Lords Sitting of 31 October 1945

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD RAMSDEN.
Sir Eugene Joseph Squire Hargreaves Ramsden, Baronet, O.B.E., having been created Baron Ramsden of Birkenshaw in the West Riding of the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages and to enable the said Bill and the Indian Divorce Bill to have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CIRCULATION OF BILLS AND PAPERS.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take immediate steps to ensure that Peers desiring to do so may receive regularly through the post at their private addresses, copies of all Public Bills and White Papers, by a general order in the same way as they do the Minutes of Proceedings and Orders of the Day.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I have made inquiries, and I am informed that the arrangement is that Public Bills are sent through the post to Peers who have notified the Printed Paper Office their wish to receive them. So far as can be traced, such Bills have always been sent to Peers who have given this notification. As regards White Papers, such White Papers as are considered by the Departments as of sufficient importance are placed upon a "general circulation list" and are automatically circulated to ill Peers who have notified their wish to receive them. Other White Papers are not circulated automatically to Peers, but a pink form bearing their titles is circulated weekly, and Peers who wish to receive these Papers can do so by putting a cross against the Papers they require. In these circumstances I do not think there is anything further I can do at present beyond giving the House this information, but if any of your Lordships has any reason in future to complain of the non-delivery of Bills or other Papers which he may have ordered, perhaps he will be good enought to refer to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

DELAY IN INSTALLING TELEPHONES.
2.45 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I wish to ask the Postmaster-General a question of which I have given him previous notice—namely, to ask His Majesty's Government why the public is still inconvenienced by long delay in the fulfilment of orders for telephones, and whether they are taking the vital needs of trade and reconstruction into account in the allocation of new connexions.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for putting this question to the Government. I regret that in view of the continuing shortage of plant and labour it is, in many cases, not yet possible to meet orders for telephones without serious delay. During the war it was necessary to restrict the provision of service in the main to cases essential to the war effort, with the result that a large number of applications had to be set aside for fulfilment after the war had ended. Since last May many fresh applications have been received, and the accumulation of orders

577
is so great that the Post Office engineering staff, of whom over 15,000 are still serving with the Forces, are compelled to ration new connexions according to the need of the applicant and the contribution which he is in a position to make to the welfare of the community. The criterion on which preference is based is now furtherance of economic reconstruction and social betterment, including the building of houses, the production of necessities such as coal and food, and the revival of our export trade. Preference is accordingly given to applications for telephone service in these cases, and also to people engaged in public administration, public health and safety, and in utility organizations providing transport, power or water supply. Some degree of priority is also given to applications from those who have strong claims for compassionate treatment, for example, where a war-disabled person is starting a small business, or in cases of severe illness.
Apart from these priority and preference categories, applications are dealt with in order of elate so far as this is compatible with the orderly planning and utilization of the labour and equipment available at the present time in different parts of the country. The position will gradually improve as more skilled labour is recruited through the release from the Forces of men with pre-war experience of the telephone service, and as additional plant and buildings can be provided. Meanwhile, we are doing our utmost to red ice delay, in spite of the limited resources at our disposal; and we have arranged, as an emergency measure, for the employment of men lent by the Army from the Royal Corps of Signals upon installation work. It will be some time, however, before we can meet the accumulated demand, swollen by war arrears and still growing, without considerable delay; and, while this shortage of telephone facilities continues, we cannot dispense with a system based on the priority treatment of urgent or essential cases. The present shortage of telephone installations is just as much an after-effect of the war as the shortage of food or clothing and I must ask those who are experiencing inconvenience or real hardship to bear it with fortitude as part of the price that we are still paying for victory.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, I should like to ask him whether he can let me know how many applications are now pending. I am not, of course, asking for an immediate answer.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will certainly find out from my Department the number of cases still not dealt with, and will let the noble Lord have the information at the earliest possible moment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's answer, I should like to ask whether he can inform me as to what in his experience is the average length of time which a working journalist, who happens to move from one address to another in the same telephone area, should be required to wait, even though he has made application in every respect regularly before he left his first address in order that he might maintain contact with his own newspaper office when he went to his new address.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will obtain that information and let the noble Viscount have it at the earliest possible moment. I can tell him now that the correspondents of our important daily and weekly newspapers are regarded as people doing essential service, and therefore they do obtain preferential treatment.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.
INDIAN DIVORCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

REQUISITIONED HOTELS.
2.53 p.m.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my
name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what is the number of hotels which are in occupation by Government Departments, and the number of beds thus

579
taken from their normal usage; also what is the number of hotels in this country being occupied by the various Services of the Allied Forces and the number of beds involved; what action the Government has taken and is taking to free the hotels and to see that rehabilitation is carried out without delay in the interests of the nation's tourist industry.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, the number of hotels, including boarding houses of the larger type, in occupation by Government Departments is 2,699. Of this total 137 are in occupation by the various Services of the Allied Forces. Information as to the number of beds is not available and could not be ascertained without an expenditure of time and trouble which would not be justified. The importance of releasing hotels in the interests of the tourist industry is fully recognized, and every effort is being made to do so, consistently with Government needs and the necessity of releasing accommodation of higher priority, such as houses and schools. The importance of bringing back hotels into use as soon as possible is also recognized, and licences to carry out the minimum amount of work necessary for the purpose are granted so far as labour can be made available in the particular locality.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for the answer that he has just given, may I ask that he will bear in mind the necessity for handing back the equipment of hotels which has been taken away during the time that these premises have been commandeered; and will he see to it that that equipment is handed back in the same condition as that in which-it was when commandeered?
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I will certainly pass on the noble Lord's request.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
2.55 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time I crave the traditional indul-
580
gence and kindness of the House, the more so as I have a responsible task to perform on behalf of His Majesty's Government in support of the Bill which is now before your Lordships. In a prison which I visit rather frequently—not, I hasten to say, in a residential capacity—I find that first offenders are known colloquially to other inmates as "stars"—that is short for "star prisoners." I do not venture to hope that to-day I shall emerge with that tribute paid to me by all your Lordships, but I hope that I shall be able to perform a task which is undoubtedly a great honour in the case of one so new to your Lordships' House.
We listened yesterday to a most absorbing speech by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. While paying my tribute to that speech, I must say that I could not help being reminded of what used to be said of the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant—who no doubt provides bedtime reading for so many of your Lordships. It was said of him that the only thing that was wrong with him was that he started from both ends of the road at once and never happened to meet himself in the middle. I had the feeling that Lord Woolton delivered two most excellent speeches. He spoke to us as a statesman—and we all of us know what claims he has on our regard and on the regard of the whole country in that capacity—and he also spoke to us as an eminent leader of business. But may I suggest to him, with all deference, that perhaps this subject can most easily be studied if we split it up under certain headings? I would like to suggest that there is a very important and interesting social question, or rather social and economic question, and, also, a political and constitutional question. There is, further, a psychological question, with which Lord Woolton made considerable play during his speech. For a moment, I thought that he was also going- to introduce a spiritual issue when, in passing, he compared us in our philosophy to the Naitonal Socialists. But I felt that that comment had strayed into his speech as it were by accident. At any rate, he hardly seemed obsessed with its validity. He rapidly let it pass. It may have slipped in from one of his election speeches or from some other source.
But if we study, first of all, the social and economic question, we are faced with a problem that is going to affect the rights of millions here and, may be,

581
millions overseas. Are these controls, which were so essential for winning the war, necessary during the difficult transition period that is going to lead us from war to peace? Of course, we know that many of those controls are already by way of being relaxed. The question is, can we—can any Government whatever its Party complexion—return straight away to the pre-war condition of liberty (if we may use a word that is not accepted by all as describing accurately the prewar condition of the people)? At any rate, are we going to return, and if so how soon, to those conditions? I think that there is hardly one noble Lord—unless it be Lord Brabazon of Tara—who would like us to return straight away. Certainly Lord Woolton would not wish us to do so. We are all clear in our minds that a great scarcity confronts the world, and that so long as it does confront the world we must make sure, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that first things come first.
But I cannot help suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, that he did the Lord Chancellor a serious injustice, that he produced what was really a fantastic caricature, a most inaccurate account and interpretation of the Lord Chancellor's remarks, when he asked us whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was not misleading himself and perhaps us when he suggested that the people of this country want a continuation of controls. I do not think that anybody in this country, and I am sure no one in this House, is in love with control for the sake of control. None of us likes rations and none of us likes queues. While on the subject of queues, I cannot help telling your Lordships of a short experience which occurred to me when I came to Paddington in the company of a noble Lord who does not sit on this side of the House On reaching Paddington we found a taxi queue at the arrival platform. The noble Lord became somewhat irritable and said: "I cannot stand these confounded queues. Let us go to the departure platform where there are no queues." We went to the departure platform and there we spent some time scurrying backwards and forwards trying to obtain a taxi. Finally, the noble Lord were up to a policeman—he was a police inspector but the noble Lord did not
582
notice that—and said "Constable, why on earth can't you organize a queue on this side of the station?"
That is rather the position about queues and rations and all these restrictions. We none of us like these things when they interfere with our lives. They interfere a good deal with our lives and in a way perhaps more damaging than they interfere with the lives of some other members of the community. I should say that the poorer classes of this country do not dislike rationing as much as they did. They are not fond of it but they do not dislike it. It would be making a mistake to say that the admirable system introduced to a great extent by the noble Lord himself, is violently unpopular at the present time. Nevertheless, as free Englishmen, whether rich or poor, we desire to get rid of these restrictions and, as the Lord Chancellor made plain, we look forward to the gradual relaxation of restrictions as the period of transition between war and peace comes to an end. I do not think there is any great difference between us on the social and economic question, at any rate for some time to come, some years to come.
Perhaps it is really the constitutional or political issue which is worrying some of your Lordships more acutely. On that subject we are sure to hear a great deal from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who has made a life-time study of these matters and has made sacrifices in the course of his life for his view of the liberty of the subject. I do not suppose that since the time of Edmund Burke, that lifelong Whig, that the Tory Party have chained to their chariot so eminent a master of the liberal tongue as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Of course, my Lords, this House should subject these exceptional interferences to the most minute scrutiny. None of us on this side wish to make any complaint of that. Because we in this House have lost the power of wielding the rubber truncheon, there is no reason why we should resign ourselves to handling the rubber stamp. In this House we have much to teach the public about the past; the past can never be irrelevant. Without us, the other House is rather like a cyclist without a rear lamp. Without them, I am afraid we should be like a cyclist without a front lamp, but it is not for me to say at the moment which is the more valuable article

583
on a dark night. We have, however, important lessons which we can teach the public with our accumulated knowledge and experience of the past constitutional history of this country.
I am sure that the noble Viscount will be the first to agree, as all authorities on the British Constitution agree, that the special beauty of our Constitution compared with other Constitutions, past and present, is its flexibility. That means simply that in dealing with unprecedented situations we are not prohibited from using unprecedented devices. The situation is unprecedented, or to put it more accurately, it is a situation which when it has occurred in the past has not been recognized for what it was—a prolonged state of emergency. There have often been periods after wars in which-we have failed to cope adequately with our legislation. Some exceptional measures are necessary. That does not mean that we can overthrow all public and private rights; it means that we have got to be very careful, very careful indeed.
The Lord Chancellor explained yesterday in a way which impressed everyone in this House, whatever was the starting point he was giving to an examination of the question, why, it was impossible to bring this Bill before the House for annual renewal after a period of two years and why it was necessary that the Bill should run for five years. May I add a point on that subject, one which I have some hesitation in introducing to your Lordships—namely, that in Clause 4 of this Bill there are various novel methods of Parliamentary control of which your Lordships may, on some occasion, care to make use? I do that with a certain diffidence because I am afraid that I may be putting ideas into your Lordships' heads. Far be it from me to do that. I will pass it over somewhat rapidly while commending Clause 4 to your Lordships, even if it leads you to become what is called in some places "bloody-minded." There are new and unprecedented forms of control introduced in Clause 4 of this Bill.
Let us look finally at the psychological issue. There, up to a point, I side very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Woolton as against the noble, and if I may say so, the most witty Marquess, Lord Reading. I side with Lord Woolton because it seems to me that he realized- the full effect on public
584
psychology of the words that went out from this House yesterday and may go out to-day. He does realize that this will matter to the people, to the psychology of the business people, and of all the people in this country. I suggest, however, that Lord Woolton, although having far higher claims than I have to be regarded as an authority on public psychology, has for once misunderstood the temper of the people. Lord Woolton said:
"The people thought they were going into a brave new world, and then the Government come along to them and say: 'No, no, friends, not a brave new world for five years. Our problems are going to be so grave that we cannot possibly see the end of the picture.'"
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, condemned us for using language of that kind to the public. It is said we are doing it by putting five years in the Bill. Although those words were not actually uttered by His Majesty's Government, I count it to us for righteousness if we face the public fairly and squarely with the facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, objects to our going to the public and telling the public what they do not want to hear. He would prefer that we told the public the kind of thing that would cheer them up. He would prefer us to give them a dose of soothing syrup. I would say it is more important to tell the public the truth as we see it at the present time, more important perhaps than it has ever been before in our history. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to speak as a member of a younger generation than most of your Lordships, and as one who was in contact for a number of years with a still younger generation than my own in my capacity of university teacher. If there is one thing which the young people of this country hold against the statesmen—not the statesmen of one Party only—who ran the affairs of this country before the war, it is the failure of most of those statesmen to tell the public the truth. I know that during the war the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has been a shining example in telling the public the truth as he saw it. His great public reputation is largely based on that besides his administrative capacity. But I would say with great respect to your Lordships that we should be setting a very bad example to the people if, on the first occasion that we are asked by the public to send out

585
a message as to how we see the times ahead of us, we sent out a message which is more optimistic than the facts warrant.
We all know that this country, through no fault of the present Government—indeed, through no fault of any Government that has been in power for the last six years—is going to have a very difficult time. We believe that the public desire us to tell them the full extent of the difficulties as we see them. With that in our minds we commend this Bill to your Lordships, feeling sure that you will give it your closest attention that you will bring to it an inflexible practicality, and that whatever views you may form will be Formed in a spirit of patriotism that is no monopoly of any one quarter of your Lordships' House.
3.14. p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, my first words must be to congratulate with real sincerity the noble Lord who has just spoken on his most successful and attractive intervention in this, the first debate in which he has taken part in your Lordships' House. I do it, I feel sure, with the general assent of the House. It is no easy matter, in either House, to enter for the first time on the business of debate, and the noble Lord, of course, was quite right when he said that he felt has responsibility, and I suppose his difficulty, all the more because he was speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of, and in the name of, the Government. We do unreservedly congratulate him and I am sure we all hope that we may hear his contributions to debate from time to time. I am not sure that I also ought not to crave your indulgence, which is always accorded to a man who takes an un-accustomed position, for the truth is that the is the first time for fourteen years that I have made a Parliamentary speech from the Opposition side. I hope, therefore, that I may have the indulgence which the House always gives to a man who is attempting to do what he can in a position which is not normal to him.
The speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, admirably presented and arranged as it was, seemed to me to contain one enormous omission. We are here in Parliament discussing a measure which the Government hope to car y through Parliament into law, and while it is no doubt quite right to con-
586
sider social and economic and psychological effects, the first thing which Members of Parliament in either House may be expected to ask themselves and seriously to consider is the manner in which this measure affects the powers and duties of Parliament. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in his opening speech yesterday, began by giving us an account of the nature of the legislation which preceded this present Bill, with a view no doubt of acknowledging, as he did later on, the contrast between this Bill and earlier measures. Of course, as you would expect, the noble and learned Lord's legal history was extremely accurate. Nobody would wish to contradict his account of these earlier measures. If, however, I might venture on one friendly criticism, it is that I do not think at that stage of his discourse he emphasized as fully as I think ought to have been emphasized, the fact that every preceding measure in which Parliament, even in the pinch of war, has conferred quite exceptional powers of legislation on the Executive, has invariably contained a provision similar to that which appeared in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.
Here are the words:
"…this Act shall continue in force for the period of one year beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, and shall then expire:
Provided that, if at any time while this Act is in force, an Address is presented to His Majesty by each House of Parliament praying that this Act should be continued in force for a further period of one year from the time at which it would otherwise expire, His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this Act shall continue in force for that further period."
Nobody will dispute for a moment that measures passed in the pinch of war, containing such a provision as that, were a very grave departure from our Parliamentary system and meant for the time being an immense invasion of the normal duty of Parliament and its members in both Houses, to offer criticisms and suggestions and objections, as anyone who understands our Parliamentary system, and nobody more than my noble and learned friend who is going to wind up the debate—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT STANSGATE): Not learned.
VISCOUNT SIMON: No, but gallant. Just observe how constantly that has been done. The Defence Act came to an end in twelve months and had to be renewed by the process we know. It was, in fact, renewed year after year by the process we know. The same thing is true about such an Act, for example, as the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The same thing is true of any proposal to extend the life of Parliament. It has never entered the head of any serious Parliamentary constitutionalist that you should ask Parliament to go to the length of making this immense invasion on the duties and rights of members of Parliament for a clean period of five years.
And observe the difference. I certainly do not differ from the noble Lord who has just spoken when he says that we cannot do without all controls at present. Indeed, that has been said over and over again, and said by responsible people of all Parties before the Election, and certainly most clearly said by my noble friend Lord Woolton. That was what he called the social and economic side. But -do observe the difference. If you have a Bill promoted by a Government which is going to take away normal Parliamentary powers for a year after you have put a particular regulation on the Table and it has lain there for forty days, that is no doubt going a very long way; but, after all, the thing comes to an end in a year. I can quite understand—we all understand—that in so difficult a time as the pinch of war it may be necessary to say to Parliament: "The Government must have these powers for a whole year. We ask you, first of all, within the next forty days to say whether you will tolerate that; and if you do, you must accept it that the Government may exercise those powers without challenge, without interference or Parliamentary control for the rest of the twelve months." I think myself that is a very strong thing to do, but it was a necessary thing to do, and we all of us agree that it should be done.
But please observe what is the nature of the power left to the Government, even when the regulation is only for one year. It is true you can move a negative Resolution to annul, but that is all you can do. You cannot under this system, and you cannot under this Bill, by vote of either House, say: "Well, that
588
regulation is all right at present, but we wish to amend it by saying it shall last only for a year." You cannot do that. You cannot, indeed, amend the regulation in any particular. I would ask the special attention of my noble friend opposite to this point. He may possibly remember—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Of course I do.
VISCOUNT SIMON: You need not interrupt. I hope I shall be corrected if necessary. He may possibly remember that in the pinch of carrying the first Defence of the Realm Regulation to which I have just referred, he himself moved an amendment to secure that Parliament should not he left simply with a "Yes" or "No" as to the regulation, but that it should be at liberty to mould it, to alter it or to amend it. That was my noble friend's attitude.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What year was that?
VISCOUNT SIMON: That was the year 1939. I think I can give you the reference, if you would like it. I have several.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I would not trouble the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I like to satisfy my noble friend. It was on the opening day of the war. The date therefore would be, I think, the third day of September, 1939. I read it half an hour ago. I think it is volume 135 of the House of Commons debate. But do not trouble, because there are plenty more. There is nobody to whom I would more willingly listen, when this debate comes to an end, as to preserving the rights of Parliament, than the noble Viscount. There was nobody, in my long experience of the House of Commons, who ever made such powerful, persuasive, emphatic, resolute speeches on the subject in those earlier days when the Lord Chancellor, the noble Viscount and I all belonged to the same Liberal Party.
I want to get back to what I conceive to be a really important point. I want, if the House will kindly allow me, to return to a point which is a serious point and must be appreciated. It makes all the difference to the character of your legislation and to the justification for it if this opportunity of challenging the regulation in the first forty days of its

589
life is in connexion with something which cannot last, in any case, for longer than a year, as compared with one that is going to last for five years. If you are asked for the latter, since your Parliamentary intervention cannot modify it or a Act it, ante-date it or make it come to an end sooner but it is a pure case of "Yes" or "No," once you have answered "Yes" the fact is that you are pouting into the hands of the Executive immense powers to legislate for the whole life of the Parliament.
I wish respectfully to pay a merited tribute to the noble Lord who has just spoken, because he recognized in his speech that this is in fact, or may well be found hereafter to be, a deeply significant change. He has argued that this is what people really like. He has argued that this; is the way in which it may develop, and he is quite right to think it is a really serous matter. This is a new method of creating the law by which the country shall be governed, and I submit to the House and to the noble Viscount opposite who is going to reply, that anybody who retains a belief in Parliamentary sovereignty and in the duty of Members of Parliament to exercise their Parliamentary rights and duties, will be a bold man if he says, quite consistently with those principles, "I see no objection at all to a Bill which will provide, once the ferny days have passed, that nothing that Parliament can do will alter the fact that it is the Government that Will make the laws, and not Parliament, to the full extent of these regulations."
How wide these regulations are it is probably difficult to appreciate by merely looking at the language of the Statute, but they really are astonishingly wide. I think the language used by the Lord Chancellor was that these are immense powers. They are immense powers. Consider what it means if you say to the Executive in a five-year Parliament: "Once you have run this forty days' period you may make any regulation that comes within this provision—to regulate supplies and services, 'to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace'." Just consider that. Who is to judge of the requirements of the community in time of peace? The Government? Supposing
590
it happens that there were Members of Parliament, again a minority, but perhaps a majority, who took a different view of the requirements of the community in time of peace: who is to decide the point? The Government?
Take this one: they actually want power for five years to make regulations to facilitate demobilization. My goodness, there is a change. The noble Lord who has just spoken was quite right when he said we ought not to be too optimistic. I did not -hear anything at the General Election from the spokesmen of the Socialist Party which informed anxious relatives that demobilization might take five years. The scene has changed now. We must not be too optimistic, but very careful not to mislead people into thinking that things are easier than they are. The way to do that is to say to them: "Now that you have put us in power, we have no further use even for our own supporters in debates of this importance. We are now, by our proposals, going to be in the saddle, and legislate."
Let me point out a distinction which will be obvious, I think, to us all, but which I should not like to be overlooked at this stage, in view of the later discussion. I am not one of those who imagine that you could do without regulations and supplementary orders. Not at all. I think that some of the criticism on this subject has gone too far. It is quite obvious that if you carry, let us say, a great Education Bill, you cannot put into the language of the sections of the Bill everything which will have to be provided under the Bill. You must, of course, have regulations issued by the Board of Education. And so with many Bills which themselves express a Parliamentary decision on some great point of policy. All that is perfectly right. But this Bill is of a totally different character. It does not express Parliamentary opinion on any great concrete question of policy. It is simply put forward by the Government to say: "You leave it to us, and that being done, we will, at our own judgment, make regulations about all these things which are listed here." That, my Lords, is a fundamental change. It has never happened in our Parliamentary history before, and I think the noble Lord, who has just spoken so charmingly and persuasively, is perfectly right when he refers to it as a rather important point.

591
What is the defence suggested for depriving Parliament of those powers for which so many people have eloquently contended in times past? I do not quite agree, with all respect to the noble Lord, with the correction, the slight reproach which he delivered to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he referred to the Lord Chancellor as having treated the subject of continuing these controls in this way as something which was most warmly supported at the General Election. I had better read the Lord Chancellor's speech again. It seems to me that what he said was that, from his own experience—which he very modestly underestimated—by taking an active part in the recent General Election, what he found, above all things, was that this question of control was a thing which excited the people. I wonder whether, in the course of his Election tour, he happened to address any meeting of business men, business men, perhaps, endeavouring to do a little trade; business men who before they could enter into a transaction had to visit I do not know how many different offices in Whitehall, and out of Whitehall, and, before they were allowed to do this or that, had to get the leave of a wilderness of different authorities.
I do not say—and it is not my present purpose to say—that such things may not be necessary in time of war, but I am sure my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, when he reflects on his recent tour, is not going to maintain that business men leapt up in enthusiasm and demanded "Give us more controls." I remember, in my youth, when I learned a poem written, I think, by Matthew Arnold, which contains the following lines:
"Calm, calm me more,
Nor let me die before I begin to live."
It is certainly not the case among the business people of this country that they say, "Control me more in order that I can export." It may be quite right to have a regulation which will secure that in matters of trade our resources are not used on mere matters of luxury, or in ways that do not promote what is essential. But I say it is a grotesque travesty of the facts to say that the people of this country are really enthusiastic for more control. That is exactly where it seems to me, with great respect, the Government have really gone wrong.
592
Many people have tried to stamp on Parliament and to say they knew better than Parliament, but, in the end, it is Parliament which has stamped on them. There are two ways of doing these things. One way is, with your greater knowledge, experience and advice, to put forward what you believe to be the proper regulation, and, if your arguments are good, and the instance is proper, you will find both Houses of Parliament will accept it. The other method is to say: "I do not care what Members of Parliament say"—as I think was said in the course of the debate in the House of Commons—"Why should the Government supporters talk? There is too much criticism." Is there? Is that the political philosophy of my old friend whom I see opposite, and to whom I have listened with such pleasure for so many years? Does he take that view? Of course he does not, and everybody knows that, as a matter of fact, the only way in which you can get public support for these things in this country is by telling the people the reason why you want them, arguing strongly for what you believe to be right and relying upon that power which, in the end, is the sanest power in the whole world—the judgment and good sense of your fellow-countrymen. But that is not the Government's method. Their method is to say: "They are good now, but how long will they be good? We had better get these powers signed and sealed now, for five years, and then we can snap our fingers at everybody."
It is quite true that among the great body of opinion that supports the Government, there are two kinds of people. There are a vast number of people who, basing themselves on a carefully thought out philosophy, really want to produce a revolution by running the country on wholly socialistic lines. There is another body of people—and, I hope, the majority in the Cabinet—who say: "Those are whirling words, but, of course, when it comes to business, we will do these things with moderation and good sense." That is why the Cabinet, at this moment, says: "This is the time to get our people committed, and after that it does not matter what they say." Let me point out, in confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said just now, the reasons why, as it seems to me, this new departure is really serious. There are two possible contrasted forms of democratic government. We have hitherto lived under

593
the form of Parliamentary democracy, it which the Houses of Parliament do, in the end, have their full part to play. But there is another theory. I do not abuse it, but I would point out the difference, and I hope that I may do so without offence because I am not, of course, attributing to noble Lords and friends of mine on the other side of the House anything but the purest attachment to democratic liberty. This other form must be called flu totalitarian method. It is a form of democracy; it consists in having an Election and in calling the members who have been elected together—on the whole it is better for them to belong to one Party rather than another, but that is by the way—and, having done that, the Executive do not disregard them, but merely come before them and say: "We wan from you powers for five years. Thank you; now you can go."
Is not there a real danger here that we are moving into a line of country—I am sure without the full intention of many noble Lords opposite—which really may lead to that? Let me give three quotations, and we shall see whether they have any resemblance to this Bill. Is it permitted for a moment to quote Professor Laski? I hope so. He is not yet a member of your Lordships' House, but who knows? He would certainly contribute a great deal to our proceedings. In hi; book Democracy in Crisis, the present Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party makes it quite clear that Parliamentary democracy—that sort of democracy—is not to be an obstacle to the realization of Socialism. Referring to the Socialist Government then to be, he says: "A Socialist Government would take vast powers"—the Lord Chancellor ha; bettered the phrase by saying "immense powers "—" and legislate under them by ordinance and decree."
LORD WALKDEN: Will you give the date of that?
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is in his book ca led Democracy in Crisis. My belief (though I am not sure) that it was published within the last ten years.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In 1933. I looked it up yesterday!
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is that an effective retort? Are we to understand that people who say that they know what to do for
594
five years cannot say in 1933 what is to be done now? Professor Laski wrote: "A Socialist Government would take—" not "should take" but "would take"; that is a peculiarity of his diction—"vast powers and legislate under them by ordinance and decree." In order to make his meaning perfectly plain, he goes on to say "and they would suspend the classical formulae of normal opposition." We must consider what that means. My noble friend opposite is amused, but I can imagine that when he was in the other House he would not have been amused but very indignant at any proposal to "suspend the classical formulae of normal opposition." Surely that means that what is contemplated by this gentleman is a considerable change, not by any means limited to this Bill.
Let me take somebody else—Mr. G. D. H. Cole, unquestionably one of the philosophers of the theories which prevail opposite. I notice that he says in The Need for a Socialist Programme, page 38:
"We shall have to put into our Acts of Parliament only general principles and enabling powers—
I do not see any general principles in this Bill, except "Leave it to me," but there is no doubt about the general powers—
"and leave the details to be filled in by Orders and Regualtions made by the Government itself under the authority conferred by these general Acts."
I think we shall agree, and I think that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will agree, that if those really are the designs behind this sort of legislation, it is a serious matter and is worth considering. It has something to do with Parliamentary democracy; I do not ask for more to be conceded than that. It is not possible to dispose of it by a laugh.
I can go further, because everybody knows the declaration of Sir Stafford Cripps. Is he to be laughed out of court? I do not think that loud laughter will get rid of Sir Stafford Cripps. He said that the Socialist Government's first step would be to place before Parliament an Emergency Powers Bill. This is, I think, the first Bill that we have received. To be quite accurate, I ought to add that he went a little further by saying that it was to be passed through all its stages on the first day. We have had a little watering down of the true gospel.
LORD WALKDEN: May I ask what year that was?
VISCOUNT SIMON: I cannot give you the exact date, but it is well within my recollection, and I should have thought was in that of noble Lords opposite. Mr. Attlee was another contributor to the volume, Can Socialism Come by Constitutional Methods? Let me read the quotation:
"The Socialist Government's first step will be to call Parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill."
This is the description of the Bill:
"This Bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow what will be immediately necessary to be done by Ministerial Orders. These Orders must be incapable of challenge in the Courts"—
I shall say a word about that in a moment—
"or in any way except in the House of Commons."
Then he goes on to say:
"Unless during the first five years so great a degree of change has been accomplished as to deprive capitalism of its power, it is unlikely that a Socialist Party will be able to maintain its position of control without adopting some exceptional means, such as a prolongation of the life of Parliament for a further term without an election."
I thought that I detected, in the speech made by Lord Pakenham just now, that he was not at all of the opinion that five years would see the end of it.
We are entering on what is possibly a new system, and all that I am saying is that these seem to me to be very serious considerations. I think that I have shown—at least, I hope that I have shown—to the satisfaction of most of your Lordships, that this is a completely new departure. It is really a claim to substitute the Executive Government for Parliament over a vast range of subjects. As for challenge in the Courts, much care has been taken to see that this Bill is wide enough to prevent that. There is a provision at the end of Clause 2 (1) that certain Orders are to be regarded as valid—."whether or not such regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said subsection (1)." If you make your powers wide enough, I may perhaps presume to say that the Law Courts will not be able to stop their exercise.
All that I am anxious to do is to call the serious attention of the House, and I
596
hope of the noble Lords opposite, to the fact that this really is an indication of a serious departure. Whether or not it is possible to promote our export trade by controlling it, and whether it is really the case that at the end of five years women will be clamouring for more queues, is another matter. I do not know that I have any great reason to weep because the Government take this course, for I am completely convinced that, if they persist in it, when the General Election comes, as come it will in five years, they will have some reason to know what is the real opinion of the country.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SIMON: They will have reason to know the real opinion of the country on these very subjects. I am very well prepared to wait until that time, and all I ask for the present is that it should be appreciated that as a matter of fact this is a very significant and very impressive first attempt. I wish I could rid my mind of the thought that it really pleases the present Government to do these things. It has never pleased us, during the war, to pass regulations which disabled Parliament and substituted Government decree, because, in our opinion, that was substituting, for the time being, a decree of despotism for a decree of Parliamentary liberty. I wish I could be sure that it does not please the Government to carry legislation of this sort.
"My nature is subdued
To what it works in, like the dyer's hand."
And if it really is part of the conception of the present Government that legislation of this sort is legislation which ought to create no objection and no offence and is a model of what good legislation should be, then we may indeed be approaching a situation which it will need another General Election to correct.
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in yesterday's debate my noble friend the Marquess of Reading stated the views of noble Lords sitting on these Benches, and speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party—departed fragments of which, as we have just heard, are now to be seen in eminent positions in all quarters of this House—it would hardly be necessary for me to add anything to what he said. But since the debate has proceeded to another day, and as it deals with two

597
matters of first importance, perhaps the House will give me leave to add some observations. The first matter of importance is the merits or demerits of the proposal in this Bill to confer upon the Government these wide powers for a period of five years. That matter ha been fully discussed from both points of view. The second matter arises from the fact that this is the first occasion in the life of this new Parliament upon which there has arisen an evident difference of view between the majorities of We two Houses, and the course taken to-day will be regarded as, to some extent, a test of the policy which this House intends to pursue.
With regard to the first point, we are almost all agreed that many of the controls that have been exercised in war-time must be continued; at all events for the time being. But there is a difference between the situation now and the situation which existed when the Statute which we have been discussing was first enacted in the days immediately following the outbreak of the war. There is, indeed, a very great difference. Then it was essential for the safety of the country to confer upon the Executive complete powers to direct all the activities of the nation, military and civil, and it shows foe strength of our democracy that a free Parliament was willing immediately to confer those powers. Then the burden of proof rested on those who might wish to deny or restrict those powers. But in time of peace there is no such grave and urgent necessity of that character, and the burden of proof, I venture to submit, rather rests upon those who wish to maintain and preserve these exceptional powers. If it is intended that they should be preserved and maintained, proof ought to be offered on behalf of the Government at reasonable periods that necessity for them still continues.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—who made a maiden speech that so greatly pleased the House, and to whom we offer a cordial welcome—has made a lifelong study of political matters both in theory and in practice that will make him a valued member of this assembly. He praised the useful flexibility of the Constitution. Yes, but the step now being taken is unparalleled. The Constitution is flexible indeed, but it should not be so flexible that we should simply fold it up
598
and put it away. Five years is a very long period for the Government to be given continuing powers, and public opinion is, I am convinced, very sensitive upon this matter, partly for the reason which has been so fully explained by the noble Viscount who has just addressed you—namely, that this is an avowedly Socialist Government. At times, members of the Government put their Socialism very high and explain to certain audiences that they are a genuinely Socialist body, who intend to take at least the first steps with the deliberate intention of bringing about a Socialist State, in which the profit motive in industry and commerce will yield place to the motive of social utility. At other times, and to other audiences, they put their Socialism low and explain very carefully that, in reality, they recognize the inevitability of gradualness and propose merely to take first tentative steps, each one based on conclusive merits of its own, and proceed possibly, or possibly not, to further measures later on. It is a case of sing high, sing low.
The fact remains that they proclaim to this country and to the world that they are a Socialist Government. For that, I venture to submit, they have not got a mandate from the nation. In the first place, let us recall what were the figures of the votes cast at the General Election. A total of 25,000,000 votes was cast. For the candidates who supported the Government the number cast was almost exactly 12,000,000—that is to say, a little less than half of the total. If you wish to introduce a system of Socialism you must secure much more than less than half of the whole body of the citizens who vote in this country. Secondly, it is quite certain that not nearly all of the 12,000,000 who gave a mandate to the present Government were convinced and well-informed Socialists; many millions no doubt were—probably more to-day than at any previous time, particularly among the younger generation—but very many millions were not. They cast their votes as a consequence of the current discontents—shortage of supplies, queues, housing and slowness of demobilization. Many more were less pro-Socialist than anti-Conservative, if I may say so with all respect to my noble friends sitting on the other side of the gangway. The argument with many people was: "Let us give Labour a chance and see what they will do." But

599
now there is in the minds of many people great concern lest this Government, after all, under the influence of their intellectuals—I will not mention the name that comes at once to our minds—may be tempted to stretch a mandate too far. On merits, therefore, it appears to me that this five-year proposal is wrong and that the Government in putting it forward have somewhat alarmed public opinion. If I may respectfully say so as an onlooker not unversed in politics, there they have made their first mistake in political strategy.
The second matter which has raised obvious controversy is, as I have suggested, the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. With this the noble Lord on the Woolsack dealt in a very candid fashion which I much admired. He explained quite clearly that the Government have altered the two years limit which was in the Bill prepared by the late Coalition Government, to a period of five years, for the definite reason that they thought that this House might throw out, two years hence, a similar Bill for the extension of their powers, and that this House might do that in order to defeat a programme which they considered had been authorized by the electorate but which might be distasteful to your Lordships. Therefore, they could not run the risk of having to bring in a re-enactment at the end of two years. I much admired his statement because he might have been tempted, as a newcomer to this House and representing a Party which is numerically very small—although no doubt if its members were weighted according to their representative authority each one ought properly to count as ten—to cloak what he had to say in polite euphemisms and diplomatic hints. He did not, however, do so. His speech was firm and frank and he put in a clear light the plain fact that this Bill is introduced in its present form from the fear that the House might upset the Government programme at the end of two years.
No doubt, as he has suggested, under the impetus of the late General Election your Lordships might be more ready to pass this today, and two years hence, with the General Election more remote, your Lordships might be more combative. Personally I doubt if that is likely to be so, and for one simple and indubitable
600
reason—namely, that the farther we get from the last Election the nearer we get to the next Election! I have no doubt that nothing could please the present Government better than that when that day is drawing near any failures should be overlaid by a clear-cut issue once more of the Peers against the people. Therefore, I am inclined to think that these anticipations are not likely to prove well founded; but only events can show.
There is one point which has been proved in the discussion to be of great importance and that is the presence in the Bill of Clause 4, subsection (1). That gives power to this House alone to veto any regulations which may be brought forward under this Act by Order in Council, whether they now exist and are continued from the previous Statute, or whether they are new ones proposed afresh by the Government. That is a very important point. The noble Viscount who has just spoken said that the power to deal with any such Order or Regulation laid upon the Table is limited to a simple acceptance or rejection. If, for example, the House wished to say, "We will agree to this for one year but not for longer," it could not do so. No, but it could reject the Order in Council with the statement that if the Order were again brought forward limited to one year or to two, it would be endorsed. In effect, there is a power of such amendment.
The conjoint action of both Houses is not required. Either House can act separately. Consequently all these regulations will, even if the five years period is inserted, be within the ultimate control of your Lordships' House. That defeats to a great extent the argument of the Lord Chancellor himself, when he said that five years was essential in order to enable the Government to carry out its programme. That argument will disappear, and so similarly will the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, whose points are particularly answered by that clause. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, brought in the name of Kant. He wrote a good deal about Appearance and Reality. But here reality and appearance appear to me to be very different. The reality is that the House of Lords or the House of Commons will, in fact, have control over the Govern-

601
ment's action throughout the five years whenever new regulations are being mace Or when old ones are to be re-established.
LORD WOOLTON: It is only with the new regulations that this House will have control.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I informally consulted a great authority and was informed that that was not so. It seems to me to somewhat obscure. Does the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, agree?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I understood that if these old regulations are to be revivified it requires an Order in Council.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It confirms whit I say, that the reality is different from the appearance. In reality it is subject to a continuous control. The appearance is no doubt directed towards satisfying the Government supporters and it arouses considerable concern and anger among their opponents, but the reality may be the other way about.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think the noble Viscount said continuous control. It is to be decided in forty days.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I mean continuously as the Orders in Council come forward. Of course, if forty days is quite long enough to deal with a matter of this sort, that is all right. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, had little to say about Clause 4. He said it might put ideas into your Lordships heads and he also said he would pass away from it as rapidly as possible. He found the ice so thin that he immediately skated to safety on firm ground. The attitude now taken by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and presumably confirmed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is that in spite of all these objections this House should pas s this Bill as it now stands, in respect of the period. That is an example of the position in which the House of Lords finds itself, if I may respectfully say so, owing to its ancient constitution never having been changed. It has no forma I representative character and therefore ca mot take effective action as a second Chamber. You are chary of firing a gun if you know quite well that the recoil will knock you over. Consequently this House is taking. I think most wisely, a very cautious attitude in these matters. So we come, in conclusion, to these two questions: (1), Is the Bill right in its
602
present form? (2) Ought the House to pass it? The answers given by the noble Lords on the Opposition Benches to these two questions are: Is the Bill right? No. Should the House pass it? Yes. With a second Chamber composed as the constitution of this House is composed, it seems to me those are the proper answers.
4.12 p.m.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Consolidated Fund (No. 1),
Indian Divorce,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
4.30 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Second Reading Motion.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, by way of prelude to the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, the Government spokesman stated that the Government intended to retain only those war-time powers which were desirable in the public interest. When I read those words, they seemed to me to contain an unimpeachable content, to be reassuring, placating, encouraging. But, I am bound to say, after the first flush of pleasure, the same anxiety occurred to my mind as obviously occurred to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, when he studied the Bill. The question that occurred to me was: What will be the procedure under this Bill for deciding what are the war-time powers which it is desirable to retain in the public interest? Living in a democratically-governed country, and after experience of Parliamentary institutions, I thought, in my innocence, that the procedure of deciding what was desirable would be arrived at by general debate and discussion in the

603
Houses of Parliament, and that powers of this immense nature would come under genera I review of Parliament at not too infrequent intervals.
I confess that, like others, I was disturbed and disappointed to find that, so far from my natural anticipations being realized, as has been pointed out this general review and possible revision cannot take place until the autumn of 1950—five years from now. When I look at the Bench opposite I see a number of noble Lords whom I saw opposite in another place and whom I looked upon with great respect and regard, and to whose utterances I paid great attention, although I did not always agree with what they said. When they were, as often, pleading for the rights of Parliamentary discussion, watching with vigilance the preservation of the rights of minorities, resisting with all their might any suspected attempt of the Executive to curtail Parliamentary time at the expense of the Legislature, I had considerable sympathy with the noble Lords when they were sitting in another place. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has pointed out, my noble friend Lord Stansgate was certainly the most doughty defender of the rights of minorities and the right of Parliament to discuss, and he condemned the wrong of the Executive in curtailing opportunities of discussion. He was the most doughty opponent I have in my recollection. He will forgive my saying so, but, quite frankly, the Executive of whom I was a member at the time found him a considerable nuisance, and, as a junior Minister, not only did I find him a nuisance, but regarded him with considerable apprehension, almost bordering, at times, on terror.
And now, my Lords, see what has happened. These noble Lords here acquiesce in, connive at and support this Bill. To one who has heard them at other times in another place it is a sad reversal. The sight of any man falling from grace is distressing, and doubly so when such a man has had a noble past and whose fetish was the worship of liberty and freedom. I hope the excuse, or the defence, for this Bill will not rest upon the plea that these various matters can be criticize in another place on the Estimates on Supply Day, or by raising the matter on the Adjournment, or by Questions, or, here, by Question and Motion.
604
As regards Clause 4, which has just been mentioned, to a layman the ice is too thin to justify him skating upon it, but I am bound to say, after having heard the expressions, and the divergent expressions, of noble Lords learned in the law, the impression I have in my own mind is that it is a very doubtful defence compared with the defence which Parliament ought to have.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is only for forty days.
LORD SOULBURY: That makes it more doubtful. Parliament should have the power to reconsider, discuss and revise measures of this kind at not too infrequent intervals. It is that power which the Government are now curtailing and taking away. I had hoped that what the Government would have done would have been to allow Parliament, as in the case of war-time regulations, to review these measures annually, or, at worst, perhaps, every two years; to provide an occasion upon which the Government's whole policy, as regards control, could have been reviewed and discussed; a progress report submitted of what had been done with regard to the controls; and how far the Government programme had been realized or not.
But that is just what this Government are seeking to avoid; just what they do not want to do. For this reason, if they did that, then, on their periodical appearance for a review of this Bill, they would either be unable to justify the retention of those powers, in which case they would have to abandon them, or, if they were able to justify them, they would, ex hypothesi, have to confess that their programme had failed, and that the measures which they had hoped to take to render these regulations unnecessary had not matured, and that the Government's policy had been a failure. That would have been the alternative. One sympathizes with any body of persons placed in a dilemma of that kind. It is not an agreeable dilemma to be in, and I am afraid it is the presence of that dilemma which has led the Government into this course. I gathered from the Lord Chancellor, when he addressed your Lordships yesterday, that he regarded criticism as helpful. I took down his exact words:
…if any Government…were deprived of healthy, active, vigorous criticism, it would be deprived of one of its main chances of success."

605
That may be, and I will not dispute it but it is very remarkable that the Lord Chancellor and his friends, holding that view, should seek to enact this self-denying ordinance. If the Lord Chancellor thinks he derives so much support from criticism, why in heaven do the Government go out of their way to remove a very important and salutary method o criticizing the Government at intervals? I must say I am not very much convinced by Ministerial lip-service to criticism. I know it is customary to say low much Ministers enjoy it, but I have yet to meet the Minister who ever pressed the opposition, in another place, to call for his estimates on Supply Day.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Plenty of them
LORD SOULBURY: No doubt other Ministers have the same reaction as I had when they first learned of it, by saying "Now I am for it." Similarly, has any Minister when in difficulty, or some administration has gone wrong, ever asked the Opposition to raise the matter on the Adjournment, or, in some very ticklish situation, said to a Member of the Opposition, "Be a good friend and ask me a question about it"? Criticism is essential; it is almost the main business of Parliament to criticize; but I have yet to be convinced that Ministers like it. That makes me all the more suspicious of a Government who take action of this kind to withdraw Ministerial action from the probing and searching of Parliament. These powers will last for five years. It is a five years' close season for timorous occupants of the Treasury Bench; a protection for Ministers but by no means a protection for the general public.
What is the defence which is put forward for this proposal? If I understand it rightly, it is that it would be wrong to make the country think that after two years the Government would cease to need these powers. In other words, you would thereby create a feeling of false optimism. I understand that that is one of the main objections to the proposal that the period should be two years. I do not think that the Government need be very anxious about that; I do not believe that they have much cause for fear. There may have been some risk of a certain amount of optimism last summer, but the Government have been extremely busy and most successful in
606
pouring buckets of cold water on any optimism which existed. There may still be a few smouldering embers here and there which might be blown into a flame, hut, by and large, I think that the Government have already successfully extinguished the fires of hope which they lit in the hearts of so many people a few months ago. There was some heat engendered in the summer, but there is winter cold now. Ministers have "cast forth their ice like morsels; who is able to withstand their frost?" But whether there is power to review this measure two years or two months hence makes little difference; optimism has been almost extinguished and is most unlikely to recur.
The Lord Chancellor justified the idea that an amendment of the kind suggested would engender false optimism by an analogy from the Army Annual Act. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord—I am not sure whether I use that phrase in the sense to which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred yesterday—this analogy is rather unfortunate for his argument. As your Lordships know, the Army Annual Act is passed every year and, as has been pointed out, nobody thinks that the Army is going to cease to exist as a legal body because its existence is renewed annually. Why on earth, if this Bill had to be renewed after two years, should the general public think that the Government intended to abandon the policy of control? The argument of the Army Annual Act seems to me completely to destroy the purpose for which the Lord Chancellor used it. In any case it seems to me that he has a curious opinion of the electorate, which is not so credulous or so gullible as he imagines.
He appears to have been influenced by the widespread approval of his audiences in the recent General Election, and to have formed the impression that people are enthusiastically thirsting for the controls. In any event it is dangerous to attribute electoral success to any single factor. I very much doubt whether any of the electors realized that they were voting to confer powers of this kind on the Government for five years, and I am wondering whether the Lord Chancellor told them so. He is apprehensive about the action which might be taken in your Lordships' House, a matter with which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just dealt.

607
He seems to fear that while the Government were junketing with controls this House might cut off the banqueters in the midst of their revels if a two-year period were adopted. Is he really so apprehensive of that? I may be over-suspicious, but I think that his anxiety is somewhat tempered by the thought, or possibly the hope, that your Lordships might be induced to supply for His Majesty's Government that scapegoat that they will certainly require before the five-year period has elapsed. In vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird! The Lord Chancellor has dangled a noose in front of your Lordships, but I suggest that you will not be rash enough to insert your heads in it. On the other hand, your Lordships may think it advisable to let the Government have as much rope as there is available, in the hope that at a later stage they will make suitable use of it.
Admittedly these controls are necessary, and many of them will probably be necessary for a considerable time. No one is so foolish as to suppose that the Government could sweep them away without doing incalculable harm to the general That, however, does not mean that this Government should take the kind of action that they wish to take to-day to curtail or limit the opportunity of Parliament to review and revise at intervals the legislation which they have passed. This Bill attempts to stifle or postpone legitimate Parliamentary criticism, and for that reason I submit that it should be deplored by all supporters of Parliamentary government.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we have had, during the last two days, a debate which has reached a level of brilliance which I personally do not remember since I have been in your Lordships' House. In particular, I think we shall all have to wait a very long time before we hear anything so impressive as the formidable and inexorable unfolding of argument in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. I do not pretend that I can compete with forensic ability of that kind, and I should very much have preferred not to speak to your Lordships this afternoon, because it seems to me that the case against this Bill has already been overwhelmingly made.
608
It so happens, however, that in the brilliant speech in which he introduced the measure the Lord Chancellor referred to some remarks which I myself made to your Lordships in the debate on the Address, and it appeared to me that his interpretation required a certain measure of correction. He seemed to imply, or at least I understood him to imply, for his words were rather guarded, that I had advised your Lordships, or those of your Lordships who sit on this side of the House, to give carte blanche to the Government to bring forward any measures they liked, and that we ought to oppose nothing that the Government did, whatever that might be. I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not mean in any way to misinterpret me, and I can only conclude that he was at that moment not giving that full attention to my remarks for which I might perhaps have hoped; but in fact I said nothing of the kind. My words were extremely carefully phrased; I said:
"Whatever our personal views, we should frankly recognize that these proposals were put before the country at the recent General Election and that the people of this country, with full knowledge of these proposals, returned the Labour Party to power. The Government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals."
That is what I said, and as there still seemed some doubt about what I meant, I sought to make the position clear at the end of the debate by an intervention which I made during the speech of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. Noble Lords may remember that I interrupted him to say that the words "these proposals" referred to the proposals which were before the country at the Election. The noble Viscount will remember that.
I have to-day spent a pleasant and, I hope, a fruitful morning in reading a most interesting production of the Labour Party entitled Let Us Face the Future, which I found to be appropriately bound in a white sheet, adorned with some embellishments couleur de rose. I may say that when I was originally making my notes I put down the name of this production as "Let us Face the Facts", but I thought there must be a mistake about that; so I looked again and I now give you the correct title. In this admirable production I found plenty of reference to control; but I must say, search where

609
I would, I could find no suggestion that the decision as to what controls were necessary and what were riot was to be taken out of the control of Parliament for five years, and that that indeed was that only control which was to be removed. Yet that is the issue, and, indeed, the only issue, before us to-day. With regard to the necessity of maintaining for the present the existing controls, which was referred to at very considerable length in the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and in the brilliant and charming maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Pakenham, there is no disagreement at all, so far as I know in any part of the House. We all know that the maintenance of some control is necessary now and may be necessary for some tine in the future. But that is quite a different thing, I suggest, to giving the Government powers to maintain controls for an unknown time in the future when conditions may be entirely different.
Moreover, if your Lordships, wore in disagreement with the decision of the Government, which is incorporated in this Bill, I think a great many of us were still more astonished by the arguments put forward b1 the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in recommending it to the House. His speech, I thought, if he will allow me to say so, was a most admirable piece of special pleading. But I do not believe that it convinced any of your Lordship, and I am extremely doubtful if it convinced the Lord Chancellor himself. The first reason he advanced was—as has heel said this' afternoon—that the British people are passionately attached to controls. He referred to remarks which he said he had heard made at and after election meetings and which had convinced him that this was the case. My noble friend Lord Pakenham made a valiant attempt to extricate him from this difficulty and said that the Lord Chancellor had never said anything of the kind Lord Woolton, he said, had greatly interpreted the Lord Chancellor. But, in fact, the Lord Chancellor did say pretty well what Lord Woolton says he said. But I would quote the exact words to your Lordships. The Lord Chancellor said: "They"—that is the British people—" do not want us to worship spurious liberty by taking off controls. If that does not mean what Lord Woolton sail I do not know what does. I should add, in fairness to the Lord Chancellor, that
610
he added the words: "which will lead to the disastrous situation that followed the last war." Nobody, of course, wants to lead to that situation. But the Lord Chancellor did compare and contrast spurious liberty and the maintenance of control, and I would have thought that Lord Woolton was perfectly fair in making the comment which he did. At any rate, I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is entirely wrong in his view of the British people.
There is riot a single one of your Lord-ships who could not quote examples on the other side. Some measure of control we all know to be necessary at the present time, but I do not believe that there is anyone—Lord Pakenham certainly did not attempt to do so—who would say that controls are, for themselves, popular. I would like to quote an example on the other side which has come within my own experience. It may seem almost too unimportant, too parochial to mention in your Lordships' House, but at the same time it is, I think, a very good example of the intolerable inconvenience which has already been caused to the people of this country by some of these petty restrictions. Your Lordships may not be aware —I was not myself until recently—that there is a regulation, which was passed during the war, under which no one is allowed to set up in business as a haircutter unless he gets a licence. I do not know what was the original reason for that regulation. There may have been some abnormal conditions in war-time which necessitated it, but it is certainly leading to great abuses now.
A NOBLE LORD: What business did the noble Viscount say?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: A haircutter. You cannot cut hair in this country at the present time unless you get a licence from the Board of Trade. Well, in a small country town in my part of the world, there was only one hair-cutter, and he, I am sorry to say, did not give universal satisfaction. As a result, the people of the town had to walk or cycle six miles to get their hair cut. This, naturally, meant very great trouble, expense and waste of time to those concerned. Now it so happened that there was another man in this small town who was also in a position to cut hair. He had been trained to do it, and his fellow citizens went to him and asked if he was

611
ready to start business. The other haircutter had no objection, and it was obviously for the general convenience that this man should cut the hair of the people of that town. He applied to the Board of Trade for a licence, but his application was refused. It was refused on the ground that he did not come within certain very limited categories mentioned in the regulation in question. As a result the maximum of inconvenience has been caused to all concerned.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Viscount say which Government refused the licence?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: This Government refused the licence. But I am not blaming the Government, I am blaming the system under which these regulations are the law of the land. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue. The case which I have quoted is a very small one, but it is typical of the kind of thing that is happening everywhere. One noble Lord—I believe it was Viscount Simon—made mention of business men, and a sort of giggle went over the Front Government Bench as if there were something slightly disreputable or malevolent about business men. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will tell us why he laughed—he did laugh; they all laughed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is the general attitude on the Government Benches whenever business men are mentioned. This man who wanted to start work as a hair-cutter was a business man. There are big business men and there are small business men in this country. A very large part of the life of this country is kept going by business men, and these restrictions are clogging the blood of trade and industry at the present time and will do so more in the future. I do not blame the Committee which refused the licence in the case I have mentioned. They were bound by the terms of the regulation. I have always been told in Parliament that these things can safely be left to the discretion of the Minister. In the vast majority of instances, however, the Minister, who may be a most intelligent and public-spirited man, never hears about them. What in fact happens is that the decision is left to minor bureaucrats. These minor
612
bureaucrats may be, and often are, most excellent and patriotic people. But they are not in a position to use their discretion. I would like the Lord Chancellor to have heard the comments on this subject from the people of the town to which I have referred. I feel sure that they would have modified his views as to the desire of the British people for more and better controls.
Then the noble Lord gave a second reason in favour of this Bill which I personally thought was even more surprising. This touched what I think was called the constitutional aspect by Lord Pakenham this afternoon. I was interested to see that, very wisely, he did not tackle that aspect himself at all. He passed over it and went on to safer ground. But the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was not so discreet and he said in effect—he will correct me if I am misinterpreting him—that the Government did not want to return to Parliament in two years' time to ask for an extension of the period of control because they were afraid that Parliament might refuse. I gather that the Government were not unduly apprehensive about the House of Commons. They thought that the subservient majority of the House of Commons could be depended upon to toe the Party line whatever their own personal opinions might be. The Whip would be put on and it would be effective. But your Lordships are a very different matter. You are independent minded; you are allowed to think for yourselves; and that in the Lord Chancellor's opinion was clearly a dreadful thing, which could not be allowed; it was a danger which must be guarded against.
I think he suggested at a later period that Clause 4 gave Parliament some power over new Orders, and, it has been suggested since, over old Orders. I am not clear about that, but, in any case, I do not think it very much matters. What is going to happen is that old or new Orders are to lie on the Table for forty days and that after that, once they have been approved, Parliament loses control over them for five years. That is the position. Those Orders may be perfectly legitimate at the time they are introduced. Your Lordships may wish these Orders to be passed through the House; yet in two years, one and a half years, or three years the situation may have changed and there may be every reason then for with-

613
drawing those Orders. But Parliament is era rely debarred from taking any action in the matter. If I remember right, during this part of the noble Lords speech, the Leader of the House left the Chamber. I think he was extremely wise. For I do not know how many times in the last three years we have heard the noble Lord extol the virtues of your Lordships' House as a Council of State, not unduly swayed by Party opinion, wise and objective. And who shall say he wrong?
Personally, I have never known your Lordships' House fail to consider the merits of the case, and if the arguments were strong and convincing, I am sure your Lordships would grant the Government the power for which they asked. If they refused to concede these powers it would be simply and purely because they considered that the powers were no longer necessary. Moreover, in any case, if this House refused powers which are thought by Ministers to be essential, the Government have always the ordinary constitutional remedy open to them, which is to go back to the country and ask for a renewal of their mandate. There is nothing to prevent them doing that at any time they wish. If the country is behind then, their mandate will be renewed. If the country votes against them, it is clear that their policy is not approved. That is the proper constitutional course. I have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, recommend that course again and again. I remember hearing a broadcast which he made, I think, in the early years of the war, extolling the dignity and authority of Parliament and how it must be preserved. That is the way to preserve it. First, there is the Government: over them conies the authority of Parliament: and over Parliament the authority of the British people. That is the structure of the British Constitution. If the Government are hampered in their work, they can always go back to the sovereign people of this country from which. Parliament gets its authority. But what is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution is to attempt to stifle the free decisions of Parliament. That is what the Government are doing by this Bill, and as Lord Woolton said quite truly, whether they mean it or not, it savours of totalitarianism. It is that that has shocked your Lordships and, I am sure, when it realizes the truth, will shock the whole country.
614
As Lord Woolton has already announced, we do not propose to vote against this Bill. For one thing, if we did so and if we defeated the Government, we should automatically bring controls to an end now, some of which at the present time we know to be absolutely necessary. We all accept the fact that those controls are needed now. Moreover, there is another equally important reason, which was expressed far better than I could do it in the effective and forceful speech of Lord Brabazon yesterday afternoon. We honestly believe that the country has made a deplorable mistake in electing the present Government. We believe that it will soon be apparent to them how great that mistake is. But the only way in which they can learn this lesson is by being allowed to find out for themselves what a Socialist Government means, the interference with liberty which it brings in its train. Noble Lords opposite, in the first flush of victory, applaud this measure. But they will, I believe, possibly at no distant date, curse the day when they put their name to it. The Government appear to have suicidal tendencies. If they want to hang themselves, for Heaven's sake do not let us deter them from their laudable ambition. On the contrary, let us give them the rope and they themselves, I hope and believe, will, in the fullness of time, do the rest.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, in contemplating this debate this afternoon I was somewhat depressed because yesterday there seemed to be such a general measure of agreement that it appeared to me that the Opposition would wilt. Today, however, things have livened up. I do not feel called upon to answer all the points, although I listened with great interest to the noble Viscount's slashing attack on the Coalition Government in dealing with hair-cutters. There was also the Bill mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I was a follower in those old days and whereas the noble Viscount opposite appears to regard this Bill as -such a constitutional monstrosity that it is a public duty to destroy it at the earliest moment, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, taking the view of the Liberals in the old days, regards this House as being unable to do anything of the kind. I should have liked to hear that point developed.

615
It was rather wistfully that I listened to some of the remarks on these old controversial questions. I thought of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition as a sort of schedule of the Parliament Act. He said it was our business to act as a Council of State. We are here as His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, referred to us as members of the Opposition, but he must get out of that habit. I remember these controversies. There are not many people now who do remember them; but of course everyone gets old. There were great battles and I thought the matter was settled. The old doctrine was: "When we think the public are sick of the Government, we have a right to destroy the Government." There seems to be much the same opinion to-day. The mandate of the Government is to be judged, not by the electors, but by the Opposition in a non-representative House. If the noble Lord thinks that that will bring about the suicide of the Government, I think he has got the suicide boot on the wrong leg.
To come to the more monotonous question of this Bill—it really is a very dull affair because we are nearly all agreed—let us take the points one by one. First there is the White Paper which was the declaration of a three-Party Government. It said that the Government had no intention of maintaining war-time restrictions for restriction's sake, but were resolved that so long as supplies were abnormal the most urgent needs should be met first. By that declaration we stand. Then I come to the Bill itself. I do not know whether I may say such a thing of an ex-Lord Chancellor, but I thought the noble and learned Viscount rather over-egged the pudding. He described the thing as something terrible. He read out words which were so general—of course lawyers always use general words —that anything might be done under them. When I asked some of my colleagues what he was reading from; I found he was reading from a Bill which he himself supported when he was Lord Chancellor in the Coalition Government. Really I felt my withers were unwrung. I was very interested in his references to Mr. Laski and to Mr. G. D. H. Cole, who I believe is a writer of detective fiction.
616
As regards the Bill, although I am not overlooking the fact that there is a difference between two years and five years, it really is the same as that which was introduced by the noble and learned Viscount's own Government. Apart from the argument about two and five, it is the same Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said very wittily that whereas maternity was a matter of fact, paternity was a matter of opinion. I should have thought that a dangerous remark to make in an hereditary Chamber. This Bill is the Bill of the late Government with the exception of the one point about two years or five years. All of us on this side of the House would like to acknowledge the sense of statesmanlike responsibility shown by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in saying: "Of course, controls are necessary; we should have imposed them if we had been in office." There is another view, of course, which is easier to take and much more popular—the sort of view that societies, like the Society of Individualists, would take. If people are irritated and are annoyed with us, they say: "Why don't you join the Individualists Society and get rid of controls?" It requires a man with a sense of responsibility, especially when in Opposition, to come and say: "We admit that controls are necessary and we should impose them." The other line, "Are you annoyed? Try us," is much easier but not so responsible. I wish we had the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, here to-day, but unfortunately he is absent.
Now I come to the question of method. If I giggled at the mention of business men it was not out of any disrespect—far from it—but there is a great difference in the attitude to what is called liberty between business men who are well off and those who have a hard economic life. I thought Lord Woolton's account of the business man very attractive—the merchant venturer who has made money and says: "Take it from me, I like the fun of the game." But there is no fun of the game for the man who cannot get a house because somebody is building a cinema, or cannot get soap because someone is making lipstick, or cannot get a job for lack of direction which has resulted in a factory closing down. The freedom he looks for is freedom from want, freedom from insecurity. While he likes, as we like, political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and

617
so on, he recognizes that in other matters you must have regulation and planning if social security is to be provided and the ordinary needs of life are to be met.
I was much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his quotation of what I said—I had not remembered that I spoke in 1939 in the House of Commons—but there is a vast difference between emergency powers which enable the Government to suspend Habeas Corpus and lock up a man without trial, and regulations such as are proposed. The one means infringement of personal liberty and the other direction of the economic life of the country. As regards Parliamentary control over these things, I was amazed at the measure of Parliamentary control. Forty years ago the noble and learned Viscount and I entered Parliament I think al: the same time. I am a good Parliamentarian, a House of Commons man through and through. We always used in those days to say to the Minister: "Put it in the Bill."
But in 1908—that is the first thing I remember about it—the Old Age Pensions Act was succeeded by a mass of social legislation affecting at every point the common life of the people. It was impossible then to "put it in the Bill." Therefore, instead of a demand for some thing to be put in the Bill, there arose the question of controlling the regulations which were inevitable if this type of legislation was to be passed, and the struggle became one for the right of day-to-day inspection and control of the regulations.
I am no longer a House of Commons man, but I must say that if I were would never call the giving of these powers browbeating the Back Benchers. The power given here is tremendous. My noble friend Lord Pakenham said he hesitated to put ideas into your Lordships heads; but I would say that apart front motions of censure regarding all these things, not only Orders in Council but regulations made in pursuance of those Orders, you have the power of going into semi-minutia. In your Lordships' House, where the rules of order are so generous and time is unlimited—we have not begun yet to sit after, dinner—your Lordships will be able to exercise co-equal power; with the House of Commons. Never yet as far as I know, has an attempt
618
been made to deny this House co-equal power to pray against regulations made.
Finally, to come to the great question of two years against five years, I understand the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to attach sanctity to one year. But if one year, why not two?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Why not ten?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am coming to that, but it was one year which the noble and learned Viscount repeated time after time. That was with regard to Acts. Nobody believes that even at the end of five years all these regulations will have ceased. There will be something left, we agree. What therefore is required is an overriding power to retain the imposition of a reasonable amount of restriction—we hope the minimum that may be. What is the difference between the two? The difference is this. The Coalition said, "We will start with two, plus one may be, plus one may be, plus one—that is five." We say, "We will start with five and then, if necessary, we can prolong it." That is the whole difference.
But what does come up for review when this comes before the House? It is not the regulations that matter. You can consider the improper use of the regulations at any time, either in another place or in this House. What comes up for review is the power of the Government to make such regulations. We all know, and it is agreed, that at the end of five years that power cannot be discarded. No Government, in fact, could exist without some such power, in all probability for five years. The House of Commons, having gathered fresh strength from the Election, decided about a fortnight ago, by a majority of 300 to 180, that they wanted it for five years, and the question we are discussing is whether this House is to decide that it shall be for only two years. What the Government will not do is to come, at the end of two years, and put themselves on probation to this House, for their existence to be continued from year to year as this House may decide.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is not this House; it is Parliament to which they will not come.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No, let there be no mistake about this. If the House

619
of Commons wishes to turn out the Government, it can do so to-morrow. Anyone can put down a Vote of Censure, and the Government can be turned out. But what the noble Viscount is asking is that there shall be power to make us come after two years, once a year, and to say: "There are certain things we require if we are to exist"; and this House is to have the power to say: "No, we have finished; we think your mandate is exhausted." That we will not concede. After all, the duty of the Government is to govern. Therefore I would venture respectfully to endorse the advice that was given to your Lordships by Lord Wool-ton, who begged you to use your great power in the interests of the country, by refraining from opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order). An Amendment (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY.
Message from the Commons for leave for Charles Travis Clay, Esq., C.B., Librarian of the House of Lord's, to attend to be examined before the Select Committee of that House. Leave given accordingly and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.