Lords Sitting of 2 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers.
The Lord Amherst of Hackney—Took the Oath.

THE LATE FIELD-MARSHAL VISCOUNT GORT.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT STANSGATE): My Lords, in the absence through indisposition of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I have been asked to make some reference to the grievous loss which this House has sustained in the death of Lord Gort, and to express on behalf of the Government our deep sympathy with those he has left behind. In a House so rich in great military commanders it would seem more fitting that one of them should be the first to speak of this dead hero, but the Government, speaking for the nation, claim the privilege of laying the first wreath upon a warrior's tomb. The ordinary people know little of ranks, honours, decorations and distinctions; but with unerring instinct they penetrate to the qualities that lie beneath, and in Lord Gort they perceived three great qualities, those of courage, fortitude and kindness. In this country we always put courage first, and certainly he had no peer in personal courage. But the official citation tells us little; it can only recount the deeds; it says nothing of the inward struggle of which the deeds are the fruit. Then fortitude, Lord Gort's name is associated with Dunkirk, from whose disastrous beaches it required a personal order to persuade him to return.
"Who so beset him round
With dismal stories,
Do but themselves confound.
His strength the more is."
It was on the moral triumph of Dunkirk that the military triumphs of the war were based. His kindness was well known, his constant solicitude and
474
thought for his men. As an example of that, there is the sharing of his rations with the common soldier in starving Malta—the Commander-in-Chief known to all and passing among them with the mien of the Happy Lover. He revealed to us a great truth which is the foundation of all human society—that we are all one clay. These truths endure when, honours are forgotten; they console us in the moment of our sorrow. For him there is no sorrow, only gladness.
"This is the Happy Warrior, this is he
That every man in arms should wish to be."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I know that everyone on this side of the House will wish most sincerely to be associated with the moving tribute which the Secretary of State has paid to the memory of a great soldier. As the history of the war comes to be written, I think it will be more and more recognized how much this country and the Allied cause owes to Lord Gort. He was fated never to have a supreme independent command, but there can be no doubt that he was a supremely great leader of men. He proved that beyond a peradventure as a battalion commander in the first Great War. That was confirmed again and again in every command which he held in this last war. In France, up to the time of the retreat he was a: subordinate commander, loyally carrying, out a strategy of which he may at times have doubted the wisdom. He was not his own master until the long testing retreat, when, by his skill and courage, he extricated the British Army, and in so doing probably saved this country. I suppose history will rank that most difficult campaign with the Battle of Britain, as one of the two most critical operations, of the war; indeed, they were chapters of the same epic.
The subsequent course of the war must have brought him disappointment, but he never showed it. He filled successive appointments with selfless devotion to-duty, and with signal success—and they were vitally important. From the day he arrived in Gibraltar he set himself with tireless energy to create an impregnable fortress, and as he excavated and tunnelled those marvellous defences in the Rock, he built the airfield which owes so much to his foresight as well as to his energy—that great airfield which was to stand the liberating forces in such good stead in

475
the North African campaign. Then he went from Gibraltar to Malta, where the same tireless energy and the inspiration of his courage and example did so much to hold the untenable. He was to its people the true and perfect Knight of Malta. When Malta was relieved, another hard task claimed him, Palestine, to which he gave his health as he had so often risked his life. There, by his sincerity, his wisdom, and his transparent fairness, he won, as few other men could have won, the respect and the confidence of Arab and of Jew. Characteristically, he carried on till failing health forced him to give up. So ends a life of service, of comradeship and of example. He was indeed, as the Secretary of State has said, in the very truest sense the Happy Warrior.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, Lord Gort was one of those men of strong and simple character who command universal confidence and who are enabled to show the greatest capacities for leadership. By his gallantry he won the Military Cross, the Distinguished Service Order with two bars, and, finally, the Victoria Cross. Whenever there was a specially hard task to be done, it was Lord Gort who was called upon to do it. Before the outbreak of the recent war, when danger was clearly looming close at hand, it was he who was made Chief of the Imperial General Staff with the task of reorganizing our Army. When war broke out, and a small British force was called upon to face overwhelming odds, it was he who was made its Commander-in-Chief. After Dunkirk, when it appeared that Gibraltar would be the object of a dangerous assault, Lord Gort was sent there to be the General Officer in command. When that danger seemed to have passed away, and it was Malta which was the key point of danger, he again was made its Governor and Commander-in-Chief.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has just said, when the war was over, and Palestine was perhaps the most difficult of all the immediate and urgent political problems that faced this country, he was sent there to be its High Commissioner. I can fully confirm from my close contacts with Palestine that he won universal esteem and confidence. I believe, so far as I know, no word of criticism of his administration was ever uttered, and his
476
cruel illness deprived Palestine at a moment of crisis of a Government in which the whole country had the greatest confidence. He was a great soldier, a great servant of the country, and we mourn his loss and sympathize with those he has left behind.
LORD CHETWODE: My Lords, I think it would ill befit me as the only Field-Marshal in the House at this moment, and perhaps as one of the few men under whom Lord Gort has personally served, if I did not say a word in addition to what the noble Lords have already said. I knew him well. He was not only one of the bravest men I have met in my life but he was one of the most charming. He served under me in India, and I feel that is where his ill health began. He was Director of Military Training. In addition to his bravery he was a very, very able Staff officer indeed, and perhaps what was even more striking was that you never heard his name mentioned either by a man or a woman in India without the addition of "What a charming man." He was so personally charming. You cannot say he has been lucky in this war. He has had almost every difficult job thrown at his head. He has throughout taken those jobs without question and always done everything that could be done in those jobs and, I think you will agree, a little more besides.
Even when he went to command our troops in France he was one of those most unfortunate men, a British soldier who is put in command of British troops at the beginning of a war. He only had four divisions to deal with the Germans, who then counted their divisions by hundreds, and he had no armour to help him. He never lost heart. I went out to stay with him there. How he managed to get those troops away from Dunkirk will always be to me a complete mystery, but I am quite certain there was one reason for it, and that was his personal gallantry and the way he perpetually showed himself to his troops in the front line and everywhere else. They knew he was there and behind them the whole time. That is really the secret of his success with troops; they knew they could always depend on him. England is the poorer for his loss, and certainly we in the Army are very much the poorer for his loss, because we have not only lost a man almost romantically brave but the sort

477
of man we can only think of as having the qualities of the perfect leader.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the memory of my old Chief, Lord Gort. Having had many opportunities of serving in close relationship under Lord Gort both in France and Malta I learned to appreciate to the full his unique character. On the beaches of Dunkirk he had resolved to fight with his troops to the last and he would have fulfilled that oft repeated wish had it not been for other calls of a special nature which were made on his services. On his arrival in Malta he brought new inspiration and new hope and it was his indomitable courage and his devotion to the Island and her sorely tried people that earned for him their everlasting gratitude. As has been stated, he was, on occasions, a disappointed man but he continued, after the fall of France and during a period of great personal bereavement and unhappiness, to carry out every task, however difficult, which he was called upon to discharge. In times of mortal peril and great danger he never wavered from his inflexible faith in final victory.
It is well that we should pause for a few moments to pay our respects to this great soldier whose qualities are certain to give him a permanent place in our history. We who knew him and loved him will always carry the memory of a God-fearing man, a true friend, a great Guardsman and a loyal and devoted servant to his King and country.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the amalgamation of police forces in Scotland; to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants towards police expenditure in Scotland; to amend the law relating to the provision of buildings and acquisition of land in Scotland for police purposes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION BILL.
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, you will remember the Education Act of 1944 as the boldest and most far-sighted measure of social reform carried through Parliament during the war years. It was also memorable as a further stage in the development of our collective responsibility for giving an equal educational opportunity and a higher standard of culture to those who lack the advantages of parental affluence. This Bill merely consequential upon the Act of 1944. It seeks to make more effective the policy approved at that time by all Parties represented in the Coalition Government and by both the voluntary and public agencies that together operate our system of education. For this purpose it sets out to qualify existing law and to make a certain number of minor modifications in it. These small amendments are required to bring about the educational advance proposed in 1944 with greater speed and efficiency.
I propose to deal in my remarks on the Bill with the main alterations in existing law needed in our view to complete the job begun by the Education Act 1944. My first example occurs in Clause 1 of the Bill. Under the 1944 Act, local education authorities are responsible for all expenses of maintaining a controlled school, but they cannot pay for the enlargement of such a school if the additional building they have in mind is extensive enough to amount to the provision of a new school. There are many cases, however, where it would be more economical and educationally efficient to enlarge an existing controlled school than to build an entirely new county school or to keep in being a number of small controlled schools.

479
Clause 1, therefore, enables local education authorities to pay for such an extension of an existing controlled school provided, of course, that the Minister is satisfied by their reasons in every case.
Under Clause 6 of the Bill the local education authorities would be able to get the work of enlargement and any other building or repairs undertaken carried out by themselves. As I have already mentioned, these authorities are already responsible for the expenses involved in maintaining a controlled school. They ought, therefore, to be in a position to make sure that the work is done as economically as possible. It is also probable that, in these days, with their greater resources they will be able to get this constructional work done more quickly than the school managers or governors. A third clause which is designed to hasten preparation for the raising of the school-leaving age, is Clause 5, which widens the scope of Section 109 of the 1944 Act. That section empowers the local education authorities to provide temporary accommodation for voluntary schools if the Minister is satisfied that it is essential, owing either to difficulties arising from war conditions or to the coming into operation of Part II of the main Act.
These powers, however, can be used only when the permanent accommodation will ultimately be provided by the managers or governors of the school concerned. This limitation is, at present, hampering preparations for the raising of the compulsory school-leaving age which is due to go up on April 1 of next year, and the purpose of the clause is to remove it. Authorities will then be in a position to provide temporary accommodation for a voluntary school whatever the agency may be that will provide permanent accommodation for its pupils. Let me give an example if I may. There are many Church schools of mixed ages from which the senior children will ultimately go to county secondary schools. The clauses which I have mentioned so far are those which are aimed at making available as quickly as possible the increased accommodation which will be needed when we have to cater for a very much larger number of schoolchildren.
I should now like to turn to Clause 7, which will, I believe, be specially appre-
480
ciated by those of your Lordships who are keenly interested in the question of religious education. Under the Education Act of 1921 it was a common practice for Church of England and Roman Catholic schools to celebrate religious worship on certain occasions of special significance in Church and not on the school premises. Under the terms of the 1944 Act this practice is no longer possible; the collective act of worship must take place on the school premises, but it was not intended by the authors of the Act that this should be an invariable rule in all types of school. Aided and special agreement schools are clearly in a different position as compared with other schools. Provision is, therefore, made that in these types of school the collective act of worship may, on appropriate occasions of high religious significance, such as the Feast of Title or Ascension Day, take place elsewhere than in a classroom or other part of a school building.
Those who speak in this House for the Church of England and for the other religious denominations in the country will, I am sure, welcome this particular provision. I believe that they will also be pleased to note the provision in paragraph I of the First Schedule of the Bill. It is made clear in this paragraph that the responsibility for providing any additional site which may be needed for an existing voluntary school or a new site to which a voluntary school is transferred under Section 16 of the 1944 Act rests with the local education authority, and not with the managers or governors of the school. This conclusion is, indeed, implied in the 1944 Act, but it is reached there in such a roundabout way that there has already been misunderstanding about the intention of the Act; hence the urgent need for the clarification of the law contained in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule.
The First Schedule further provides, in paragraph 6—and here it does break new ground—that any such site shall be conveyed by the local education authority to the trustees of the school. This is to get over the legal difficulty that in many cases trust moneys cannot be used for erecting buildings on land which does not actually belong to the trust, and which, of course, does not, therefore, offer complete security of tenure. It would, of course, defeat the object of the local authorities in giving this limited assistance to voluntary schools if the managers were then

481
unable to put up their school buildings on the land purchased expressly for that purpose. But the obligation of fairness in monetary matters works both ways. It it, of course, mutual as between the trustees of such properties and the local education authorities. In the case of a controlled school, the local education authority will also cover the cost of the erection of any new buildings on the site, and since the trustees may be able to sell the old site or buildings for a considerable sum—quite a likely event in these days—a duty is placed on them by paragraph 7 of the First Schedule of the Bill to pay to the local education authority such sum as the Minister may consider just, as a contribution towards the cost of the new buildings. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest—and I do not believe that anyone does suggest it—that the trustees should pocket the whole of what may be a considerable windfall.
It is possible that when a piece of land has been provided for a voluntary school by a local education authority, in the way I have just described, and has been conveyed to the trustees, a portion of it may subsequently be acquired by a public authority—for example, by a highway authority for road-widening purposes. A duty is therefore placed upon the trustees by paragraph 8 of the First Schedule of the Bill to pay to the local education authority a fair share of the compensation or purchase money. It is also necessary to safeguard public moneys in the event of the closure of a voluntary school on which capital expenditure has been incurred either by the local education authority or by the Minister. Accordingly, among the miscellaneous amendments in the Second Schedule of the Bill is one to empower the Minister to require the repayment of so much of the expenditure as he thinks just. Alternatively, if the premises in question are still needed for educational purposes, he may require them to be conveyed to the local education authority. Any payment made will be a value payment. It will have regard, of course, to the circumstances existing at the time the transaction takes place, and will take full account of any increase in the value of the site, or any fall in the value of the buildings. Of course, it cuts the other way too. The local education authority will themselves, if they acquire the
482
premises, have to make a payment to the school in so far as any part of the buildings or premises concerned was not provided by them, by the local education authorities, in the first instance.
There is one other aspect of the financial relations between public education authorities and the voluntary schools I think I ought to mention. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the managers or governors of a voluntary school shall pay to the local education authority any proceed from the letting or hiring of any part of the school premises other than school buildings. This means, in effect, that the local education authority are to receive any sums derived from the letting or hiring, out of school hours of course, of playing fields, a caretaker's house, a pavilion, a medical inspection room, or a dining room. The justification for this injunction is that the playing fields and the buildings I have just mentioned are provided entirely at the expense of the local education authorities.
Clause 9 of the Bill is important because it gives local education authorities additional powers to provide clothing. The need for a supply of spare clothing in a nursery school or for children attending nursery classes, is obvious enough, and calls for no explanation; but I would like to say something about the effect of paragraph (a) of this clause, and the reason for its inclusion in the Bill. The powers here conferred on local education authorities are primarily designed for mentally or physically handicapped children attending residential special schools. But they will also be useful when conditions make it possible for local education authorities to provide boarding schools for normal children. Under the 1944 Act, the parent is, in 99 cases out of 100, not required to make any contribution to the cost of boarding his child at a special school, as the child is sent there because it is only in that way that he can be given a suitable education. But under Section 51 of this Act, the 1944 Act, the parent is liable to contribute to the cost of clothing worn by the child. There are two objections to this arrangement. In the first place, a strict application of Section 51 will involve an examination of the wardrobe of each child admitted to a residential special school, the application of a means test to the parent, and the subsequent charge of varying contributions

483
according to the parents' financial position and the amount of clothes provided for an individual child.
Apart from the obvious objections to such an inquisitorial procedure, the effort and cost involved would be quite disproportionate to the results achieved. In the second place, it is still not generally realized what very little clothing poor children actually have. They have practically no reserve of clothing to meet an emergency. Their parents, if they are not completely indifferent, get over this difficulty by sending the child to bed while his clothes are being washed; but no public authority can resort to procedure of this kind, nor can it allow the children to go about in the streets in clothes which, being extremely scanty or shabby, might seriously reflect on the good management of the school. Another point I would make is this. Special schools aim at making their pupils as normal-looking as possible, and they are helped in off-setting the visible impression of particular defects if the children's clothing is sufficient and attractive. The Government have therefore decided that it is in the best interests of the defective children to enable authorities to provide the additional clothing free of charge, and without inquiry into the parents' means.
These few remarks have been directed to those provisions of the Bill that were either of outstanding importance in themselves or likely to be of special interest to the House, but of course I will gladly give further explanations if they are asked for by any noble Lords who may speak later in the debate. In the meantime, I do commend this Bill to the House as the humble instrument of a great design, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.6 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like very briefly to congratulate the Minister of Education on producing this Bill, and to thank the noble Earl for the clarity with which he has laid it before us. I noticed that in another place there was complete agreement on almost every detail of the Bill, and that there was agreement throughout the Committee stage when a number of Amendments
484
were moved, both by the Minister and by members of other parts of the House. I think that is not surprising when we remember the discussions we had in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill of 1944. I have not actually looked up and counted the number of days, but I should be very much surprised if we did not spend more than ten days in Committee with a great number of Amendments. It is not surprising that now, when the Bill is beginning to be examined and put into operation, a number of points should require adjustment. There is only one point I venture to make, which is to support what Mr. Butler said, in another place, in asking the Minister to consider very seriously the early consolidation of this Bill with the Act of 1944. It is most desirable for educational administrators to be able to pick up one Act and really see what is required of them. I can only see one possible argument against taking this action at once, and that is, as is quite possible during the next twelve months or so, that other points still may become apparent; other points may require adjustment. Naturally, if the Minister thinks that is likely to happen, she will desire to postpone any consolidation.
With such considerable degree of agreement on this Bill, I do not think it is necessary to weary your Lordships with reference to particular clauses. I would like, however, to mention Clause I. Clause I undoubtedly may not satisfy all the noble Lords entirely, but I think we should be agreed that it is a very considerable advance on the powers of local authorities in assisting a particular type of voluntary schools—controlled schools, perhaps I should say. It is only another registration of the fact of how far we have outgrown the old religious controversies connected with education, which in the past did so much harm to the general cause.
The noble Lord referred to a considerable number of clauses, but I do not think he mentioned one clause which I particularly welcome. That is Clause 8. There is no doubt that these broken terms have been the cause of an immense amount of disorganization in the schools. The fact that a pupil could leave the school in the middle of a term, on the very day on which he or she attained the school-leaving age, resulted in a considerable

485
breaking up of classes and disorganization of school life. I should like to congratulate the Minister on having tackled that problem.
I also welcome Clause 4, which I think one should read with the First Schedule to the Bill. We have here a considerable clarification and strengthening of the obligations of authorities with regard to the provision of facilities for medical inspection, for canteens and for playing fields. As I read the Schedule—perhaps the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—it makes the ultimate responsibility of the local authorities with regard to this matter very much clearer than in the past. Indeed, it places the ultimate responsibility upon them with regard to all types of school. These are the only clauses in the Bill to which I would make particular reference. I should like, however, once again to congratulate the Minister on tackling this difficult and most important matter and on making these adjustments.
3.11 p.m.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister of Education on this admirable Bill, not only on account of its contents but in having persuaded her colleagues, when there is so much competing legislation, to find time for it. That is no mean achievement. It was of course inevitable in a Bill of the magnitude of the 1944 Act that certain small cracks and flaws should begin to show themselves. The marvel indeed is that not more have been revealed. As my noble friend has pointed out, I think that is largely due not only to the long and patient negotiations which preceded that legislation but to the careful and protracted attention given to it in Committee. It would probably be a very good thing if all our legislation could receive similar care and attention.
There are very few clauses to which I would make reference. Clauses 1 to 5 will I think be of very great help to local authorities in carrying out the class of development which is prescribed for in the 1944 Act. Speaking as a member of a local education authority, I can assure your Lordships that they will be aware of the help which they can receive. I think it is probable that, under the policy of providing secondary education for all, in due course there will be a con-
486
siderable discontinuance of the smaller schools, such as the village and voluntary schools. That tendency was already in operation before the war as a result of the policy of reorganization. As noble Lords are aware, local authorities were then busy in building new schools for the children of eleven years of age and over. In the rural districts many of these schools—I think too many—were being sited in the local towns. That was no doubt a convenience to the local authority, and probably there were many points in the favour of such a policy.
With such experience as I had, I formed the opinion that, with regard to what are called the area schools, the East Suffolk authority probably made the best provision for that type of school, which is called a senior school, that could be made in the country. It was not possible to do what this Bill now makes it possible to do, but the Suffolk authority built these new schools in the countryside in a central position reasonably adjacent to a number of village schools and within a practical radius. But they could not do what this Bill now proposes may be done. Nor indeed did the 1944 Act make it possible. It is now possible to take a suitably sited voluntary village school and enlarge it so as to make a central school in the same way as one finds with East Suffolk area schools at present. The result, of which many of your Lordships I am sure will approve, will be to make secondary education available in the countryside without the children having to go into the towns for it. There is only one point which I should like to make with regard to these enlarged schools, and that is that I hope they will not be too large. It is difficult to define what the size of a school should be, just as it is in business or industry or indeed any human undertaking. I would, however, say that where one has the case of a headmaster of a school no longer being able to act, as it were, as the guide, philosopher and friend of the pupils, but mainly as administrator, then that school in my opinion is too large.
Clause 5 will be of very considerable help to local authorities in their task of making provision for the raising of the school-leaving age in about a year's time. Clause 109 of the 1944 Act is certainly unduly restrictive. It is essential to have power to build these temporary classrooms for the new age group, where the

487
school permits, where there is room for them. Without that I can see very considerable difficulty indeed in arranging accommodation for the children of the new age group. Of course what we all want are good, permanent school buildings everywhere, but sometimes one could wish that our ancestors had themselves indulged in a bit of temporary building instead of some of the frightful and indestructible buildings which the Victorian age produced for the benefit of the children of that time. With the standard of educational equipment and building changing so rapidly, one might be excused for wondering whether even now it is safe to build a school to last for more than one generation. At any rate, the position is this: unless advantage is taken of this clause to provide this temporary accommodation (which can be quite pleasant and agreeable), and, unless that is provided in considerable quantity, there will be a great danger of producing what is the great bugbear to all teachers—the large class. I notice that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary said in his opinion a good building was as important as a good teacher. I doubt that. With such experience as I have had in opening very fine new schools, I have always formed the opinion that, unless the quality of the teacher was as good as or better than that of the building, the school would not have a successful future.
There is one other clause in respect of which I will say a few words. That is Clause 9, to which the noble Earl referred. That, if I may say so, is an admirable clause. I am, however, wondering whether it goes quite far enough. For instance, so far as I can see, a local authority is to provide clothing free of charge—that is, blazers, gym. costumes, and so forth—for any pupil who is a boarder at any educational institution maintained by the authority, and for the pupils at the nursery schools. So far as I can see, this would not enable the authority to make such provision for a boarder in a direct-grant school or in a school assisted by a local authority. I am also not clear whether such provision would be made for a child in the area of one authority who boards in a school maintained by another authority. Nor, of course, does it presumably apply to children who go to independent schools. I hope the future will see a much larger
488
proportion of these poorer children eventually finding their way to these schools. I may have, however, misunderstood the clause, and I should be obliged if the noble Earl in his reply would enlighten me on that point. Otherwise I personally have no criticism and no misgivings about this admirable Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it your full approval.
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am speaking on this occasion as a Roman Catholic, and not as a member of the Liberal Party. We welcome this Bill, which we think is a clarification of the original Act and will help considerably from an administrative point of view. I confess that when the Bill was introduced in another place we had certain qualms about some of its provisions. These qualms have been largely allayed because the Minister was able to accept the principle of certain Amendments we put forward and gave us also an assurance on one particular point—namely, Clause 14, Schedule 2. But I would ask the noble Earl to note that it is probable, arising out of that assurance, that I shall put down an Amendment at the Committee stage when it comes before your Lordships. It will only be a small Amendment and in line with the assurance to which I have referred. Meanwhile I would like to express to the Minister our thanks for the attention and courtesy she gave to the proposals we placed before her in another place.
Your Lordships will see that, as I have said, we welcome this Bill and we have acquiesced in and generally welcomed the 1944 Act. I feel bound to take this opportunity to remind your Lordships that while the Catholic community has pledged itself to do its utmost to make that Act workable it is by no means satisfied with all the provisions of that Act. We find it is quite intolerable that Catholic parents should be penalized financially for sending their children to Catholic schools. We look upon that not only as a severe burden but as a grave injustice and we intend to do our utmost to get it obliterated as soon as an opportunity arises. Meanwhile we welcome this Bill.
3.23 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I want just to add one word of welcome for this Bill. It was a Bill

489
necessary to meet a number of difficulties which had arisen in the actual administration., and I think that it is agreed that most of these Amendments do improve the Bill. Perhaps Clause 7 may need a little scrutiny when we come to the Committee stage and I hope that that may be interpreted very liberally on the few occasions on which there may be special services in a building or otherwise actually in the schools. It is possible that later on in the Committee stage the clause may be made clearer. Meanwhile I welcome the Bill and say that it is indeed satisfactory to find that a wide-reaching measure of educational reform can go through without reviving the old controversies which so often hampered education in the past.
3.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I will only add a very brief word on this Second Reading. I agree with those noble Lords who have congratulated the framers of the Bill upon the Bill, which seems to me on the whole a very desirable measure. The only remark I want to make is this. When a Bill of this kind comes up and I have an opportunity of reading it, I read it with the object of seeing whether as a lawyer I can understand it and whether it is something which the Courts or other people who have to deal with it will be able to understand. On the whole I express the opinion, because I am sometimes a critic on these occasions, that this Bill is very well drafted and is a credit to the draftsman.
The only portion which for my part I cannot construe with any accurate meaning is at line 10 on the first page—namely, Clause 1, subsection (1). That refers to the enlargement of controlled schools. The clause provides that:
"If upon the application of a local education authority and the managers or governors of a controlled school maintained by the authority, the Minister of Education (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) is satisfied"
of something, then he can make a certain order. But he has got to be satisfied of two conditions, first:
"that it is expedient that the premises of the school should be enlarged to such an extent that the enlargement would amount to the establishment of a new school."
I have tried to realize for myself when an enlargement of a building would
490
amount to the establishment of a new school. If there is an existing school with an existing building and the enlargement would amount to, we will say, thirty pupils, would that amount to the establishment of a new school, or would fifty pupils he right? There must be something which is in the mind of the draftsman and I cannot quite see why it should not be ten pupils, if necessary. If the meaning is so vague, those who have to advise the Minister as to whether he could be satisfied that the enlargement was equal to the establishment of a new school would have a very difficult task to perform; and if the Minister requires advice he may be told that no advice can be given him and he must make up his own mind. It is not as if it was a question of the number of pupils.
There is also the second condition:
"that the enlargement is wholly or mainly required for the purpose of providing accommodation for pupils for whom accommodation would have been provided in some other voluntary school if that other school had not been discontinued or had not otherwise ceased to be available for the purpose."
So that you have got some pupils who have to be reasonably provided for and of course the enlargement has got to be a fairly substantial one if the order specified in subsection (1) is going to be made, and the expense of giving effect to the proposals has got to be paid by the local education authority. I am only putting this before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill so that he may consider whether it is not desirable to make it a good deal simpler in order to make the clause, which is a perfectly valid and necessary clause, work. Of course, if the Government are satisfied to leave all insoluble conundrums for the future Minister of Education I have nothing more to say, but I think it is a matter which might be considered before the Committee stage.
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like first to thank the House and all the noble Lords who spoke for the extremely cordial welcome that has been given to this Bill. It is indeed gratifying to all who are keen about education

491
that neither Party interests nor denominational issues are in these days allowed to impede educational advance. And that fact has emerged very clearly from the discussion we have had this afternoon. There are one or two points raised by noble Lords which I should like to answer immediately. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said he wished that the Education Acts of 1944–46 could be consolidated because that would be greatly to the convenience of the average person who would otherwise have considerable difficulty in understanding the law. Of course, we are entirely in agreement with him on that point. There is a great deal of leeway in consolidation to make up in many different departments of the law, and I am sure the noble Earl appreciates that education has to take its place and that its claims have to be related to those of other branches of the law.
A point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, which I think I can also answer at this moment. He wondered whether a local education authority would be able to provide clothing for a child boarded outside the area in which it lived by a neighbouring local education authority. I can assure him on that point that arrangements have been made for a neighbouring authority to recover the cost involved from the education authority in the area of the child's home. I would only say, on the point to which our attention was directed by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, that it has been the practice since 1921 for the Minister to determine whether or not an enlargement was of the size to constitute a new school, and that decision has been taken regularly without causing criticism, ever since the Minister was given this power. Accordingly, it is to be hoped and expected that it will not involve the Minister in any difficulties in time to come. I should like to thank the House again for its very gratifying attitude towards a Bill of some importance in education, and to say that I shall be of course delighted during the ensuing stages to deal with any of the Amendments which were foreshadowed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURE) BILL)
3.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. After the proceedings which have just taken place, when everybody has been complimenting the Minister of Education, and members of the official Opposition, speaking with great authority, have wondered whether we have gone quite far enough in that measure, this Bill may prove a slight contrast. If the other Bill was a case of "Roses, roses all the way," I do not suppose there will be many roses thrown at the Lord Chancellor by the Opposition for this Bill. Perhaps that why the Lord Chancellor is called upon to move it!
On this question of the acquisition by public authorities of private land, if the Tory Party and the Government did not take different views it would indeed be a most surprising thing. That there is room for two points of view I fully realize. On the one hand there is the fear that the individual may be steam-rollered by a lot of bureaucrats into being deprived of his land, and on the other hand there is the point of view that useful public development may in the future, as in the past, be held up by the reluctance of individuals to part with their land on reasonable terms. There are the two points of view, and each is a useful corrective of the other. I always give your Lordships warning as to whether a Bill is a controversial one or not, and with regard to this Bill I start by warning you that, like the curate's egg, it is controversial—highly controversial—in parts, but other parts I believe are good, useful sustenance.
The Bill in another place had a somewhat stormy Second Reading, it had a Committee stage marked by a very large number of Divisions on all sorts of topics, but when it got to the Third Reading it became quite harmonious again. It was almost like the proceedings which have just taken place here. There were many compliments to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he had conducted the Bill and the Amendments he

493
had accepted, and Mr. W. S. Morrison, who has a very considerable knowledge of this topic in that he was Minister of Town and Country Planning, said:
"Clause 1 is a very useful piece of codification and an expert piece of draftsmanship. No doubt it was well worth doing. My objection to the Bill, and that of my honourable friends, is centred entirely on Clause 2 and its relevant schedules."
Therefore I need not, I think, spend very much time on Clause 1. As this matter is an exceedingly complicated one, however, I will endeavour, as briefly as I can, to explain to your Lordships what Clause I does. I heard my noble friend Lord Listowel, on the last Bill, talk about codification, and the desirability of codifying, and I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, who speaks with very great authority, express his pleasure that the last Bill was so well drafted that a highly intelligent lawyer could almost understand all its clauses.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is very unusual.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not pretend that I could explain with precision all the clauses of this or any other Bill dealing with the acquisition of land, and I do hope that the time may come, and that I may live to see it, when we can really, having got over the feverish rush of legislation, get down to a stage when we can introduce some codification and clear up our Statute Book, and this would be one of the matters to which we might well devote our attention.
This matter really started, I think, in the fifties of the last century. The Local Government Act was passed in 1858, and that Act introduced the startling innovation of the Provisional Order. The Government of the day were determined to deal with the appalling housing conditions, and so they instituted the Provisional Order procedure, under which a local authority could acquire land. Of course, if they acquired the land there had to be a public inquiry. Then if the acquisition was still opposed, the Provisional Order procedure enabled the person opposing it to contest a Bill, and, if it became a contested Private Bill, to oppose the Bill in another place and then oppose it here. So that there was ample opportunity for the private landowner, always provided he had the necessary financial resources, to see that his land was not taken inadvisedly and improperly.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think there was a jury then.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there was.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It was an expensive matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was a most expensive matter. There was the further difficulty in practice, as your Lordships who have studied this matter know, that unless you had all your procedure ready before February, you could not take the thing at all. It was, therefore, very expensive and a great deal of delay was involved. In the early years of this century a new procedure was devised instead of the Provisional Order procedure: that is the Compulsory Purchase Order procedure. I think I am right in saying that the first Bill which contained Compulsory Purchase Order machinery was the Housing Act of 1909. Under that machinery the order could be approved, not by Parliament but by the Minister. Since then, that procedure has been developed over a good many fields. It is now applicable to housing, town planning, allotments, highways and education. Apart from particular topics and apart from two temporary Acts to which I will refer in a moment, it was still necessary to proceed by Provisional Order and not by Compulsory Purchase Order. For instance, if a local authority wanted to construct a sewage works or a hospital, and in a hundred other cases, they had to proceed by the Provisional Order procedure; Compulsory Purchase Order procedure was not available to them.
So it was that in 1920, after the first Great War, with the idea of relieving unemployment the Government of the day passed an Act—called, I think, the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920—authorizing the Compulsory Purchase. Order procedure in those cases. In 1930 the Labour Government of the day passed the Public Works Facilities Act of 1930, also extending the Compulsory Purchase Order procedure. At the time the Labour Government introduced that Act we received no bouquets at all; it was thought we were doing something very wicked and in order to get it through we made it a mere temporary Act. It is satisfactory to observe that that Act has been continued under the Expiring Laws

495
Continuance Act regularly every year down to the present time. One of the clauses of this Bill repeals that Act as a temporary Act and puts it, with slight amendments and modifications, as a permanent Act on the Statute Book.
Clause 1 provides that where a local authority has compulsory powers of purchase under any Act, then that purchase shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to the Bill. The First Schedule to the Bill substantially re-enacts the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1933. The same principles that apply to local authorities are to apply to the Minister of Transport when he comes to operate under the various Acts which are specified in Clause 1 (1) (b) of the Bill. In three respects, and I think only in three respects, is the procedure of the Local Government Act of 1933 modified. In the first place, there can be leave to dispense with referencing at the earliest stage if the confirming authority so directs. Secondly, instead of a public inquiry of a rather formal nature there can be a local hearing. So that anyone who has an objection can come and make his case and it may be done in an informal rather than a formal way.Finally—this is a mere re-enactment of a provision of the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930—it allows possession to be taken after fourteen days' notice at any time after notice to treat has been served. Your Lordships will notice that with regard to three classes of land—that is to say, firstly, land which is the property of a local authority or a statutory undertaker, secondly, commons, open spaces, allotments or land held by the National Trust, and, thirdly, land on which buildings of archeological interest are situated—there are special protections contained in Part III of the First Schedule.
If I may go from the beginning to the end, Clause 9 of the Bill deals with a large number of Acts of Parliament which have in common the fact that they all of them confer powers of compulsory purchase, some under conditions and some without conditions. In some, for instance, the power is granted in default of being able to buy land by agreement at a reasonable price, but the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 left out the phrase "at a reasonable price" and said in default of being able to buy land by
496
agreement. I take it that you can always buy land by agreement if you are prepared to concede a sufficient profit. They are all cases in which compulsory powers are conferred. The draftsmen have gone all through those Acts and have altered them so as to make the whole lot of them conform to the principles which we are now setting up, so that we may have a uniform code for the purchase of land. So much for Clause 1 and Clause 9.
Clause 2 is the trouble, because it gives emergency powers. We believe, and I think noble Lords on all sides of the House believe, that in the future we have to try to effect a planned economy; we have got to have conscious planning and conscious direction. If we were going to plan with supreme wisdom and if unexpected things were not going to upset our plans—if, in short, we had reached an era where the best laid plans of men were not "ganging agley" we should not want Clause 2 at all. But we do not claim to be the recipients of divine wisdom; we shall make a lot of mistakes, as everybody who tries to plan in this world will make a lot of mistakes, and when we find we have made a mistake we shall want some power to enable us quickly to correct it. "Footwork" is the phrase used in playing games—to get your feet in the right position. Most certainly any Government trying to plan for the future of this country will have to be very careful to get its footwork right.
We shall want this power, I have no doubt, to some extent in respect of housing. It is the fact, and I think we all know it, that of all the difficulties in housing at the present moment, speaking broadly, land is the least difficult feature. If only we had as many bricks as we have land and as much timber as we have land it would be much better. But although that is true globally, it is by no means true in every individual case, and particularly is it not true in certain rural areas. Then in areas where we may have prefabricated houses we must not, if there comes a chance of getting those houses, be held up by any difficulty whatever in regard to land. It applies, too, to the Board of Trade under the Distribution of Industry Act, which was passed in 1945. There again, where you are trying to get a manufacturer to go to a particular place everything depends on the speed and the certainty with which you can act. If he knows there are

497
going to be many months of argument, discussion and disputation as to whether he is going to be able to go there or not, he will walk off and go somewhere else. Therefore it is essential that you should have these drastic powers which, in the event of an emergency, you can put into force. Also, the Minister of Transport, may sometimes want very quick powers in regard to roads. I concede this readily, that the less we have to resort to Clause 2 the greater the tribute to the efficacy and the efficiency of our planning. I hope that we shall not have to use Clause 2 very much; I hope we shall plan so well and so wisely as to be able to use only Clause r. This I do say, that if that is not the case, if we do find ourselves held up in some scheme or other, and we find it necessary quickly, and with promptitude, to take certain land, then the private interest must be sacrificed to the public good.
The differences, therefore, between Clause I and Clause 2 are as follows. Instead of getting a Compulsory Purchase Order as you do under Clause I, the local authority may apply to the Minister for an authorization in writing. At the same time as they apply they must publish in the local papers a notice saying that there will be fourteen days within which representations can be made. Notices can be served by delivery, by registered post or by posting up on the premises a notice addressed to the owner or occupier. An inquiry is not necessary, although the confirming authority may order one, and the local authority may then enter and use the land seven days after authorization. They must then serve notice to treat and must complete the purchase; that is to say, they cannot withdraw as you can under the Compulsory Purchase Order procedure if you find the compensation is going to be too heavy. Under this procedure, of course, you cannot withdraw. The Minister of Transport and the Board of Trade may also purchase under this clause.
Your Lordships will notice the conditions precedent to operating this clause. The clause says:
"…any authority…having power to authorize the compulsory purchase of land by a local authority for any purpose is satisfied—

(a) that it is expedient that the local authority…should purchase any land for the said purpose, and

498

(b) that it is urgently necessary in the public interest that the acquiring authority should be enabled to obtain possession of that land without delay."

Unless the Minister is able to certify that those two conditions are complied with, then the Clause 2 procedure does not apply at all. I would add this. I think this was the result of an Amendment in the Committee stage in another place. This procedure does not apply to any occupied dwelling-house. With regard to that you cannot use the Clause 2 procedure, you must use Clause 1.
I pass from the controversial clause and go to Clause 3, which I think is not controversial. It confers upon the Minister of Town and Country Planning a power to close certain rights of way and the like, other than vehicular rights of way. It takes the place of the other and rather cumbrous power which dates from the Highways Act of 1835, whereby you had to go to Quarter Sessions to get an Order, and now, following the power which have already been given under a Housing Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, it gives this power to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. He must hold a public inquiry if there is objection to the closing. Clause 4 provides for notification to the War Damage Commission. Obviously it may affect the question as to whether the compensation for a damaged building is to be a cost-of-works payment or a value payment. Clause 5 provides for inquiries, and Clause 8 is the Scottish application clause. On all these clauses your Lordships may desire, even at this stage, authoritative guidance, and therefore have fore-armed myself with the very able assistance of my noble friend Lord Pakenham who will reply to the debate. You have no doubt heard him many times, and he will be able to resolve all the difficulties and doubts you may have.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.55 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as usual, I think, the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very clear description of this Bill. Perhaps in passing I might just make this comment, that I hope it will in no wise be taken as a precedent that after we have finished our sitting on a Thursday evening we are told that a Bill

499
of this magnitude is going to be taken as one of the first Orders for the very next day's sitting of this House. I am making no very large complaint about that, but I feel in the normal course we should be given perhaps a little more time.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, this Bill divides itself mainly into two parts, of which I would take Clause 2 as one part and the rest of the Bill as the other, that being by and large completely uncontroversial. Indeed I think Clause 1 and its consequent Schedules do a good work of codification, and in fact in doing so re-enact what has been the common practice since 1933. Indeed, if your Lordships will excuse a personal experience, my first experience of trying to help codify a local government law was when Mr. Arthur Greenwood, then Minister of Health, set up a Committee for the purpose, I believe, in 1929. I was one of those whom he asked to serve and who consented to serve on that Committee. One of my colleagues was the present Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I must say it was a somewhat dull and very lengthy task, but. I think worth while in the end. The Local Government Act of 1933 was in part the result of our labours, so I am all out for a codification, especially, if I may say so, when someone else does all the research work and the drafting work involved.
The procedure set out in the first part of this Bill has stood the test of time, but for myself I should have liked to see it varied in at least one respect. Where a public inquiry is held it is almost always an official of the Ministry concerned who is sent down to hold it and it is the invariable rule not to publish his report. No doubt the Minister involved, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, acts in accordance with that report, but of course he need not do so. It seems to me to rob the inquiry of something of its semi-judicial status which it should have if the inquiry is conducted by an official of the Ministry concerned, and especially if that Ministry is directly involved because it is giving a grant in aid and has been involved in the planning of the scheme. I am not making any form of attack upon these high officials who carry out this task. I have myself appeared before them but, as was quoted by Lord Justice Tucker in a report published this morning, it is as
500
important that justice should appear to be done as that it should be done.
I remember well being once briefed by a local authority, who were going to acquire land for a main road, to appear on their behalf at the public inquiry. At the conference which took place beforehand, I asked whether the attitude of the inspector who was holding the inquiry was likely to be a nice, friendly attitude. They said: "Well, of course, we have worked out the whole of the plans with the Ministry's engineers. They are paying more than half of the cost, so we think that the hearing ought to be fairly friendly." I went to that inquiry thinking that the case was one from which even I was likely to emerge successfully—and so I did. But I think it is an ideal that we should keep before us that these inquiries should be conducted by an independent panel of inspectors, and I should like to see them acting under the instructions of the Lord Chancellor. Thus, I think, it would in every case appear more clearly that justice was being done. However, no blame, let me add, attaches to the Government on this score, and I am not suggesting that we should attempt to amend this Bill in that respect.
At any rate, under that procedure three things happen. It gives an opportunity to those interested to be heard, it affords an opportunity for local opinion to be ascertained, and it provides an opportunity for publicity to be given. But when one passes from Clause 1 to Clause 2, one notices that those three factors which I have just mentioned are conspicuous by their absence, because, as the Lord Chancellor has told us, Clause 2 gives exceptional powers to four Ministers. It gives exceptional powers to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of any land to be acquired by a local authority. It gives exceptional powers to the President of the Board of Trade for purposes of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and to the Minister of Transport in respect of land needed for roads under subsection (1) (b) of Clause 1 of the Bill. Now under these exceptional powers, the public inquiry is entirely dispensed with. The owner of the land merely has fourteen days in which to write to the Minister concerned setting forth his objections, and there is no procedure whatever in the Bill for any reply being sent to the man who is making those objections. Other noble Lords, no doubt,

501
may quote earlier legislation, but I am not, myself, going back, in my speech today to the long years of the last century, because I prefer to start with 1933. But I feel that during the course of the debate the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act of 1944 may probably be referred to. And it is quite true that as regards a period of a year, I think, until the end of 1945, a provision somewhat similar to this which is contained in Clause 2 was contained in that Act. I can well see that in view of the painfully slow mariner in which temporary houses are being provided, it may well occur to the Government of the day that they cannot provide in one year, as was planned by the Coalition Government, all these temporary houses. It may well need a further five years to do it. It looks as though they are not all going to be provided before a period such as that has elapsed.
But this clause goes much further than the provision of sites for temporary houses. First of all, it applies to sites for permanent houses, and I think that when we are considering giving wide powers like this we should ask what is the case for it. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has stated quite frankly that land is in more plentiful supply for houses than either bricks or timber, and, indeed, the Minister of Town and Country Planning told us, in January of this year, that the Minister of Health had then approved sites for 711,259 houses. Based on the present rate of construction, I do not quite know how many years building those sites will cover. We have not had any disclosure by the present Government as to what their target of house building is, but the Coalition Government had a target of 300,000 houses to be built over the first two years. Wisely, perhaps, from the point of view of prestige, but, I believe, quite wrongly if their aim is to get the maximum number of houses erected, the present Government have announced no target figure. I believe that there should be a target figure to aim at, even if people fall short of it, because it gives something for everybody to work to. It means that you do not have people working on a kind of limitless vision. When work is done in that way, the results are apt to be very limited. But at the present rate of progress in housing there will not be the slightest doubt, I am sure,
502
in any quarter of this House, that sites are available for many, many months' building in the future. What time do you save really by adopting the course set out in the Third Schedule as against that set out in the First? [It is about a month and a half—about six weeks. That is the time which you save. The noble Lord, I see, dissents from that observation. I agree it mainly depends on how soon the Ministry can appoint an inspector and send him down to make an inquiry. But if the Ministries are prompt in sending their inspectors down there is no reason why the procedure under Schedule 1 should take more than two months from its initiation, even when the case is contested.
Then the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack—as many others say—says that although globally it is quite true there are plenty of houses some authorities are not getting sites for the houses. It is just as well to inquire how many are not. In November last, in answer to a question in another place, the figures were given. Twenty-nine out of all the county boroughs, all the boroughs, all the urban district councils all the rural district councils—had no housing sites. And of that twenty-nine, my Lords, twenty-five had made no attempt to get them; so those twenty-five could not possibly have been held up by procedural difficulties. So it seems to me a very thin excuse is given for having these exceptional powers for housing purposes at the present time. What about other purposes for which the sites may be needed by local authorities? Education? It is quite true that under the Education Act, which we have just passed with the Second Reading of a supplementary Bill, that a large number of new schools will be necessary, but we all know there is no prospect of starting to build new schools this year; and probably very little next. So there is ample time to acquire sites by the procedure under Clause I for schools.
Now I come to the next Minister who is entitled, or will be entitled, to operate under this Bill—the President of the Board of Trade. In this connexion, if I may use these words in this House, I consider there is a lot of rot being talked on the urgent necessity of new factories. With the immense number of men that it seems necessary still to keep in the

503
Armed Forces of the Crown, with the huge number that are now in our Civil Service, we shall have our work cut out fully to man the land, the building and its ancillary industries, and fully to man the factories which we have already got. It is as well for the House to realize that we built an immense number of new factories just before the war, and during the early days of the war, and we have got a far bigger factory production potential in this country now than we had previously in the days of peace. So it seems to me that there is no great necessity for the provision of new factories, when you cannot even man the present productive enterprises of the country. And it does not seem to me, therefore, a matter in which you should give this extra short period of time to the President of the Board of Trade.
As for the Minister of Transport I carefully read what the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry had to say in another place, in favour of the inclusion of his Ministry within the purview of this Clause 2. He could only justify it on the ground that a road might be necessary to one of the Board of Trade's new factories. He did not claim the need for the accelerated procedure for any other purpose at all. Indeed, he hardly could—as anyone who has been at the Ministry of Transport, as I happen to have been, will well know.
With such slender reasons for asking for them, what are the new powers for which the Government ask in peacetime? In war, powers such as these are pretty obviously necessary. I remember perfectly well in the very early days of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, when we had the Supermarine works bombed—a direct hit on them, down at Southampton—we had quickly then to requisition churches and chapels and village halls, and even cinemas with their sloping floors, to get that vital production going. Why did we do that, and do it quickly? It was in order to retain our liberties and to be able to continue, and act in, and be governed in, the British way. And the British way, my Lords, is to allow the owner whose land you are taking, the occupier, who is going to be displaced, the right to be heard in public, to put forward his point of view. Now he is going to be deprived of this in every case where Schedule 3 is applied; and quite frankly,
504
I do not like the idea of proceeding in this way in time of peace. I relish it less when I find it is exactly on all-fours with the way in which Hitler and the Nazi Government obtained the land to build their trunk roads in Germany. The sooner we get back in this country to our well-tried British ways the better it will be. This way is, in my view, much too much of a hole-in-the-corner method.
I would say that if you want, as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack said he wanted, to get the footwork right, it is just as well to have careful inquiry and to find out what local opinion is, what all the grievances are, before you start walking off from the stance which you have taken. What will probably happen in the future? The local surveyor will select a site. He is not infallible; no one is. He will then report to the appropriate committee of his council, and may well advise them to apply for the quick procedure. He has every incentive to do so, because if that local authority gets the quick procedure authorized the surveyor's choice of site is unlikely ever to be publicly questioned. The application may come up to the Ministry concerned, where the tendency may well be not to allow the local authority to have any cause for blaming the Ministry for delay, and therefore to give them what they ask and to allow them to acquire by the quick procedure. If we are not careful, grave injustice may be done, and, in any event, many people will think that grave injustice has been done. Small men (because they are not excepted) in some cases are deprived of the buildings which are their very livelihood without themselves having had a say in the matter. It seems to me that it is using the power of the Crown very much in the same way as it was in the days of Naboth.
It is a sad thought that we seem to have won this war against the dictators only to get more dictatorial methods introduced at home than we ever contemplated in the days before the war started. But, when all that is said, as it properly should be said, and when all this is pointed out to the country, as it properly should be pointed out to the country, the fact remains that no one in this House will wish for a moment to impede either the provision of houses or the provision of work for our people. Nor do any of us on this side of the

505
House wish to give either the Minister of Health or the President of the Board of Trade any shadow of reason for blaming their coming failures upon us. I believe that the one will fail in his housing because of not using the independent builders to the full and because there has been no proper planning and provision in respect of the raw materials for the trade; and I believe that the other, the President of the Board of Trade, will fail because of the unsettlement which the nationalization policy of the Government is causing throughout industry. Therefore, for very good reasons, we shall not oppose this Bill on Second Reading and shall not disturb the harmony of the proceedings—at any rate at: this stage.
4.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this Bill is not, of course, the main Bill with respect to land which this House and the country are awaiting. That will deal mainly with questions of compensation. This is a preliminary and limited Bill which, so far as it goes, seems to me to be a useful measure. In the last Parliament we had a great number of debates on town and country planning (I think there were thirteen of them altogether). On more than one occasion I ventured to urge that, instead of producing a series of small Bills touching upon land acquisition, so far as that was concerned the right course would be to pass a simple, comprehensive measure giving to our local authorities general powers, simple and comprehensive, for acquiring land for any purpose for which they had statutory functions. An appeal would be allowed in each case to the Ministry at the head of the Department concerned. That step has not been taken, but this Bill is undoubtedly a measure tending in that direction, although not: so completely as I personally should have desired. So far as it goes, 'however, I give it a cordial welcome.
There is no doubt that the delays and complexities with which local authorities are faced when they endeavour to obtain land for public purposes are sometimes almost heart-rending, due in no small degree to the intricacy of the law which is the result of the long evolution of over one hundred years of legislation, to which the Lord Chancellor has referred, and which in the course of that evolution has become ever more intricate and complex.
506
This Bill does something to cut through these entanglements. Furthermore, there is another useful purpose served by this Bill, to which I think the Lord Chancellor did not refer, and that is that it deals in some degree with the application of the procedure by which local authorities are faced in having to communicate simultaneously with several different Whitehall Departments in this matter of land acquisition. They have to deal, for example, in questions of housing with the Ministry of Health, which is the principal Department concerned, and which exercises financial control, with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which is vitally interested on a count of the planning of the whole area, and, if agricultural land is concerned, with the Ministry of Agriculture. Of course, it is quite necessary that all three of these Ministries should be consulted and should have a voice in the settlement of the matter, but under this Bill a very useful provision so far as housing is concerned is that the Ministry of Health is the one Department with which the local authority is brought into contact, and it is the business of the Ministry to clear up any point in which the other Ministries of Town and Country Planning and of Agriculture may be interested. That will certainly short-circuit the matter very greatly, and considerably improve the procedure from the point of view of the local authorities. If the matter is one in which the Board of Trade is the principal authority, or the Ministry of Transport, then it would be for the Minister at the head of that Department to clear up any point that arises in which other Ministries are concerned.
As the Lord Chancellor has said, this Bill had a somewhat controversial complexion when it was in the other House. At one stage it was divided upon, although I do not believe that the Liberal Party there gave any cause for trouble to the Minister in charge. After a number of Amendments it appeared on Third Reading in a less controversial form. Some of the reasons were given by the Lord Chancellor himself, although I confess to a considerable feeling of anxiety when I found him quoting, from the debates in the other House, not the words of a Minister making a Ministerial statement, but the words of Mr. W. S. Morrison. I was wondering whether I ought not to draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to

507
the fact that that was not strictly in accordance with the general usages of this House. However, I did not venture to do that.
The part of the Bill which was mainly controversial was Clause 2, to which the noble Lord who has just spoken was particularly referring. These points are, perhaps, rather for the Committee stage than for this stage, and we on these Benches would, I am sure, give careful consideration to any claim that is made that the rights of the individual owner are not sufficiently safeguarded by the Bill as it stands. But that is a point that may be debated on its merits. For the rest, the Bill as a whole proceeds in accordance with the main recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee, whose Report was supported in your Lordships' House, although I think it does not completely carry out all those recommendations. It was a great misfortune in our view that that Report was neglected and put aside by the late Government in the late Parliament, and many of its recommendations which have come forward now will certainly command our very sympathetic consideration. This Bill proceeds in that direction, and for my own part I would offer it cordial support.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, here again my object chiefly is to endeavour to help the passing of this measure in a quite easily intelligible form and as far as it appears to be unjust to remove the injustices in the Bill. I am a little uneasy when reference is made to my experience, because it takes me back over half a century and I begin to think I really should not be addressing your Lordships at all. But I remember in my early days at the Bar having one or two briefs—later I had more briefs—in connexion with this subject of compulsory purchase, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to tell you, as perhaps it is not altogether without significance, of my experience in the first compensation case I had. I was appearing for a railway company in a case where land was being taken for the widening of the railway and I was, fortunately for my clients, being led by the most eminent leader on that topic in the whole of the Bar—namely, the late Mr. Balfour-Browne.
508
I sat there filled with admiration while he was addressing the jury (because the case came before a jury as was common under the Land Clauses Acts). There was an eminent gentleman on the other side and they both addressed the jury in impassioned speeches after two surveyors had given diametrically opposed views as to the value of the land. It was in those days usual and normal for surveyors to differ toto cœlo from each other. It is only a guess as to what land is really worth unless there is a market for a particular piece of land, in which case of course their views are much more certain than they otherwise would be. After they had finished, and the jury had withdrawn, I expressed in halting language to my leader the admiration I felt for his speech and the fact that the jury could not possibly neglect it. He slightly shrugged his shoulders and said, "Do you know what the jury are going to award as their verdict?" "No," I replied. "I will tell you," he said, and he wrote down on a piece of paper the compensation of the surveyors on the one side and on the other, added them together, divided by two and said, "That is what the jury will give." I said that must be wrong and this most experienced advocate said, "Well, they always do it." And sure enough in a quarter of an hour or so, looking very solemn, they gave the figure within a pound or two that Balfour-Browne had assured me they would give.
Well, of course, that was a hopeless method of dealing with a case, and as the years have gone by I have seen measure after measure passed in a much more reasonable and economic way. Therefore in this case I can wholly commend Clause 1 of the Bill and I am quite sure that it will work very well, with possibly some slight amendment, in the ambit it is intended to cover. Then comes Clause 2, which has been so much discussed in another place and with which my noble friend Lord Llewellin has dealt. Like him I agree that it does not and ought not to cover some of the small number of cases where compulsory purchase is necessary, and, when the noble Lord on the Woolsack says in this respect it is perfectly just, I hope it will be found that he was right. But of course it is true that the clause does interfere with the rights of private ownership in a way which has not been the case hitherto. I agree with the noble Lord on the Woolsack that

509
the objections to it were very largely removed, in my view, by the provision in the Schedule which removes from the ambit of Clause 2 houses and parts of houses, because I think that to turn a man out of his house under Clause 2 without the advantage of an inquiry would be very regrettable. However, that has gone now and for my part—I am not quite sure whether my noble friend Lord Llewellin agrees or not—I think that Clause 2 in some form or other is necessary and desirable, because I do see that there are cases where speedy acquisition of land is of very great urgency in the particular circumstances at the present time.
I think it should be borne in mind that, after all, the clause is only a temporary one. It will last for five years, which is quite a long time, and in five years we all hope that a large number of houses will be built. On this side of the House we are all afraid the Government are not taking the best course possible for the construction of those houses. What can be done? I think that the Third Schedule is very valuable and it is important to note that under this Schedule before authorization is given under Clause 2 there must be publication in one or more local newspapers and representations can be made according to the published notice to the confirming authority in writing. I think that is a very important provision, but what I am not at all sure about is this—whether something inure could not be done to temper the wind to the lamb about to be shorn by empowering the Minister—and I 'am not quite sure whether it need be compulsory that those representations had been made by the person or persons whose lands are going to be taken—to send down an independent person to interview the objectors and to report to the Minister.
What is the real strength of the case against the clause that my noble friend Lord Llewellin has already mentioned? It is this, that the people whose houses are going to be taken on the ground of expedition under Clause 2, have no opportunity of seeing somebody in person and stating what their particular objections are. I do not believe that they would mind very much if they did not get a public hearing by the persons sent down to inquire so long as they could see some independent person who would listen in a kindly manner and with attention to
510
their objections. Then I think most of their grievances at having their land compulsorily purchased would disappear. At any rate I do suggest that after the sympathetic way in which this Bill has been put before the House, the Government might consider whether some step of that sort might not be taken before the Minister gives his authorization in writing and before the acquiring authority has taken possession of the land. And for my part think something of that kind might well be done.
This, of course, is only the Second Reading, and there will be an opportunity hereafter of 'dealing with seine of the objections which may be made to particular points. I would only throw this suggestion out because the law in connexion with the question of compulsory acquisition of land is terribly complex. There are literally hundreds of authorities which deal with it, and there is in particular a point which I want the Government to consider before the Committee stage comes on, because it is almost impossible to deal with some of these matters before your Lordships sitting as a legislative body. The point that worries me is that of easements—easements of passage and of water. I cannot make out, in the time that I have been able to give to this matter, 'whether people having rights of that kind—and of course a right to have water supplied to your premises may be one on which the whole of the value of the land depends—have, under this Bill, any rights at all. I venture to think that the Government have not provided in the Bill as it stands any provision that such a person is to have notice of the intended compulsory purchase.
I might remind the noble Lord on the Woolsack that among the many cases that have dealt with this matter in the past, one of the best known is the decision of this House in Great Western Railway versus Swindon which is reported in 9 Appeal Cases. In that decision this House thought fit to overrule I do not know how many cases that had already been decided in regard to the question of rights under the Land Clauses Act—which was, of course, the usual Act under which these things took place in the old days—as to whether such persons had any rights of compensation for the taking away of their easements, whatever they might be,

511
unless their land was also being taken away under a notice to treat. There are all sorts of complications there as to whether the easements in question, if they confer right to compensation, ought to be easements confined to those relating to land, such as a right of way over land, or whether they include also other kinds of easements, such as rights to obtain water, or sporting rights, or other of the numerous easements which may exist. Now I am far from expressing at the moment any opinion at all as to the effect of this Bill on casements, except to say that I cannot think that at present there is any provision for notice being given to people with easements that are going to be interfered with, and I do hope the matter will have the careful attention of the Government before the Committee stage comes before your Lordships. There were some other things I thought I might mention, but I believe I have said enough to show my general view, and I heartily support the Second Reading.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, listening to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, moving the Second Reading of this Bill, one could not help realizing how pleasant it is to have totalitarianism without tears, because that is in fact what, in a small but a quite possible and continuous way, may happen if Clause 2 of this Bill goes through as it stands and remains for five years, with the possibility of its being renewed for another five. I agree almost entirely with everything my noble friend Lord Llewellin said earlier this afternoon in relation to this Bill. I think it is always of the utmost importance, when you are gradually being anæsthetized to the tyranny of the State taking over things in little bits, bit after bit—when we are gradually becoming anaesthetized to that form of possible State tyranny—that every opportunity should be taken to protest against these chances arising. My noble friend Lord Llewellin said that there were twenty-nine cases where local authorities had not acquired housing sites, and of them twenty-five had made no move in the matter last November. If they have not moved and got it done under existing powers to-day, there is very little excuse for them. Therefore we are taking a
512
semi-permanent steam hammer to crack an entirely temporary nutshell. In my own experience in Hampshire, local authorities in nearly every case have at least three years' land for carrying on building, if they have got the bricks and mortar and labour. Therefore, except in an infinitesimally small number of cases, it is not a question of the private owner being the obstruction. It always makes bad law to construct a huge legal machine, which can be used for other purposes, to overcome a very small percentage of difficulties.
Now the time limits of fourteen days allowed under Clause 2 and Schedule 3 are entirely insufficient. What small owner, who probably gets his living out of twenty acres and is going to have ten acres taken away from him under this procedure, can protest or have any hope that his case will go through? He has not the knowledge to consult a lawyer, and the time elapses before he has a chance to do so. Again, take the owner of land who is serving His Majesty, as there are still a great many to-day. How is he, whether in India, Egypt, Palestine or Greece, to get an adequate answer in twelve or fourteen days? Again, what is the ordinary man, who may be away for a week when the notice comes, to do? He has to consult his lawyer, who may have very considerable difficulties and doubts on the question of the acquisition of this piece of land. How is he going to manage in fourteen days to make an adequate protest, or hope to get an adequate answer? I do not think there is any member of this House who does not want to see housing progressing as quickly as possible or certainly who does not want to see rural housing being increased and used to the very utmost, but I cannot honestly see that Clause 2 of this Bill is going to get another rural house built a month earlier than it would otherwise be.
When it comes to factory sites, one has only to look to the war period to see the mistakes which can be made by too hasty acquisition of sites for that purpose. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out, there are already quite enough factory sites to occupy our people at the present time. If factories are to be moved to rural districts or from so-called special areas to undepressed areas, there is a great deal to be said for very long and careful consideration as to their siting.

513
It is not a matter of months' but a matter of probably two or three years' careful consideration before you settle large industries elsewhere. There has never yet been, to my mind, a proper ecological survey for the siting of industry in relation to the right use of land. You may get a better procedure on that siting, and a certain general survey of town and country planning, but it has not really begun to cover the fundamental necessities of proper planning. While I can quite easily bless most of this Bill, and the codification of its procedure, I do not feel I can let it go by without expressing my personal, and I think many of your Lordships', profound misgivings about the effect of Clause 2 if it stands in its present form.
4.51 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, you may remember in Tom Brown's Schooldays how the squire, Tom Brown's father, when Tom Brown went to school, was wondering whether to tell him to say his prayers, and how he came to the conclusion that it was not worth while to do that, "because," he said, "if he does not do it for his mother's sake he won't do it for mine." If you will not give this Bill a Second Reading for the Lord Chancellor's sake, I do not suppose you will find my charms any more seductive or irresistible! I am glad to find that, so far as I can see at present, this Bill is going to get a Second Reading by an overwhelming majority I feel a good deal more buoyant than I did an hour or so ago. The way lies open ahead.
I expected, of course, a very close scrutiny, such as we have had, of Clause 2. In the later part of my remarks I will consider the general argument presented against it both by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, who has just spoken, but before doing that I feel it would be proper to attempt to reply to a number of more detailed points raised in the course of the various speeches. There is no need, I am glad to think, to reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He has said his say—and a very helpful say it was—and he has left us. He can rightly feel that the can rest on his oars. Perhaps I may take up one or two comparatively small points which I feel I should not let pass without comment. I rather think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is under a
514
misapprehension about Clause 1. I hesitate to mention this, because it may weaken his support for that clause, but as he has just spoken and said he is not going to oppose the Second Reading, I must point out that under Clause I there is no necessity to hold a public inquiry. I rather think that the noble Lord considers that under Clause 1 you necessarily have a public inquiry, and under Clause 2 you do not. The right to a public inquiry is foregone under Clause I, the clause that arouses no controversy. Under Clause 1 you must have a hearing of some kind. The noble Lord referred to publicity. It is a small point, but I feel I must clear that up with the House in case there is a misapprehension.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That public inquiry is going to be by the normal method, and the hearing if the Minister so directs.
LORD PAKENHAM: If he so directs. There is not quite such a big difference between the two procedures. It is not that under Clause I you have a sort of fairy-godmother procedure, all open and above board, and a sort of wicked-uncle procedure under Clause 2, all skulking in corridors. Under Clause I the Minister has the right to hold a private inquiry, an inquiry where his representative sees the gentleman with the complaint.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt to say that if the noble Lord would give us that in the Third Schedule, we should be very happy?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am always anxious to oblige, but I must not overstep the limits. I come to another point, a factual point, or you may call it a disagreement of conjecture. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggests that the difference between the two procedures would not be more than a matter of six weeks. It is impossible to say what it will amount to in all cases, but having been into this, not only with my official advisers here, but with some of those who are in touch with local authorities in different parts of the country—and I speak as an old local authority man—I am assured that the difference is expected to be anything between three months and nine months. It is all very well to say," You have just got to hold your inquiry, and as long as you send your inspector down promptly he can hold it

515
straight away", but in practice, as the noble Lord with his experience knows, with a limited number of inspectors it is very difficult to get these inquiries held. In the past the total procedure (which, I admit, will be rather speeded up even under Clause 1), has in a great many cases taken up to nine months and sometimes more. Without attempting to convince the noble Lord as I pass along, I would say that six weeks very much under-estimates the difference in speed between the two procedures. If he will accept a difference of three or four months, I will not try to make the difference higher, but I am afraid I must insist on a difference of that order.
LORD LLEWELLIN: You lose seven days on having to have a second publication and you lose seven days by giving a man twenty-one days' minimum notice instead of fourteen days'. So you have lost a fortnight on this Schedule. If you cannot appoint an inspector and get him on the job under a month, sending him down to the most urgent cases first, the powers of human ingenuity are not very strong.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am assured that is the position, and it is based on what has proved to be the experience in the past. There is another slight difference which will save a certain amount of time. The procedure of referencing is a good deal speeded up in Clause 2 as compared with Clause I. To put the matter crudely, under Clause I, if you wish to buy a man's land compulsorily, in all ordinary cases you have to try and discover him. He may not be living there, and you have got to seek him out. Under Clause I, if you cannot find him, or if for some reason the Minister considers it is unnecessary, if you are a local authority you can get permission from the Minister to omit that formality of finding him and simply to put up a notice on a piece of land, but under Clause 2, if you are a local authority, you send your man along, and if the owner is out, or is not resident there, you post up your notice. So there is a gain under that heading which, I am assured, amounts to a good deal in the matter of time. I call the noble Lord's attention to that.
The noble Lord referred, as did the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, to the
516
twenty-nine housing authorities of whom we were told that twenty-five were slackers. It may be a small point, but one must make these points as one goes along. We are not to suppose that all these twenty-nine authorities had all the land required, even at the present time; all we are told is that these twenty-nine had no land. We know that these twenty-nine authorities had no land at all, but many other authorities may well have had insufficient land. That is a small correction which must be made. I do not wish to quibble on this point, because we are all agreed in this House, I think, that the number of housing authorities who are seriously short of land at the present time is comparatively small. I am not trying to argue whether it is a very small percentage or a slightly larger one. I thought there might be some slight misunderstanding about the twenty-nine authorities, and I wanted to get that straight.
The noble Lord surprised me very much indeed when he turned to the question of factories. He, as an old President of the Board of Trade, knows a great deal more about the distribution of industry than I know, and perhaps am ever likely to know, but both he and the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, rather staggered me when they assumed that we had got all the factories we wanted. If you look all over the country and add them all up, it may or may not work out that way. The noble Lord, I should have thought, was well aware that unemployment is raising its head already in the old depressed areas, as we used to call them, and which are now called development areas. The noble Lord seemed to have the extraordinary idea that we are trying to move factories away from the old depressed areas. Of course, the object, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, knows, under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, is to persuade employers to go into the old depressed areas, which would otherwise become cesspools as they were before the war. I do seriously ask the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, to take it from the Government that the question of inducing employers to put up factories in those areas is one that is causing us great concern at the present time. Obviously, when he turns that over in his mind he

517
may regard the reasons why we require Clause 2 as rather stronger than when he was speaking to us just now.
LORD WOLVERTON: Were not factories built there during the war?
LORD PAKENHAM: But I think they have got to build a great many more. They have not the factories they require for giving full employment in those areas. That is the position and it is not, I think, open to argument. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, assumes—and I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is also under this impression—that under Clause 2 there will never be an inquiry held by the Minister. I do not know whether Lord Llewellin did assume that, but I am pretty certain that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, did. May I call the attention of the House to Clause 5, where it is laid down that the Minister may, of course if he chooses, order an inquiry? Perhaps at a later stage we shall hear from Lord Maugham whether that meets the point that he raised.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who never lets us off without his parting shot, had a few words to say about the prospective failure of certain Ministers. We must wait and see. I have every confidence that they will succeed, but he has grave fears lest they may fail. Without entering on those wider topics now, I would just take him up on the suggestion that this is the procedure of Naboth's vineyard. I do not carry the procedure used on that occasion very clearly in my mind, but I do suggest to noble Lords opposite with great deference that if at times we are inclined to talk as though to indicate that the community is always right and the private owner always wrong, they at times—and perhaps this afternoon—are inclined to suggest that the State is always wrong. When we think it over, we are all agreed that the State is simply the sum of the individuals composing it. The majority have a greater claim on the community than the minority, but when all is said and done there are certain fundamental rights possessed by the minority, which must be balanced against those of the majority.
I only attempt to get the balance straight again because it has been tipped up a little in the other direction in the closing remarks of the noble
518
Lord, Lord Llewellin. I do not think I need do much more than thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, for his positively enthusiastic support. I was very pleased with that. He raised the question of easements. He is, of course, aware that non-vehicular rights of way are dealt with under Clause 3. This question of easements of water is one to which we will give very great consideration before the next stage of the Bill. If the noble and learned Viscount will not press that further to-day, we shall come down fortified to deal with the most searching questions under that head.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I must say I was not aware of my enthusiasm.
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may say so, with the greatest respect, the noble Viscount exuded it from every pore.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Entirely unconscious.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not know that I need reply further to the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, because although he made his points very cogently, some of them have been made in a slightly different form by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute or two because the whole case has been developed so interestingly by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. I would just like to suggest that we must not over-estimate the constitutional issue which is here involved. It is not a question of whether or not we are going to confer on the State the power of compulsory acquisition of land because, as the noble Lord explained, that was conferred on the State as long ago as 1858. It is not a question of deciding whether or not we are going to allow that power to operate without a Parliamentary supervision because that has been so since the early years of the century. It is not a question of whether we are going to insist upon a public inquiry in all cases because, as I explained earlier, Clause 1, following the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, forgoes the public inquiry if the Minister thinks fit. It is simply this issue of whether or not there will be a hearing in all cases and whether the dispossessed owner will receive some oral hearing. I would say straight away that none of us

519
here would regard it as a satisfactory routine procedure that one should forego a hearing of that kind—
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: You do under Clause 2.
LORD PAKENHAM: None of us regard it as satisfactory that we should adopt that as a routine procedure. It is an emergency procedure, as the noble Viscount explained, and it is intended to be temporary. It is intended only to operate under very strict safeguards and within a strict field, as was explained by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. I have been very much struck since I have been here during the last few months at the power of noble Lords in all quarters of the House to put themselves in the shoes of the Government and, even when they cannot hold that power, do their best to play a constructive part in a national task. I would simply ask you once more to put yourselves in our position, because I know that every one here is equally keen on solving the housing problem. I need perhaps hardly beg you to give this Bill a Second Reading—because it is going to receive one I understand—but I would like to thank you for the reception this Bill has had this afternoon.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I offer my apologies for my temporary absence at the beginning of the noble Lord's speech in which I understand he made some reference to myself.
LORD PAKENHAM: It was intended to be a very friendly reference and a very complimentary one.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE BILL.
5.10 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 11:
Chief Constables.
(2) The chief constable of a non-county borough force shall not be transferred by virtue of this Act to the county force or to the combined force constituted by a county scheme made before the appointed day unless before the date of transfer he agrees to join that force in some capacity other than that
520
of a chief constable; and the chief constable of a police force shall not be transferred to the combined force constituted by a scheme under this Act unless he is appointed as the first chief constable of that force or unless before the date of transfer he agrees to join that force in some other capacity.
LORD LLEWELLIN, who had given Notice that he would move an Amendment in subsection (2), before "police force", to insert "county or county borough," said: My Lords, I believe that my Amendment to Clause II differs in little more than a comma from one which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I understand that the noble and learned Lord intends to move his Amendment, and as it covers the same point as mine in rather a fuller way I do not propose to move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "police"—["police force"]—and insert "constituent." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this touches on a question which was discussed at the Committee stage, when Lord Llewellin and I took, I think, the same view as to what was the right thing to do. This is an odd little clause. It deals with two different things altogether. The first part deals with non-county borough police forces and the second part, beginning on line 30, concerns the chief constable of a police force. The first part of the subsection deals with the special case of the non-county borough, and I naturally assumed, as did Lord Llewellin also, I think, that the second part was dealing with the county borough or county police forces, and that the subsection would be improved if the words suggested by Lord Llewellin were put in. I had discussed this with the Home Office authorities, and they had agreed, but I had omitted to discuss it with the Parliamentary draftsman. Now Parliamentary draftsmen, as your Lordships know, are very ingenious fellows, and this one pointed out that the words of Lord Llewellin's Amendment would not do, anti for this reason.
I will explain it by an illustration. I took before the illustration of Canterbury and Kent, and I may as well use it again. Suppose Canterbury, being a county borough, and Kent, being a county, were combined in a scheme. Then you would have a new police force which would be

521
neither a Kent nor a Canterbury force. It would be run by a joint authority instead of by a Standing Joint Committee. And of course it would have a chief constable—let us call him Mr. X. He would be a chief constable, as your Lordships see, of a police force which was not a county borough police force and not a county police force. Now let us assume the next stage. Let us suppose that that police force—this is, of course very unlikely, and indeed it is an impossible illustration but it will serve—wants to combine with Sussex. You would naturally have to consider the position of Mr. Y who is chief constable of Sussex. Mr. Y would be all right because he would be chief constable of a county police force. Mr. X on the other hand would be all wrong because he would be chief constable neither of a county borough police force nor of a county force. Therefore I am moving this Amendment to insert the word "constituent." That word "constituent" will achieve what Lord Llewellin and I both desire, and that is the reason for the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("police") and insert ("constituent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

POLISH FORCES IN BRITAIN.
5.15 p.m.
LORD SALTOUNhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance that no pressure will be exercised to induce Poles who have served with the Allied Forces to return to Poland, that they will be left free to exercise their own judgment; and that His Majesty's Government will not derogate from the assurance given to those who do not choose to return that "if everything else fails, here are open the portals of the British Empire"; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in case I forget it a little later on I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name. In addressing myself to this Motion, I will seek to disarm the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, by saying that references I may make to statements by the Foreign Secretary, in another place, will probably include also mention of published documents that he
522
issued. I think that that is always permissible.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Any Ministerial statement is permissible, I believe.
LORD SALTOUN: I think, my Lords, that I had better recall to your memory the facts as I understand them, and I may mention that this matter has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and myself before these facts came fully to light. On the 20th of last month, the Foreign Secretary made a statement in another place. He informed Parliament that His Majesty's Government had reached an agreement with the Polish Provisional Government as to the conditions on which the members of the Polish Forces in the employ of His Majesty might now return to Poland. He added that no sooner had that agreement been reached than, as I may put it, the Polish Government threw a spanner into the works with a fresh announcement. But after some further discussion the Polish Provisional Government stated that their new statement did not affect the conditions provisionally agreed upon. He therefore addressed a letter to every member of the Polish forces in the service of His Majesty recommending to the members of those forces acceptance of the offer of the Polish Provisional Government, and a copy of the offer accompanied his letter. He stated in Parliament and to all those soldiers, sailors and airmen, that while His Majesty's Government would be willing to give every assistance in their power to those who did not want to accept the offer to start a new life outside Poland, yet he could give no guarantee to these men that they would find a place within the British Empire. He added that he had obtained an undertaking from Polish officers that they would put no pressure upon their men to influence them to return. He also stated that the fair and proper treatment of these men on their return to Poland would very largely determine the relationship between the two countries. Finally, in the course of the debate, he urged members of the other side not to encourage members of the Polish Forces to decline the offer which he had conveyed to them.
The offer of the Polish Provisional Government that accompanied his letter was contained in a document which had no

523
signature attached to it, and I understand—I have a copy of it here if the noble Lord would like to see it—that the Polish Government in a broadcast on the 23rd of last month denied the authenticity of that offer. Moreover, if a letter which appeared in The Times of March 25 is to be trusted, that offer contained grammatical errors and errors in syntax in Polish which would lead naturally to the belief that it was a translation into Polish from some other language than Polish. It was not a question of spelling mistakes but there were errors in translation. Moreover, there was a broadcast of an interview by the Polish Foreign Secretary Mr. Rzymowski, in which he said, among other things, that the British Foreign Secretary had no power or right to exercise protection over Polish subjects in Poland. Those are the facts, as I understand them, and I have tried to state them plainly and fairly to your Lordships. Most of them are contained in published documents.
One of the first things I really would like to ask His Majesty's Government is, can they give us some further information as to the origin of this document, this offer that was sent to members of the Polish Forces? The Polish Government has broadcast an explanation of this which I am bound to say leaves me more puzzled than I was before. Therefore I shall not give it to your Lordships, but this will be amongst the Papers I am moving for. My main observation refers to a question asked by Mr. Eden in Parliament—with great deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—to which, so far as I can see, no answer has yet been given. He asked for an assurance that no pressure would be put on the members of the Polish Forces one way or another, and that they would be left with an unfettered decision. Your Lordships will readily understand that if His Majesty's Government removes all pressure on one side, and then applies overwhelming pressure on the other side, even if the noble Lords take exception to my use of the word "compulsion," a strong measure of propulsion may very easily exist.
His Majesty's Government commenced by obtaining an assurance from Polish officers that they would not seek to influence their men to refuse the offer of the Polish Government which the Foreign Secretary conveyed. Now, my Lords, these men are in a foreign country. They
524
are amongst folk who speak a different language, who think different thoughts; and if they want to obtain advice on any matter from men of wider experience and clearer vision, the only people they can have recourse to are their officers. And to that extent, on the statement of the Foreign Secretary, without any further explanation, it looks as if the freedom of advice had been to some extent fettered. The Foreign Secretary said, and said quite clearly, that he could offer no guarantee to these men—and they are not very many—that there would be a place found for all of them in the British Empire. I have seen a document that was circulated by the Polish authorities to some of their men. One paragraph in it reads like this:
"You are again being urged to return to Poland and given a period of several weeks in which to make up your minds. As the British Foreign Secretary has emphasized, your future, if you do not accept this second option, is obscure."
Now the authorities may have received their instructions, but it seems to me that the British Government, having tried to influence these men one way, cannot escape responsibility for that kind of language. Your Lordships will observe that it assumes that the recipient will not want to go back to Poland, and it goes even beyond what the Foreign Secretary said in Parliament: "your future" will be "obscure."
I do not want to give your Lordships a lot of instances, but I will cite the case of one Polish gentleman of my acquaintance. He lived in the part of Poland which is now Russia. He fought the Germans in Warsaw, and was through all that fighting; with great difficulty, and bearing an important mission, he managed to get to this country. He served through the whole of the war until nearly the end, when his health broke down, and he obtained a position with a firm, a British firm, for which he had been working before the war. When the Russians broke into his country they carried off the whole of his family to a camp in Southern Mongolia, and after the Russians became our Allies, these people were ascertained to have died—they are definitely dead—in the camp, which contained 18,000 Poles.
This gentleman received an order to proceed to a camp in the North of Scotland. You will observe that that meant

525
abandoning his business, and giving up his lodging. There is one thing I would like to say on that. The camp where he was ordered to go is, on the whole, a fairly comfortable camp, but I understand that the camp at Elie needs very careful investigation, and I would be glad if His Majesty's Government would give some attention to that. This man is suffering from three different complaints. They are very serious complaints, and it is quite impossible for him to travel. He is only able to work occasionally. I have here copies of the medical certificates that were sent to the authorities to explain why he could not travel, and anybody must realize he could not possibly travel. He sent that certificate and stayed where he was. The most recent development in that case is that a new form of pressure appears to be exercised, because he has not received his ration card in the normal course, and now he is without a ration card. I know there are other Poles in the same position. In addition to all this, His Majesty's Government have appealed to Members of Parliament not to encourage Poles not to return. I would like to say here that I have scrupulously observed my loyalty to the Foreign Secretary in that matter, and have not given any advice at all, one way or another.
Finally, His Majesty's Government said in the letter they sent to the men that the fair and proper treatment of these men on their return to Poland would to a large extent determine the future relations between Britain and Poland. To this the Polish Foreign Minister replies that His Majesty's Government have no standing to protect Polish subjects in Poland, and I am going to say that His Majesty's Government here entirely agree with the Polish Foreign Minister on that point. On the 19th of last month my noble friend the Earl of Craven asked His Majesty's Government if they could give any information as to the fate of four men, refugees, who landed at Leith and were sent back to Poland. He asked what had happened to them since. I was in the House when the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, replied. Although I was not sitting in front of him, I observed him very closely, and nothing but his own express assurance will convince me that he did not loathe from the bottom of his soul the answer which, he was compelled to give to that question, because
526
he said His Majesty's Government had made no inquiry, and would make no inquiry, as that was a matter for the Polish Government themselves.
Those people had come to our shores and asked for refuge. It is the first time to my knowledge that refuge has been denied in our country to any refugee, yet once they were sent back and had gone to Poland, I am perfectly convinced that the answer given by His Majesty's Government was perfectly correct. If that is so on March 19, then it is equally so on March 20. You cannot change overnight the principle on which foreign affairs are conducted. I am perfectly certain that His Majesty's Government would not assume such an avuncular role towards ignorant men in a matter of this kind, and proceed to persuade them that something is the case which is not. I am sure there must be some explanation. That would apply even although they owed them no debt. But on every occasion when the Polish Forces are mentioned, whatever member of His Majesty's Government is speaking, he pays a very well deserved tribute to their services to us in the war, and I am sure every member of His Majesty's Government and every noble Lord in this House would agree it would be a very wrong thing to persuade people to whom we were so deeply indebted that we could exercise on their behalf powers which we did not possess. I am mentioning that point in the hope of receiving an answer, because I am sure every noble Lord opposite will agree that the position looks rather awkward. I am perfectly certain that it was not intended the way it appears to me, and I should like an explanation.
However that may be, I think I have said enough to establish that in a great variety of ways His Majesty's Government are putting very severe pressure upon the members of the Polish Forces to make in this matter the decision which they desire, and that they have taken some trouble to remove counsel on the other side. It may be said, as I quite recognize, that a recommendation is not a guarantee, and that, whatever happens to these men, if they accept this recommendation, and if they yield to this pressure that is being put upon them, it may be said that after all that closes the matter. But turn the pages of history

527
fifty years forward and look back to the difference between the pressure now being exercised and the recommendation made by His Majesty's Government and a guarantee for the security of these men when they return. It is very largely the same as with the colours green and red. The contrast between them disappears in the distance. I would like to remind His Majesty's Government that if they take the course which they appear to be adopting at this moment the considerations which have moved them to that course will also have faded very much, and seem very much less vital.
The repudiation by the Polish Government of the document which was circulated (the broadcast, I take it, was true), and the various other factors which seem to cast doubt upon it, make me feel quite certain that one of two things must have happened. Either His Majesty's Government have been deceived—I do not say intentionally deceived; I am careful about that—or else, in their anxiety to rid themselves of a great embarrassment, they may have believed that they had received assurances which perhaps in fact they had not completely received. But, in any case, it is perfectly clear, as far as I can see, that His Majesty's Government are in a false position. I suggest that the facts I have mentioned, and the undoubted inferences from them, do give them a chance to re-orientate themselves with regard to this question.
My own view has always been—as I have already said I took up this question with the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when the Foreign Secretary made his statement—that His Majesty's Government should act as a simple messenger. After all, that commits them to nothing. It is the only course that does commit them to nothing. If these men return to Poland they are beyond your responsibility. You cannot exercise protection, and you will not be called upon to do so. But, unless that is done, what will happen? Some of these men will return to Poland, and they may or may not be well received. That we do not know, although we may have our own opinion. Supposing they do not, things being in their present state, some of them may go to Chile, and some to Brazil, and, if they go there, they will do what commonly happens in these countries. They will form a little colony, and I have not
528
the smallest doubt that, with the qualities they possess, they will prosper there. Surely it is folly to expel these men in that way, carrying away these memories to hand on to their children, and make yet another spot on the face of the earth where the name of Britain will be for ever odious. For the memory of that will not die or fade in fifty years, nor one hundred years, nor one hundred and fifty years. These men have been promised British citizenship. I am not going to make any distinction between a Parliamentary undertaking and a promise. They were promised British citizenship on March 14 of last year, and that fact was acknowledged by His Majesty's Government at a later date in a debate in another place.
At the beginning of the war, when the resistance of Poland was vital to us, we made many promises to Poland, indeed anything to get them to stiffen their resistance, and help to give us the time needed to draw our sword. These promises have not been fulfilled. It is perfectly fair to say that every Pole I have talked to on the subject says, "We realize that you cannot fulfil them." But this promise of British citizenship is a promise that we can fulfil, and if we fail to fulfil that promise, that failure will infect every promise that we have made to the Poles, and it will then be clearly seen that our failure to keep our word was a defect not of power but of will. A very great Englishman (I do not know if he ever existed, but he was a very great Englishman), Shakespeare's Henry V, said before a battle:
"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother;
Be he ne'er so tile, this day shall gentle his condition."
That was said for a single battle on a single day of war. These men have been with us for nearly seven years. They have been our staunchest comrades on many a stricken field. They are the men who, in spite of fearful losses, took Cassino, and held it, and opened for us the path to Rome. Had they not done that, the British casualties might very well have been increased by 150,000, the number, roughly, of the Poles to-day, whom I think ought to be offered British citizenship. Is it too much to ask His Majesty's Government to remove the pressure which I am sure is being placed upon them; to re-address themselves to the problem, and,

529
in the words of my own Motion, to assure them, in the words of Mr. Winston Churchill, that "if everything else fails, here are open the portals of the British Empire"? I beg to move for Papers.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, as this is my maiden speech and I am a novice in the arts practised in your Lordships' House, I wilt endeavour to be brief, and beg to claim your indulgence. I speak only in the interests of justice. If Great Britain is to remain great, she must keep her honour and her word. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has spoken in those interests. I reiterate all that he has so very ably said and I wish also to bring to your Lordships' notice several other points that deeply concern this problem. I have no wish to embarrass His Majesty's Government, but while there is still time let us honour our agreement. Let us leave the choice of nationality to the Poles themselves. It is their business. A lot of them have found peace and happiness under our flag. A lot of them wish to remain there. Surely the Poles are the people who know most about their own country. I myself have many Polish friends and have talked to Poles who have come under our protection from almost every quarter of Europe and of Asia. I have come to like them; they are very fine people. I feel quite strongly that they have been very definitely ill-treated by fate in the past and it looks as though it will be the same in the future. The provisional Polish Government thinks in Russian and the biggest illustration of this is to be seen at the U.N.O. conference.
The majority of Poles who do not wish to return to Poland are Poles who at some time or other have been in Russian hands. Those who are going back to Poland are Poles who have never been near the Russians; they have fallen straight into Allied hands as our Armies advanced through France, Germany or wherever they were. They held posts in the high organization of the Germany Army. I have heard it mentioned by certain people that Poland may put the stigma borne by the German people on these Poles. Whether this will happen I do not know. History will reveal that. I would be pleased if His Majesty's Government would tell us if a record has been kept of all those Poles to be repatriated. There have been some cases
530
of British girls, some of them Scottish—I once met one—who have tried over and over again to get into touch with their husbands but they cannot find out anything about them. Is there any possible way to help these people? I am just as much concerned about them as probably any of your Lordships here. I am sure you will be very much interested to know what happens to those girls. There are many other reasons why such large numbers of very brave men are asking questions about their country as it stands to-day, though they do not wish to return to it. Some have homes and children there. Some of the reasons are good and some are bad. It is the good reasons in which I wish to interest your Lordships at the moment.
I ask the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government, if they have been able to get from the Polish Provisional Government any satisfactory answer as to what is going to happen to those men after they return. As the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has pointed out, in another place it was said that it has not been possible to obtain this. We do not know what the Polish Government is going to do. The Polish Security Police under Russian control, direct or indirect, is still rife throughout Poland and is being used as a political weapon. This can be illustrated by a statement issued by the American Secretary of State on January 31 of this year. I will read Mr. Byrnes's statement to your Lordships:
"In view of these responsibilities assumed by the United States Government at Yalta and Potsdam, looking to the establishment of a democratic representative Government in Poland, this Government must necessarily follow closely Polish political developments. The greatest importance is attached to the fulfilment of Poland's election commitments and the American Ambassador has on several occasions brought to the attention of the Polish Government the fact that activities of the Security Police hinder fulfilment of this commitment.
"I have, therefore, requested the American Embassy in Warsaw to inform the Polish Government that we are relying on the Government to take the necessary steps to assure the freedom and security which are essential to successful holding of free elections."
Members of your Lordships' House will have read of the conditions prevailing in Poland to-day. They have been referred to in a debate which took place in another place on December 7, 1945. These conditions prevail over most of Occupied

531
Europe and it is hard to understand any reason existing which can allow such untrammelled brutality and pagan violence to stalk abroad at will over the fair face of Europe. Time does not allow me to go into details on this subject in this debate, because it is an extremely long one. Were I to do so, your Lordships might be shocked at what is taking place. I would also like to mention Major Tufton Beamish's articles which were published in the Daily Telegraph during the last week of February, after he returned from Poland. He was a member of the Parliamentary delegation sent to that country and he knows a lot about it.
The British Empire has always stood for freedom, so how can it now countenance oppression? It is the plight of Poland which first made us take up arms to preserve the four freedoms. If there is a man who doubts the valiant work performed by the Poles during this last and greatest of wars, in this country or wherever they fought, I suggest that he read what Professor Savory said in a speech he made in another place on February 20, 1946. It is an extremely good speech in which mention is made of Cassino. Another member of your Lordships' House has vouched for the magnificent fighting qualities of the Poles. I for one sincerely hope that we shall see detachments of the Polish Forces marching side by side in step with our own brave fighting men in the forthcoming Victory Parade. I think it is our duty to give them a place of honour among our own men:
There have been some Polish comments on the leaflet the men have received from the British Government urging them to return home and I thought it might interest your Lordships to hear just one or two of them. "Why this talk of a general amnesty?" they ask. "What have we done that is wrong?" Another one is: "Why has the leaflet not been signed by the Warsaw Government?" Again, they ask: "Why is it in pigeon Polish?" (as Lord Saltoun pointed out.) Is it not irregular and most highly undesirable that the British Government should promulgate a leaflet which is so open to the criticism of foreign nationals? In the past this country has benefited by the absorption of colonies of foreigners; for instance, the German miners who have
532
gone up north and the Dutch and Flemish who have gone into the wool trade.
You would hardly know that they had come into the country; yet they are still here and they have been extremely helpful to the industrial build-up in this country as a whole throughout a long period of time. I suggest also that Italy could be invited to take over some of the Poles of General Anders' Army. I believe it has been expressed in several places that they are willing to do this. Again, could not France be asked or invited to succour some Poles who wish to go to her? I believe it was put forward—in fact, I know it was put forward in the Daily Telegraph this morning—that France is only too willing to take these men; that they are in need of the labour and the brains to set up their towns and industries again after the frightful mauling they have gone through.
I wonder if it is possible for His Majesty's Government to tell us whether these points have been gone into very carefully and thoroughly examined? I ask whether consideration has been given to placing the problem of the repatriation of the Poles before the United Nations Council which is now in America, with the idea in mind that the United Nations Council forms an organization for looking after the repatriated Poles who are now in Poland or who are going there. Great Britain is powerless to aid the Poles once they have been repatriated—that is obvious to everybody and nobody can dispute it. It can only be accomplished by the joint action of all nations. The time has come to take our heads out of the sand and face the problems of Europe as they really exist to-day. If we do not do it now we may find ourselves too late to do so in the future. The Poles are not the only foreigners living within our protection and under our flag, and I suggest to your Lordships that in the future it may come about—in fact it has already started to come about—that other foreigners will all the time be coming under our protection from parts of Europe which we consider to be oppressed. I most certainly consider them oppressed from all I have heard. I ask His Majesty's Government what action has been taken to get over this other problem.
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I am sure your

533
Lordships will wish me to follow usual custom in offering to the noble Earl who has just sat down the hearty congratulations of your Lordships on the first time that he has addressed the House. I am certain that we have all been impressed by the thoughtfulness and the courage of his speech. Personally I should like co add another word of thanks to him for having taken the opportunity of a maiden speech to address himself to a very important topic and to pay a tribute to that gallant nation of Poland. I cannot help casting my mind back to a similar situation in which I found myself many years ago, soon after I came back from active service in France after the last war, and when I, with great temerity, addressed your Lordships for the first time. Following me, the House was addressed by the noble Viscount who then sat on the Woolsack, and he started his speech with these words: "If the noble Lord who has just sat down had thought for a moment, he would not have said what he has said.' I do feel to-day, however, very forcefully, that the noble Earl who has made this contribution to the debate has served a very great public duty and has done it well.
I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for having brought this subject before your Lordships. He, with the Earl of Craven, has covered the ground extremely well. I think the three points they have brought out are these: that we require more facts; that the future of these men is obscure; and that by the recent action of His Majesty's Government pressure has been brought to bear upon them in making their choice. In December, 1942, I had the honour to submit to you a Motion in respect of Poland and of her great contribution to the war effort, and of the pledges which we had given to her. On that occasion your Lordships did me the honour and distinction of accepting my Motion and agreeing to it without any contradiction. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who replied on that occasion to the debate on behalf of His Majesty's Government, concluded his speech in these words:
"All our pledges to Poland to which the noble Earl referred will be honoured. Great Britain drew the sword to fulfil the first pledge that we gave to Poland. We shall not sheathe our sword until the last pledge has been fulfilled"
A great deal has happened since then. A great many negotiations have taken
534
place, and I should like to pay a high tribute to the earnest and solid endeavour of the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bevin. But in spite of these endeavours and the results which they have achieved, there still remains in the minds of many of us—and it has been said by the two noble Lords who have just addressed your Lordships that it is in the minds of the people of this country—a doubt that all is not well and that further effort is required. I am glad, therefore, to have this opportunity of supporting the Motion of my noble friend in which he has expressed, I think in moderate terms, the desire for an assurance that no pressure will be exercised to induce these gallant men who have served with us in almost every theatre of the war to return to Poland, except of their own free will.
I do not wish this to be interpreted as an indication that I, for one, desire to encourage any Pole not to return. My dearest wish, and I believe it is shared by all your Lordships, is that all these men who have shown such gallantry and heroism in the field of battle should return and help in the rebuilding of the land which they love so well. But I think very few of us in this country realize what the Poles have suffered. First, at the hands of the Germans, the population since 1939 has been reduced by approximately 10,000,000. In the same period the losses at the hands of Russia are no less severe: 1,500,000 have been deported to Russia. The Soviet have claimed nearly half the territory which was Poland when the war started, and has included in her citizenship, therefore, about one-third of the then population of Poland. Thus, even with the addition of Danzig and Eastern Prussia, Poland is smaller now than she was before the war.
To illustrate, if I may, by a homely parallel, the difficulties which confront these men, I would put a question to your Lordships. How do you think Lord Saltoun and I would view the removal of the border line between England and Scotland from where it is now to the line of the Forth and Clyde? That is apparently approximately the same as the change-over which Poland has to face. I think you will agree with me that neither Lord Saltoun nor myself would receive that suggestion with open arms, even if it were accompanied by the offer of part

535
of Northern Ireland with the port of Belfast.
To return to the serious situation. I have had the honour of being President of the Scottish-Polish Society ever since it was started at the beginning of the war. The society was started to promote friendship between the two countries and to promote cultural relations after the war. Your Lordships will understand that that society has given very careful thought to this subject which we have before us to-day and its bearing on the present situation. A number of communications have passed between the society and the Foreign Office during the past two years in which the society has endeavoured to point out the anxiety of its members in regard to the pitiful plight of Poland and the possible danger which this condition may cause to the peace of the world. We have tried to stress the urgent need for united action on recreating a free and unfettered republic in Poland, and to this end we feel that the British nation has an obligation to do everything in Sts power to ensure a free and secret ballot, and especially a duty to see that the members of the Polish Forces who served with us, and under British command, shall have the full right to record their votes and exercise their free judgment.
I have no wish to embarrass His Majesty's Government any more than either of the previous speakers. Indeed, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I am deeply sensible of, and grateful for, the courageous action which has been taken by the Foreign Secretary. But I should be wrong if I allowed anyone to imagine that I thought all was well, or that by the covering note issued by His Majesty's Government to the Polish troops we fully redeemed the pledge given by Lord Selborne in the name of the Government in 1942. I fully realize and acknowledge that it is difficult to get authentic information. That is our chief difficulty.
In conclusion, may I quote a resolution adopted unanimously at a special general meeting of the Scottish-Polish Society held in Edinburgh on Friday of last week? It was resolved:
"To obtain and publish all possible authentic information regarding the tragic conditions in Poland and, if possible, to arrange to send a Committee under the auspices of His Majesty's Government to visit
536
Poland; to continue to represent to his Majesty's Government that on grounds of international justice and humanity it is vital that immediate steps be taken to terminate the Police State at present existing in Poland; that in confirmation of the resolve taken by the society in September, 945, we shall make public our intention to support every effort towards the re-establishment of the sovereignty of the Republic of Poland, and that the peoples of Poland must be given immediate facilities for expressing their desires regarding a future Government by means of an election of representatives nominated by the citizens of Poland, free from pressure and outside influence."
I have tried to sum up our feelings that more facts and information are required and that we require from the Government a further statement, as asked for by the two previous speakers, showing more clearly what was in the mind of the Government when this circular was issued to the Polish troops, and whether they cannot see their way to continue the pledge, given in the name of the country, of British citizenship.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, without following the noble Earl who has just spoken over a very wide field which he tended to cover in the latter part of his speech, I would like to re-enforce the much more limited plea which was made by the mover of this Motion for precise information and precise assurances on a very specific question. In doing so, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on a very sincere, sympathetic and informed maiden speech. I am very glad that this Motion has been put down by my noble friend, because I think some rather disquieting things have happened—I am sure the Secretary of State will agree—since the Foreign Secretary made his statement in another place and circulated his own statement and its Polish enclosure to the Polish troops. The Secretary of State himself obviously felt some anxiety because in the statement he made on March 20 he said that to his great surprise and regret agreements had hardly been reached upon the text of these documents when the Polish Provisional Government addressed to His Majesty's Government and published a Note in which they declared that they could no longer regard the units of the Polish Armed Forces under British Command as forming part of the Armed Forces of Poland, and asked that those units should be disbanded forthwith, stating that the

537
men who wished to return should make individual application to the Polish Consulates abroad. He went on to say that that Note had since been fully discussed with the Polish Provisional Government, and he had received assurances from them that it did not affect the conditions set out in the document which was being issued to the troops. Obviously, the Secretary of State was naturally disconcerted by this half disavowal, or what looked like it, by the Polish Provisional Government.
What I think has exercised all of us is the action taken by the Provisional Government in Poland immediately after the Secretary of State made his plain and clear statement in Parliament. I have only the reports from the Press, but the noble Lord, no doubt, with direct information from the Embassy in Poland, will be able to confirm whether these reports are correct. According to the newspaper reports, which are very specific, there have been a series of broadcasts. On March 21—that is, the very day after the statement made in another place by the Secretary of State—there was a broadcast (which was, I think, fairly summarized in the Press, I read it in the Sunday Times) taking the Foreign Secretary to ask for "presuming to take upon himself to protect Poles in Poland." That was based, apparently, on the very natural and proper statement made by the Foreign Secretary that His Majesty's Government could not disinterest themselves in the future of these. Poles once they got back to Poland. If I may say so, that was a very right and proper statement, although I agree that one has to be extremely careful in making a statement like that to see that you are not giving, or appearing to give, to the people you are addressing a guarantee which it is not within your power to carry out.
That was followed on the following day, March 22, according to the Press, by a further broadcast which denied that the Polish Government had made the statement which was issued in its name. That is the statement which has been referred to in this debate, and which is headed "A Statement by the Polish Provisional Government." What I think we ought to know is what is the authority of that statement. I think we had all assumed when it was published in Hansard that of course it was a statement—and it may
538
be it is so—supplied to His Majesty's Government by the Polish Government, and issued with the full authority of the Polish Government, as would be a statement issued by the Secretary of State in this country as far as this. Government was concerned. We really ought to know, because it is entirely upon that statement that the undertakings rest. It does seem a very curious thing that the Polish Government should apparently draw attention to the fact that it is not signed by anybody, and cast doubts upon the Polish Government's authority to issue that statement, although they admit, I am sure, that a number of the things in it are undertakings which they have given from time to time. Surely it is vitally important, when something upon which the whole life and future of these people depend is issued to them, that it should be issued with the absolutely full and unqualified authority and undertaking of the Polish Government.
I am sure that the Government are as anxious as we are to discharge our duty in full to these Poles who have so gallantly served in the Army, Navy and Air Force. They have an absolutely wonderful fighting record, as the Secretary of State in another place said when he paid a very great tribute to them. I observe that the Minister of State, Mr. Noel-Baker, speaking at an U.N.R.R.A. session in America recently, said:
"The British authorities would not think it wise to close their camps if it meant a pressure on people to return to countries to which they did not wish to return."
He was speaking of the Poles. Now I am sure the Government do not mean to put pressure upon these Polish soldiers. I think we all agree that if they can return to Poland under decent conditions they will perhaps be the greatest asset that Poland could have. I am certainly going to be most careful not to say a word which would deter them from giving their services where their services are most needed, in the reconstruction of their own country, but these men themselves, these. Poles, know the conditions in Poland and are able to appraise them far better than we can. It is their fate and their future which is at stake. Their choice should be absolutely free, and not only should that choice be free in fact, but His Majesty's Government should make it abundantly plain to them that that choice is free.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and I am sure your Lordships will excuse me if I do not cover quite all the very wide ground which the noble Earl went over. Questions of policy are always most interesting, but it is clear that we cannot discuss general policy in this debate. It is a concise and limited Motion that has been made and I will do my best to answer that. As regards the individual case which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, mentioned, if he can give me some details I will have it looked into. I should imagine the noble Earl's inquiries about the Scottish women who married Poles will be looked into by the Foreign Office and the Ambassador to Poland and they will be glad to help. I will, however, refer again to the noble Earl's extremely attractive maiden speech later.
I will ask you to treat this not as a political issue but as a practical problem of some moment. Some of these Poles came from France in the early days of the war; some were taken as prisoners to Russia and after the Russians came into the war against Germany they came to us through Persia and were organized in military formations under General Anders. Some came over to us during the fighting in Italy and on the Western fronts. I as an old member of the Royal Air Force and now Secretary of State have nothing but the warmest tributes to pay to their gallantry from the time of the Battle of Britain onwards. During the Battle of Britain I sat once in the control tower of an aerodrome in the north of England and saw a Polish squadron go out with twelve machines. They came back about thirty minutes later doing a victory roll but with only eleven machines. I should be the very last to deny the gallantry of these people. We know they have adopted our ways and worked with us and if we could find a means to keep some of them we should be very very pleased.
Here they are in this country and in Italy, this fine and gallant band, and what are we going to do with them. I want to beg noble Lords not to do anything to dissuade these people from going back to their own country by suggesting sinister possibilities. I think that would render them a very poor service. Some people have talked as if you could
540
order Australia and order Canada to take them, but you cannot do that These are independent countries though they regard the problem as sympathetically as we do ourselves. What we have done is this. We first of all urged these people that it is their duty to play their part in the reconstruction of their country, because we believe they are wanted in Poland and there is a future for them in Poland. Mr. Bevin got an authorized statement giving the conditions. I do not know whether your Lordships have read this but it gives a great many answers to the questions which have been asked. It deals with pensions, demobilization, settlement of land and a great many other things, and I do not think anyone would suggest that this statement—it may be in bad Polish because it may be it is difficult to get things translated easily—is a bogus statement. I do not think anybody will suggest this.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Could the Secretary of State say who drew it up? Was it prepared by the Polish Government or was it prepared by us?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It was a statement of what will happen to these men if they go back to Poland. It is published under the authority of the British Government with the agreement of the Polish Government. I have seen reports of recent broadcasts from Warsaw, but I have not seen anything in them which can be considered to undermine or invalidate the statements about the conditions of return that were made in this published document. Nevertheless, there may be some Poles who feel they cannot go back to Poland for one reason or another. I think I am allowed to quote Ministerial statements and in this connexion Mr. Eden said:
"Is it still the fact that the men who want to go back will be given every facility and those who do not want to go back will have no pressure put upon them?"
That is exactly the same question as was asked by Lord Saltoun. He went on to ask whether His Majesty's Government would try to find another way of life for them within the British Empire. That I think really set out precisely the two points that were made by Lord Saltoun. And the answer of the Foreign Secretary was, "I think that correctly states the position." I do not think that I need go beyond that.

541
When it comes to working out a means of employing those who decide to remain, whilst it is quite clear that no guarantees can be given, I must say that I was very much moved by what the noble Earl said about profiting by their presence here. We have had examples of that in our past history—as for instance in the case of the Huguenots. And I, myself, well remember how in the "nineties" we derived an enormous industrial advantage out of the flood of aliens that then came over here. But that is another topic, and all I will say is that I entirely agree that the noble Earl's was a really true and sound Liberal sentiment. I hope that the noble Lords who have raised individual points will do me the favour of letting me have particulars so that I may have search made, and that otherwise your Lordships will be satisfied with what I know amounts to no more than a repetition of the assurances given already by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
6.22 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said, but there are two points upon which I would have liked him to be more precise. One arises out of the fact that, immediately this document was issued, Poles were ordered to proceed from points all over the country to certain camps—I will not call them concentration camps—and to remain there two or three weeks to consider the offer. That, I submit, does amount to pressure. The other point comes up in this connexion. I know that one Pole—and I am told that there are a very large number of others in the same position—has not received a proper issue of ration cards. That is a very serious matter. You cannot allow it to go all over Europe and the world that the British Government—and it will be the British Government who will be accused whoever is in fact responsible—took that course with men whose services were what the noble Lord has so beautifully described. I would like to withdraw my Motion, but I would ask the noble Viscount, if he would be so kind, to say that he will try his best to have some action taken in these particular matters. You cannot go without bread.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If the noble Lord will give me details of the allegation, I will have them carefully examined and will ascertain the facts. If the facts do not
542
support the allegations I hope that the noble Lord will give the same publicity to those facts as he has given to his well-founded fears.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I shall be very happy to do so. I thank the noble Viscount very much for what he has said and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPORTS TO U.N.R.R.A.
6.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Trade export figure for February, 1946, of £59,985,280 includes the value of materials and goods supplied to U.N.R.R.A., and if so, what was the value in sterling of the materials and goods so supplied.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the whole of these goods are included in the export statistics, and the exports to U.N.R.R.A. from this country are not separately recorded. A precise figure cannot, therefore, he given, but the value of such goods in February was, roughly, £2,500,000.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, arising out of that answer, would the noble Lord consider in future keeping these items separate, as they are compared to pre-war figures of export trade which are not really comparable on the same terms?
LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly convey the suggestion of the noble Lord to the proper quarters.

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill—namely:

V. Chelmsford,

L. Saltoun,

L. Dorchester,

L. Merthyr,

L. Belstead (Chairman).

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
Petition for additional provision of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Leicester under their common seal, together with the proposed Clauses and Amendment annexed thereto: Read and referred to the Examiners.

STIRLING GAS ORDER, 1946.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Stirling Gas Light Company laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.