all means, but not legislation of this general character, to deal with such a situation.
As the Bill stands the Government have power to control prices or services quite 'irrespective of the state of supplies—unless I have misread the Bill entirely. So far as I can discover, the only test or criterion which the Government need apply is whether in their opinion their action is necessary or expedient. There appears to be no other test. I submit that that is far too wide and far too all-embracing a power to concede. Surely, the Lord Chancellor would agree that if possible—and I believe that it is possible—it would be better to substitute an objective test, such as I have endeavoured to outline in this Amendment, which can be factually and statistically determined, in place of the purely subjective test of Ministerial opinion. As the Bill stands, the necessity or expediency really depends, as it were and as the phrase goes, on the "length of the Lord Chancellor's foot." It is far better that it should depend, as my Amendment would make it depend, on the actual facts of the situation at the time, facts which are ascertainable and

969
can be made known. The Lord Chancellor in the course of some observations which lie made yesterday expressed the view that none of us like this Bill. I do not believe that any member of your Lordships' House would disagree with that observation. I submit this Amendment with a view to making the Bill slightly more palatable.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("goods") to ("whether") in line 42, and insert ("or charges to be made for' services so long as the production of such goods or the provision of such services is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the community").—(Lord Soulbury.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am in full agreement with what my noble friend Lord Soulbury has said, but I would ask him whether he would not be prepared to accept in place of the words, "charges to be made for" the words set out in an Amendment which I have put down. My Amendment is to leave out the words, "charges to be made for" and insert "costs of." I ask my noble friend and the House to accept this because of the extraordinarily wide meaning of the word "charges," and especially that usual connotation which, as I have pointed out, is that "charges" are charges on the Exchequer. Now there are charges on the Exchequer of two kinds. One kind appears on Estimates and they can be cut down in another place if they are excessive. The other kind are charges on the Consolidated Fund, which cannot ordinarily be altered without legislation. But this particular clause and these particular words, I submit, would enable charges on the Consolidated Fund to be cut down by Order in Council, and, as I pointed out before, it would go very wide; it would include, for instance, salaries of Judges and possibly items in the Civil List. Therefore I do say that we should hesitate before we allow these words to pass.
There is another matter in connexion with the subsequent words: "services of any description." We constantly hear the words "charge for the service of the Debt." That is the National Debt. I believe that it would be possible under these words for a Government, by Order in Council, to suspend the Sinking Fund and even to cut down the interest on any Government Loan. They could do that, so far as I can see, in the case of any public authorities' loan or in the case of
970
a company's loan. This is, of course, a very serious and extraordinary power. I quite understand that the present Government will not use it. I have no doubt that they will disclaim any intention of doing so. But I submit that there is great danger in allowing these words to appear in an Act of this description. I am afraid it is an example of a tendency by the Departments to draw clauses of this description as wide as they can be made. I am by no means one of those people who find no good in civil servants. I think that very often they are unjustly attacked, and they have my special sympathy when they have, to put into operation ill-judged proposals of their transitory masters. All the same they are apt, like everybody else in this world, to seek their own convenience, and I am sure that they often say to the draftsman: "Make this as wide as you can. We may not want it now but we shall want it, or we may want it, some day." This is a dangerous tendency. There was a flagrant example of it in the Education Bill, which would have enabled them to take away either their own rights or powers or rights given to various descriptions of local authorities earlier in the Bill. That, to a great extent, your Lordships put right. But this is a tendency which I suggest ought to be checked. Therefore I submit that the word "charges to be made for" should go and that "costs of" should be substituted.
Before I finish, may I just ask the Lord Chancellor to clear up this point? He told us that no order under Clause 2 could be made after February 24 next. I presume that is because Clause 2 is bound up with Clause 1, and that what cannot be done after that date under Clause r, cannot be done under Clause 2. But it is not very clear and if that could be cleared up I think it would be a help.
4.41 p.m.
TIIE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let me deal with the last point first. Clause 2 starts in this way:
"The powers conferred on His Majesty by the principal Acts to make such Defence Regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in sub-Section (1) of Section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, shall include power…"
to do certain things. The powers conferred by the principal Acts come to an end on February 24. Therefore it is quite

971
obvious that there can be no power under Clause 2 to make Regulations after February 24. Let me now come to the first matter raised. I state quite frankly that I do not like this Bill. I do not like this Bill or this sort of legislation, but no one likes the emergency which makes this legislation necessary. Unfortunately, we are living in the aftermath of war and we all realize that some legislation of this sort is necessary.
With regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, I am sorry but I cannot accept it. I quite sympathize with his desire, which is also mine. I do not want to have very wide powers conferred on me—powers to do ridiculous things—but so long as I can have powers to do all sorts of things which may arise, I am satisfied. The point was very fairly put by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on the last occasion. If I have powers wide enough to deal with any emergency, I must have powers to do all sorts of ridiculous and impossible things. The Leader of the Opposition asked me to consider whether I could think of any limiting words. I have tried to do that in conjunction with the Parliamentary draftsmen and I have failed. I can give you this considerable measure of satisfaction. Under Clause 2, the proposed Regulation in its final form has not yet been finally polished but in its rough form I know what it is. It is in the most general terms. Before it can be used for any purpose, assuming that such a Regulation is approved by both Houses, it will have to be brought up by virtue of a subordinate instrument.
Let me get this statement quite accurate so that there shall be no confusion. These subordinate instruments fall into two categories. There are those which are quite frankly legislative, applying to the whole country. These at the present time we find published in the Statutory Rules and Orders. There are those, on the other hand, which are merely executive in their nature and these we do not find in the Statutory Rules and Orders. It is not always very easy to draw a distinction between the two and the Rules Publication Act, under Clause 4, provides for the method of determination as follows. Supposing there is a controversy as to whether a Regulation falls into one or other category, in the last resort it is for the Treasury to decide with the concurrence
972
of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. If I have any doubts whether it was executive, in which case it would not be published, I should always lean on the side of saying that it is legislative in order that it shall be published, and it follows as a corollary that it has to be subject to the approval of both Houses.
I think we shall find that there is a very satisfactory remedy here in practice. If, for example, we were minded to do anything so extraordinary as to fix doctors' fees or teachers' fees on the Burnham scale, such things would have to be done by a subordinate instrument which would come before your Lordships and would be subject to a prayer. Your Lordships would, in that case, knock it out. There is some guarantee on the lines which Lord Swinton mentioned on the last occasion, that your Lordships' House will have control. I say quite frankly I am most anxious that your Lordships should have control. The last thing I want is to have power to do all these stupid things, always providing that I do have the power to meet an emergency.
There is one other difficulty about the Amendment. I cannot accept the view that we have got an objective test. The words of the Amendment are:
"or charges to be made for services so long as the production of such goods or the provision of such services is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the community."
First of all, be it observed that if this Amendment is agreed a judge will have to determine that and Heaven help the poor Judge who has to determine it. It is so obviously a political decision that it is very difficult to ask a judge to do it. But there is another objection. After all, the demands of the community for any good article depend very largely on the prices at which that article is being sold. If you charge £10 a pair for boots you will find that the demand of the community for those boots is very easily satisfied. You will have the boots at £10 a pair in the shop windows and people will not buy them. But if you reduce the price from £10 to £1, at once you will find the demand goes up proportionately and I cannot admit the possibility of an objective test—
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think I ought to say that the word is not "demand," it is "requirement," which is a very different thing
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Even the word "requirement" is subject to the same difficulty. Supposing a Judge has to determine this point and you were able to say that there was a large number of boots at £10 a pair which the community was not buying, could you say that the existing supply was adequate for the community? Obviously you have got to have consideration of what is to be the fair price to be charged, and the lower you get the charge, other things being equal, the greater will be the requirements of the community for that article. It happens even with tram rides. If you reduce the price by ½d. 1d. you will have many more people riding on the trams. Apart from the price you have to be satisfied about your requirements.
I am sorry I cannot accept these words, and equally I may say—although I am rather anticipating the next Amendment—I do not see how I can accept an Amendment to substitute the word "costs" for the word "charges." Again I think that would make the thing more obscure. The word "charges" is in a similar set of words in the Price Control Act to-day. If I were to substitute the word "costs," then I think I should be in the region of considering the internal costs of the business, the costs, the overheads and the profits and all that sort of thing, and I should be directing my attention not merely to what the buyer has to pay, but to what the seller has to charge and how he should conduct his business to reduce his costs. All I can tell your Lordships is that I hope I have shown I am not unsympathetic, and that I am at one with the desire of the noble Lord, but I ask him to agree that the real way to deal with this difficulty is to adopt the way I have suggested—let us have subordinate instruments which are subject to attack, so that this House has an opportunity of control.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word or two on this subject without, I hope, being in any way dogmatic? I want, first, to say a word about the meaning of the word "charges." To a lawyer the word "charges" will be affected in this clause by the fact that, in the previous line, we have the past participle "charged for goods of any description," so that, undoubtedly, "charges" in the words we
974
are considering means charges made by individuals and companies for services rendered.
The next thing I want to point out is that I cannot follow my noble and learned friend in his view as to what the words proposed will do, because it is impossible for a Judge to deal with the question where there is a deficiency of goods or where the provision of the services is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the community. The reason why I do not think that is really going to be the trouble is that under this clause the Minister has power—or the people who make the Order in Council have power—to do these things. Prima facie, the only way of attacking them is to say that the power contained in the clause is being exercised in bad faith. Anybody who knows anything about actions of that nature knows perfectly well that, except in very rare occurrences, which take place once in a generation, it is quite impossible to show that the Minister who certifies that he has taken a particular view, is acting in bad faith. It is only in the most exceptional cases that a Judge could possibly say that, in his opinion, it was a case where the requirements are not being properly met in the circumstances.
Frankly, I venture to think that the noble and learned Lord is not accurate in that part of his criticism of the suggested Amendment. On the other hand, as I, like the noble and learned Lord, am trying to act perfectly fairly and to tell the Committee, for what it is worth, my view on this clause, I am not satisfied that the word "costs" would meet the Lord Chancellor's case, or what the Government are aiming at. In many respects, I think it would not be a very safe word to put in. Having said that, quite frankly I strongly object to the phrase "charges should be made for services of any description." It seems to me extraordinary that this House should be asked to hand over to the Government the power, subject only, as I say, to that power being exercised in good faith, to halve the fees, we will say, of solicitors and barristers, and to cut down—I am speaking here about something I am very well acquainted with—the fees charged by doctors, medical attendants, and various things of that kind.

975
I submit that the Lord Chancellor, though he may be right in saying that he cannot completely define what he means by "charges"—and, for my part, I do not in the least know what charges they are that the Government have in mind under this clause—might put in some word after the word "charges," to show that the charges he has in mind are not ordinary, normal professional charges made by professional men in the normal way. It cannot be that it is intended that the Government should have power to regulate all the things which the noble and learned Lord has mentioned. So far as I know, the charges that are sought to be made for services of any description here do not include those things at all. That is the main point I have to make on this clause. I agree that it is very difficult to carry out what the Government admit to be their legitimate wishes, but I think it would be possible to add something to make the clause a little bit less astonishing than it is at the present moment.
LORD SOULBURY: I cannot say that I feel quite convinced by what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am willing to admit that the objective test which I propose may be open to some criticism, but far less criticism, it seems to me, than the subjective test upon which the Government propose to work. However, one sympathizes with the Lord Chancellor in his dilemma. The picture of the Lord Chancellor's dilemma is always distressing, and he has successfully taken on the role of the good man struggling with adversity. Therefore, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "charges to be made for" and insert "costs of." The noble Lord said: After what the noble and learned Lord has said on the word "charges," I shall be very brief. I cannot help thinking that the objection he took to the word "costs" would apply to the word "charges" equally, because, in estimating whether a charge is reasonable, I should have thought he would have had to consider the very same things that he spoke of when he referred to "costs"—
976
what was a fair return, what was an excessive charge, and the like. I confess I fail to see any difference between the two arrangements. In view of the obvious objections which have been taken to the word "charges," I cannot but hope that the noble and learned Lord will even at this late stage of the Bill settle the question on the lines that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has suggested. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("charges to be made for") and insert ("costs of").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with what was said, and I was going to deal with the Amendment more fully. The words here, "appear to him to be necessary or expedient for controlling the price to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made," make plain the sense in which the word "charges" is used—namely, the charge which is to be paid by the buyer. As I have said, these words are borrowed from the Price Control Act, and I do not think we could make the matter any simpler. Indeed, I think we should be introducing another obscurity if we were to depart from the word "charges," hitherto used, and substitute the word "costs." I do not think I have anything further to say.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am afraid it does not appeal to me that the Act was that of the last Government. I never accept the infallibility of the last Government, or the Government before, but as I find the heart of the noble and learned Lord remains hard, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, may I interrupt the proceedings for a moment in order to facilitate a question by the Leader of the Opposition and an answer by my noble and learned friend on a highly important matter? I move that the House be resumed.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ATOMIC ENERGY: THE WASHINGTON TALKS
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask a question of which I have given private notice: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make in regard to the talks which the Prime Minister has been having with President Truman in Washington on the atomic bomb.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada have issued the following statement:
"1. We recognize that the application of recent scientific discoveries to the methods and practice of war has placed at the disposal of mankind means of destruction hitherto unknown, against which there can be no adequate military defence, and in the employment of which no single nation can in fact have a monopoly.
"2. We desire to emphasize that the responsibility for devising means to ensure that the new discoveries shall be used for the benefit of mankind, instead of as a means of destruction, rests not on our nations alone, but upon the whole civilized world. Nevertheless, the progress that we have made in the development and use of atomic energy demands that we take an initiative in the matter, and we have accordingly met together to consider the possibility of international action:—

(a) To prevent the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes;

(b) To promote the use of recent and future advances in scientific knowledge, particularly in the utilization of atomic energy, for peaceful and humanitarian ends.

"3. We are aware that the only complete protection for the civilized world from the destructive use of scientific knowledge lies in the prevention of war. No system of safeguards that can be devised will of itself provide an effective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation bent on aggression, particularly since the military exploitation of atomic energy depends, in large part, upon the same methods and processes as would
978
be required for industrial uses. Nor can we ignore the possibility of the development of other weapons or of new methods of warfare, which may constitute as great a threat to civilization as the military use of atomic energy.
"4. Representing, as we do, the three countries which possess the knowledge essential to the use of atomic energy, we declare at the outset our willingness, as a first contribution, to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientific information; and the interchange of scientists and scientific literature for peaceful ends with any nation that will fully reciprocate.
"5. We believe that the fruits of scientific research should be made available to all nations, and that freedom of investigation and free interchange of ideas are essential to the progress of knowledge. In pursuance of this policy, the basic scientific information essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes has already been made available to the world. It is our intention that all further information of this character that may become available from time to time shall be similarly treated. 'We trust that other nations will adopt the same policy, thereby creating an atmosphere of reciprocal confidence in which political agreement and cooperation will flourish.
"6. We have considered the question of the disclosure of detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy. The military exploitation of atomic energy depends, in large part, upon the same methods and processes as would be required for industrial uses. We are not convinced that the spreading of the specialized information regarding the practical application of atomic energy, before it is possible to devise effective, reciprocal and enforceable safeguards acceptable to all nations, would contribute to a constructive solution of the problem of the atomic bomb. On the contrary we think it might have the opposite effect. We are, however, prepared to share, on a reciprocal basis with other of the United Nations, detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy just as

979
soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes can be devised.
"7. In order to attain the most effective means of entirely eliminating the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes and promoting its widest use for industrial and humanitarian purposes, we are of the opinion that at the earliest practicable date a Commission should be set up under the United Nations to prepare recommendations for submission to the Organization. The Commission should be instructed to proceed with the utmost dispatch and should be authorized to submit recommendations from time to time dealing with separate phases of its work.
"In particular, the Commission should make specific proposals:—

(a) For extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends.

(b) For control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes.

(c) For the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.

(d) For effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions.

"8. The work of the Commission should proceed by separate stages, the successful completion of each of which will develop the necessary confidence of the world before the next stage is undertaken. Specifically, it is considered that the Commission might well devote its attention first to the wide exchange of scientists and scientific information, and as a second stage to the development of full knowledge concerning natural resources of raw materials.
"9. Faced with the terrible realities of the application of science to destruction, every nation will realize more urgently than before the overwhelming need to maintain the rule of law among nations and to banish the scourge of war from the earth. This can only be brought about by giving whole-hearted support to the United Nations Organization,
980
and by consolidating and extending its authority, thus creating conditions of mutual trust in which all peoples will be free to devote themselves to the arts of peace. It is our firm resolve to work without reservation to achieve these ends."
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, in view of the very important statement which has been made, I think it is clear that the House will, at some very early period, require to have time for a debate. There are, however, I think—and I would suggest to other noble Lords—reasons for a postponement, at any rate for a few days. First of all, I do not suppose there is any of us who would not wish to give further consideration to the statement which the Lord Chancellor has made this afternoon. It is a detailed statement and it will require very careful examination Also, of course, the Prime Minister has not yet returned, and I should take it that on his arrival in this country he will make a statement in another place amplifying what he has said in the declaration that has been given to us to-day. It would obviously be premature, I think, to debate this subject until we have heard that further elaboration. Therefore, if I might, I would suggest to the Leader of the House that we would like to have a debate on this question but we are quite prepared to wait until the Prime Minister has spoken in another place. I hope that will meet the views of noble Lords.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I would like to express concurrence generally with what has been said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. At the same time, it will be clear that the subject of the atomic bomb cannot well be isolated from that of international relations generally. Indeed, the highly important statement which we have just heard indicates quite clearly that it is bound up with the general question of the Organization of the United Nations and with other matters of foreign policy. A debate upon foreign policy in this House is, if I may say so, already somewhat overdue, but at the same time it cannot take place, as the noble Viscount has said, until after the return of the Prime Minister and his statement made to Parliament. Perhaps it had better take place a day or two after a similar debate,

981
which no doubt will be held, in another place. However, that is a matter which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will settle after the usual consultations. But in general I feel certain that the whole House will agree that there ought to be a debate in the very near future, and that it should cover both the question of foreign policy and foreign relations as well as that of the atomic bomb.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I feel sure that the suggestions made by the noble Lord are in accord with what the House would wish. It clearly would be preferable that our discussions should take place after the statement by the Prime Minister on his return. It is also, I think, right that the discussion, which has been postponed at our request, on foreign policy should not be limited in scope, or more limited than your Lordships desire. At the same time this vitally important statement will clearly require careful consideration and, will call for discussion. I suggest that as soon as may be convenient after consultation in the usual way, and after the statement in the other House, we should arrange a day, or if necessary two days, for discussion on these vital matters. In that connexion may I solicit the good offices of the Leader of the Opposition and of the noble Viscount below the gangway? The Order Paper is already practically fully occupied with Notices of Motions right into December. Therefore it will be necessary—I hope by agreement—to clear the appropriate lays of other topics. I hope the noble Lords will assist in that being achieved in order that full time may be available for this discussion.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I feel quite certain that the noble Lords will wish to co-operate in this matter and I think we might discuss it through the usual channels.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
5.12 p.m.
Committee resumed:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Power to make Defence Regulations for controlling prices]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in Subsection (1), after "description," to
982
insert "excluding professional costs allowed by a recognized authority in the profession concerned." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, after ("description") insert ("excluding professional costs allowed by a recognized authority in the profession concerned").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. Where a profession ends and where the next category begins is very difficult to say. For that reason I think it would make the clause very complicated and difficult if we had any such provisions as this, "excluding professional costs allowed by a recognized authority in the profession concerned." There are very few professions, with the exception of the legal profession, in which it could be said that the amount of the costs allowed were allowed by a recognized authority in the profession concerned.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: They may not be prescribed but they may, none the less, be allowed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can think of no profession to which that applies except the legal profession, although there may be some. It would be exceedingly difficult to draw a line between where a profession ended and another category began. I think the effect of this Amendment would be merely to lead to greater obscurity. I pin my faith—and I ask your Lordships to agree with me—to this. Before we can apply this power to any particular subject matter we shall have to bring in a subordinate instrument. If the subordinate instrument is wide enough to allow that to be done, that will be the opportunity to raise this point again, and I shall be surprised if your Lordships do not make use of that opportunity.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I make a suggestion which I think may probably meet my noble friend Lord Rankeillour's Amendment? It is a suggestion which accords, I think, with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's view of what the words "of any description" mean. I understood him to say a few minutes ago that the words "services of any description" have got to be collocated with the words in the preceding line which

983
refer to the prices to be charged for goods of any description. If he could insert words which really produce a collocation between them as a matter of drafting, that would satisfy me and, I think, would satisfy my noble friend. In other words, it would satisfy me if something of this sort could be put in:
" or the charges to be made for services of any description in relation to 'the prices to be charged for such goods as aforesaid."
What I personally so strongly object to are these words which are inserted in order to cover the price question, which is all important, and incidentally expenses, are so drafted that any charges, costs or remuneration of any sort wholly unconnected with prices can be the subject of such an order as that with which we are dealing. That is not intended, but why should not that be made clear by some words which I am sure could be accepted by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor before the Third Reading? That would satisfy me, and I venture to think it would satisfy the opinion of the Committee as to what is right in the circumstances of the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I add to my previous remarks, bearing in mind what the noble Viscount has said? Take, for instance, laundry charges. There, there is no question of a sale of goods. It is obvious that we might have to have power to control laundry charges. Another illustration was given in another place. That illustration related to funeral costs, to the scale of fees payable to what I think are called, in America, morticians. It was said that they were very much too high at the present time. That is another illustration and that has nothing to do with the sale of goods. Therefore I could not limit the description of "services" or tie it up too closely with the sale of goods. I have given two illustrations but many more might be given of services of various descriptions that we might have to control. When we do come to control them we shall control them by means of a subordinate instrument which will come before your Lordships.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Now we come to a matter on which the noble and
984
learned Lord Chancellor said last time he is most anxious to meet us. I propose, therefore, formally to move to add at the end of the clause the words:
"Provided that where an Order or Regulation is in general terms, the powers there-under shall only be exercised by an instrument under this subsection dealing with the specific matters in respect of which the power is to be exercised."
I can put the point very shortly because I dealt with it last time, when the Lord Chancellor said he had great sympathy with the point of view and would do his best to meet it. It is this. We know now that the order or Regulation has to be taken in very general terms, because the Government do not know whether or not they may require in altered circumstances to use those powers. They have to have them before February 24, or they could not use them at all. My proposal, to which I have tried to give effect in the words which I am proposing, and with which I think your Lordships were in agreement on the last occasion, is that when the Government knew that they had a case which they could justify to the House they should come to the House with an Order or Regulation or instrument, or whatever be the right term, justifying what they were proposing to do in the way of control or regulation, and we should then be able to pass that, or to reject it if we thought that the case was not made out, on facts which would be before us. If the Government were acting reasonably, we should probably all agree that the Regulation was necessary. Certainly if they pursue a course of action of the general tenor indicated by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that would be the case. We say, however, that they should not ask us to authorize action by them at some time in the future by producing to us an order or instrument which gave them general powers of which at the time they could not justify the use, but of which all that they could say was that they might need those powers later.
If I understood the Lord Chancellor aright, when this broad Regulation, which must be passed before February 24, is produced, it will be drawn in very wide terms, but will itself provide that the powers under it shall be exercised only by a separate instrument, which will be produced to both Houses of Parliament and lie before them as and when the occasion arises which in the opinion of

985
the Government necessitates the exercise of those powers. I appreciate that a distinction is drawn between orders which affect only a single firm, and which are really directions to a particular firm to do a particular thing, and general orders which will control prices or charges, or concern any of the broad forms of control which are laid down here. As I understand it, it is intended that every instrument which is not of a specific nature affecting a particular firm will be brought before us, and will be brought before us at a time when the Government are prepared to justify the action which they think that it is then necessary to take. That is a tremendous advance.
If I have rightly understood the position, and if it is correct that the Regulation itself, which will lie here, will only enable the Government to act through instruments produced as and when tie Government think that they can make out a case—if, that is, I have rightly interpreted the statement which the Lord Chancellor made—then I suggest that tile right thing to do is to put similar words into the clause of the Bill which authorizes the making of that Regulation. That would be the natural and proper course. If power is given, and if the power is to be limited or is to be exercised in a particular way, then the common procedure is that that should be laid down in the section which confers the power. I think that I have made the case clear to the Committee. I think we shall be giving effect to what the Government as well as we wish to do, and to what the Lord Chancellor says is the intention of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let me give an illustration of the sort of way in which a Regulation brought into being by an Order in Council under Clause 2 would work. Let us take one of the existing Regulations. The most formidable Regulation of all, giving general powers of control, is, I think, Regulation 55. It is in these terms:
"A competent authority, so far as appears to that authority to be necessary…by order provide "—
and then there is set out a whole catalogue of things which may be by order provided. It goes on:
986
"and may be made so as to apply either to persons or undertakings generally or to any particular person or undertaking or class of persons or undertakings, and either to the whole or to any part of any undertaking…"
Heaven forbid that your Lordships should be troubled by the orders referring to particular undertakings. They are legion, and it would be impossible to keep any effective check on them.
It is very important, however, to draw a clear distinction, between an order applied to an individual, which may be a very drastic order and may tell him to do all sorts of things—it may tell him the, prices which he should charge, and so on—and an order which is to be of general application. Therefore the Committee will see that we have put in Clause 4 of this Bill, in line 26, the words:
"to be a statutory rule within the meaning of the said section and to be of the nature of a public Act"
because it is those Regulations that we desire to lay, and we do not desire to lay or contemplate laying any Regulation which is not of the nature of a public Act. That was the principle on which this scheme was drawn, and I hope that the Committee will realize that I do not mean to depart from that at all. I am glad that I am under an obligation to lay all these orders, so long as they are of the nature of a public Act.
If it comes to a question of discussion, it may not be easy to draw a hard-and-fast line as to whether something is or is not of the nature of a public Act, and then in the last resort it is a matter for the Treasury, with the concurrence pf the Lord Chancellor and of the Speaker of the House of Commons, to decide. So far as I am concerned, if it is proper for me to say so, I should always vote for taking the step which involved laying it before your Lordships' House, because I think that that is a very useful democratic check; but I do not think that the phrase used in the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount is either necessary or quite satisfactory. If I have got, as I have, in Clause 4, machinery applying to these orders under Clause 2, so that I have all my machinery in Clause 4 which will apply to these orders under Clause 2, I think that that is sufficient, and I do not like the words of the Amendment, "Provided that where an order or Regulation is in general terms…" I do not quite know what that means. If it simply

987
means the distinction which I am trying to draw between that which is of the nature of a public Act and that which is not, I have already got that in Clause 4;
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can make that perfectly clear. I am not a skilled draftsman, like the Lord Chancellor; it is a long time since I turned my hand to it. But I am quite clear what I mean, and I think that both the Lord Chancellor and I mean the same thing. By "general terms" I meant a Regulation giving a broad power over a wide range, which can be exercised at any time in the future. The assurance which I want—and I think it is the assurance which the Lord Chancellor wishes to give to the Committee—is as to both matter and time. It is not only that every instrument which is in the nature of a public Act shall be laid—I appreciate that—.but as to time, that it shall be laid at that time when the Government wish to act upon it and feel that they can make out a case for acting upon it. I did understand that that was what the Lord Chancellor had in mind. I am not in the least wedded to any particular form of words, and I think that the Committee would accept the assurance that the Regulation when it comes before us will itself provide that action under it which cannot be justified at the time will be taken by instrument and that that instrument will be produced to us when the Government can make a case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That assurance I can give for that is plainly my understanding of the matter. But let us have this clear. My assurance relates to those orders which are the nature of public General Acts, but does not relate to an order, however general it may be in its terms, which relates to an individual. It would be quite impossible to lay the latter class of orders but the former class, that is to say orders partaking of the nature of public General Acts, we shall lay. For instance, supposing we are going to use our powers under a Regulation to control the charges for laundering, we shall bring in a subordinate instrument which will set out that we intend to apply our power for that purpose. That instrument would be laid and your Lordships would have power to deal with it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: At the time when it was proposed to take action.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the time it is laid. But I frankly confess that there would remain this weakness. I want to be open and to put my cards on the table. Having got my Regulation at the time when it was necessary, it would stay, and your Lordships would have no control after that, except of course by vote of censure or statement in the House or something of that sort. Having, I hope, expressed myself plainly, I am glad to give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he has asked.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My noble friend Viscount Swinton will no doubt intimate whether or not he is satisfied with what has been said. Personally, I feel it right to say that I think we should be satisfied with the assurance given, and that we are all very grateful to the Lord Chancellor. But before we pass from this, would he excuse me if I ask a cognate question, which was asked first of all by Lord Rankeillour? We are proceeding on this basis, that though the Regulations—I am using the words carefully—must be made before February 24 next, they will continue to have what is really statutory effect for five years. That is plainly the basis on which we are proceeding. Whether it is politic or not is a question which I am not now discussing. That is a very considerable departure—is it not? —from the ordinary arrangement, because, if you have a temporary Act—your original Emergency Powers Act lasted for twelve months—and you make Regulations under it, if the Emergency Powers Act expires the Regulations expire too. That is to say, if the legislative power expires things done under it drop. That, I quite appreciate, is not the scheme now aimed at. I think that it would be useful if the Lord Chancellor, in a couple of sentences, pointed out how the result he desires to secure is attained by this Bill. I am not criticizing, but I think it is a rather difficult point of construction.
If I might attempt it myself, suppose it is because you have got on page 2, at line 7, these words:
"he may by Order in Council direct that the Regulations shall have effect by virtue of this Act whether or not it is for the time being necessary or expedient for the purposes for which it was made."
Stopping there for the moment, I suppose the argument is that because the Act itself—as stated in Clause 8 (is it not?)—

989
is to last for five years; therefore the Regulation, though it must be made before February 24 next, will continue also to operate for five years. Is the Lord Chancellor quite sure that that is the way it would be regarded? I mean regarded when it came to be construed judicially. If you look at Clause 1, subsection (1), you will see the words which I have just read. Might it not be supposed that the purpose for which the provision is made about having effect "by virtue of this Act" is not that the Regulation is to last for five years, but that it is to be a good Regulation notwithstanding that it is not one which, in the first place, was made for what I may call war purposes but is a Regulation which by virtue cf this Act is authorized because it is necessary or expedient for these new purposes that have appeared, as it were, immediately after the war?
I ask this without desiring to be in any way critical. But it does seem to me that it is rather what lawyers call a pregnant construction to say that the phrase "by virtue of this Act" has, as it were, this double effect. In the first place it plainly does this: it makes sure that the Regulation is a good Regulation when it is made, notwithstanding that it is not for the time being necessary or expedient for the purposes of carrying on the war protecting ourselves from persons of enemy associations and the like. That, of course, would not carry the point. It has got to be read as having, at the same time, the second meaning, that it is going to be good for five years though the Regulation itself cannot be made after 24th February next. Of course, I appreciate that you may look at Clause 8 anti say: "But that says that the Act is to endure for five years," and there are some things which plainly last for five years in virtue of that provision—for instance, Clause 6, which perhaps I may call, without giving offence, the State Trading clause. Manifestly, the power therein outlined lasts for five years because the Statute says so.
But I must say that I do not want to chop logic about this matter. I appreciate what the Government want to do. What I am asking the Lord Chancellor is this. Is he quite certain that by putting in these words in subsection (1), there will follow the curious and unusual result that although the Regulation must be made before February 24.—because
990
that is the date when the Emergency Powers Acts are going to cease to be law —nevertheless the effect is to make the Regulation good and operative for five years. As I have said, I put this with a view to being helpful and not in the least with the idea of being critical.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Will the Lord Chancellor allow me to say that I feel that the matter which Viscount Simon has raised is one of considerable substance? I am not, however, willing at the present time to express any opinion as to what the result of any litigation in this connexion might be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We do not wish to trouble your Lordships with this point at any undue length. We can debate it at some other time, perhaps. May I say to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that I think regard should be had also to Clause 5, subsection (2)? The noble Viscount will see that that contains this passage:
"If the principal Acts expire while this Act is in force—
(a) the provisions of those Acts, except the provisions specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall, notwithstanding their expiry for all other purposes, continue to apply (so far as applicable) while this Act is in force to any Defence Regulation having effect by virtue of this Act…"
That I think is the answer.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor and in view of the very clear undertaking he has given, I think that, although the words will not be in the Bill, his undertaking has really covered the point which I made last time. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Application of powers of Minister of Supply.
6.—(1) For the purposes of the Ministry of Supply Act, 1949 (which confers powers on the Minister to acquire, produce or dispose of articles required for the public service and to, exercise certain other powers in relation to such articles) the expression" articles required for the public service" shall include any supplies which the Minister of Supply considers it necessary or expedient to maintain, control or regulate for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act, and the expression "works required for the public service" shall be construed accordingly.
5.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "is satisfied that it is" for "considers it." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment I again owe to the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham. We want to get something rather more definite than the word "considers" and he suggested that we might put in the words "is satisfied." Let me just say this. I take this view very strongly. Where a matter is, by words such as these, taken out of the control of the Court and put into the control of the Minister, it behoves the Minister to consider the matter very seriously and very carefully, all the more because he cannot be challenged by the Courts. Therefore, I am quite prepared to accept the words which impose a still more important obligation upon him. He has not got to look at it casually. He really has got to be satisfied, and for that reason I am putting down in my own name the first part of the Amendment which the noble Viscount suggested. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 44, leave out ("considers it") and insert ("is satisfied that it is).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I have only to thank the Lord Chancellor for accepting my suggestion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (r), to leave out "or expedient." The noble Viscount said: On the last occasion I raised the question whether the words "or expedient" should not be omitted. I have thought it over very carefully, and I still ask the Lord Chancellor to consider this further. What does one mean when one says that a Minister in making such an order as we are concerned with, is to act if he is satisfied that it is right? How do we alter it by saying that he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient? To be necessary means, I take it, a thing which is, having regard to the public interest, a right and obvious thing to do, or at any rate a necessary thing to do for that purpose. The addition of the words "or expedient" seems to me to leave open the power to the Minister to say, "Well, I think it is expedient." It may he for a political reason; it may be for a purely Party reason. It is something not necessary but
992
what the Minister may deem to be expedient. I think it is highly dangerous to insert such words as we have got in Clause 6.
Having considered the real meaning of the word "expedient," I am inclined to press my Amendment. It has been said that the word occurs in other places in the Bill but in those other places t think it is justifiable. There may he a number of cases in which the Minister may take action not merely because it is necessary but because it is expedient to do so. It may be some question of persons or the particular circumstances of a case. He may not be satisfied in the least that it is necessary; but he thinks, on the whole, that it is expedient. I confess that I do not see the need for the word "expedient" here. I can see that there are things which the Minister might think necessary in the sense that he wanted to make an exploratory investigation, to make an experiment or to do something quite tentative.
I should be content to make the words in this clause read: "shall include any supplies which the Minister of Supply is satisfied that it is necessary to maintain, etc., for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act, including any supplies of an experimental or trial nature or character." So that if the Minister only wants to test something without being able to say that he is satisfied that it is necessary, let the words go in and let hip have a chance by means of a trial as to whether his actions should include the acquisition, production, or disposal of articles which may, or may not, be necessary and about which he is not quite sure. That I should be perfectly willing to accept, but if the words are left as they are, the position is that if the Minister were challenged in a Court of Law the person concerned would have to establish that he was acting in bad faith. That, I venture to think, is unreasonable, and I ask the Lord Chancellor, before definitely refusing to accept the Amendment, to accept the addition which I have suggested and which I think gives the Minister everything which he can properly require.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 44 and 45, leave out ("or expedient").—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I

993
promised to look into it last time but I indicated that I thought that there would be difficulty here and the reason is the one which the noble Viscount has given. I do not see the advantage of adding the additional words in endeavouring to overcome the difficulty. Let me tell you the present purposes. The Minister of Supply is intending to make housing components and of course we need every single one we can get. He is also going to deal with medical supplies for the populations of Europe. In the nature of things there will be, or there may be, a considerable amount of experimental work on these things. You will have to try out something. It will be rather a new idea. It looks good and it seems promising and the Minister addresses his mind to it. I have already said that the Minister has to look at this matter very solemnly. He has to ask himself, "Can I honestly say that this is necessary?" There must be many cases Where a Minister, if he is an honest man—I am going to assume Ministers are honest man, because if he is a dishonest man it does riot matter whether you have "necessary," "expedient," or any other word—would find it difficult to say, "I am satisfied that this is necessary."
On the other hand, he might well say, "I am satisfied that it is expedient. I think it may save a great deal of time or money "—or whatever you will" and I want to go in for it."But he cannot say, "I think it is necessary." The added words which the noble Viscount suggests, have, to my mind, the effect, first of all, of confining yourself to "necessary" and then, by means of a sort of set of words, striking out al necessity—the very essence of it—and saying, in fact, "providing always it is good enough if it is expedient." I venture, with the greatest respect, to suggest to the noble Viscount that: the words necessary or "expedient" are a better way of achieving the result I desire than confining myself to the word "necessary" and then having an enlarging clause which really does away with the essential idea of the word "necessary." For that reason I am very sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has dealt with the matter. I am sure he has done his best to be fair
994
about it, but I cannot agree that the inclusion of the words which I suggested at the end, would have the effect of diminishing the word "necessary," or the purposes of the clause. However, the responsibility is rather in his hands, and, as he has taken that view, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I would intervene for a moment to propose that it might he to the convenience of your Lordships' House to sit to-night until something like seven o'clock before the adjournment.
BRITISH SETTLEMENTS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TERRITORIAL EFFICIENCY MEDAL.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether any steps have been taken to remove the anomaly in the Territorial Army under which all other ranks of the pre-war Territorial Army, who served a full six years, have qualified for the Territorial Efficiency Medal under the decision that war service counts double time, whereas any pre-war Territorial officer or other rank who has since been promoted from the ranks during the war is thereby precluded from earning the medal or any recognition of his pre-war Territorial service; and further, whether in view of the fact that the majority of these officers will shortly be demobilized a statement can be expected at an early date on this urgent subject which has been so long under consideration.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government a question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Earlier in the year, in February, to be precise, I submitted to the then Under-Secretary of State for War, Lord Croft, whom I am glad to see here this afternoon, the anomaly that existed in the Territorial decorations, and he was good enough to say that he would inquire into the whole matter. I am led to understand that the whole of this question has been fully discussed for some months. It is quite a simple one. Thousands of these gallant fellows would, if they had remained in the ranks, have been entitled, after six years' service, plus double time for service in the war, to the Territorial Efficiency Medal. But, due to the fact that they have, by their own efficiency, become commissioned officers, they have lost the right to the Territorial Efficiency Medal because they are no longer ordinary men in the ranks. Prior to the six-year limit, they had already become commissioned, and, unless they stay a further twelve to fourteen years in the Territorial Army, they will not become eligible for the Territorial Decoration.
I am sure your Lordships are so well aware of these facts that there is very little I need to say, except that the Territorial Army guard jealously those two decorations. We are not asking for anything that we do not believe is our just due. There are many officers who were Territorials. One, whom I hope I shall be seeing in a few moments, has just returned from Japan where he was a prisoner of war. He has missed the Territorial Efficiency Medal, and, I am afraid, he will not be fit for some time to go back even to the Territorial Army to make himself sufficiently efficient to receive the Territorial Decoration. There is another man in Gibraltar, commanding a battery there and doing extraordinarily well. Wherever I have gone I have heard the same story—"We are going to miss the Territorial Efficiency Medal, and we shall not get the Territorial Decoration."
My noble friend Lord Llewellin yesterday paid a great tribute to the Territorial Army. I merely say tonight that, whatever the plan may be for the Territorial Army in the future, we guard jealously the fact that we are Terriers. Once a Terrier always a Terrier. I appeal to the
996
noble Lord who is going to reply to my question. I ask that the War Office should give some cheering news to these men who, through no fault of their own, but through being efficient Territorial soldiers, have lost, on the one hand, the right to what the Terriers prize very highly, the Territorial Efficiency Medal, and, on the other, have not yet been able to receive the Territorial Decoration.
5.59 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment a s one who has been deeply interested in this matter over a period of years? As the Chairman of the Inter-Departmental Committee which recommended that double time should count in this war, as in the last, I was aware that this problem, if the war went on sufficiently long, would become an acute one. There were quite a number of people who held the view that some recognition ought to be given to Territorials who were in the Army prior to the actual menace to the nation. Some even went so far as to say that there ought to be some additional special medal. When one looked into the facts, however, and realized that as the war had gone on for six years every other rank in the Territorial Army thereby became entitled, provided he served through the war, to a medal, it certainly seemed to me that it would be anomalous to grant a second medal when so vast a proportion would receive the Efficiency Medal under double time. It also occurred to some of us then that if the war went on for that length of time it might well be that a large number of officers would be promoted from the ranks, and merely by the fact that they were so promoted owing to their efficiency, would be denied the right to share with their comrades the Territorial Efficiency Medal. I hope that the noble Lord can bring glad tidings about this question, because it surely is anomalous that anyone should have served in the Territorial Army and, merely because he won his way to commissioned rank, should be deprived of the ribbon.
Then there remains the case of men who were in the Territorial Army before the war and served for four or five years as officers, and who are going to continue in the new Territorial Army—if there is going to be one—or an Auxiliary Army which has the same territorial traditions and the right to these ribbons and medals.

997
It will be anomalous that when they are called upon to reorganize their units they —the officers—will be the only people who will not have a ribbon showing that they were in the Forces at the time of the outbreak of war. For this reason I hope the noble Lord will be able to give a satisfactory answer to my noble friend, who, I must say, gingered us up on this subject, although I think he knew that I was always sympathetic on the matter. I beg the noble Lord to recognize that these officers are being demobilized probably—I do not know the figure—at the rate of Lao a day, because they joined before the war, and every day's delay in this matter means that, even supposing the decision is favourable, they will not have the right to wear the ribbon. I hope that after these months of consideration and the fact that the matter has been discussed very fully, he will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
6.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I, as an old Territorial, add one word in support of the noble Viscount's question? One hopes that this is one of those not very common occasions when perhaps the Territorial Army can come in for a little indulgence. During the 1914–18 war the Territorial Army at least contrived to preserve a separate existence. In more recent years, although it was, during the period of rather flustered apprehension before the outbreak of the present war, the foundation of the building of the Army that was then required, when war came it was rewarded by losing its identity altogether. After the 1914–18 war, the average military breast certainly failed to achieve the polychrome profusion of to-day, but even in those niggardly days a special medal was awarded to those Territorials who had been serving on the 4th August, 1914, when war broke out. This time, although these men gave up their time when the need was greatest, and went and served from the -beginning of the war, whereas if they had not been in the Territorial Army they might have sat at home for another two or three years and carried on their business, they come out with no outward sign of the service they gave in those days. The noble Lord who is going to reply to this question is himself an officer in the Territorial Service, and, I believe, the holder of the Territorial Decoration, which others of us are proud
998
to hold. I hope that in his hands this small concession will be safe.
6.6 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, there is common between the noble Viscount, Lord Long, the noble Lord, Lord Croft, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and myself, this: that we are all Territorials. It is unnecessary for me to assure your Lordships that I looked with the keenest interest and the deepest sympathy and good will into the question which has been raised, not for the first time, I think, by the noble Viscount. There are, of course, and have long been, a number of anomalies in regard to the award of the Medal and the Decoration in the circumstances prevailing during the war. It has been necessary to make the fullest use of the services of trained personnel, in many cases not only outside their own units but outside their own arms, and, indeed, outside the Territorial Army altogether. In consequence, questions have arisen to which attention has been drawn in the observations which have already been addressed to your Lordships, for many of those soldiers have lost their Territorial status, and, as regards others, as has been pointed out, by accepting the King's Commission they have lost the right to recognition as Territorials after their long and efficient services in the Territorial Army.
Proposals have been put forward designed to rectify that situation, and the noble Lord, Lord Croft, is well entitled to say, as I know, being his successor at the War Office, that he has taken an active and a keen interest in this particular matter. He has referred to an Inter-Departmental Committee. I am now the Chairman of that Inter-Departmental Committee — the Inter - Departmental Rewards Committee. The Committee has met and has reached unanimous conclusions. I am unable to tell the House the details of those conclusions, because, before submission to His Majesty, the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee must be presented to the Dominions for consideration by them. But I will say this: that I am hopeful that when it is possible to make a statement, and on the assumption that the recom-

999
mendations are accepted, the noble Lords who have spoken will not be dissatisfied.
VISCOUNT LONG: I thank my noble friend for his reply.

DEMOBILIZATION.
6.9 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to resolve, That this House is of the opinion that there is urgent need for an acceleration of the present rate of demobilization of the Armed Forces of the Crown and of the turnover of factories from war to peace production. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need make any apology or excuse for raising the important matter with which my Motion deals. The slow rate of demobilization is indeed causing great concern to officers and men in all three Services, to their relatives at home, to those who are trying to get the wheels of industry and commerce going again, and indeed to every man and woman who takes however small an interest in the affairs of his or her country.
We are faced with this paradoxical situation. We are the country which has been the supreme example of throwing everything into the fight with the paramount purpose of winning the war as speedily as possible. Others, of course, played their part, and their full part. But I know, especially as I had the honour to serve for a year of the war in North America, that fully informed men, both in the United States and Canada, will readily admit that in proportion to our numbers we bore the most onerous share. Having restricted our people most, having divested ourselves of practically all our overseas investments, and having cut our export trade down to the most meagre proportions—and that was after all the mainstay of our standard of living in this country—we are the country which has the greatest need to get back quickest to normal civil production. Yet we find that both the United States and Canada are demobilizing their Forces and getting back to peace-time production far quicker than we are here.
Only last Saturday I gave two Service men a lift in my car. One was an English gunner and the other was a Canadian airman. I asked them whether they were
1000
due for demobilization. The Canadian said: "In six days' time I sail from Southampton and as soon as I get back to Canada I will be demobilized." I said to him: "How long will you then have served?" and he answered "Three and a half years." I turned to the Englishman—perhaps it was unfortunate that they were both in the car together—and I asked him when he expected to get out of the Army. He said: "About the end of March next year." I said: "How long will you then have served?" and he replied: "I was one of the people who was called up in the summer of 1939 under the Military Training Act, before ever the war started." There we have two cases, a Canadian with three and a half years' service and an Englishman with almost seven, yet both this country and Canada entered the war practically together. Both have fought it together throughout and both have undertaken their share of the responsibility for the occupation of enemy countries and for creating the conditions under which a lasting peace may, we hope, be established.
Let no one think that I am saying either that the United States Administration or His Majesty's Government in Canada is doing anything wrong. I think they are tackling the problem well. I blame His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I think they are doing this job very badly, just about as badly as any body of men could do it. Let no one blame the Admirals, the Air-Marshals or Field-Marshals because this is clearly a Government matter. The Government are, of course, right in taking the advice of their Chiefs of Staff, but if the Chiefs of Staff are being too cautious it is the duty of the Government to override them and to govern. It certainly is the Government's responsibility and no one else's.
The general principle of what has gone by the name of the Bevin scheme—although, I believe, a great part of it was due to his very able Parliamentary Secretary—was obviously sound, but that scheme cannot be like the laws of the Medes and Persians so that it altereth not. We even had a revised version of the Bible, so let us see whether we cannot have a revised version of the Bevin scheme. We have got to try to make the scheme more flexible than it is. In the original scheme there was a provision

1001
which enabled men to be retained if military necessity demanded it. A number of airmen have been told that under this provision they will be kept longer than their opposite numbers in the other two Services. Similarly, Army officers in Groups 22, 23 and 24 have now received similar unwelcome news.
I want, for one moment, if I may, to digress from my main argument and to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, why it was necessary to defer all officers in those groups. Officers are not completely interchangeable between one unit and another. I will take, if I may, an instance of how this is working out in Burma. Until the present time, so I am informed, there have been two Movement Control areas in Burma which have been manned by fifty officers. During this week or next they are to be amalgamated into one Movement Control area which will only need twenty-nine officers. Therefore there are twenty-one officers surplus. Out of those twenty-one, nine are in these three groups. Although there are twenty-one surplus officers on dial quite technical work, which is quite different from being a gunner or an infantryman, or anything of that sort, these nine officers are going to be kept on because of this dictum from the War Office that the demobilization of alt officers has got to be deferred.
To come back to my main argument, the House, I think, should remember that this military necessity provision was included at a time when we were still at war with the Japanese and when it was thought that that war would continue well after the time when demobilization had started. The point I wish to make is that things have changed since V J day, but as far as I can see there has been no change, except the one I have referred to about these officers, made by any of the three Service Departments or by the Government. They have not realized that they should, and that they can, hasten demobilization now that the war with Japan is over. Whereas then there was an overriding necessity to keep people on owing to military needs, there is, in my submission to the House, a greater necessity than that at this present time; that is the necessity for this country to pay its way in the world and the necessity to see that the people of this country are able to have many more of the necessary things
1002
of which they have been kept short during the past five years.
We all hope that the Prime Minister is going to be really successful in what must be one of the main purposes of his visit to the United States, which is to get such financial accommodation as is needed on terms not wounding to our future or to the future of the British Empire, terms which will enable us to carry on during the interim period necessary for our recovery. But we cannot be dependent for longer than an interim period, and a short interim period, on the generosity of our friends in the United States. We must at the earliest possible moment put our house in order and start our great industries going again at full swing on their civilian tasks.
Nor should we be content to see our people still queueing for food—and the queues are just as long as they were when I was Minister of Food—still queueing for buses, still standing packed like sardines in the corridors of our trains, and still being rationed for goods which, had we the labour, we could produce in ample supply in this country. We should not be content with those conditions for one moment longer than is necessary. Indeed, I now begin to realize why the Government decided, in the Bill which we have been discussing this afternoon, that the controls there provided should go on for five years instead of two. It is because they found themselves completely unable decisively to tackle the problem of demobilization. Their predecessors—both the Caretaker Government and the Coalition Government—were convinced that two years would be enough, but under the present Government we are clearly doomed to the five years' penal servitude which they are about to inflict upon all of us.
While I was at the Ministry of Food, the problem constantly arose with the Argentine, with Brazil and with many other countries of what, if they sent us food, we could send them in return. We must soon be in a position to be able to send them something in return. A Chinese delegation was in this country not long ago to try to place orders, hut no manufacturer could give them firm delivery dates, because no one knew quite where he stood in regard to man-power. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to drift. The most absurd thing of all

1003
in a post-war period is to find that some firms, including one or two most important firms from the point of view of our export trade, are losing more men by the call-up of their apprentices than they are getting back from the Forces by demobilization. I am not one of those who would say that these young men, deferred during the war for good reasons, should at no time in their lives do any military training; but I do say that before they are called up arrangements ought to be made so that some demobilized men go back to those important firms to take the place of the men who are being called up for the Army or the other Services.
Again, in nearly every heavy engineering industry, and in all industries that are going to make something different in peace from that which they have made in war, we find that their replanning and reconstruction are being in almost every case retarded because they cannot get their draughtsmen out of the Services. That is going to have a delaying effect and to hamper those industries even when there is a bigger flood of the normally demobilized men. Then take one of our main industries, cotton, an industry most valuable for the export trade generally, and quite invaluable for exports to some of our Colonies. It is very difficult to get people in West Africa to go on working for bits of paper. They much prefer to buy, as I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will agree, consumer goods of some kind, and there is a particular demand in that part of the world for cotton goods. We want to keep up our supplies of oils and fats. We want to get this cotton industry going again, not only for those people but for the people of this country too. It is about time that our people were able to get the new clothes, the sheets, the towels and the other household necessities which they need and deserve.
In the spinning section of this industry, whereas there were 150,000 workers in 1939, there are only 75,000 workers today; and, out of the 18o mills which were compulsorily closed down during the war, only forty have been reopened, and they are in the main working to only about 5o per cent. of their capacity because of lack of labour. Many of these mills are still being used as Government stores. In one case the Ministry of Agriculture gave
1004
permission for a factory to make 200 tractors, but unfortunately the War Office has some tyres in this factory, and it could not give up the 35,000 sq. ft. used for their storage. There are many people in this country who could do with some tyres! I imagine that the War Office must have millions of tyres in different parts of the world. It should evacuate that factory and let it get on with making these tractors. The War Office should sell off a few of these tyres if it cannot find somewhere else to store them.
With regard to another of our great industries, the coal mines, during the seventeen days for which I had the honour to be President of the Board of Trade—the comment in the Department after I had gone was "That's Llewellin, that was"—I was on to this problem of the miners. That was early in 1942. The matter, apparently, was allowed to drift, and it is still being allowed to drift. I know what you are up against when you try to get a particular class of people out of the Army. When I was commanding a battery in the last war we had nine miners in our small battery, and we had orders to send them away. The sergeant-major said "We cannot spare these men." They were very good men and very good people on the guns. I said to him "If a shell came down and killed those nine men, the battery would still go on, would it not?" And the answer had to be that it would. So we lost those nine men; and within a week the battery was just as efficient as it had been when they were there. We must have more of an effort than we are having now to get men like miners out of the Army and back to their job, because the people of this country cannot be expected always to go on with too little coal and with too little gas and so on.
Then let us look at the building trade. In September I went round a modern brickworks, and found only three kilns doing any work at all. The rest of the battery of kilns were empty and were not being used. I asked why. The answer was: "No labour," or rather "No efficient labour." There was an extremely efficient and courteous foreman and he pointed to three crocks—I cannot call them Englishmen for this place was in Scotland, but they were Britishers and they were crocks—and six Italians. The

1005
Italians were not doing a hand's turn. We walked into one of the kilns and we found the six of them just sitting about. There are many brickworks in the same position, and we shall find ourselves—if nothing is done about problems of that sort—with the building trade workers back over here and held up by a shortage of bricks.
Take the case of the ordinary building operatives, the bricklayers, the carpenters, and so on. Before the Election I remember the present Foreign Secretary, who was Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government, promising that 80,000 would come out immediately afterwards under the Class B scheme. That, I am told, would have meant in the North Western region that 15,000 men would have returned. Up to date they have got at most only 1,000 back. I give that as one instance of the sort of thing that is happening. It may be that the Class B conditions are not attractive enough. l am sure that the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Class B men do not get fifty-six days' demobilization leave but only fourteen.
LORD NATHAN: Twenty-one.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Oh, twenty-one, is it? I think it is quite right they should not be idle for fifty-six days, but I think it would be much cheaper for the State if they were given a gratuity of fifty-six days' pay and encouraged to come back to these most essential jobs. The thing is to get these men out of the Forces. Let us have -them on the jobs which so much need doing, and let us get on with building houses for the people who so much need them. I am told that the Minister of Health made a very good speech in another place, and I notice that the Minister of Fuel and Power has been making an appeal to the mining industry. 'Well, the country wants deeds not words. I remember both those Ministers, during the days of the Coalition Government, making well-delivered and critical speeches about that Government. I would like to give them this bit of advice: that they should make speeches in the same strain now to their colleagues in this Government. Let them make those speeches in the Cabinet room.
In addition to the matters with which I have been dealing, I would point out that we are still making munitions here in considerable quantities. A factory
1006
situated near to the place where I live is still turning out 20 mm. guns. In 1942, when I had the honour to be Minister of Aircraft Production, we had no concern about those guns. We had lots of concern about lots of things in connexion with our aircraft programme, but we were not worried as to the production of those particular guns. Yet, this factory has been working on the production of these guns, and on night shifts since VJ day. Then, too, according to the Minister of Supply, we are still turning out one-third of the number of armoured fighting vehicles that we were producing last May. I would like to ask the Government why are we doing this? What are these vehicles for? Are we shortly going to have them sent to factories so that they may be broken up in order that the brass may be separated from the steel and the aluminium from the other components? Surely we must have masses of that kind of stores for the Army that we intend to keep. It seems to me quite absurd to carry on in this way. These places should now be making tractors, motor cars and, generally speaking, should go back to their ordinary civil industry and help us to pay our way in the world.
I was glad to note that the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, yesterday showed a realization of these things. He was talking about the size of cur Forces in the future, and he said:
"Then we have to consider the economic capacity of this country. We must export or we cannot live. We also have to consider the financial burden this country can bear."
Well, my point is: why not do that now? Why have these vast numbers of men still a Charge on the country, when they ought to be engaged in doing these jobs and making things for consumption in this country and for export abroad? According to the figures which have been given—they may be a week old, they were given in another place—we have 4,460,000 people including, I suppose, women, in the three Fighting Services. By next June, on the Government's own showing, it will only be necessary to have 2,408,000. I think, myself, that probably that is too many but at any rate on the Government's own showing that is to be the number. So, at the moment, we have over 2,000,000 persons in the Armed Services of the Crown that on any military grounds—for I assume they are not going to reduce too much by June—

1007
are just surplus, and are doing nothing. They are, in fact, a great paid army of unemployed.
Now take the position in this country. We have 2,160,000 officers and men serving at home. We are told that, excluding those training in the R.A.F., there are 600,000 who are being trained or who are acting as instructors to train them. If we add, say, another 50,000, as representing the necessary personnel of the R.A.F. in this country, and 50,000 for naval shore establishments here—after all that is well over one-third of the vote in 1939—and, say, another 100,000 for airmen and soldiers now in this country, we get a figure of 800,000 whom it may be necessary to keep in this country. That means that there are over 1,250,000 people who are doing nothing useful at all, they are just, as it were, awaiting their turn to go. I know, myself, a gun site which has not been occupied for the past two years but now there are 350 gunners upon it. It is close to where I live. The officers are unable to find anything for these men to do. I asked a soldier from another camp what he and his fellows found to do. He said that for an hour or so every morning they brushed up leaves and after that, for the rest of the day, there was really nothing to do.
These men are just getting browned off, just as brown as the beech leaves they are sweeping up. They dislike this idleness; it is to their credit that they do. It will make it more difficult for them to settle down to regular work when their time of demobilization comes. The country needs them in agriculture, in industry and in the distributive trades. I know how hard pressed the food distributive trade has been, with the older people who have been carrying on until these men come home, and it would be far better for their children if they were back at home. Our figures of juvenile delinquency have, unfortunately, gone up during the war and the overriding reason, as anyone who has studied this question will tell you, is the absence of the father from the home. So I say to the Government that they really must quicken up this process. I know that there is some talk of a shortage of ships. Let this Government take the country into their confidence. Tell us what ships are being used. It is not giving away secrets to the enemy now because there is no
1008
enemy to give them away to. Let this cloak of secrecy be removed and then we can all of us judge whether the Government are doing their best to get these men back from Burma and elsewhere.
Besides that, let us know the numbers in the next four or five groups in the Army, of those serving in India and the Far East. Let us know what the problem is, because I think that in the end we may be very well advised to explain to these men that their families at home need the extra coal and the houses. Put that way the British soldier will say: "That is all right. If they get out a month or so before me, so long as I know the Army authorities are doing their best to get me home, I shall be quite happy." Otherwise, so far as I can see, it we adhere rigidly to these groups and if anyone in Surabaya kicks up some trouble and they cannot get home, we shall never get anything going at all. I must say that I deplore the Government's handling of this particular problem. I think it has just been drift, drift, drift, and fumble, fumble, fumble. It is the most urgent and important problem of the day, and I say this despite the fact that at the recent General Election the people were sadly misled and badly misled and were misguided enough to put the present Government into power. Nevertheless, because of their constancy, their cheerfulness and their courage during the years of war, the people deserve a better fate than that which the Government's dilatory methods in demobilization is opening up for all of us in this country. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of the opinion that there is urgent need for an acceleration of the present rate of demobilization of the Armed Forces of the Crown and of the turnover of factories from war to peace production.—(Lord Llewellin.)
6.43 p.m.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, after the very comprehensive statement made by the noble Lord who has introduced this Motion, I intend to delay you for a very few minutes only with some very general remarks. As one who has recently been demobilized, I realize that I am open to the retort that if I had been unhappily detained like some of those who have been described by the last speaker, I might have taken a different view. I

1009
think it must be conceded, however, that having no axe to grind I am in a better position to discern the wood from the trees. From the experience which all of us remember after the last war, I am sure that no one would wish us to go through those chaotic conditions and that they should not be repeated. Those of us who remember clearly the end of the last war will realize that there was a very good scheme evolved for demobilization, just like the present one in principle, although not carried out in quite the same detail. But very soon after the last shot had been fired exception became the rule, and I do not think anybody wishes to see that occur again.
Everybody will admit—and the last speaker has referred to it very pointedly —that it is absurd for a man at home to be retained in the Services simply because someone in the same group is unable to be released from abroad for one' reason or another, possibly shipping. While that is true, and we all subscribe to the theory of equal treatment being sound, in this connexion I do not think that extra pay or leave, as was suggested in another place, would go far to compensate those people who are not to get home. Surely the question is larger than just a mathematical fairness as between one person and another. Have we not to guard against this possibility, that in trying to be fair to one we give fairness to nobody and we make the rest pay all too dearly just for a mathematical equality between individuals?
We have embarked in this country on a policy of security from the cradle to the grave. We have agreed that equal opportunity for all is what we should aim at. As I mentioned just now, let us guard against the danger of attempting to be too equal and of giving opportunities to none. I1 has been pointed out forcibly that this country can only live by its trade, and I have a feeling that the more ruthless system being carried out in the United States of America will leave us far behind in this connexion. It may well be that the Americans, with their present methods, will set up a large body of temporary unemployed, but I am convinced that they will, at the same time, get the wheels of their industry going a great deal quicker than we shall.
1010
As has been pointed out by the noble. Lord who moved this Motion, it is true to say, and I think that it cannot really be contradicted, that we are solving a potential unemployment problem by retaining redundant people in the Forces to-day. This is no doubt temporarily uneconomic. But in fairness I must say that the Government should be given credit to this extent, that they are now bearing in mind the very demoralizing effect which the "dole" had in the past and they do not wish that to occur as it did after the last war. Which, then, is the best method? is it ours or that practised in America? I think that only time will show. But is it really necessary that we should choose between one extreme and another? I put it to your Lordships in conclusion that there is a middle way upon which we can embark.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Samuel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lords following be proposed to the House as members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely:

L. Polwarth, L.

Teviot:

agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.